Rand Paul Defends Opposition to Civil Rights Act's Prohibitions on Private Discrimination

About one second or so after Rand Paul won the GOP primary in Kentucky's Senate race, the liberal commentariat began painting him as a lunatic and possibly racist creep, using as prime evidence his recent statements in opposition to the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. Over at the Washington Post, Reason Contributing Editor David Weigel defends Paul, and posts video and excerpts from a remarkable and frank exchange the Tea Party-backed candidate had last night with Rachel Maddow. Well worth a gander.

Read our feature on Paul's campaign here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • rhofulster||

    Hope he responds with "Jim Crow was a GOVERNMENT program pushed through by business owners that were losing business due to their discriminatory policies."

  • matt||

    Rand seemed like such a coward. I had hopes for this guy.

    "Would you vote for that"?
    "Well the interesting thing is..."
    "But would you vote for it?"
    "Well I wouldn't go to that kind of place myself..."
    "But would you vote for it? Yes or No?"
    "Well the interesting thing is..."

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    To be fair, it's extremely difficult to find a good answer for a question expressly designed to prove that you're a racist.

  • cynical||

    Just ask her whether she thinks people should be imprisoned for saying things that are racist. If she says no, and being pressed for explanation, suggests that she supports freedom of speech, then she's already explained that you can believe people should legally be allowed to do things that you personally find repugnant, if the alternative is violating their rights. At which point, the only relevant point of difference is whether running a business is in the same league as freedom of speech -- which isn't really a question about racism, but about your position on economic freedoms, which are an obvious point of contention between the left and right, and thus not newsworthy.

    If she says "yes", of course, it's just a couple of short leaps of logic to getting her to admit she wants to imprison all teabaggers for criticizing the president, which is the story that the favorable side of the media will be reporting.

  • FredSaid||

    cynical,

    I can think of no better proof that libertarians live in a theoretical fantasy world than your comment.

    We already *know* what the real-world effects would be if we allow restaurants to put up "No Blacks Allowed" signs. WE ALREADY TRIED THIS EXPERIMENT.

    To act as if history doesn't matter, and this is strictly a theoretical debate about "economic freedoms," is clueless. Rand Paul is about to find out how few people live in a libertarian bubble world -- and how shocked normal people are when they discover the insane perspectives that do live in that world.

  • cynical||

    "We already *know* what the real-world effects would be if we allow restaurants to put up "No Blacks Allowed" signs. WE ALREADY TRIED THIS EXPERIMENT."

    There are real world effects to speech

  • cynical||

    Dammit. There are real world effects to speech too. If freedom didn't have an effect, it would really be a meaningful freedom. Granted, given that leftists want to reduce freedom to the right to choose where and how to get off, it's no shock that they wouldn't understand.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    We already *know* what the real-world effects would be if we allow restaurants to put up "No Blacks Allowed" signs. WE ALREADY TRIED THIS EXPERIMENT.


    We also allowed "No Irish Need Apply" signs.

  • ||

    No it isn't. It just takes a one word answer.

    Repeat after me, Rand:

    Q:"Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?"

    A: "Yes".

    End of discussion.

  • matt||

    Or even "No, I could not have voted for it as written, not without the changes it needed and still needs to protect/ensure [...]"
    I had to put [...] because I'm really not exactly sure what he wants to do with the civil rights act.

    But Rachel missed the real opportunity - whether she was trying to warn him of the hanging albatross, or hang it herself. I think she just wanted a clear answer, and she and her viewers didn't get it. But what she should have been focused on was his phrasing that says the CRA as it stands should still apply to governments, *institutions*, but not private businesses. Business are institutes. They have private policies that they institute. Private chains of ordination. Is he saying that businesses should be able to choose who they do/don't serve, but still be unable to discriminate in who they hire? Is he also against EOE?

  • FredSaid||

    "I had to put [...] because I'm really not exactly sure what he wants to do with the civil rights act."

    Actually, it is fairly clear from his comments that he would have used his position as Senator to oppose Title II, which outlawed discrimination in "public accommodations," such as restaurants and hotels.

    But Paul is, of course, very very unwilling to engage in a *debate* about Title II. To ask him to defend his position on Title II is tantamount to calling him a racist!

    The text of the 1964 CRA...

    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/do.....transcript

  • Dave||

    The Problem DB is that his "yes" is just a gutless political concession...a lie. He should just tell the truth and defend his position, it is certainly a defensible position...

  • Dave||

    I agree, he seemed like just another sleazy politician who didn't want to just tell the truth and then argue in support of his beliefs...he looked like a schoolboy caught with his pants down.

  • kinnath||

    We'll give some land to the niggers and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish!

  • ||

    (whisper whisper whisper)

    Alright, we'll take the Irish, too.

  • Dave||

    that doesn't even make sense...Jim Crow was the codification of discriminatory practices by state governments (so much for "States rights"), why did business owners who were losing business due to discriminatory policies push for it? Your history is a bit skewed...it was actually Barack Obama who was responsible for Jim crow.

  • Off Topic||

    Tell me again why I should be buying gold.

    WSJ: Inflation at 44-Year Low

    Inflation in the U.S. slid last month to its lowest level in 44 years, highlighting a growing unevenness in the global recovery...

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....=Inflation

  • Hacha Cha||

    the dollar is also worth less than ever before and gold is worth more than ever before

  • Some Guy||

    Gold is about 50% off its inflation adjusted peak.

  • ||

    The dollar is not worth less versus the Euro and several other currencies. And the price of gold is driven by more than speculation. Gold production is getting harder and harder. And there are a ton of industrial uses for gold. The price of it should be going up.

    Also, to the extent it is going up as a hedge against inflation, that just means people think there will be inflation. It doesn't mean there is inflation.

  • ||

    hahahahahahahaha

    Doom baby

  • Hacha Cha||

    Also, the price of gold is more stable than the whims of the feds inflation rates. This too is a pretty good reason the government should be using gold to back the dollar:
    US Constitution Article I Section 10. No state shall ... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;

  • Some Guy||

    Also, the price of gold is more stable than the whims of the feds inflation rates.

    The last thing I would call the price of gold is stable.

  • Mo||

    You have an odd definition of stable.

    http://goldprice.org/30-year-gold-price-history.html

  • Hacha Cha||

    It is more stable than determining the value of money on the whims of the fed. Gold has gotten more valuable than it has in the past, yes it has gone down but its not anywhere near its historic lows. The dollar has not gotten more valuable than it was at its peak before the fed took over.

  • Dave||

    I have to agree with Hacha, though I am no expert, gold seems more stable than other investments...its what I'm buying.

  • ||

    No state shall ... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;

    Which state runs the Federal Reserve again? I know I've asked this question before when someone brings up that clause, but I don't remember the answer.

  • Hacha Cha||

    the states, through congress, have delegated the power to make tender that is not gold or silver to the federal reserve.

  • ||

    That's offensive, Tulpa. Stop it.

  • Dr Duck||

    "the dollar is also worth less than ever before..."

    As measured by the price of gold?

    "...and gold is worth more than ever before"

    Um... in dollar terms?

    Does this seem a bit circular to anyone?

  • Hacha Cha||

    I'm not saying right now this second either is at its historic high or low, but that it is very close to them. The dollar is worth less than in the past as measured by its purchasing power.

  • Some Guy||

    I'm not saying right now this second either is at its historic high or low, but that it is very close to them.

    As I noted above, gold is 50% off it's peak.

    The dollar is worth less than in the past as measured by its purchasing power.

    As long as you don't ever invest it.

  • Hacha Cha||

    50% of its peak is still extremely valuable. What does investing have to do with it? You can't buy something that cost $1 10 years ago for $1 anymore, because the dollar has lost value in its purchasing power, that is my point

  • Mo||

    I can buy a Pentium desktop PC for far less in nominal dollars today than I could 10 years ago.

  • Hacha Cha||

    That isn't because the dollar increased its purchasing power that is because of the manufacturing of peniums became cheaper to produce. I wasn't saying everything is more expensive than it used to be, it was to illustrate the point that the dollar has lost its purchasing power.

  • Some Guy||

    You have no understanding of economics. We get it. Just stop embarrassing yourself.

  • Hacha Cha||

    So explain how the manufacturing process stayed stagnant and the value of the dollar increased thus making them cheaper, Some Economics Guy?

  • Hacha Cha||

    I have an understanding of Austrian economics and related free market economics, you don't. I'm not saying I have a very good understanding but good enough that most of my statements are valid. But lets forget economics for a minute and remember the constitution, what gives the government the power to violate Article 1 Section 10?

  • ||

    there is no inflation because much of the world's sovereign debt is denominated in dollars. this creates a consistent demand for dollars. as much as the greek bailout looks appears to be charity, it is necessary for the US to continue creating demand fore the dollar because that way the world is forced to produce for the dollar?

  • Pip||

    ^ THIS

  • AlmightyJB||

    As far buying gold, I wouldn't say you definitely should. It's near it's highs which is USUALLY not a good time to buy anything. I also think all the economic anxiety MAY be artificially inflating the price. in addition, there's always the possibility that the Government could step in and regulate the price of gold or even outlaw it's buying and selling should the proverbial shit hit the fan.

    As far as inflation goes. How do you raise prices and wages during an economic recession. Damn near impossible in less you want to go out of business. However, we will get this at some point and the massive debt of the US government will certainly put pressure on the dollar. Everyone agrees that current spending levels are unsustainable so there are three choices: Cut spending (yeah right), raise taxes (which in itself would still not cover future expected deficits, or print money. Given the corruption in Washington the 3rd option seems the most likely. You increase supply of anything you lower its value. That includes money. You combine that with a strong economy, which we will see again at some point, you have inflation. How you hedge against that is up to you. You could look at TIPS as well, but again who's to say the measurements used to value those won't be manipulated by the government. It's difficult to see how we avoid inflation unless we somehow get people in Washington who care about the future prosperity of this country. That's my two cents for what it's worth. I'd definately be interested to hear what others have to say on the matter.

  • dave b.||

    If you believe that, I have some prime Nebraska oceanfront property for sale. Inflation is caused by endless dollar printing, which is what we've seen for the past two administrations. Not to mention that there have been no significant declines in the PPI. Are prices automagically getting cheaper where you live?

  • ||

    Why should anyone buy gold?

    I'll skip the timing question (should I buy gold now?) because when it comes to market timing, I am, at best, a contrarian indicator.

    You should treat gold not as a (speculative) investment, but as savings or insurance that is your best hedge against currency erosion, devaluation, or collapse.

    If you think that Western Europe and the United States will drastically cut spending and especially entitlements and successfully exit the structural deficit trap they are now in, then you probably won't see any need for such insurance.

  • alan||

    ^This.

    RC Dean's comment, I point out in case this doesn't thread correctly.

  • ||

    Considering that the minimum an existing gold coin is going to cost is over $150 -- and 0.1oz coins are darn near impossible to find these days, so you're probably talking more like $300 -- I don't think gold is such a great store of value in the Class II economic collapse scenario (ie, society is still functioning but money is worthless). If you go to buy groceries with even a tenth-ouncer, you're either going to really have to stock up or you're going to get a lot of worthless money back for change. If all you have is half-ouncers or more, you're definitely going to piss away value every time you shop.

    In a Class I economic collapse, where society itself breaks down and people are fighting in the streets over scraps of garbage, then precious metals of any kind are probably not going to help.

    Junk silver is the way to go. Bank it.

  • ray||

    WSJ: Inflation at 44-Year Low...

    ...precisely. Chances are it will rise. You don't want to buy too late.

  • ||

    Paul is Constitutionally and morally correct.

    That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee in America 2010.

  • ||

    The surprising thing to me is that David Weigel is correct. Seriously. Never been a fan of Weigel's, but good work.

    With that out of the way, I think Ron Paul's words probably wouldn't have hurt Rand Paul one bit either way--but the reaction to it may put him over the top in Kentucky.

    I doubt there's anything liberals everywhere could have done to endear Rand Paul to the average voter in Kentucky more than falsely accusing him of racism.

    Watch what this does to his campaign. Pretty soon everybody in Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, etc. will want to be falsely accused of racism.

  • robc||

    The C-J interview I liked to early this week involved this question, he handled it perfectly.

  • nekoxgirl||

    It's pretty disgusting that when they have nothing left, the Democrats always look for a way to use the race card. "We'll we don't want to debate the issues. That other guy actually sounds reasonable. Let's just accuse him of racism!" I'm glad it might backfire on them this time.

  • ||

    Nobody has asked him yet about eliminating the Department of Agriculture and all those tobacco subsidies.

    It may be OK to be accused of racism, but let's just see how eliminationg farm subsidies goes over.

  • ||

    They're accusing him of being a racist? What a shock!

  • ||

    What Paul should have said at the end:

    MADDOW: Thank you for coming on and talking about this, I hope you won't hold it against me...

    PAUL: Oh, no sweat. No one watches this network, so it's just a warm up for me.

  • FredSaid||

    "They're accusing him of being a racist?"

    They're asking him if he would repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and he's dodging the question by accusing them of accusing him of being a racist by asking the question, to which the answer is yes.

    Happy to help.

  • Anonymous Backstabber||

    That Weigel fellow seems like a decent chap.

    Maddow, however, puts the fear of dumb in me.

    Maybe this is my own brittle world view cracking here, but it is hard for me to believe an educated adult can't understand the distinction between public and private. Would it help if it were called "government" instead of public?

    How can she not at least imagine (inside head voices and pictures), or grasp the point, that the decisions a private university or restaurant make are in the same category as the decisions a family might make for its own household.

