Rand Paul is Kentucky’s new Republican nominee for the Senate. Great job, Tea Party, you just anointed a guy will defend a business’ right to discriminate against human beings’ immutable characteristics. Yes, the very thing the Civil Rights Act made illegal.
Paul says he believes it “might be reasonable” to force businesses to sometimes accommodate, say, the physically disabled. But what about businesses that want to discriminate against blacks and such? In remarks made previously, Paul says: “I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. … But I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.”
And he tells Rachel Maddow: “Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent?” Should we limit racists from speaking? I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires… that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.”
(Get back here, separate drinking fountains! Kohler is gonna have a field day with this one.)
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
So we can totally count on your vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ya? Oh right, that would force all businesses — not just government employers — to prohibit discrimination.
Update: Allow him to, ahem, clarify: “I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Bri
The problem though is even if the law says a business cannot discriminate, they still can. Laws cannot correct ignorance.
I know people that support Paul. They are libertarians. They disagree with the war, and yes, they think establishing laws to stop discrimination is futile. They are capitalists. In their mind, if a business decides to discriminate against a particular race, they will lose business, and eventually run themselves into the ground. Their reasoning is not to condone racism, but allow the ship to sink itself.
I hope I made that clear enough. Don’t assume libertarians are somehow racist just because they don’t want a ban via legislation.
Fitz
I don’t care. He can’t upturn federal law, it’s just bolster. And even if he could, it’s not like the minority population gives a crap about GLBT people, so why should I give a crap about them?
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
Watching the teabaggers implode is gonna be lots of fun!! These idiots are drunk with “power” by their “wins” in a bunch primaries, which traditionaly produce the lowest turnout of any type of elections. These morons are empowered by their “wins” and are going to be gulping the haterade served by the far rightwing nutbags and spewing it out as loudly as possible………
Once the actual electorate begins to see just who these idiots are and what they actually stand for they are all going to crash and burn preventing the Repugnaticans from actually gaining any ground in November. Something that if they bothered to nominate candidates that appeal to others beside the lunatic fringes thay may have actually had a chance to do………
John Galt
Well, Most drinking fountains were public, so he would agree with desegregating them.
And most Gay Bars are De Facto segregated.
Andy
@Bri: I understand the philosophy but it’s still dogma. I’m willing to infringe on boorish and uncivilized behavior to try to protect civil rights of all.
Now, to be fair, if we look at how this applies to gays: big corporations have been well ahead of mainstream thinking on gay rights providing spousal benefits etc.
delurker again
@Bri: Stupid argument. It doesn’t matter that these laws don’t root at all discrimination by merely banning discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws also provide a remedy for discrimination, injunctive relief, damages, etc. Libertarians are against providing a remedy, too.
Because the sacred, mystical free market is supposed to correct these wrongs by itself. Yeah right.
Libertarians might not be racist believing in this junk philosophy, but they are impractical. That is reason alone they should be far from the levers of power and jerking it to Ayn Rand on their own time and not in our national legislature.
delurker again
@Fitz: The vast majority of straight whites don’t give a crap about you either, so why no hate and indifference directed against them?
concernedcitizen
@Bri: the problem I see with libertarians is they don’t actually consider the whole situations. Most HOSPITALS are privately owned as well as PHARMACIES so lets say you live in a small town with the only hospital being within 150 miles and their “right” is to not serve blacks or gays and you have a sick child the child’s life shouldn’t have to suffer or die just because the hospital has some “right”?
And as to the whole “they’ll lose business” argument in the south business was booming so I think you can’t just assume that someone’s business will be affected simply because of their prejudice practices!
I don’t exactly understand why libertarians abhor laws and even more illogical is if they hate laws so much why run for legislative bodies!?!
Andy
He also didn’t counter with the fact that the lunch counters desegregated as a result of a boycott. The law was passed over FOUR years later.
delurker again
@concernedcitizen: “the problem I see with libertarians is they don’t actually consider the whole situations.”
Yup, they are so caught up in theory that they often don’t consider practical realities. There’s a reason why state and federal governments don’t implement libertarian policies–they don’t work!
So libertarians start think thanks where they don’t work either, waxing philosophically about how great the world would be if their zany ideas where implemented.