    What if the hicks at Bob Jones "University" ban interracial dating? What, so, you're saying you're a racist?

  • ||

    I was at a training a couple of months ago where they were talking about delivering social services through public organizations and private organizations, when, halfway through, someone did indeed ask what the difference was between public and private.

    She was Canadian, but still...

  • ||

    She imagines it just fine, she just doesn't care about the distinction. Her position, in a nutshell: Discrimination is wrong, and if private property rights must be trampled to stop it, then so be it.

    Rand Paul might have pointed out that, if the Civil Rights Act were to be repealed tomorrow, there would be no segregated lunch counters in this day and age. Even if an owner wanted to run one, nearly all white people would refuse to eat at it, and it would go out of business.

  • robc||

    He basically did point that out in the CJ interview. He said he would boycott any restaurant with that policy and he assumed most people would.

  • FredSaid||

    Yeah, that's exactly how it was pre-CRA. People just boycotted any restaurant that had a "Whites Only" sign. Title II of the CRA was really superfluous.

    Anyway, I admire Rand Paul's stance against discrimination as a private individual, and strongly support his continuing to be a private individual.

  • xx||

    Fred: You're ignoring the legal system under which those businesses operated.

    Jim Crow made it illegal *NOT* to discriminate. It was just as much, if not more, restrictive of property rights than the CRA.

    The market could not fix the situation, because it was enshrined in law. White patrons had no choice on whether to sit at a segregated lunch counter, because it was illegal to integrate!

    That said, I think Rand is correct, that Title II should be repealed or overturned.

  • voxpo||

    Interesting point. But most such theoretical boycotts would have to have been against restaurants' obeying laws, right?

  • ||

    ^THIS. Here in very progressive Seattle, I can't tell you how many times I beat my head against a wall struggling to illustrate the importance of property rights to people. The progressive worldview, in my experience, simply does not place any importance on private property rights.

  • #||

    "The progressive worldview, in my experience, simply does not place any importance on private property rights."

  • Dave||

    I disagree Tara, I think there there are parts of this country where segregation would be a great marketing tool. And not just "whites only" but minority owned businesses excluding other races as well..

  • nekoxgirl||

    Maddow isn't paid to have honest debates with her guests. She's paid to destroy anyone that threatens the Democratic party. I'm sure she understands the difference between public and private but her job is to ignore that and just try to make Rand Paul look like a racist loony.

  • FredSaid||

    "I'm sure she understands the difference between public and private"

    She demonstrated as much in the interview, actually wording her questions in a libertarian-friendly way at one point, asking Paul if he supported "forcing" restaurants to serve blacks.

    He refused to answer, and instead pretended that he was being accused of personal racism, when that clearly was not the case.

    When confronted with an obvious implication of his worldview, Rand Paul ran away and cried.

  • Dave||

    Bullshit...she didn't "ambush" she just asked him simple questions that he was too stupid to answer effectively...just say yes I think private businesses should be able to discriminate because they are PRIVATE...and yes that means I agree with practicing racism in those circumstances because being a racist or not is a private decision, and the government should not try to influence how to think period. Instead he turned into Bobby "the weasel" Heenan and tried to sound a Civil Rights hero...

  • preston||

    I go to school down here in Greenville, SC (not at BJU, thank God), and the funny thing is that there really aren't even any blacks at BJU for interracial dating to happen, in that respect. It's come up as an issue because now there are a lot of Asians at the school who've been converted by fundamentalist missionaries who come halfway across the world to go to school at one of the most fundamentalist universities in America.

    I hear that today there's actually a surprising amount of white-international Asian student dating at that school.

  • distinguished gentleman||

    IF you can't explain your positions to a 6th grader with a adhd, don't run on it. Especially when most of the powers that be hate you.

    Some arguments just aren't worth winning.

  • Zeebs||

    This. +1

  • Nash||

    Agreed. There is no reason to have this argument since in a practical sense it's totally irrelevant. He should leave the teachable moments to his father. Just tell them what they want to hear and move on.

  • ||

    What? You guys don't think that arguing for the right to put heroin vending machines in daycares and private ownership of nuclear arms will help us win elections? It's just *shocking* how many statists there are here.

  • ||

    the right to put heroin vending machines in daycares and private ownership of nuclear arms

    You just summed up my utopia in a very succinct manner, thank you.

  • ungoverned||

    mine too!

  • Brett L||

    Will the needles be clean?

  • Bradley||

    Yes -- the AIDS machine is down the hall.

  • ||

    Inflation at 44-Year Low

    You must not do your own grocery shopping; otherwise, you'd treat those numbers with the disdain they deserve.

  • DJF||

    One of the most manipulated statistic the government puts out is the inflation rate. Though they seem to be working on ways to make their other statistics just as bogus.

  • AJs||

    I was thinking the same thing walking out of Safeway yesterday having spent $220 for a weeks worth of groceries...

  • ||

    You spent $220 on groceries at Safeway? Don't they have Costco or Sam's club where you live?

  • ||

    You're singing the song of my heart. In the past yr, I've watched milk go up 100%!! And eggs? Forget about it! So yes, I agree.

  • Comrade Zero||

    How do energy costs figure into this? Last time I checked gas was still $3 a gallon.

  • pmains||

    Energy and Food are excluded. They are "non-core" inflation.

  • xx||

    Which always makes me laugh, because they seem like more "core" products than any of the others on the list.

    Try existing without energy or food.

  • ||

    Joe Scarborough, an imbecile if ever there was one, said today (along with some serious head nodding from the other imbeciles around the table, including the utterly repulsive Mika and that venal, cowardly, self serving piece of living excrement Harold Ford) said that Rand had until the end of the day to apologize and say whether he is for discrimination by lunch counters or against it.

    Even an idiot like Scarborough must know that the issue is not what you are "for" or against. It's whether or not there is any distinction at all between private property and public. If you don't believe in private ownership - of anything, your self, your house, your business - then at least have the honesty to come out and say that and don't pussyfoot around the fact that you are simply a statist who thinks all of us and everything is ultimately communal property.

    It is not enough that we all be equal under the law and in the eyes of the state (and what a joke that is), we must compel all citizens to love each other and associate personally with all other citizens, whether they like it or not.

  • ||

    Actual private groups such as social clubs are free to discriminate if they want to.

    Businesses that serve the public are not, because they are not private in the same sense.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: DanT,

    Businesses that serve the public are not, because they are not private in the same sense.

    Makes sense Dan - I mean, otherwise, why call prostitutes "public women"? Right? I mean, it is not like they own their bodies once they decide to go into business.

    Grow up, Dan, before you even try discussing matters with us adults.

  • ||

    But, but Old Mexican... they would be prostitutes unless they were born with all the privileges that come solely from society to enable them to be small business owners.

  • FredSaid||

    Virtually all retail businesses are on the public teat. Taxpayer-paid streets and sidewalks, for example, deliver their customers to their front door (if a retail business doesn't value this gift, it is free move to the middle of the desert). There isn't a bright line between "public" and "private" when it comes to businesses that have purposefully placed themselves at the center of the community, surrounded by and dependent on taxpayer-funded public amenities, and have their doors open to the public.

    It isn't unreasonable for taxpayers to make a deal with businesses who wish to cash in on infrastructure created by taxpayers.

  • kilroy||

    At least around here, businesses pay taxes that support those streets and sidewalks, and so do the patrons that use them.

    Where do you live that businesses don't pay state and local taxes?

  • FredSaid||

    kilroy,

    Apparently I did not make my point simple enough for you to understand. Here's another try:

    Jack is a Citizen and Taxpayer who happens to be black.

    Jack's taxes, along with others, paid for the infrastructure that created the public Downtown Shopping District.

    Jill owns one of two downtown restaurants. Her business depends heavily on the value created by the Downtown Shopping District.

    Jack tries to eat at Jill's restaurant, but is confronted with a sign reading "No Blacks Allowed."

    This is unfair to Jack. The community is correct to remedy this unfairness by telling Jill she may not have a "No Blacks Allowed" policy.

    Jill may, however, make her business truly private by relocating away from the public-subsidized area, to an area zoned for private clubs, not public accommodations. She will lose the value she is currently being given for free by the public tax base, but she will be able to have a "No Blacks Allowed" policy.

  • voxpo||

    Next door to Jill's restaurant is a newspaper owned by John. John publishes editorials in his newspaper advocating against anti-discrimination laws (and pro-discrimination laws, for that matter). Is it fair that John benefits from the public-supported infrastructure? Should the community allow him to advocate unfair policy while on the public teat?

  • Dave||

    Old idiot...I noticed you didn't even try to debunk Dan T's point...his statement is exactly the argument for governemtn restriction of businesses.

  • ||

    Yes, some animals are less equal. We get it.

  • ||

    Businesses serve their customers, not "the public". If a business wants to shrink their pool of potential customers by being jackasses that's their own prerogative.

    Obviously you don't understand the difference between private and public, so I'm sure this argument was lost on you anyways.

  • ||

    Obviously directed at Dan, though I know it's pointless.

  • x,y||

    But they don't necessarily serve the public. By your own admission you are concerned with business that cater only to a limited group.

  • xx||

    Shorter Dan T:

    "It's impossible to rape a prostitute! -- She was discriminating against me!"

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Scarborough sounds more like a liberal the longer he hangs out at MSNBC.

  • Zeb||

    Some people are unable or unwilling to grasp the idea that there might be some bad things in the world that the government does not or should not have jurisdiction over. It is not inconsistent to be against discrimination and at the same time to be against laws requiring that businesses not discriminate.

  • G-Love||

    +1

  • ungov||

    if it's not forbidden it must be compulsory you fools!

  • FredSaid||

    In the real world, what harm occurs from a law telling a restaurant open to the public that it cannot have a "No Blacks Allowed" policy?

  • voxpo||

    Here are two: 1. Its enforcement consumes economic resources (e.g., more lawyers). 2. It reduces the realm of peaceful, voluntary action and increases that of state compulsion.

    Anyway, despite your obsession with the real world ;), I will bravely point out that the same question could be asked about a law, if one existed, against personal ads that specify race.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Seriously the people at MSNBC are idiots. People have argued that conservatives won't back Rand Paul because he's too libertarian, but once the Fox News viewers get wind that MSNBC is attacking a Republican for being racist, they'll all get behind Paul.

    What is MSNBC trying to do? Make sure black people don't vote for him? I've got news for them, Republicans routinely only get about 5 to 10% of the black vote. If they are trying to destroy the guy, they're doing an epically bad job at it.

  • Brett L||

    On the other hand, if Fox & Rush talk about MSNBC, people might actually watch it for a couple days to see how bad it really is. This could only be topped by putting Olberman in a cage with a knife-wielding monkey as far as ratings for MSNBC go.

  • ||

    I'd prefer a cage match with an infinite number of knife-wielding monkeys, an infinite subset of which would immediately begin carving the collected works of Shakespeare onto Olbermann's back.

  • Horde4Lyfe||

    As long as the money wear a top hat and a monocle (ala Epi).

  • Horde4Lyfe||

    *wears

  • ¢||

    David Weigel defends Paul

    Bullshit.

    The attack Democrats are pushing is So is Rand Paul a racist? Shilly repeats the attack. That's his job.
    "But then he says 'No!'"

    You're dumb.

  • ||

    hur hur weigel's a democrat shill for realsies lol

  • Zeb||

    I thought he did quite well defending Paul. What did Weigel do to you?

  • ||

    Why did I read the comments to that article? Why do I ever read comments to online newspaper articles? I'm beginning to think that, somewhere, deep down, I'm a masochist. Only explanation for continuing to do that.

  • nobody||

    I know, that hurt.

  • Old Mexican||

    Agreed, some of the comments made my eyes bleed from all their non sequiturs and focus-shifting. I should have read your post first before putting myself through that ordeal.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Rand Paul said something like the business owner can screen customers by race, and can also prohibit legal firearms in his or her establishment. Some enraged commenter replied "I just have one question for Rand Paul. Is he saying black people are like weapons?"

  • mr simple||

    That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Thank you for forging into that mess and bringing out this treasure.

  • Jeffersonian||

    The Farce is strong with that one.

  • Wesley||

    I disagree with Rand Paul on this issue. And that would matter if it were 1964.
    Equally relevant, I'm pretty sure that I would agree with him on his position on the Alien and Seditions Acts of 1798.

  • Old Mexican||

    I disagree with Rand Paul on this issue.

    Why?

  • Wesley||

    Because I think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good law, and I define a good law as one that has a worthy objective and achieves that objective without other destructive consequences. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 significantly reduced institutional (among governments and businesses that serve the public) racism in this country. Goldwater ended up coming around to the same point-of-view.

  • robc||

    No destructive consequences? It allowed that racist fuck Lester Maddox an entry to Georgia politics.

  • ||

    hahah fuck the civil rights act. No civil rights act protected my family when we were refused service (once by a white-owned institution, and once by a black-franchised institution) in the 1980s. Fuck that shit.

  • ||

    I agree reducing institutional racism is a worthy goal. I don't agree that passing laws to force people to conform to my world view is acceptable.

    Boycotts and social ostracism would be appropriate means to gain that end.

  • ||

    Destructive consequences? You know how many Denny's restaurants got closed after that alleged discrimination lawsuit back in the 80s?

    You fuck with my Denny's Grand Slam, I'm gonna fuck with you.

  • ||

    I define a good law as one that has a foundation in the Enumerated Powers of the government....(and I have to like it).

  • Wesley||

    I should add that I think it's probably un-Constitutional. That alone doesn't make it a bad law.

  • robc||

    Well, Rand Paul opposes it because it is unconstitutional. So you are agreeing with him.

  • xx||

    Yes, actually, that is the very definition of a "bad law".

    Were you, by chance, educated in a government school?

  • Old Mexican||

    I disagree with Rand Paul on this issue.

    Why?

  • Hacha Cha||

    Probably because he feels the ends justify the means, and if so, he'd be wrong.

  • Parker||

    Who would be wrong? Rand Paul or Wesley (whom Old Mexican was quoting)?

  • robc||

    Wesley. He is the one arguing the ends justify the means. Paul is arguing for the proper means and accepting the fact that it may lead to bad ends.

  • ||

    Honestly I'm torn. Certainly I don't think libertarians should herald their opposition to which is a beloved piece of legislation for most Americans who don't understand what it does and think about the Constitutional ramifications on individual liberty.

    At the same time, I wonder whether some parts of the country would have progressed to the point where "nearly all whites" would boycott a racist business without a probably overcompensatory government correction. Since the act passed, many of us in the younger generations have lived our whole lives never having seen an officially race-discriminatory business so to us it is built in that race discrimination is completely unacceptable and most of us have friends of many different races.

    Is this result a natural progression of society or is it a result of forced integration, political correctness and the ban on private business discrimination? Does the government need to issue corrective measures when government policies caused inequality (as opposed to individual actions or inactions) in order to ideally create a stronger meritocracy, or are these corrective measures more dangerous because they create semi-permanent race-based entitlements that can't be reformed or removed, even when the desired equality of opportunity is finally reached?

    This is the sort of debate that can divide right and left libertarians. As a left-libertarian I'm concerned about both creating a permanent racial underclass addicted to a welfare state while at the same time I believe that replacing centuries of government-caused inequality with nothing (corrective) and expecting a meritocracy to naturally emerge seems unlogical. As rampant economic and social inequality (after national security) is the easiest excuse for growing government, libertarians should be concerned with finding solutions that respect individual liberty while fighting and, if necessary, correcting government-initiated inequality.

  • nekoxgirl||

    I definately feel the same way as you do. I find it unacceptable though that left-leaning "journalists" would try to smear a guy for being racist based on his hypothetical support of legislation passed before he was born.

  • Wesley||

    Is this result a natural progression of society or is it a result of forced integration, political correctness and the ban on private business discrimination?

    I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. The market is generally against racist business owners, but I would think that the market would have changed people's attitudes toward it much more slowly than the mandate did.

    hypothetical support of legislation passed before he was born,

    It wasn't before he was born. He was a baby, but he was born.

  • Hacha Cha||

    yeah I was saying Rand is right, Wesley is wrong.

  • ||

    Reading through that comment thread at the WaPo, I was struck by the short-sightedness of one of the race baiters attempting to argue that "the market hasn't eliminated racism" as justification for expanding government power.

    Last time I checked, the government was the purveyor of a form - in fact, the ONLY form of sanctioned racism in America - with a little cultural relic known as affirmative action.

    Laws, markets, and fiats from on high don't "eliminate" racism or racist thoughts among the hearts of people who believe that way. There are laws against racial or gender discrimination. It doesn't "eliminate" the problem just because there is a government action or a law addressing it. (ie, murder).

    But I guess pointing this out makes one, um, 'racist' or something.

    In the future, everyone will be a racist for 15 minutes.

  • ||

    I'm actually a little disappointed with Paul's answers. When Maddow kept asking "Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate?" just answer the fucking question. Say yes, and then explain that as soon as they do they'll go out of business. When you keep dodging the question you make it look like you're uncomfortable with the answer and it doesn't look good.

  • ||

    If that was true there would have been no need for the Civil Rights act in the first place.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: DanT,

    If that was true there would have been no need for the Civil Rights act in the first place.

    There was NO need for it in the first place, Dan. Stop with the non sequiturs.

  • ||

    That's not true. There were state and municipal laws forcing lunch counters to segregate all over the South. The Civil Rights Act nobly ended such laws, but could have done so without weakening private property and freedom of association rights. That's why Barry Goldwater voted against it and that's the objection Rand Paul raised.

  • xx||

    EXACTLY.

  • ||

    The main accomplishment of the Civil Rights Act was to end GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION!

    The Jim Crow laws were LAWS. They weren't the actions of private businesses on their own. No doubt some businesses would have done them anyway to keep their racist clientele, but there were businesses that didn't like them and abandoned them as soon as they were LEGALLY allowed to do so.

  • #||

    jim crow laws were just that laws. Bus companies did not send blacks to the back of the bus prior to local laws requiring so. Even if the bus owners were racist, they knew who their customers were. It was government that institutionalised racism.

  • Jeffersonian||

    On the contrary, if business owners were uniformly racist and exclusionist of blacks, Jim Crow laws would have been entirely superfluous. That they were required shows how fragile the segregationist position was.

  • Zeb||

    You completely miss the fact that businesses in Jim Crow areas were forced by law to discriminate. They were not allowed legally to de-segregate lunch counters.
    Perhaps you are right that they still would not have desegregated if the CRA applied only to government. But you could also be wrong. Wouldn't it have been better at least to see if it could be done in a less coercive, more respectful of property rights way?

  • cynical||

    More likely it was akin to smoking bans in bars -- driven by customers and meddling politicians who felt entitled to make businesses exclude or inconvenience a portion of customers for their benefit, along with a subset of business owners that wanted to practice that exclusion but knew they would be disadvantaged unless everyone else did it too.

  • ||

    Maybe. But you also prevent some dinkshit editor from easily quoting you out of context.

  • TXLimey||

    I don't know that a business that had a one race only policy would necessarily go out of business. Hell, here in Texas we still try to chop up congressional districts to try to make sure that people have the same skin color as their representative. I can see lots of businesses having a lot of success with a 'Hispanics Only' policy for example.

  • FUBU||

    yes

  • Obummer||

    Fubu: Fucked Up Black Underclass

  • x,y||

    GFTO with the racist "jokes." Imbecile.

  • ||

    And we wish them good luck with that business model.

  • Sheila Jackson Lee||

    And usually our intelligence matches the voters', too!

  • Nash||

    The second he says "Yes" that clip gets cut and pasted into a Jack Conway attack ad.

    Bad idea.

  • ||

    So Rand Paul thinks that it is okay to ask minorities to help support businesses with their taxes (to pay for police/court protection, roads, infrastructure, etc.) yet be prohibited from being able to patronize them?

    He's just as crazy as his daddy.

  • BakedPenguin||

    They can mooooove Dan T! They can MOOOVE somehwre else if they don't like it!! MOOOVE!!

  • ||

    SOCIAL CONTRACT!

    HURR DURR DURR HURR!

  • West Texas Boy||

    This is by far the best answer to Dan's question.

    What is it with these dipshits and their ignorance of property?

    PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE INDEPENDENT OF GOVERNMENT, YOU STUPID IGNORANT FUCKING ASSHOLE!

  • ||

    I have no clue while I ever reply to your trolling, but I'm bored.

    Let's say you're African-American. You want to patronize Business A. The owner of Business A is a white supremacist. He hates you.

    Would you rather:

    A. Not knowing he's saying "damn n-----" under his breath while he serves you, patronize his business and give him money, or

    B. Know he's a racist idiot who bans you from his business, at which point you go give your money to someone who deserves it. And Business A goes bankrupt after 6 months because 95% of the town is boycotting him.

    I know which one I'd pick.

  • ||

    especially in this day and age of social networking.

  • Zeb||

    Exactly. Why do you want to give more money to racist business owners, Dan T?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: DanT,

    So Rand Paul thinks that it is okay to ask minorities to help support businesses with their taxes (to pay for police/court protection, roads, infrastructure, etc.) yet be prohibited from being able to patronize them?

    They PAY taxes? News to me . . .

  • Zeb||

    Yes, OM, no one in any minority group pays any taxes. Hilarious.

  • ||

    Man would I be pissed if I were forced to pay taxes to support services and/or institutions that I couldn't patronize. Fortunately that's nothing more than a crazy hypothetical...

  • ||

    If I am below 21 years of age, I cannot enter bars legally, but I pay taxes to "support" them. Is the drinking age legal? I remain unable to patronize the Harvard Club in NYC because I did not attend the university. Should that be illegal? The damn country club next door bars me from playing golf because I don't pay dues. Should that be illegal?

  • ||

    You know what they call business owners who think they can choose their customers?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Bankrupt?

  • Ska||

    Is it crazy for me to point out that corporations pay taxes, and that sole proprietors, s-corp shareholders, LLC members, and partners in partnerships also pay taxes on their business income?

  • ||

    No, it's just crazy to argue with Dan since you won't get anywhere.

  • West Texas Boy||

    Only in the sense that Dan is arguing local taxes are a justification for federal regulation.

    (never mind that it's a non sequitur `argument to begin with)

  • ola||

    "So Rand Paul thinks that it is okay to ask minorities to help support businesses with their taxes (to pay for police/court protection, roads, infrastructure, etc.) yet be prohibited from being able to patronize them?"

    Yes

    Just like the majority would help support businesses with their taxes (to pay for police/court protection, roads, infrastructure, etc.) yet be prohibited from being able to patronize minority businesses. Don't know how long those businesses would stay in business though.

  • Fluffy||

    If infrastructure "support" means that private property isn't private, then your fucking house isn't private either and I am on my way over to take a giant shit on your couch.

    And then I will shoot your dog.

    And clean out your fridge.

  • nobody||

    When did Fluffy join SWAT?

  • AJs||

    Off topic but - This actually happened to me in college. Some dirtball broke in to our house, soiled our couch and made himself lunch out of our fridge including a glass of OJ. My roomate woke up and came out of his room to find the guy standing in the kitchen and chased him out. He was there long enough to completely toss my room and my other roommates room stealing a bunch of our mail and other random stuff.

  • Fluffy||

    That was me.

    I thought it was Dan T.'s house, sorry. My bad.

    I ate Indian food that day too. So I guess I totally wrecked your couch. Sorry, man.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    That would make a great reality show. Every week a different celebrity can go into some random person's house and eat their food, piss on the couch, etc., until the person comes home and Americans everywhere get to see their reaction to walking in on Conan O'Brien or Bette Midler eating their Triscuits and pooping on the floor.

  • Dave||

    And he'll drive over in his government-issue squad car.

  • WTF||

    So Rand Paul thinks that it is okay to ask minorities to help support businesses with their taxes (to pay for police/court protection, roads, infrastructure, etc.) yet be prohibited from being able to patronize them?

    Hmm... yesterday, you concluded that any small group of people should be able to choose the rules they want to follow to govern themselves, and anyone who doesn't like it can move elsewhere.

  • ||

    Sliding goalposts (Sliding goalposts)
    In my whine (in my whine)
    Make me happy (make me happy)
    Make me feel fine (make me feel fine)

    Sliding goalposts (Sliding goalposts)
    Make me warm all over
    With a feeling that I'm gonna
    Troll you till the end of time
  • Michael Ejercito||

    So Rand Paul thinks that it is okay to ask minorities to help support businesses with their taxes (to pay for police/court protection, roads, infrastructure, etc.) yet be prohibited from being able to patronize them?


    Cite him claiming that the government should prohibit businesses from doing business with black people.

  • ||

    They pay for their own police/court protection, roads, infrastructure, etc. The taxes the business owner pays covers his share.

  • bonewah||

    This is one of those things that is better left alone. Just lie about an answer and be done with it.

  • Rich||

    the decisions a private university or restaurant make are in the same category as the decisions a family might make for its own household

    We're getting there. 8-(

  • ||

    Incredibly impressive interview. I wish I could verbally parlay like that.

  • ||

    I understand the principled libertarian opposition to these sorts of laws, but until we gain a lot more freedom than we have now, it's not an argument worth making. When all these stupid ex post facto (sex offender registry) laws are gone, when the 2nd amendment is restored, when DUI laws comport with the Constitution, when eminent domain abuse is gone, when civil asset forfeiture and the drug war are gone, then we can worry about civil rights laws and drivers' licenses.

  • Steve Chaos||

    I agree. Issues like this tend to feel academic in comparison to other very real, very pressing threats to liberty, and ultimately are used to simply marginalize further discussion of libertarian ideas. i.e., "Well they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act - why bother listening to them?"

  • ||

    Good for Paul. I think Leftists have thrown around the term racist for so long that it may finally be losing its meaning. We just elected a black President. We live in a multi racial society with a level of tolerance that was unthinkable in 1964.

    This country was founded on property rights and personal autonomy. We infringed the hell out of both of those with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Maybe we should have. Things were pretty damned awful under Jim Crow and needed to change. But, things are not the same anymore.

    If it is possible that the Civil Rights Act was the right thing to do in 1964, isn't it also possible that things have improved enough in nearly fifty years that we can now go back to respecting personal autonomy and property rights like we did before?

    That is an argument whose time I think may have come or be coming. Liberals always want to make everything about 1964. Well it is not 1964 anymore. These laws need to be justified by today's conditions not by the way things were in 1964.

  • robc||

    Eliminating Jim Crow was the right thing to do, making the same mistake in the opposite direction could be argued against just as easily in 1964 or 2010. There was no reason to do that.

  • ||

    Multiracial society. Yes, I'm multiracial which allows me to discriminate against all races without actually being a racist. That's how you battle racism, just blend all races and then everyone can hate everyone equally, just like me.

  • ||

    The key to ending racism is intermarriage. That is what killed racism among the European immigrants. Hard to hate on Italians when your mother is one of them.

  • alan||

    I don't know about that John. I have a lot of spic, a lot of white, a wee bit of black in me, but my hatreds are pretty much all categorical based on whether or not within a culture dudes of a heterosexual ilk wear dresses or not.