James W. Harris
Rand Paul, like other libertarians, opposes the government using force to dictate to people what they can do with their lives and property. That is the essence of libertarianism, and libertarians are consistent enough on this principle to include businesses.
It’s the same position libertarians take on free speech: like the ACLU, they defend the speech rights of Nazis, homophobes, pornographers and so on, not because they share those beliefs, but because they passionately believe in free speech for all.
It’s the same reason libertarians always opposed anti-sodomy laws and the war on drugs: because they believe people have an absolute right to do as they wish with their bodies and in their own bedrooms.
Libertarians take a lot of heat from both the left and the right because of their devotion to this definition of personal and economic liberty.
It’s an intellectually consistent position. Agree or disagree, it is outrageous to suggest that Paul is a racist because of this.
It was painful to see Paul struggle with crafting an answer to this. But it’s obvious he was trying to avoid the “gotcha” quote that his opponents will use, over and over again, in the coming campaign.
David Wiegal of the Washington Post has a good take on this:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html
Doh
@James W. Harris:
a) consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
b) paraphrasing a noted comedian, it is true brilliance to believe the same thing on Weds. that you believed on Monday regardless of the world changed on Tues.
c) Paraphasing my law professor, theories are easy, but application is hard.
Take your pick for which one refutes your comment. The issue with Libertarians is that you are for the most part intellectually lazy. You come up with a theory, and you think your job is done because you thought it.
Cam
Gas stations are privately owned. What if somebody owns the only gas station in a small town and decides that certain races can’t use it? There are aspects to this that I don’t think Mr. Paul isn’t considering. What if the town decided that for environmental reasons (Racst) they didn’t want to grant a liscense to a 2nd gas station? Then you have bascially forced anybody that that gas station didn’t want to serve out of town because they couldn’t have cars etc…
Doh
@delurker again: Exactly. They believe cause they can think it thereore it is real. Its about the same as talking to a fundamentalist about religion.
soul_erosion
So this egocentric prick has rallied his fellow fleabaggers for a short lived fractured Republican primary win and if he continues this “see right through it” racist rhetoric on Meet The Press this coming Sunday, he’ll continue to distance any sensible voters in Kentucky and then will pursuade Sarah Palin to campaign for him before November & make it all the worse. Then when he’s soundly defeated he can call Daddy & see if he can’t secure a job with the Texas text book panel and help rewrite Southern history. Another libertarian loser!
Doh
@Cam: No, you are wrong. They do think of these things. The problem is you are dealing with an internally consistent closed system. They would argue in such an example that the market place would create a pressure that would convince someone else to meet that demand. Its a form of fundamentalism. With Christian fundamentalism, the internally consistent closed system turns all facts into proof of God and the literal text. If you ask do they believe the world began 7000 years ago, they will say its literally true. If you ask them what about dinosaur bones, they will say that is God testing their faith in the text. The same is true of the Libertarian. They are fundamentalist by another name. The reality is that Libertarian thought was never meant to be a closed system. It is a concept that is meant to be applied along a scale to address issues of liberty and responsibility. It is not that liberty is not important. It is that it is a concept meant to be applied in balancing other concepts. The libertarian chooses to ignore all other concepts.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
The problem I have here isn’t so much what he said as what he didn’t say, and what his website doesn’t say.
If he is a true libertarian, and not a libertarian in name only (LINO?), then he opposes laws which discriminate against same-sex marriage, sodomy laws, etc. I did a bit of web-surfing, and he says that while he personally opposes same-sex marriage, he doesn’t want the government involved.
And therein lays the rub. You can’t say what your own personal opinion is (ant-SSM) and then say you want the government out of the marriage business. How do I know that you’ll vote along your ideology and not party lines? He was much the same on DADT, making a very tepid comment about how he’s pleased that their-party outings are to be halted, but otherwise thinks it’s working well. And don’t get me started on the abortion issue, Rand Paul is pro-life 100%. That’s not a libertarian stance.
This guy in a LINO. He’ll vote party lines on social issues, ruffle a few feathers on economic issues, and that’s about it. He says all the right things about big government, but some of his other opinions would suggest that he is a libertarian only when it’s convenient to be labeled as such. He’s certainly not a true social libertarian.