  • Bulworth||

    Everybody just gotta keep fuckin' everybody 'til they're all the same color.

  • ||

    Just discussing this with my wife. If we were looking for a place to eat and saw a restaurant with a sign that said "WHITES ONLY" we would not even stop there. It's creepy. But if the scumbag owner wants to roll that way, go ahead.

  • ||

    There is no where in America you could operate a "whites only" restaurant and stay in business.

  • Curves||

    But you can run a women only business and for some reason that's legal.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'd throw in Idaho or the parts of Montana nowhere near Missoula, as places I'd expect to possibly see such a sign, but yeah, there's no way I'd ever stop in a town that had a business with a "Whites Only" sign.

    True story, driving through the Texas Panhandle, and we're going down the main drag. Look over to the left, and in front of an antique store is a rocking chair with a "Stepin Fetchit" type mannequin sitting in it, holding a watermelon. The mannequin was such an over-the-top caricature, was in such hideous taste, that it left us speechless for the next 15 minutes. I mean, who does that? Who thinks that putting that in front of your business will make people want to stop there?

    But yeah, I feel it's entirely up to the business owner whether they want to discriminate or not. Let 'em go out of business, spectacularly if possible.

  • Alan (other Alan)||

    Those particular places, a "whites only" sign would be pretty redundant anyway, unless they're trying to keep out Injuns, maybe.

    But, there ARE places where such businesses could survive. I even ran across a county in Florida in 1995 where the schools were still segregated (de facto, of course, not by law).

    However, these places are rarities and businesses practicing racial discrimination would not survive in most places where anybody actually lives. It is also no surprise that such places are generally poor, because normal people do not want to give the people there business.

  • alan||

    My bro was up in South Boston about a decade ago, this is a guy who looks like Pablo Escobar and is more ethnic looking than I am. He isn't hassled while eating at a dive there. While he is eating, a couple of young black guys come in, and they are ran off with racial slurs pounded in their faces. I guess bro was just a lot scarier looking (a tourney champ martial artist at the time too, so it was a very good idea to leave him be*) than those kids.

    But hey, I'm sure those bar owners were Democrats in good standing, and not Southerners, so why would the CRA even apply in their case?

    * a bet nobody learned to fight dirtier than Bruce Lee's kid brother.

  • Alan (other Alan)||

    Not all discrimination is the same.

    In the South, racial discrimination was traditionally against blacks, with little to no discrimination against Injuns. From what I hear, in many parts of the Western states racial discrimination is primarily against Injuns, with little to no discrimination against blacks. In one town not too far from me, the local Klan and local blacks held an anti-Mexican rally together a few years ago, but most people around here do not have strong anti-Mexican (or anti-Latino) feelings and frequently prefer Latinos to blacks - although they ARE more likely to ADMIT to disliking Latinos.

    To compound the issue further, many people with prejudiced views may make many exceptions for members of the discriminated group whom they know and respect. Prejudice means pre-judgement, not hatred, and the presumption that group x is mostly troublemakers is not the same as believing that EVERY member of group x is a troublemaker.

    For that matter, it is quite possible that the people in that place in South Boston knew the two young black men who came in, and disliked them SPECIFICALLY - perhaps for a valid reason.

    It is all a confusing mess, and perhaps this is the best reason why government should not be involved with issues of private discrimination. The Civil Rights Act was, of course, completely correct in outlawing GOVERNMENTAL discrimination. THAT was unconscionable.

  • ||

    Bingo.

    Outside of maybe a few insulated towns in the south (or in Boston), a "whites only", "blacks only", or whatever discriminatory business would be dead in the water.

  • ||

    In 1964 you could have. But things have changed. Shouldn't the law change with it?

  • ||

    Absolutely it should change.

    Don't know why you thought I disagreed with you (or with Dr. Paul)

  • ||

    I didn't. I was just agreeing with you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  • Ska||

    I think that was one of those rhetorical questions I've heard about.

  • ||

    And so what if they could? The problem was blacks who owned business didn't get the same power. They HAD to serve whites. If the government had not enforced segregation it would have ended on its own very quickly. A lot of businesses back then weren't any more happy about having to enforce those laws than many businesses are now to have to enforce smoking bans.

  • ||

    Actually, I think whites couldn't go to "blacks only" establishments under Jim Crow.

  • ||

    I've never heard of a "blacks only" establishment. Nor of any whites being arrested for going to one. You'd have to cite that for me.

  • Zeb||

    Jim Crow enforced segregation, meaning separate facilities for blacks and whites. I am not sure if many whites got in trouble for it (beyond civil rights agitators), but by law whites could not use black only facilities any more than blacks could white facilities.

  • Zeb||

    This was all necessary to keep up the bullshit "separate but equal" justification for the laws.

  • alan||

    See reply just above yours. I didn't even see your remark about Boston before making it!

  • ||

    It's all well and good to deplore people discriminating against other people for irrational or even irrelevant reasons, but the problem is that there are a whole lot more bases for discrimination than race, sex, etc. And our regulatory world is beginning to reflect that, which in my mind is a bad thing. Keeping the government from discriminating on just about anything is one thing, though the First Amendment should set some limits on how far it can go, but doing that at the private level is another altogether.

    Taking away and prohibiting government-sanctioned discrimination makes sense. Trying to apply those concepts in the same way to the private sector opens up all sorts of cans of worms, and it creates conflicts with other civil liberties. Why shouldn't Dan T. be allowed to not hire Republicans?

  • ||

    It also requires a lot of effort and resources to enforce. Think of the billions of dollars we spend litigating discrimination cases. Now in 1964, that was money well spent. But is it today? If we got rid of discrimination laws and prohibition laws, how much less clogged would our court systems be? How much easier access to justice would we have for other cases?

    Liberals act like these laws come for free. But they don't.

  • ||

    Why shouldn't Dan T. be allowed to not hire Republicans?

    Because he's not the business owner. How many business owners are the ones saying "would you like fries with that?"

  • ||

    Hey, he could be management, like Senior Fry Team Leader.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Pretty soon, he'll be assistant manager. And that's when the big bucks start rolling in.

  • ||

    Pretty soon, he'll be assistant to the manager.

    Baby steps, BakedP.

  • ||

    Making "Ladies Night" illegal is my favorite example of the foolishness inherent in anti-discrimination laws.

  • ||

    Or making Christian groups accept atheists. Or trying to make the Boy Scouts accept homosexuals. We all have a right to due process. But we also have a right to free association.

  • ||

    You do have a right to free association - it's just when you decide that you are going to operate a business that serves the public you are giving up that right at least in said business.

    You are still allowed to discriminate as to whom you allow into your home or private club.

  • ||

    You are still allowed to discriminate as to whom you allow into your home or private club.

    For now.

  • ||

    Why? Maybe in 1964 the billions of dollars it takes to enforce such a legal prohibition was worth it. Now it is not. Very few business could operate profitably in 2010 while discriminating against there customers.

    You say "we don't have a right" to discriminate if we run a business. You are right to the extent that we don't have the legal right. But there is nothing to say that has to remain the same. That is just question begging.

  • WTF||

    when you decide that you are going to operate a business that serves the public you are giving up that right at least in said business.

    CITE needed.

    You've never seen a sign in a store or restaurant saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

  • ||

    So selling my grandfather's porn on ebay just lost me the right to keep white people out of my house?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Fine, Dan, then my business no longer serves the nebulous "public". It serves my friends, who just happen to be the people who walk through my door.

    Ahh, see, but conveniently for you, you are the one deciding what is "public" and what is not, which just shows your true agenda supporting the State's takeover of all business in the name of equality.

  • x,y||

    I make the same point upthread. I'm not really serving the "public" if I'm saying "only whites allowed." I'm serving a limited class of people.

  • Zeb||

    How can it be said that someone has opened a business that serves the public if they refuse to serve black people? You are presupposing the rule that requires all businesses of a certain type to serve the public.

  • cynical||

    But if you are operating a business that excludes certain sorts of people, then aren't you by definition not serving "the public"?

  • ACLU||

    Not if you accept any largesse from any branch of the government, no matter how indirectly.

  • robc||

    Then cut off the funds. You dont get to change the right to free association.

  • Some Guy||

    Or making Christian groups that get public money/resources accept atheists. Or trying to make the Boy Scouts who get public money/resources accept homosexuals.

    FTFY. They're free to do whatever they want when they get their hands out of my pocket.

  • robc||

    You have it backwards. The freedom of association doesnt come with strings. You should keep their hands out of your pockets. I fully support you doing this regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Then you should not have the freedom to criticize the Government if you take government student loans.

    See how quickly this gets retarded?

  • robc||

    Then you should not have the freedom to criticize the Government if you drive on government roads.

    Tarding it to a new level. Its not like we all dont hear that argument twice a week anyway.

  • ||

    And if you ever bought a product or service from a private company, you can't criticize free enterprise.

  • MNG's Arse||

    I haven't made my leviathan argument about police protection "creating" property rights. But the thread is only about halfway through so there is still time.

    I school you fuckers every time with that one.

  • Alan (other Alan)||

    Or, to mix-and-match, how about forcing the Boy Scouts to accept atheists?

    I support the right of the Boy Scouts to discriminate, but I (an Eagle Scout with nine palms) have ended my association with them because of their discrimination against atheists.

  • ||

    "Rand had until the end of the day to apologize and say whether he is for discrimination by lunch counters or against it."

    Simple statement he could issue:

    "I am sorry that some people may have been offended by this issue, but let me be absolutely clear. I am personally deeply opposed to any institution, public or private, that would discriminate against its patrons on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other similar characteristic. I find such actions abhorrent; I would personally boycott any such institution; and I would actively encourage everyone I know to do likewise.

    If the institution in question is owned or funded by any level of government, federal, state or municipal, then such actions should be abolutely illegal, and I will whole-heartedly support legislation which outlaws such behavior and denies that organization even one penny of government funding. That said, what I will not do is vote to give the government power to interfere with or restrict the freedom of private homeowners, businesses, and institutions. Any questions?"

  • Tony||

    The constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. There is no constitutional right to set up whatever business you want and run in any way you want. Communities have the right to set standards for anyone doing business within their jurisdictions.

  • ||

    So by your standard, communities could reimpose the Jim Crow laws?

  • Tony||

    Not anymore.

  • ||

    Are there any limits to what government can force businesses to do?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Tony doesn't believe government should have limits.

  • ||

    Tony? Are you there?

  • Tony||

    Apparently it can't prevent them from spending unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

  • ||

    But I think you're against that, aren't you? Are there any limits to what government can force a business to do that you favor?

  • Zeb||

    So you are saying that communities don't have the right to set standards for anyone doing business in their jurisdiction. Make up your mind.

  • Tony||

    But the community consisting of the nation has decided to have a standard that forbids segregation. In theory it could change it back. In theory it could rewrite the entire constitution, provided they got enough votes.

  • cynical||

    There's no meaningful basis under which the nation is a community.

  • dave b.||

    Is this dude really this stupid?

  • Jeffersonian||

    You must be new here.

  • dave b.||

    I've been here for years, but it seems that he gets dumber every day. How many times do we have to tell him that the Constitution exists to limit the rights of the government?

  • WTF||

    The problem, though, Tony, is how SCOTUS has so vastly expanded what is considered to be "interstate commerce" and thus subject to Congress's power.

    The CRA of 1964 was actually pretty novel for its use of the interstate commerce clause as the hook for legitimate Congressional power. At first, JFK had wanted to use the equal protection clause, but Bobby advised him against it, knowing there would be problems with the state actor doctrine. Bobby told him to based it on interstate commerce instead. The hook was that "places of public accomodation" (hotels and restaurants) affected interstate commerce, because black people traveling interstate had nowhere they could stop and sleep for the night.

    As has been said upthread, a solution could have been to forbid states from enacting laws either requiring or authorizing such discrimination. There doubtless would have been business owners who would have taken any paying customer they could get.

  • Untermensch||

    Wow, I think a fake Chony just out-Chonied Chony.

  • Untermensch||

    By which I mean that this seems like a parody of Chony's parody. This is all to meta now.

  • LibertyMark||

    Tony, normally it's conservatives who bring up the "there's no right in the Constitution to do x", which is a totally bullshit argument. Usually, conservatives then want to ban whatever behavior they dislike because there's no enumerated "right" to do such behavior in the Constitution. But it's the enumerated POWERS in the Constitution which are important. Have you ever read the 9th and 10th amendments?

    Owning a restaurant is not interstate commerce under any normal, non opportunistic interpretation of that phrase.

    So, the Federal government does not have the power to regulate said restaurant. It has nothing to do with "rights".

  • Me||

    And there it is: "the power to regulate interstate commerce." The catch-all-clause with no defined limits. Interstate commerce occurs even in a wholly intrastate manner (if you want a less explosive example, think growing, cultivating and using marijuana solely within one state. According to Tony's flawed logic, these are now "interstate commerce" and subject to the federal government's power to regulate.)

  • ||

    And according to SCOTUS's flawed logic as well - Gonzales v. Raich.

  • Me||

    SCOTUS was just as wrong as Tony. It's fascinating, however, to watch Tony contort himself with his GO TEAM BLUE idiocy into using the same logic TEAM RED uses to expand federal control into things he doesn't want (gay marriage, drug war). Tony's an imbecile.

  • ||

    Talking about the Constitution granting rights is extremely ignorant, even from the modern perspective. The Constitution enumerates powers that the government has; the provisions dealing with some rights just make it clear what the government can't do, even when empowered to act. Note that the First Amendment, for instance, doesn't say "The People of the United States have the right to Speak Freely."