A
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12):
you really have no problem with him refusing to say, and thereby tacitly believing in private businesses’ right to discriminate based on skin color or sexual orientation!?
It’s so upsetting, yet so telling when Paul says that these issues are hypothetical, or abstract. To Paul, as a white male it is abstract, but to minorities?!
delurker again
Despite all this hubbub, I’m not sure coming out against civil rights will hurt Paul in Kentucky. It remains to be seen how his libertarian views on cutting social safety net programs, subsidies, etc., in the midst of an economic downturn in a poor state like Kentucky will play.
It’s very easy to be against these things when you are a wealthy ophthalmologist and son of another wealthy doctor/congressman. If Kentuckians buy it, well, they deserve their misery.
tjr101
@delurker again:
History shows the rural south loves misery.
james_from_cambridge
@delurker again: *Sigh* Kentucky and other red states receive more Federal funds than they send to Washington, they have far more people on welfare than blue states, they have, by far, the highest rates of divorce, abortion, child and spousal abuse, much higher rates of incest and much higher rates of divorce and not that this is going to shock anyone but much lower rates of high school and college graduation. Red states are just like the family values Republicans that represent them in congress…they talk a good game about family values and small government but then you find them in an alley way behind a gay bar giving a blow job to an illegal Hispanic waiter.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@A:
I purposely made no comment about his stand on private companies or the Civil Rights Act; I was only responding to the idea that Rand Paul is a Libertarian. My focus was on what he didn’t say, and what his public positions have been regarding same-sex marriage and reproductive rights, which make him a LINO.
If you want me to make a comment about his public positions, I don’t agree with them. It’s the reason I have a hard time voting Libertarian. In a perfect world, a world which is envisioned by the Libertarian Party, everyone would judge others based on their abilities not on “insert personal characteristic here”.
The problem I’ve often struggled with in terms of associating with the Libertarian Party is that many have not thought that idea through. The Libertarian Party would support my right to live free and not worry about the government stripping away my rights as a member of the LGB community. However, the Libertarian Party fails to address the social and cultural issues which prevent me from having full rights. The idea that stripping laws such as the Civil Rights Act will lead to businesses which discriminate failing is naive. We know this is naive from history and current events.
As much as I would like the government to step back and get out of certain realms, I am also acutely aware that without offering solutions, suggesting the repeal of the ADA or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is act best naive, at worst reckless. This is one of the main reasons why the Libertarian Party will never be a viable third party here in the States, because while it offers lots of language about the various “ism”s, for example Section 3.5 of the Libertarian Party Platform strongly condemns bigotry in all its forms and the Libertarian Party has a section devoted just to LGBT issues, it doesn’t recognize that America’s own history shows that bigotry has had a horrible impact on the lives of many of its citizens.
Without offering a viable solution to the systemic issues which prevent all citizens from full and equal participation in American life, it’s just a lot of words.
james_who_lives_in_cambridge
Kentucky and other red states receive more Federal funds than they send to Washington, they have far more people on welfare than blue states, they have, by far, the highest rates of divorce, abortion, child and spousal abuse, much higher rates of incest and much higher rates of divorce and not that this is going to shock anyone but much lower rates of high school and college graduation. Red states are just like the family values Republicans that represent them in congress…they talk a good game about values but then you find them in an alley way behind a gay bar performing abortions while giving a blow job to an illegal Hispanic waiter.
A Columbus Guy
@Doh: First I pick (c), with that finished, well said sir well said. In theory the libertarian position of laissez faire makes a lot of sense, however rarely does pure theory translate into real world practical application.
Doh
@A Columbus Guy: Tell me about it. Corporations are a fiction of the state. Yet, when I have this debate with libertarians, they quickly defend the need for corporations. I asked- why then do you claim everyone else must live by the contract. You must by your own principles be against limitation on liability, which as we are learning with BP and the oil spill is one of the chief advantages that the state can confer to private sector companies. The truth is no one in reality can be a true Libertarian. The same way no one is practical terms can truly be for complete state take over because ultimately these are poles on a scale that were not meant to replace practical application.
Doh
@delurker again: This won’t hurt him. What will hurt him are his position on the minimum wage, social security, medicare and other issues of the modern state that the Kentuckians- liberal to conservative- love. This was merely the opening salvo to fire up the base.
DEREK WASHINGTON
Every Libertarian I’ve ever met was a smug prick. Sorry.
delurker again
Oh man. Even psycho ultraconservatives like Jim Demented are saying how gay they are for the Civil Rights Act, which goes to show how out to lunch Paul is.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@delurker again: Actually, what they are doing ont he right is a) blaming liberals for Paul’s position or b) saying that his only mistake was mentioning the position in public. A politician running away from the comment is not a surprise. Look at the conservative base to see what they really think.
Cassandra
Mr. Harris
“opposes the government using force to dictate to people what they can do with their lives and property”
“it is outrageous to suggest that Paul is a racist because of this.”
The moment someone dismisses an argument as ‘outrageous’ without a word of explanation, I know that they are refuting something they know is true.
As others have pointed out, the problem with libertarian ideals currently in vogue is that they completely fail to take into account the real world – libertarianism as it stands now is all hat and no cattle.
The reality is that humans, by nature, tend to avoid and ostracize anyone who is perceived to be too different, too other. Without some prohibitions on how people can express that, some people will act out in ways that hurt other people.
The fact is that in this country, the libertarian ideal you articulated would have the greatest negative impact on people of color, GLBTQ people, and other suspect class minorities, while wealthy white males would be almost but entirely free of any negative consequence. This makes it racist in effect, even though in theory it is not.
In the end, it is the effect of a policy that defines it, and so, implemented in our society, Rand Paul’s position is racist.
The libertarian ideal as you and Rand Paul articulated it is also anarchistic. It would mean, for example, that the police could not arrest a murderer, since that would constitute “using force to dictate to people what they can do with their lives and property” in the form of the state dictating to people what they can and cannot do. To be consistent, society would not only have to allow private businesses to discriminate based on race, it would have to allow individuals to harm other individuals in other ways.
As you’ve described it, Libertarian opposes the use of authority to prevent one person from harming another. Whether you’ve accurately reported libertarian policy is another issue.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a more workable and rational principle – I’m editing to the key differences, but the whole quote is available here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/
Libertarians are committed to the belief . . . that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; . . . that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error;”
Note the key difference between what you and Rand Paul have articulated, and the above definition, I’ve highlighted it for you.
The above recognizes that it is individual liberty is not without some restrictions, that there are circumstances in which interference must occur – to defend people’s lives and to rectify errors. This vision of libertarianism only prohibits certain kinds of government interference. And to be realistic, this is actually what libertarians actually espouse when one digs into the application of their principles.
The devil is in the picking and chosing. In Rand Paul’s case, the devil is racism, because he picks and choses those ‘certain kinds” to allow people to be harmed in a particular way that has consistently and predominantly be inflicted on people who are different from him in several innate ways.
Banning discrimination is a case of coercion in defense of human lives, to rectify an error, that error being some people’s willingness to harm others. The Civil Rights Act prevents a prejudiced person from infringing on the liberty someone else.
Rand Paul is saying that he willing to sacrifice the liberty of people of color, or GLBTQ people, or women, for an exaggerated liberty for white heterosexual men. His argument is a variation of the same old excuses that homophobes and racists have used for as long as they’ve been around:
“Preventing me from discriminating restricts my civil rights” which really just means they feel they have a right to harm other people.
delurker again
@D’oh, The Magnificent: That’s true. But it is very heartening to hear even the most conservative pols treat the CRA as an article of faith that should not be tampered with. Everyone single one is coming out and professing their love for it, which is really great on a larger level.
It shows the laws are here to stay no matter what the teabaggers say.
delurker again
All right. The issue is over. Dr. Paul now believes government can ban businesses from discriminating. It only took one news cycle to get the principled libertarian to abandon his core beliefs. 🙂
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/rand_paul_spox_fed_govt_should.html
D'oh, The Magnificent
@delurker again: The damage is now done. It only take one good news cycle. He will get more of these questions. He will come up with better answers, but in a close race like Kentucky- if Conway is smart, he will destroy Paul with death by a thousand small cuts.