  • Tony||

    Okay, but the constitution doesn't say congress shall make no law restricting an individuals' absolute sovereignty over his property either. I don't share your view on property rights, and since you tend to base all others on that right, it's interesting that the constitution doesn't mention it.

  • ||

    The Constitution doesn't talk too much about a lot of things--privacy being the one big example (the Fourth only covering one aspect of it)--but certainly property rights were well established in British and Colonial common law well before the Constitution was adopted. Also, of course, the Constitution makes direct and indirect references to property, particularly in the Fifth Amendment:

    . . .nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    The Fourteenth Amendment also makes direct reference to property rights:

    . . .nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Due process doesn't provide absolute protection, of course, but it does show that property rights are recognized and protected. Also, keep in mind that the ability of the state to take property even with due process is limited to the scope of its constitutional powers.

  • ||

    Again, for the nitwits who insist I have to find the Right in The Constitution:

    Amendment 9
    -The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment 10
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  • ||

    There was much discussion during the Ratification process as the original Constitution contained no Bill of rights. Some felt is should be there while others felt, quite rightly so, that since they could not enumerate all of the rights, the ones left out would be subject to the argument "Where does it say in the Constitution that you have that Right?"

    The Ninth amendment was written to cover that situtation.

    Tony, be aware of one important issue.

    THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT, NOT RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE.

  • Tony||

    I GET IT. One of those powers is interstate commerce, btw.

  • ||

    Read contemporary writings from during the Ratification debate to understand this power. At the time, individual States were taxing the products of other States, either during through transit or goods delivered for consumption. Various jurisdictions were taxing as a "protectionist" move or taxing goods offloaded or loaded for further distribution. This power was enacted to prevent individual States from taxing another punitively. It was also understood at the time that there would eventually be landlocked States. In this definition, Missouri is landlocked as the States on either side could claim sovereinty of the Mississippi River as it passed their borders. To allow individual States the authority to tax the products or commerce of another State at will would put the overall economic prosperity of the Nation as a whole in jeopardy.
    Viewed in this context, the "Commerce Clause" has nothing to do with discrimination or many of the uses in has been put to.

    You could better make your argument via the "Necessary and Proper" clause (look it up). You would still be wrong, but you would be much closer.

  • Bill||

    The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Essentially, my stuff is mine, and the government can't take it, investigate it, search it, etc. without due process. Essentially, you can't take away my stuff without first convicting me of a crime.

    Eight prevents excessive punishment by confiscation or other means.

    Nine and ten explicitly state that all other rights belong to the people and the states.

  • Bill||

    Dammit I am much too slow, I should have known all you scholars would nail him faster than I could, and say it so much better, too.

    Guess I just wanted to feel like part of the movement : -)

  • ||

    During the run-up to Ratification, during the discussions of the lack of a Bill of Rights, the argument was also made that since there was no grant of power to restrict free speech, free press, the right to own firearms, etc., that these actions were inherently forbidden. Essentially the would be no need for a Bill of Rights as the Federal Government was not authorized to restrict peoples rights.

    Often on the pages of this blog, there is an advertisement for "The Library of America" book set "The Debate on the Constitution." I highly recommend the two volume set. At times the reading is a little dense, but you will end up with a rounded view of what the thoughts were at the time. I was especially surprised at some of the anti-Ratification arguments. Some were pretty paranoid as to result of forming a Federal Government, but there were also many warnings that what we see happening now was the inevitable result of the Constitution. Eventual almost limitless power of the Federal Government at the expense of the States and individual liberty.

  • ||

    It's a little goofy for Maddow to ask Paul whether it's ok for Woolworths to segregate its lunch counters - per Wikipedia, those lunch counters were volutarily desegregated in 1960 as a result of the sit-ins. Taking Paul at his word, Paul thinks that was a good result.

    With that said, I would find it offensive if a business somewhere posted a "no Mexicans" policy in its window, and would probably support a law to stop them. I guess my libertarianism ends there, for what it's worth.

  • ||

    Why isn't not shopping there a good enough response? Or protesting? Why do we need a law?

  • ||

    Protesting is free speech, so long as it's non-violent and otherwise legal, so it's a lot different than the law.

    Personally, I would support the law because otherwise there might be a market space for businesses that cater to racists, and I guess that's offensive enough to me that my libertarianism ends there. I could put together some stuff about externalities and our history of racism, but ultimately, I guess I just think it's sufficiently immoral that it tests my commitment to liberty.

  • ||

    Do you extend that to speech? And if not, why do you treat speech differently than association?

  • MNG||

    If association means economic transactions, then considering a huge chunk of such transactions occur in the private sphere in the US then association can be differentiated from speech in that you can't eat speech, but you do need to be able to buy food to eat, if you get my drift...

  • ||

    Yes, you do need to eat. And if there is a need someone will open a business to service that need, unless stopped by the government. It's why it doesn't matter if a business is racist, but it's devastating if the government is (see driving while black and cocaine/crack sentencing disparities).

  • ||

    True. And it is perfectly legal today to deny someone entrance to your business because they are a Dallas Cowboy fan. Yet Cowboy fans living in Pittsburgh or Washington seem to do just fine. Just because something is legal doesn't mean people will do it, especially if it is against their economic interests.

    In 1964 you could deny entry of a black person and still stay in business in many areas of the country. Today, you could not do that. So why keep the law? We don't outlaw all discrimination, just discrimination that creates a societal problem. And it appears to me that discrimination of the type that necessitated the Civil Rights act is no longer the issue it once was.

  • MNG||

    "Today, you could not do that."

    And why is that?

  • ||

    Not talking about the law MNG. I am talking about society. If Piggley Wiggley came out tomorrow and said "no blacks allowed" people would react in horror and it would be out of business in a week. It wouldn't matter if it was illegal. They couldn't afford to do it. That is why the law has outlived its usefulness.

    Stop living in the fantasy world where Jackie and JFK are in the Whitehouse and all right thinking people are freedom riders. That world is, thankfully gone.

  • ||

    @John - the only way that a business could racially discriminate and still stay in business is if it (a) discriminated against a sufficiently marginal class (Albigensians, say) so that people either didn't notice or thought it was just a quirk or (b) catered to racists.

    (b) offends me intuitively. I guess I'm open to the idea that the cure is worse than the disease, but my first instinct is that the disease is worse.

  • ||

    But how often would that really happen? In 1964, the cure was much better than the disease. In 2010, the opposite is true.

  • ||

    Again, I can deny Dallas Cowboy fans. That is pretty fucked up to when you think about it. Yet, we don't make that illegal.

  • MNG||

    "Again, I can deny Dallas Cowboy fans. That is pretty fucked up to when you think about it. Yet, we don't make that illegal."

    Well, we also don't have this long murderous history of oppression of Dallas Cowboy fans either...

  • ||

    And maybe at some point, it stops being 1964 and we don't need such laws to protect blacks either. That is the point.

  • MNG||

    The discrimination doesn't have to be obvious like hanging a "no-blacks" sign. It could just be in hiring practices, or certain serving incidents.

  • ||

    It can be subtle? So the law never ends until we reach paradise. Again, if you need a statistician to find the racism, you probably are better off without a law to prevent it. You act like these laws come without costs.

  • MNG||

    A lot of what the law applies to is not what you are talking about but involves a single workplace where someone is fired allegedly because of their race or whatever. You think that shouldn't be illegal?

  • ||

    So you are willing to disavow the disparate impact test?

  • MNG||

    Yes, I think it's a bit tenuous.

  • ||

    I guess I treat commerce different from association and speech, because if I were voting, my intuition support desegregation laws that applied to a bar's choice of patrons or employees, but not to a private club or to the content of speech.

    The next question is why do I make that distinction, and I guess that it's some combination of morality and an intuition about the dangers of racial discrimination in commerce.

    To be fair, I wasn't aware of the intuition before this issue came up and tested it, so I haven't thought it all the way through. I appreciate the opportunity to hash it out.

  • robc||

    commerce?

    A bar is association.

    The whole concept of "public accommodation" is the problem. A bar and a private club are exactly equivalent.

  • robc||

    I appreciate your honesty and attempting to thrash it out...so answer this...Is there a difference between political speech and commercial speech? Does the 1st amendment apply differently to them (Im not talking about what the Supremes ruled, Im talking philosophical concept)?

  • ||

    Rand had until the end of the day to apologize and say whether he is for discrimination by lunch counters or against it.

    If the government owned all the lunch counters, that would make everything better.

    If I owned a lunch counter, people like Maddow and Mika Brphnisvhawizict would grow very, very old waiting for their Soup du Jour.

  • ||

    It is still legal to discriminate on the basis of stupidity.

  • House Dems||

    It is?

  • ||

    I call this principle reality. The free market aggressively punishes people who are too stupid to live. The stupid people generally really hate this.

  • Some Guy||

    You're not gonna be in business long if you don't serve the stupid people.

  • Small business||

    You're damn tootin' about that. They make up such a large majority of the population.

  • smallz||

    "Mika Brphnisvhawizict" Now that's funny.

  • MNG||

    If you have a system in which a huge chunk of the things that impact our lives is placed in the private sector then yes it strikes me that some measures to regulate things like discrimination in that sector are warranted. On the one hand some libertarians seem to want the impact of the public sphere to be nil and then have things like discrimination laws apply only to that nil.

  • ||

    Hold the phone. You're in favor of regulations?

  • ||

    The question is whether the regulation is worth it given the circumstances. Discrimination laws in this country do not come for free. And indeed they were passed in response to a problem. It is just as unjust to deny someone a job because they have blue eyes as it is to do so because they are black. But we didn't make it illegal to deny someone a job based on eye color because that sort of discrimination is not a problem. There are thousands of discrimination law suits. They cost money to defend. They clog up the court systems. They create horrible bad feelings among people. Is that worth it in 2010?

    I would say no. And for evidence of that I would point to the disparate impact test. People supported and passed these laws with the laudable understanding that it was wrong to discriminate against someone on the basis of race. But that almost never happens anymore. So, most cases are argued and decided on the basis of "disparate impact". That means there is no direct evidence of discrimination (because if there was, the plaintiff would not bother making the more difficult disparate impact claim). Instead, there is nothing but a statistical study that says this or that policy disparately impacts a given protected minority.

    If we have gotten to the point that we have to have statisticians in order to find racism, I would say we have solved the problem of racism to such a degree that these laws are no longer necessary.

  • Bill||

    I'm not crazy about "disparate impact" studies, either. They can detect a disparity, but the more important question is causality.

    Example: after the emancipation proclamation and the civil war, many black slaves left the plantations and tried to find jobs. Temporarily, this led to massive unemployment among blacks, many of whom were uneducated and unqualified for many jobs. It also increased unemployment among whites who were displaced by the blacks who did find jobs - but to a much lesser degree due to their superior numbers, education, etc.

    According to a disparate impact study, you could conclude that slavery was better for everybody, but especially blacks.

    DI only reveals a result. It does not identify the cause.

  • ||

    The question is, from a utilitarian point of view, are you accomplishing anything substantive today with anti-discrimination laws, or are the costs and unintended consequences of those laws outweighing the benefits?

  • MNG||

    "But that almost never happens anymore."

    Yeah, but have you ever considered that this is because of the very laws you want to strike down? It's like you're saying "the law really works so well, let's repeal it!"

  • ||

    Wasn't a primary point of the law to speed up the social perception shift regarding race? Isn't there some point in time where you're willing to say "Mission Accomplished"? Certainly that point should come before those very same laws which led to the social shift end up being the laws which perpetuate the antiquated thinking they were trying to subvert.

    I would argue that we're at that point now, and have been for at least the last 10-15 years.

  • ||

    So you are saying that in this day and age people are dying to discriminate but don't because of the law? That is possible but it seems unlikely given society's absolute disdain for open racism.

    Isn't it also possible that the laws have served to change society and people to where today, unlike 1964, people wouldn't discriminate even if they could?

  • MNG||

    And the mood can only swing that one way? With the laws gone what's to stop it from swinging back?

  • ||

    If it ever goes back, we will pass a new law. By the 1960s people had pretty much stopped discriminating against the Irish and Italians. Once it stops it usually doesn't come back, at least not against that group.

  • MNG||

    At what point of harm to minority X are you going to start advocate a new law?

  • ||

    Hard to say. At what point are you going to finally admit that things have changed and that we don't need the same legal regime today that we needed in 1964? Never?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Well, MNG, better pass that law about blue-eyed people just in case...

  • MNG||

    Given this nation's history I'd say it would have to be pretty far. And yes TAO we don't have an equivalent history of discrimination against blue eyed folks.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Who's we, MNG?

    I forgot - collective guilt.

    Anyway, unlike others who are going to kowtow to your disgusting utilitarianism, I am going to say that forcing people to associate with those whom they do not wish to associate is not moral.

  • MNG||

    It doesn't have to be about collective guilt. It's more about realizing that things that have long historical roots are probably going to be more lingering of a problem.

  • ||

    With the laws gone what's to stop it from swinging back?

    Because humanity as a whole is way more connected and integrated than it was 40 years ago, for one thing.

  • MNG||

    That connection and integration stuff sure worked out well in the Balkans!

  • ||

    Let's see why do they kill each other in the Balkans? They kill each other because people value their tribe and their collective rights more than they do their individual rights. And who in this country is responsible for dividing people along racial lines and granting collective rights rather than individual rights? That would be liberals. The Balkans is what we are going to get in this country if we don't walk away from collectivism.

  • MNG||

    Civil rights laws, sans the quotas which I abhore, are COUNTERS to what you are talking about John. People are not allowed to make hiring and such decisions based on their tribes.