D'oh, The Magnificent
And, by the way, one great example is to ask him is he for the minimum wage, labor laws, and for unemployment insurance (the later of which conservatives say cause people to be lazy and not want to work- I want to hear him say in the general what he said during the primary- that he supports containing unemployment benefits at a time of economic crisis).
Ceaser
What does he think about discrimination against gay people or transgendered people? I mean if he cant defend discrimination against black folk I can only imagine how he feels about us “sinners”? I mean how can any of us be republican? I just don’t get it. Many racist people are at least ashamed about it or try to hide it because it’s “not cool” to be a racist, even kindergarten kids know that. But the blatant homophobia that is easily explained by “religion” is beyond me. People tell me homophobic things to my face all the time without blinking and I live in one of the most cities in the world.
delurker again
@Ceaser: It doesn’t matter to him. He’s not black, he’s not gay, he’s not disabled, he’s not a woman, he’s not poor, so screw them, he gots his. That’s libertarianism in a nutshell.
Robert
I find it amusing when Paul and other right wingers say that private business should have a right to discriminate on employment and service, because it is a privately owned.
They also say that there is no “right to health care” and so forth (so I guess “right to life” is pretty meaningless).
Too bad for Paul and other racist/homophobic right wingers, there is no “right” for private business to discriminate how they please. In fact, quite the opposite. The Constitution explicitly states that the congress can pass laws that “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Hence, if your business in anyway partakes in any of these activities (such as selling items made in China or another state), the government has the power to regulate your private business. And given that employment is clearly commerce, that too can be regulated.
When it comes to service and employment, private business most certainly can’t do what the fuck they want.
ewe
If Rand Paul wants to be an elected leader then he cannot compare people to objects. He equates black people with gun violence and that type of correlation is racist whether he knows or admits it himself.
ewe
Let’s face it. He is toast. One snapshot next to David Duke and he is history. As well he should be. He is attempting to intellectualize something to death. The only death is his political career.
Jose
@Ceaser: I think he would stand by while a gay kid is bashed. Usually people who are that racist are intolerant of other minorities too. Like you said, many people think it’s justifiable to hate gay people because they really think we are living in “sin”. They don’t feel guilty about it at all.
Robert
@Robert:
In response to my own post, Rand gives the example of “how about a business owner who doesn’t want a guy with a gun in his store.”
The thing is, states, counties, and municipalities have passed laws allowing open-carry of firearms. Other states, counties, and municipalities have it banned. When it comes to service, I don’t know about any specific law, but if a law was passed that said an employer can’t refuse service to an open-carrier, then it would be legal. The opposite can also be said.
Also, as a side note, like there is no Constitutional right to discriminate in a private business, there is no Constitutional right to open carry your firearm (btw I support open carry).
John (CA)
Ever notice how the self-declared “not racist” people who want to get rid of our civil rights laws are always white males who swear to Jesus, Allah, and Buddha that they would never, ever discriminate themselves?
It is all about those high-minded libertarian principles of freedom, liberty, and privacy. Why, their hearts are so pure that they don’t even know what racism and homophobia means.
Quite a coincidence that.
That is, if you believe in coincidence.
Cassandra
“Rand gives the example of “how about a business owner who doesn’t want a guy with a gun in his store.”
That’s the irony of superficial libertarian arguments – what about the gun owner who wants to take his gun everywhere he goes?
The superficial vision of libertarianism applies equally to both the business owner and the gun owner in the example. Either could make a case of losing their freedom.
Griffin
If he had said something like this about gay people we would not be having this discussion.
Tyler Breisacher
Not to be a punctuation nazi, but I think there’s a quotation mark that shouldn’t be there, in the third paragraph. The whole paragraph is a quote from Rand Paul, except for the words “And he tells Rachel Maddow:” right?
Lanjier
I love the libertarians. Let the private businesses be free! If you can’t get gas in your car because you are black or look faggie, patronize the next gas station. Let the free market decide, asshole. If they won’t serve you, laugh it off and walk! Just feel all warm and cozy inside that your country is free! Yea! Feeeeel all the freedom. 🙂
Don’t have the Federal Government tell to they can’t refuse to serve all of the public equally. That would be awful for the Federal government to put a mandate on business! They would actually have to fill gas tanks of blacks and gays, when they don’t want to give them gas. In France they have to give gas to everybody. Do you want to be like the French? Next, they will want to sick to be served too and for us to drink wine with every meal. Can you imagine?
jeffree
Rand Paul has two major things wrong with him:
**He’s inarticulate. It’s hard to figure out what he’s for & against, & already today we saw him “clarifying” his prior statement. Thats a code word for “back tracking”
**He’s an idea guy, not a real-world guy:
what the hey does he know about racism, homophobia, poverty, health care, unemployment or sexism? Sounds like it’s easier for him to spews lots of “concepts” without thinking of the *actual* consequences of making changes.