  • Zeb||

    But most Americans don't primarily identify with tribes or anything like tribes. And people are allowed to discriminate based on tribe-like things, provided that they aren't race, gender, sexual orientation (in some places). See John's Dallas Cowboys example above.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    If you have a system in which a huge chunk of the things that impact our lives is placed in the private sector then yes it strikes me that some measures to regulate things like discrimination in that sector are warranted.

    You say "placed in the hands of" as if it was placed by a single asshole. The system appeared spontaneously thanks to voluntary trade between individuals, not because God Saw It Was Good On The 6th Day.

  • WTF||

    On the one hand some libertarians seem to want the impact of the public sphere to be nil and then have things like discrimination laws apply only to that nil.

    Hey, it looks like you're finally starting to get it!

  • MNG||

    Private actors rely on public benefits like police that protect their stores, contract enforcement which enforces their contracts, property law which protects them from encroachment, etc., so it strikes me that the public may in turn impinge on them to not engage in something loathesome like certain forms of discrimination.

  • ||

    Sure. But on what grounds may the public legitimately "impinge on them" via the use of the force of the State? The discriminatory circumstances in this country were rather extreme 50+ years ago, and that extremism lended some legitimacy to the "impingement" effort.

    But today?

  • MNG||

    In the ways the private actor relies on the public entity force/coercion is used, why not have it used when the public entity requires something of the private actor? The private actor wants the cake of restraints on the public which protect it and its property but wants to eat it too in that it wants the public not to require anything of it in return.

  • ||

    Not true. The public requires that the private actor fund these services (in your example police protection, contract enforcement, and private property laws). Nothing says that the public must "impinge" further.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Police don't protect their stores. They come after the stores have been robbed, take down information so that the store can file an insurance claim, and then go out and beat up minorities for having small amounts of marijuana.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    +1

  • Fluffy||

    As I said to Dan T. above, every last thing you just said applies to your private residence just as much as it applies to any business.

    Therefore your house is a public accomodation and I am on my way over to take a shit on your couch too.

    It looks like I may have to eat some more Indian food today.

  • MNG||

    fluffy
    The difference is people have to eat. To eat they must work and trade. Most working and trading occurs amongs private business entities. I don't think you need to shit on my couch as bad as you need to eat today.

  • x,y||

    Talk about missing the point. People have to duece as much as they have to eat. The question is where can they do it, and who can prevent them, and why.

  • ||

    Private actors rely on public benefits like police that protect their stores, contract enforcement which enforces their contracts, property law which protects them from encroachment, etc., so it strikes me that the public may in turn impinge on them to not engage in something loathesome like certain forms of discrimination.

    This seems to lead pretty inevitably to the conclusion there is no area of your life that is truly private, and exempt from State control.

    Where do you draw a principled distinction between private and public, MNG?

  • MNG||

    I'd say it has to do with harm to some point RC. Not employing or serving people does harm them, so I can see that intrustion. Not letting people come lay on your couch doesn't really harm them, there the intrusion to liberty overrides any benefit in harm reduction imo.

  • Fluffy||

    Either you have a right to my property or you don't.

    To be "harmed" by not having access to my property, you had to have a right to that access in the first place.

    And if you have a right to the access to the property of others, why does it matter if we're talking about a restaurant or a couch? "Restaurants have food in them, and people have to eat"? Your house has food in it too.

    If I'm being brutally reductivist about this, it's because [as usual] that's the appropriate way to analyze the question.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    So, basically, no principles. Shocking to you, RC, I am sure.

  • MNG||

    It's the commerce distinction pointed to above. We have a system where if you want to eat and live you have to work and buy from private actors. If those private actors don't do business with you it certainly harms you.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Actually, I am not harmed if someone does not do business with me, because someone else will.

    Any BS hypothetical you come up with where no one will do business with me is just that - a load of bullshit.

    And, hey, like I said above, you are "harming" the homeless by refusing to board them for free. Why do you hate the homeless?

    Only you could somehow derive harm from people not doing something. I know you fancy yourself a genius, but for galt's sake get a clue.

  • MNG||

    "I am not harmed if someone does not do business with me, because someone else will."

    But of course in many parts of the nation not too long ago one might have to go very far indeed to get the same service, and that is harming. But a youngsta like you might not have learned about that in school...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Yes, MNG, I know, every day to you is Selma, 1964. We have been over this a thousand times.

    And this "youngsta" doubts very much that you aren't just overstating the problem to fulfill and justify your own agenda. Your kind seems so good at it. Forgive me if I don't come running every time you cry "Wolf" at this point.

  • MNG||

    And for you no day was ever Selma, 1964.

    That stuff happened TAO. It's goofy to focus on it too much and turn a blind eye to the advances made (many liberals guilty of this) but just as goofy to act like it never happened or that stuff would have lingering effects today.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Two wrongs do not make a right. Whether it happened or not is irrelevant. We have a current injustice that is actively harming people and abridging their rights for something they had no part in, and never did. Add to that the practical concerns John has been raising and your stubbornness on this issue becomes very revealing: you like these laws because they give you control over people's livelihoods and beliefs, and that gets you off.

  • Jeffersonian||

    You just make all this shit up as you go along, dontcha?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    WHY DO YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE HOMELESS, MNG??? After all, they are harmed by not having access to your house. Does not a man need shelter?

  • MNG||

    Public accomodations is in my opinion a worthy attemt to answer your concerns TAO. We want to some extent to have people be free to do what they will with their property. We also realize that in an economy where so much relies on private property that people can be harmed if they have their opportunties for trade blocked. So public accomodations tries to "accomodate" that.

    But I know you like bright line rules...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    And I know you loathe bright-lines because it prevents your inner fascist from blooming. Gosh, having clear rules on how people should operate just really gets your goat, doesn't it? Because it stops you from making life ruled by MNG's Potter Stewart "I'll know it when I see it" sentiments and making you and people of your mind the rulers of all.

    And you failed to respond to the fact that, by denying those poor homeless kids your shelter, you are "harming" them.

  • MNG||

    I did respond, in my last post. You just don't have the nuance to see that.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    People are harmed by having their access to shelter blocked, MNG.

    You didn't respond. You evaded. You are making "nuance" and a "distinction" without a difference.

    Your thesis here is that, because people rely on stores and such to eat and work, then some limitations on private property are reasonable. OK.

    My counter is that because there are people out there who do not have shelter, you are actively harming them by denying them your shelter, which is directly analogous to your ridiculous idea that by refusing to trade, shopkeeps are actively harming people by denying them the ability to eat and work.

    Please, in clear and non-evasive terms, "nuance" your way into a meaningful distinction. You can't, because there isn't one.

  • x,y||

    +1, ownage

  • x,y||

    Shit, the +1 is for TAO, not whatever is further upthread.

  • T||

    Not employing or serving people only harms them if there is no other means by which they can be employed or served. Otherwise, this argument implies I have to give a job to any nit who asks for one, because to do otherwise is harming young nit.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Private actors rely on public benefits like police that protect their stores, contract enforcement which enforces their contracts, property law which protects them from encroachment, etc.,"

    Which those private actors already pay for through property taxes, sales taxes etc., court fees to for those availing themselves of the legal system.

    That doesn't give the government a hook to be intefereing in freedom of contract and private property rights.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Private actors citizens rely on public benefits like police that protect their stores homes, contract enforcement which enforces their contracts, property law which protects them from encroachment, etc., so it strikes me that the public may in turn impinge on them to not engage in something loathesome like certain forms of discrimination.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Bad argument there, MNG. EVERYBODY relies on these public "benefits" as the government does not allow competition; that does not give the government permission to make me like you.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It essentially inverts the relationship between the citizen and the state, no? Just because we've set up this organization to protect our property and pave roads, it turns into a Frankenstein's monster that now issues dictates to us.

    It's hard to escape the anarchist conclusion here.

  • cynical||

    Couldn't you use that argument to justify any intrusion you desire? Hey, you benefit from police protection and public roads, so you are obligated to give up freedom of speech and due process. I mean, this isn't anything unique to businesses.

  • ||

    Communities have the right to set standards for anyone doing business within their jurisdictions.

    As long as *you* approve of those standards.

    You're worse than an idiot.

  • ||

    I guess I just think it's sufficiently immoral that it tests my commitment to liberty.

    At least you're honest about it.

  • ||

    I like this new tea party libertarianism. Hopefully Rand the Paultard can help spread the good news - profiling in AZ? Okay with that! Suspension of legal protections for Ayrabs accused of terrorism? Okay with that! Allowing businesses to discriminate against minorities? Okay with that too!

    The Bushie/Bible Beater/Racist old codger routine of hiding behind the "libertarian" disguise b/c they fucked up so badly when their side had the ball isn't going to work forever, and the sooner "libertarians" like Paul can bring the truth of who they really are to the greater public, the sooner the movement can be relegated to the hick south where it belongs. STATES RATS! Yeeeee-haaaaw!

  • ||

    The AZ law is another case of GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION. As is harassment by police of brown people for being possible terrorists. A business not selling you a coke is inconvenient and even insulting. But being beaten and arrested is on a whole different level.

  • ||

    Can't we get a troll who's not suffering from a massive head injury? Is that too much to ask?

  • Zeb||

    You are a fucking idiot. What libertarian have you heard say that government should be allowed to discriminate based on race (as is the case in all of your examples)? It sure as fuck wasn't on here.

  • Zeb||

    I mean, what the fuck? There is no states rights argument here. No one here has objected to the idea that the federal government can prohibit the states from having racist laws or enforced segregation.

    I know it's a troll, but try a little harder. At least read the thread you are trolling.

  • ||

    You know, it could just be that Rand Paul is kind of a racist, or at the very least is appealing to the racist element of Kentucky voters.

  • LibertyMark||

    You know, you can be against the Government forcibly denying the rights of freedom of associate and private property without actually being is support of racism.

    Just like you can be in opposition to the drug war without wanting to drugs everyday.

    Just like you can be in favor of free speech without agreeing with the speaker.

    What is so hard to understand about that?

  • LibertyMark||

    Dang nabit, that is a typo filled POS. Should have used preview.

  • Me||

    Apple Pie:

    Ingredients

    * 1/2 cup sugar
    * 1/2 cup packed brown sugar
    * 3 tablespoons all-purpose flour
    * 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
    * 1/4 teaspoon ground ginger
    * 1/4 teaspoon ground nutmeg
    * 7 cups thinly sliced pared apples
    * 1 tablespoon lemon juice
    * 1 Pastry for double-crust pie (9 inches)
    * 1 tablespoon butter or margarine
    * 1 egg white
    * Additional sugar

    Directions

    1. In a small bowl, combine sugar, flour and spices; set aside. In a large bowl, toss apples with lemon juice. Add sugar mixture; toss well to coat. Line a 9-in. pie pan with half the pastry. Place apple filling into crust; dot with butter. Roll out remaining pastry to fit top of pie. Cut a few slits in top. beat egg white until foamy; brush over pastry. Sprinkle sugar on top. Bake at 375 degrees F for 35 minutes. Increase temperature to 400 degrees F and bake 10-15 minutes more or until golden.

  • ||

    Let me just reiterate. No civil rights act protected my family when we were refused service (twice, once by a white restaurant, and once by a black franchised restaurant) in the 80s.

  • Fluffy||

    To throw MNG a bone, you could argue that we can't allow private discrimination on the basis of race until all the state barriers to entry in business are dismantled.

    Since we don't actually enjoy private property rights or a free market in this country, we might not be able to really argue that it's OK if a private business discriminates because another business will just open up and compete with them. That's just not true.

    If all the private businesses on Martha's Vineyard decided to start excluding blacks, and you wanted to open a restaurant to serve blacks, you wouldn't be able to do so. Land use regulations would stop you cold.

    If hospitals started to discriminate against blacks, and you wanted to open a hospital to compete with them, the Obama health care reform would stop you cold.

    Under those circumstances, virtually every current property holder and business owner is a rent-seeker of one kind or another, whether voluntarily or not. Just by dint of being OPEN, they possess a state-granted privilege that is denied to other property owners who might seek to compete with them. So the question becomes if we're going to allow them to use that state-granted privilege to indulge their desire to shun other citizens based on their race.

  • ||

    But the solution to that is to keep the government from colluding with them. Also, I think your Martha's Vinyard example is a fantasy. Suppose they did. And suppose they were able to keep anyone out via zoning? What do you think that would do to their tourism industry? It would destroy it. People would never go to an openly racist town like that. Maybe some tiny town in Western Kansas could pull it off, but I doubt it. But no way would anywhere of significance get away with it.

  • ||

    Let's be real world and current. I've seen several news reports about blacks in NYC having difficulties with cabs picking them up. However it's difficult for this to be addressed because of the current NYC limits on the cost and number of medallions for cabs. If the medallion rule were not in place, competing services (maybe with black cars) could be opened to address this issue. Instead it's an ongoing issue.

  • ||

    Yea it is an issue. But the discrimination laws are not doing dick to solve it. Further, the fact is that if you are a cabby in NYC, you are more likely to be robbed by a black guy than a white person. So, how do we pass a law to keep people from playing the odds for their own safety?

  • ||

    What needs to be done is to allow FREE TRADE!!!! I don't believe you can legally drive a cab in NYC without a medallion. Drop the medallion requirement and let the market take care of itself. You'd also be likely to get better service and costs (honestly because of the mercantilism of NYC, cabs are almost as fun as dealing with the DMV). More government laws is almost never the right answer.