Reminds me of when my nephew gave a 9th grade speech saying 15 year olds should be able to vote: Sounds pretty good untill, er, you T.H.I.N.K. about it !!
ewe
For some strange reason, Rand Paul looks like the spawn of a cross between Marshall Applegate (Heavens gate cult) and Timothy Leary.
David Ehrenstein
STICK A FORK IN THE RACIST MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!!
(Rachel kicks ass better than Buffy.)
ossurworld
But if I have to drive 100 miles to get fast food, it won’t be fast….
ChrisM
Of course I don’t agree with Paul’s statement.
But isn’t it funny that we are struggling for ENDA to even get attention, and yet a statement by someone who believes discrimination based on race by private businesses shouldn’t be illegal causes more outrage than the fact that discriminating based on sexual orientation IS LEGAL?
I’m not saying Paul’s statements shouldn’t be criticized as they are. I’m just very disheartened to see that so many people up in arms about this aren’t supporting a cause so similar.
Shallow HAL
again the thumbs up/down steamroller in action.
a comment like ‘No. 11 · James W. Harris’ gets essentially shut down because it is pro-libertarian, regardless of how articulate it is. The discussions between this post and the following statements by people like ‘No. 28 · Cassandra’ are what make for good debate, and to just shut the one side down is plain wrong.
Then on the other hand people that say that libertarians are smug pricks, and that someone should stick a fork in Rand Paul get thumbs up, and don’t get hidden.
not cool.
james_who_lives_in_cambridge
@D’oh, The Magnificent: I’m sorry but why is everyone so convinced that his views won’t help him in a State such as Kentucky? Ultra-conservative states like Alabama and South Carolina at least have a very large population of Black folk that Republicans try not to piss off but Kentucky is lily-white. I’m not so sure he won’t win in a landslide now where before I think the Democrat was the clear front-runner…
Kieran
We’ve got the US GOVERNMENT actively discriminating against gay Americans in the military in 2010 and the media couldn’t care less. We’ve got gay American Army veterans actually chaining themselves to the White House fence in dramatic protest to DADT and the establishment newsmedia blatantly denies them coverage. We’ve got Rand Paul who just beat the living shit out of the favored Establishment candidate in the primary and the Establishment newsmedia goes into instant “must destroy” attack mode. Rand should have played it safe and just said he agrees with the US government discriminating against gay people. Nobody would have even noticed.
delurker again
@Shallow HAL: I think the libertarian arguments have been thoroughly and soundly demolished. Dr. Paul even rejected them! He now says the government can ban private discrimination and the CRA is the unalterable law of the land. That is a repudiation of libertarianism.
Maybe the comments are being voted down because the arguments are shyte.
delurker again
Get this. Dr. Paul is now criticizing Obama for calling out BP and calls Obama un-American for doing so.
An American president calls out a foreign company for polluting American land and sea, and the American president is the un-American one?
Paul is a friggin’ joke.
Black Pegasus
Comments like #2 from FITZ is partly why the riff
exists between people of color and the Gay and Lesbian
Community. If your racism towards Blacks is so easily stroked,
then I’m not willing to fight along your side for Gay Rights; even
tho it benefits us both..
As you can see, neither side wins in this scenario.
delurker again
Hey Shallow HAL. I just had a thought. Isn’t the voting system just like the libertarian free market? In the free market, there are winners and losers based on what consumer likes and dislikes.
What is liked by many people, prospers. And what is disliked, falls by the wayside.
Maybe the market place of ideas here at queerty is telling us libertarian ideas suck and non-libertarian ideas are good.
It sounds like you are proposing a system a socialism whereby even sucky ideas like the ones espoused by libertarians here have to be given equal footing and weight when they are obviously not strong, compelling or equal. (And it’s not like the downrated comments are permanently hidden; a viewer can see them and vote accordingly to his or her preferences.)
All this not very libertarian of you. :p
Jaroslaw
I don’t like this “hiding comment due to low rating”, just let people read or not. Kieran I agree with what you say but there is more too it. I listened to the whole interview and he just kept repeating he’s against institutional racism but wouldn’t address private business discrimination.
While I personally don’t think businesses should discriminate and the hospital and gas station examples are real possibilities under Rand’s view – a Gay or Black person could be refused gas or treatment, I wonder if a Gay print shop owner would want to print racist flyers or books?
Ultimately, I agree with others, the theory of Libertarianism trumps practicality in listening to the whole interview. Although it bears pointing out that (sadly)when our major cities were desegregated by Federal Civil rights and other laws; they are now re-segregated because the Whites moved out and left the Blacks there.
Jaroslaw
in case it isn’t clear, when I said “trump” above, I meant that Libertarians are too much theory and their views don’t work in the real world.
stop flaggin me! (delurker)
Hey Shallow HAL. I just had a thought. Isn’t the voting system just like the libertarian free market? In the free market, there are winners and losers based on what consumer likes and dislikes.
What is liked by many people, prospers. And what is disliked, falls by the wayside.
Maybe the market place of ideas here at queerty is telling us libertarian ideas suck and non-libertarian ideas are good.
It sounds like you are proposing a system a socialism whereby even sucky ideas like the ones espoused by libertarians here have to be given equal footing and weight when they are obviously not strong, compelling or equal. (And it’s not like the downrated comments are permanently hidden; a viewer can see them and vote accordingly to his or her preferences and reply to them.)
All this not very libertarian of you. :p
Sceth
@delurker again: So much for his libertarianism. In going back on his bravado on Maddow, he just threw away support from moderate-libertarians like me.
Sceth
@Jaroslaw: How are libertarians overly theoretical, and where have you seen it fail? Your comment didn’t come with justification. I think libertarians don’t get elected because people are very fond of forcing their opinions on others.
As long as the masses think that laws are instruments that determine what is good and bad, libertarianism isn’t going to be effected. That does NOT mean that libertarianism doesn’t work, so stop acting like libertarianism is some idealist theory. It’s all this socially progressive and socially conservative bullshit about laws being instruments to make the world a better place that strikes me as idealist and myopic. It’s simply as issue that when most people talk about rights and freedom, they mean only the freedom to do the things that they themselves would want to do.
An Other Greek
wow
what a lively discussion
I have met MANY MANY Libertarians, and a lot of them gay.
I know this is not PC, BUT, at the risk of succumbing to stereotyping, the Libertarians I met are basically racists and nation-haters.
These “individualists” do not give a damn about BROTHERHOOD, NATION, or HUMANITY, only the dollar: THEIR DOLLAR.
$$$ is only a part of the issue though, what I have detected as a motivation is very often hatred of OTHERS and specifically racism,
turning into a desire to isolate one’s power and not share wealth in order to control one’s private environment.
Result is (and I believe it is intentional) a weakening of community/nation and a strengthening of the individual holding the power.
GROSS!
Do NOT be fooled by Libertarian “high” rhetoric.
—————————————————————–
Sceth
@An Other Greek: “These “individualists” do not give a damn about BROTHERHOOD, NATION, or HUMANITY.”
Just because you don’t want something written into law doesn’t mean you don’t care about it. Incidentally, I actually don’t actually care about those things (that’s not something to apologize for) whereas I know more libts who do than don’t.
“a motivation is very often hatred of OTHERS and specifically racism, turning into a desire to isolate one’s power”
What?
1. Nonintervention to facilitate hate? No; haters prefer bans.
Your counterproductive accusation is possibly true with some libts, but unlikely: usually when people hate others they advocate state intervention to that effect – DOMA as an example. In practice, regulatory laws are easier mechanisms for hatred than libt policy. Even when the hatred is tacit, like misogyny in banning abortion.
2. Libertarianism to ‘isolate one’s power”? As valid as the argument against capitalism. Because it IS the argument for communism. And it’s still moot – laissez faire legislation says nothing about the power of the executive to do engage positive social programs. And it’s programs, not laws, that uplift the poor.