  • ||

    Agree

  • MNG||

    Look, some people think discrimination in private transactions on certain grounds (usually one's with horrible histories) is as wrong as trespassing on someone's corn field, and we think it's ok to use coercion to stop both. This is really where our differenc lies. Coercion used to protect these private interests you're fine with, coercion used to impinge on them (but in order to protect other private interests) you oppose.

    Someone upthread noted that business' pay taxes for the coercive protections they enjoy. Yes. And discriminated against persons pay taxes too for the coercive protections they enjoy.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Look, some people think discrimination in private transactions on certain grounds (usually one's with horrible histories) is as wrong as trespassing on someone's corn field

    Yes, and some people (i.e., you) are unprincipled retards who, unfortunately, rule society.

  • MNG||

    "Yes, and some people (i.e., you) are unprincipled retards who, unfortunately, rule society."

    Dipping into the ad hominen bucket a little early today aren't you TAO?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Nope - just tired of your crap. I "discriminate" when I refuse to give credit to those who do not pass a creditworthiness test. And, it's my credit, so if I want to deny to Darky McDarkerson because he's dark, well, it's my credit and that's my right. That is the essential meaning of ownership, something you, in all of your bluster and half-baked "liberal utilitarianism" fail to grasp.

  • ||

    Where does that stop? On game day in November, you can't drive through Missouri with a Kansas tag without being harassed. I have a friend who worked for a law firm in Atlanta that only hired UGA grads and wouldn't interview ones from Emory. Should that discrimination be stopped? If the government has the power to stop one unjust act, why don't they have the power to stop all unjust acts? By your logic, the government has the coercive power to basically run any business in America for the sake of justice.

  • MNG||

    John
    I think you look at the ones that might have the most potential harm. See, the historical length of one form suggests it's more likely to be a harm. And we have to balance it with our concern for individual liberty. Maybe discrimination based on school is as odious and harmful as racial discrimination and can be combatted without too much loss on the liberty side of the ledger...If so maybe it should be illegal.

  • ||

    That is just it. You still think it is 1964. You still think every white person is dying to discriminate and only the law is preventing them from re-imposing Jim Crow.

    And I think that is just a fantasy. It is a fantasy that is kept alive by the lawyers and politicians who benefit from it and by the white people who get to feel a sense of superiority over the poor oppressed black man.

  • ||

    And MNG you are making me agree with AO. I really hate you for that.

  • ||

    Your analogy is bad, it's backward. Losing your ability to choose with whom you do business is like losing the choice of who can walk on your land. Free association is what needs to be protected.

    It's not a matter of what I agree with or oppose, it's a question of whether I have the freedom of association. This is a right that the government is supposed to protect, not impinge upon.

  • ||

    If it weren't for the 64' CRA the South wouldn't have progressed, and would've remained segregated. Businesses would have continued to discriminate. Rand resents that, and sticking to his guns on this appeals to his base; the old Yellow Dog Dems who later became the GOP, and are now calling themselves tea party libertarians.

    This is their MO - every generation or so their record of bone dumb fuck ups and outright ignorance gets so heavy that they have to change names, and pitch the same old bullshit under a different banner. Hence the Tea Party Libertarians.

  • ||

    "If it weren't for the 64' CRA the South wouldn't have progressed, and would've remained segregated."

    That is true. And the South did progressed. But you are such an ignorant bum fuck providential, you think the South is the same today as it was then.

    Basically, you want the law to confirm to your prejudice and ignorance. Sorry but the country, and the debate for that matter deserves better than people who have no idea what the world is like outside their prejudices and immediate neighborhood.

  • ||

    provential not providential

  • robc||

    provincial or provençal.

  • ||

    the former. Thanks.

  • robc||

    Your welcome. Im not normally thanked for calling someone a fucktard. Maybe you missed that implication though. :)

    Your spelling really is creative though. Does your browser not underline the misspelled words? Wouldnt help you with names and I ignore it sometimes myself (like on wouldnt, stupid apostrophes [but it helped on apostrophe, which I tried to spell with a 2nd a]), but generally useful.

  • ||

    Why are you calling me names when I was agreeing with you? Maybe I just don't think your name calling is worth paying any attention to?

  • robc||

    I was mocking your correction of spelling with another misspelling.

  • B.P.||

    You're welcome.

  • robc||

    John, you are wrong. It isnt true. Ending the Jim Crow laws was all that was needed. The south would have progressed anyway, there would have been more protests and things would have changed slower, but in a way that made people more accepting of the change and without dumbass backlashes like electing Maddox governor.

  • ||

    Maybe Maybe not. But regardless, Sherman is full of shit who knows nothing about how society today actually is.

  • ||

    I know my "neighborhood" quite well. Forsyth county in GA had a lynching as late as the mid 90's - it's still a Klan stronghold and is right outside Atlanta. To this day GA is handicapped by a hick state legislature that doesn't want to fund mass transit (the neegras ride it!) and does its best to steal stimulus funds so broadband can be extended into cow pastures, lest those devious city folk get it and make use of it.

    There's a few isolated spots in the South that have gotten with the program - largely thanks to transplants - but most of the rural outlying areas are indeed backwards as fuck. Teenage pregnancies, meth, and agro-beggars living on the govt. teet while bitching about big govt. Aside from a few university towns, and large cities like Nashville, Atlanta, and Charlotte - much of the south is still a borderline 3rd world kind of place. This is Rand Paul's base, and if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century so be it.

  • ||

    I used to live in Atlanta. And I have been through both Forsyth Counties. The northern one numerous times on my way to Deloniga and the mountains. And only a fucking moron could think that it is anything like what it was in 1964. And I googled Forsyth County Georgia and Lynching and came up with nothing. Not one news story or mention of it anywhere. So unless you can come up with a link, you are just a lying troll wasting everyone's time.

  • robc||

    This is Rand Paul's base

    Which is why he did better in the cities and suburds than in the rural areas of KY. You are a fucking moron.

  • robc||

    Paul's vote by county, 1st the top 10 most populous counties in KY:

    Overall he got 58.8%

    Jefferson 60.8 (Louisville - you know, the county too cosmo for Paul, also where I live)
    Fayette 64.8
    Kenton 60.9
    Boone 67.2
    Warren 74.3
    Hardin 61.6
    Daviess 61.0
    Campbell 66.3
    Madison 60.3
    Christian 65.1

    Not a single one below his statewide numbers. All those counties have at least 80k people.

    Ten smallest counties, population wise:
    Robertson 64.2
    Owsley 35.7
    Hickman 60.1
    Carlisle 56.6
    Menifee 41.9
    Cumberland 55.0
    Fulton 40.0
    Nicholas 69.0
    Wolfe 51.7
    Lee 39.8

    More of a mixed bag, but clearly the rural areas were Grayson's base, not Paul's.

    I left out the 100 counties between 8k and 80k in population.

  • ||

    And without Atlanta, GA would be another Mississippi or Alabama.

    Why do the "tea party libertarians" almost always come from and appeal to the most backwards parts of their respective states? Even Louisville of all places is too cosmopolitan for Rand Paul! You would think that these people would wake up and look at the squalor and shit that surrounds them, compare it to what an urban or blue community enjoys, and say "hey - maybe we should try this diversity thing! Or this education thing!" Is reveling in thoughts of white racial superiority really that satisfying? Does it make being fat, poor and stupid easier to deal with? Like a gun fetish?

  • ||

    "And without Atlanta, GA would be another Mississippi or Alabama."

    It is a good thing you don't judge people by how they look or where they are from or anything. It case you haven't noticed, and judging from your posts you haven't, most people are not hateful and prejudiced the way you are. Your kind of redneck logic whereby you can judge someone by how they look or where they live went out with Nixon in rest of the country.

  • ||

    Still waiting on the link to the lynching. And no, things that happened in your head or that the voices inside there told you about, don't count.

  • ||

    Yeah, you were right about that. Sorry. No lynching in Forsyth county in the 90's. The black population was run off in the 30s - the county is 99% white today as a result. The lynching thing (in the 90s) is probably an urban myth, perhaps a result of the Klan rallies and civil right protests and counter protests that occurred in the late 80s.

    My only direct brush with the county, and Cumming, is from driving through it on a few occasions and from the bus full of lunatic tea party libertarians who came to protest a local healthcare townhall sponsored and hosted by my congressman last fall. They drove 2 hours to protest someone else's congressional rep. Brilliant!

  • Zeb||

    Please stop conflating tea party and libertarians. You are fucking clueless if you think they are the same in any broad sense.

  • robc||

    I dont expect him to respond to my total owning of him related to KY politics either. Dont expect a link.

  • ||

    Nice bigotry. Please keep it up.

  • B.P.||

    You know nothing of Kentucky or its political and demographic dynamics. Nothing.

  • ORLY?||

    internet progressive rage!
    grrrr, you get 'em you freedom fighter you! you are a hero and superman!

  • ||

    It's not rage - it's just the truth. I live in a part of the country that has a lot of people who are proud of their ignorance. They take more from the govt. than they give, and they accuse the govt. of being too big. They get their panties in a bunch over "states rats!" but when you drill down and look at what they want their state to control, it's almost always something completely retarded like revocation of civil rights laws, bringing guns into the fucking airport, or keeping science out of schools but making sure "God" is there. This is the new face of libertarianism. It's becoming a southern hick movement.

    Luckily Georgia's Rand Paul - Neal Horsley, candidate for governor and #1 states rats! defender - doesn't have the name recognition or institutional support that comes with being an original Paultard, and instead of having to live down opposition to Civil Rights he has to contend with a personal history of fucking mules and watermelons. I did not make this up.

  • ||

    "I live in a part of the country that has a lot of people who are proud of their ignorance"

    Where do you live Berkley? Ann Arbor?

  • ||

    You are so concerned about "ignorance" but you have no problem lying about there being a lynching in Forsyth county in the 1990s. Is ignorance okay as long as it fits the narrative?

  • ||

    Already posted above on the lynching mistake. All of this is moot though. Rand Paul has already had to backpedal like the little bitch he is, so all of you can stop defending his fight against the oppressive Civil Rights Act. It's not there. Too bad, so sad! The funny thing is that that was just day 1. Imagine all of the other weird, kooky shit out there on him! This is going to be great!

  • robc||

    Day 1? This came out before the primary. And he didnt backpedal. Heck, he said the same things in his C-J interview. For example, he said he couldnt get a vote on ending the Dept of Education but he could get a vote on ending No Child Left Behind, so that is what he would try to do.

    He was never going to try to overturn the CRA.

  • ORLY?||

    haha, your lies are getting a bit tough to wade through sherman.

  • Zeb||

    "I live in a part of the country that has a lot of people who are proud of their ignorance. They take more from the govt. than they give, and they accuse the govt. of being too big."

    If these people are as you describe, then they are a bunch of idiot hypocrites, and everyone here will agree.

  • cynical||

    They're only hypocrites if they're trying to make the government larger to be able to take more than they give while complaining about its size.

  • Alan (other Alan)||

    Living in the Charlotte area, and thinking to myself . . .

    Outside the large cities (most notably Charlotte and Raleigh) and university towns (like Chapel Hill), you have a lot of area, a little of which is mildly like you describe - but few people - and the really backwards places still vote Democrat.

  • Jeffersonian||

    That is true.

    No it's not. If businesses universally discriminated in the old south, why was Jim Crow imposed?

  • ||

    I disagree. If some white businesses owners were not FORCED to segregate by Jim Crow laws, the South would have desegregated on its own. Government was the problem, not private businesses.

  • Alan (other Alan)||

    True. In the 1880s and 1890s there were even political alliances between the Klan and black workers.

    Jim Crow was largely imposed in the early 1900s, and restricted the rights of whites as well as blacks (though of course blacks were injured much more by it in most cases).

  • ||

    The question is not whether the south would have desegregated without the Civil Rights Act.

    It is whether the south would have desegregated without just the ban on private discimination.

    With all the public services, the schools, and the military integrated, I don't think it's at all clear that the same prejudices would have persisted. It's also not clear that such an overwhelming majority of businesses would have discriminated that blacks would have been effectively denied these services.

  • ||

    We are not going to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights act any time soon. Interesting debate but reality is it won't happen. But I tell you what we could repeal and would do a lot of good. Lets repeal the "disparate impact test". If you can't show how you were discriminated by this person because of your race, you don't get a case. That would cut out about 90% of the cases brought in federal court. And repealing it would go a long way to showing how unnecessary these laws have become.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    This is their MO - every generation or so their record of bone dumb fuck ups and outright ignorance gets so heavy that they have to change names, and pitch the same old bullshit under a different banner.

    As in socialists --> liberals --> progressives...?

  • smallz||

    just got this in my inbox. what a joke this whole thing has become. seriously.

    POLITICO Breaking News:
    -----------------------------------------------------

    Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul of Kentucky says in a statement: "I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

  • ||

    he should have pointed out that government is the one who created slavery and jim crow laws. no amount of subsequent legislation could make up for that.

  • ||

    +10,000

  • AlmightyJB||

    This whole thing is a freaking non-issue. Did Maddow ask if Paul was planning on introducing legislation to repeal the act? No. It was an in for Maddow to try to beat up a limited government politician. Typical Liberal race baiting. They have to go back and re-argue 50 year old issues to try and get on what they think most americans believe is the "correct" side of an issue.

  • ||

    Give Maddow credit, she did score some big political points. She and her ilk have been painting the Tea Party movement as racist, and she twisted Paul's viewpoint to buttress her position. It was well played. Immoral, but good politics.

  • ||

    I'll also give her credit for letting Paul speak without interruption and being pretty civil to him. A lot of conservatives and libertarians are posting links to this because Paul makes a good case for liberty and less government. Sure this horrifies both of Maddow's regular viewers, but they weren't going to vote for Paul anyway.