An Other Greek
Listen SCETH
if you want to imply that Libertarianism = Capitalism,
well that’s your prerogative, but it’s a mistake and a narrow interpretation of the many different capitalist models available to suit your Libertarian agenda. Equating Libertarian critiques to Communism is a narrow and cheap shot.
A social/responsible Capitalism is not only POSSIBLE, but rather NECESSARY (BP anyone?)… Limits serve purpose. I think the Europeans are A LOT closer to Capitalism than they are to Communism.
A free-for-all Capitalist ORGY which Libertarians advocate is a sure path to our collective distraction.
—————————————————————–
ewe
The sad reality is that Rand Paul feels this way about gay people too but because the mainstream media is well aware that these knucklehead teabag wetbrains would likely vote him in for being an anti gay homophobe, even Rachael Maddow will not remind her audience that her original question regarding his willingness to deny restaurant service to african americans included gay patrons. They stick only to the race issue which serves us up enough bigotry for sure but tells us all something even worse than we already know. And that is that we are once again being thrown underneath the bus to serve an agenda. This is unacceptable. It is the foundations for ENDA. Being mentioned is a prerequisite for Equality.
ewe
QueerTy is guilty of this as well. What does “blacks and such” mean QueerTy? Is that you and i that is being referred to without actually verbalizing it? The SHAME!!!!! Busted. You had better make an amends.
Sceth
@An Other Greek:
I never said that Libertarianism = Capitalism.
I restricted post 61 to capitalist economics because Libertarian economics are restricted to capitalist economics.
I wasn’t equating Libertarian critiques to communism. I accurately pointed out that you were using Marx’s argument.
You still haven’t given an argument for the failure of a libertarian legislative policy, although it’s good that you seem to have given up on your proposal that libertarianism is “often” a product of hatred (which was the thesis of post 60). Congrats on switching to a better argument, although clinging to your conclusion and switching to another argument is clear evidence that your motivation is emotional. It’ll be a civil idea to hold it on the unnecessary capitalization.
Taxes for an environmentally responsible capitalism can be justified on libt grounds as a punitive measure against palpable harm.
Public action and investment in socially responsible capitalism doesn’t need to be legislated.
Shoot again.
James_In_Cambridge
And for those who think that this man’s beliefs on the Civil & Voting Right’s Acts is not rooted in racism, please read this…both he and his dad have a history of attracting and CULTIVATING racist followers and then denying they knew anything about the racist beliefs of these same followers.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/05/21/racial
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront
Google “Ron Paul stormfront” and you even get a cached, now deleted, endorsement by Stormfront of Ron Paul. Now they’ve moved their support to his son….
http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/05/stormfrontorg-was-rooting-for-rand-paul.html
Jaroslaw
Since #56 has 7/1 low comment rating, I’d like someone to explain. I’ve said in there I’m against discrimination; I think Libertarian opens the door to possible discrimination and while it may sound good theoretically, it is impractical. I agreed with Kieran that the media could care less about Gay issues. What is wrong with that?
Jaroslaw
#59 sorry I didn’t see your reply directed at me (Sceth) due to this nonsense of “hidden” due to low comment rating.
OK, I’m not an expert when it comes to Libertarians, but I do know that things often sound good in theory that don’t work in practice. I was also referring to listening to Mr. Rand’s entire interview – isn’t he espousing Libertarian ideas, at least partially?
For an example of how it fails – for his father to say that he doesn’t oppose Same Sex marriage because he feels banning is an overuse of the Governments powers doesn’t mean he supports and indeed he doesn’t. Tolerance is not acceptable. Full vigorous legalization of equal rights is the only thing to make homophobia a thing of the past. (as an aside but important point – NO civil unions. That lets the breeders and religious still feel superior to us) And yes, government has a major role to play in this. Who else or how else do you propose to make this happen?
jason
The difference between a private business and a private home is that the business, by its very nature, has an open door. The door is open for you to come in and buy items. Without an open door, the business would no longer be a business.
Therefore, I think it’s appalling that Rand Paul would even contemplate excluding private businesses from the racial discrimination act. You cannot have an open door but then discriminate.