  • ||

    So what? Rand Paul campaigns as a libertarian because the GOP sullied itself with bad policy and ineptitude under Bush. If he can be exposed as just another Trent Lott crypto racist he should be. Just like all of the other Tea Party Libertarians, they haven't changed one iota from the party they never left - they still advocate for deficit creating tax cuts w/out spending cuts and risk creating lack of regulation. These are the dumbasses that blew the budget surplus, were asleep at the wheel on 9/11, slept through Katrina, deregulated the hell out of the financial services industry, pushed the HUD into advocating home ownership for all, and told us it was our patriotic duty to go shopping during wartime and generally fucked up everything they came into contact with.

    The more people are shown that it's just the same old GW Bullshit under a different name the better off we all are. The GOP is toxic. Rand Paul is toxic. And any so called libertarian running from their old label is just as toxic. Luckily it's a movement that's demographically doomed.

  • robc||

    hey still advocate for deficit creating tax cuts w/out spending cuts

    You know, other than him saying specifically that he opposes that.

  • ||

    Bullshit - they all talk big on spending cuts, but they never follow through. Rand Paul is more of the same.

    But let's revel in his back pedaling press release - "My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false." Bwa Ha! She played commentary of his from prior interviews before he jumped into it, and the transcript is there for everyone to see.

    This thing is getting so bad his fellow GOP-ers are already taking the "no comment" approach. This guy is getting the Trent Lott treatment, and he just won the fucking primary! This is too good to be true!

  • ORLY?||

    has your deity in chief decided to assassinate any more american citizens?

  • ||

    He's not my diety in chief - just a pol that I support with money and time (during the '08 primary and general - and likely again in 2012) who GETS SHIT DONE. I might not agree with all of it, but for the most part I'm happy with where things are and where they're going. It's a huge improvement over your guy - GW.

    WTF has the libertarian movement produced lately aside from Ron Paul fever, and his spin- off Rand? You people occasionally advocate for an end to the drug war, but look at where this is actually happening? The bluest communities in America. And where have you been when it comes to same sex marriage or any other civil liberties fight? Oh that's right - suggesting that business owners should be free to discriminate. When you happen to be on the good side of an issue (advocating for increased personal liberty) your support amounts to sharing sensational you tube videos. Other than this you side with the GOP, and elect people like Rand Paul to be your torch carriers.

  • ORLY?||

    who thinks he has the power to assassinate american citizens. you always forgot that pretty key ingredient.

  • ||

    Sure, he's always going around stone cold killing American citizens. This is pretty weak sauce. Were you one of the nutters who thought Clinton killed Foster? Is this where this is coming from?

    Seriously, what has libertarianism done for society other than giving maladjusted middle aged white men a venting forum?

  • ORLY?||

  • ||

    Dude..."weak sauce"?! Nice work clone. Way to spend your afternoons ripping on libertarians. Hopefully all the porn windows don't crash at once. Is it cold in mom's basement? I told that bitch to turn the A/C off. Misses Sherman!! MOMM! Where are Sherman's donuts?!!

  • ||

    Seriously, what has libertarianism done for society other than giving maladjusted middle aged white men a venting forum?

    The Libertarians have given us a never-ending source of low comedy. I thank them for the laffs.

  • ||

    Go get 'em, Tiger! That's my sherman. And don't forget to wipe the 'jac off your mouth next time. I had to tell Michelle you got rabies.

  • Zeb||

    Hello, you fucking retard, we are not (by and large) Republicans. We do not like the red/blue game. We actually have principles.

  • Oh no not this again||

    Principles which you have promptly tossed out the window for any republican who fervently attacks unions, the safety net, and, recently, prohibiting discrimination by private bodies.

    How's that freedom of association working out for you, oh that's right, only for employers, how convenient.

  • ||

    The problem with desegregation of private institutions is not in fact the desegregation but the reach it gives government.

    I don't know how many times i have heard that property rights do not exist because of the civil rights act.

    Apparently because the government decided to suspend property rights to end institutionalized racism it is ok for the government to tell you what color you house can be and how close your garage can be to the street. It is fucking bullshit and a ploy by statists to end private property rights and private institutions and has nothing to do with Civil Rights in the least.

  • Tony||

    Property rights have never been absolute. Your neighborhood can democratically decide to impose certain standards on your house. Your city through its government can decide how to zone. And the federal government can regulate commerce that occurs between states. People are allowed to enact rules to play by if you want the privilege of making money in their community (which comes with all the protections of that community like law and contract enforcement).

  • ||

    I totally agree that Rand made himself very clear, that he is anything but racist, and that he is taking a well principled and workable solution to the problem of racism. Rand Paul is a great candidate and should be supported!

  • Brian Defferding||

    If a business is hatefully racist, I won't support it.

    But then again I also enjoy going to a Mexican restaurant that is owned and operated by genuine Mexicans.

    Do you think it should be a crime for that Mexican restaurant in choosing to hire only Mexicans?

    Because this is me, telling anyone else who believes it should be a crime, that that is pretty ridiculous.

    Rand is correct on this one.

  • ||

    No kidding. The whole point of going to a mexican restraunt is ..well...mexican food. White people fuck it up. i.e. Del Taco.

  • Fluffy||

    One thing that I have to say about today:

    I give John a TON OF SHIT. A ton. I've called him every name in the book. And I've done that because of our differences over war and terror policy.

    But every time I actually get a look at progressives, I realize how much more I hate them than I could ever hate even the neocons.

    They're all like, "Hey, maybe we could work together on civil liberties issues and stuff" but the second you turn your back on them, it's "All libertarians are TEH RACIST! RACIST RACIST RACIST!"

    And you know what? Fuck them. I don't want to work with them on civil liberties any more. If that's what it takes, fuck it. And fuck them. Let it burn. If sitting the whole shitworks out lets the neocons come back, great. Since I'm "TEH RACIST" I guess I shouldn't care what happens to a bunch of Arabs. Right?

  • Tony||

    It's not that you're racist, it's just that your laissez-faire attitude toward government would result in minorities being poorer and more excluded than they already are.

    And don't try to argue different. It's not about results, right? It's about what's true and just and fair and let the chips fall where they may. If minorities are statistically way more likely to fail then it must be just a huge coincidence.

  • ORLY?||

    It's not that you want them to live in poverty, its just that your attitude toward government has resulted in minorities being poor and excluded.

    and don't try to argue different.

    ugh, reason you and your sockpuppets and trolls. you kill me. i know i shouldn't but they are just so juicy, sweet, and tempting.

  • ||

    It's not that you're racist, it's just that your laissez-faire attitude toward government would result in minorities being poorer and more excluded than they already are.

    Detroit tells a different story. In fact it is no secret many minorities have moved out of Detroit to laissez-faire cities like Atlanta and Huston.

  • Fluffy||

    It's not that you're racist

    Tony, the entire point is that the entire liberal movement today is with one voice screaming that it is that we're racist. That's why I'm all done.

    Frankly, if what was being said was "laissez-faire hurts minorities because of 'X'" that would be one thing. But that's not what is being said. What is being said, universally, is "Libertarians say this because they're racist! RACIST RACIST RACIST!"

    Fine. Just don't ever expect me to assist progressives on any other issue then. Ever. 'Cause I'm a bad, bad racist libertarian. I'm out.

  • Tony||

    Who is calling you a racist? I don't know who's more hypersensitive, liberals with regard to perceived racism or libertarians with regard to accusations of racism. Chill out.

  • ||

    yeah, tony...rachel maddow wasn't inferring racism for 20 straight minutes last night.

  • Tony||

    No she wasn't. She was trying to get Paul to answer a couple simple yes or no questions with regard to the CRA. Which he couldn't do because your silly little dogma doesn't stand up to the simplest of reality checks.

  • ||

    First, it's not my dogma. I'm not libertarian per se. I simply think progressives like you and Maddow are THE problem.

    Second, Paul did answer the questions. He gave you the nuanced answer that progresso-liberal nutjobs claim to love.

    The simple reality is if a racist doesn't want to serve people of color in the 21st century he'll lose my business, he'll get a facebook page telling people to boycott his business, and market forces will dispatch of him in a way that is more reasonable than government influence.

    Maddow wasn't simply asking questions. Suddenly she gives a damn about the civil rights act of 1965?!? Gimme a break...

  • Tony||

    The whole CRA kerfuffle was about getting Paul to take his libertarian beliefs to their logical conclusion, and thus exposing how absurd they are.

  • Fluffy||

    Read Yglesias today, Kos, Salon, Atrios, the comments section at any newspaper article about this, etcetera etcetera etcetera etcetera

  • ||

    Fluffy - don't be so sad! It's not like your "tea party libertarian" friends were ever going to work towards expanded civil liberties for gays, racial minorities, or pot smokers so why do you care? They only care about the civil liberties of that most oppressed of groups - the poor, widdle white man and the business owner. He's so oppressed! If you're white, and a dude, and straight - and you feel oppressed or short changed because of those things, you need to seek help. You're probably an extremely inadequate white guy with a serious inferiority complex. Therapy, drugs, and learning to love yourself will help you to loosen up and ditch the anger, fear and paranoia.

    But it will be sad if the left loses the amazing, awesome help that "libertarians" have brought to the struggle for increased personal freedom. Where would the left be without the groundbreaking work of Goldwater? Or Ron Paul? Or Bob Barr? Or the amazing philosophical contributions of Ayn Rand? Am I leaving anyone out? Any libertarian "heavyweights" out there that I'm missing? Seriously - how has the libertarian movement ever made a serious contribution to expanding personal freedom and improving the quality of life? Libertarianism is nothing more than a hiding place for closet conservatives and right wing hacks too embarrassed by their Bible beating fellow travelers in the GOP. It's a joke.

  • ORLY?||

    dude, are you a senior in high school or a freshman in college?

  • ||

    Dude, are you an underemployed 40 yr old or an unemployed 50 yr old? This is where the "cool and hip" conservatives come to chat in between marathon masturbation sessions right?

  • ORLY?||

    senior in high school it is.

    Seriously - how has the libertarian movement ever made a serious contribution to expanding personal freedom and improving the quality of life?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Overview

    you could start there.

  • ||

    A fucking Wiki entry on a philosophical movement? That's what you bring? Really, is this all you have? No legislation that improves lives, no political victories? Mental masturbation has its benefits I'm sure - but surely you can point to just one real world point of success, no?

  • ORLY?||

    LOL

    you win. i give. uncle uncle uncle.

  • ||

    Sherman....no teeth, dammit.

    What's that? I don't care about your hair. I'll shoot it wherever I want progresso-bitch! YOU do what I say!! Now give it a nice glazed shine...

    That's it...nice n' easy....

  • Chris||

    Wow, is this a new troll? Because he is so much angrier than our normal liberal trolls.

  • ORLY?||

    the anger makes it more fun to poke him.

  • ||

    WHO ARE YOU CALLING ANGRY YOU LIBERTARIAN AYN RANDIAN?!?!?!

    I'm off my meds and I just found out I've been screwing my biological mother for the past 4 months, gimme a break.

    I HATE LIBERTARIANS..THAT'S WHY I SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON HERE RAGGING ON YOU GUYS

  • AlmightyJB||

    We've all been screwing your biological mother for years.

  • Fluffy||

    Since libertarians are unimportant, you shouldn't be upset when we go back to the neocons.

    So everybody's happy then.

    And for the record, despite my affection for Rand I'm an altruistic libertarian in that I really don't care about the impact of the totalizing state on me, personally - I'm in this entirely for other people.

    Precisely because I'm white, thin, affluent, and highly verbal, I have absolutely no problem negotiating bureaucratic systems. They favor me, in fact. So regulations aren't hurting me - they've probably actually increased my lifetime income, by holding down people who aren't as adept at me at skating through them. And no cop is ever going to give me a hard time. I could stand in the middle of Manhattan smoking crack and the police would walk up and ask me if I wanted a fucking motorcycle escort back to my hotel. And the US military machine is never going to bomb my house. I'm never going to be sent to Guantanamo. I don't even have to worry about racial quotas and whatnot, because I just always score too fucking high for that to matter to me, either - white guys on the margin might have to worry about that shit, but not me. So it's not about me being "oppressed" - my papers are always in order, and I look the right way, and so I can do whatever I fucking want. I would happily accept no change in the governance applied to me - tax rates, regulatory requirements, etc. - if I could change it for the people in this country who aren't as fortunate as me.

    Seriously - how has the libertarian movement ever made a serious contribution to expanding personal freedom and improving the quality of life?

    Well, I would argue that the abolitionist movement was a libertarian movement, as were the Suffragettes. Since 1932, modern libertarians have tried to slow the decent of the country into statist serfdom, with only modest success. But what has the modern liberal movement done to improve quality of life? I doubt we'll agree on what constitutes an improvement.

    Although I would say that the defection of libertarian leaners from the GOP was one of the things that brought the Bushite conservative movement crashing down. And that can always turn back around, you know.

  • Tony||

    if I could change it for the people in this country who aren't as fortunate as me.

    Ha! This post is awesome. Libertarianism is unequivocally the ideology of white privilege--its economic tenets favor the status quo in the distribution of power in the private sector. Its believers are almost universally white. Yet you are a libertarian out of altruism for all those people who--apparently--are too stupid to come to libertarianism on their own even though it's supposedly in their own best interest.

  • ORLY?||

    the know what is best for others too stupid to know their interest is so ingrained and associated with your bullshit worldview that is part of pop culture:

    http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.co.....or-people/

  • Tony||

    But all the minorities are in my party.

  • ORLY?||

    um, no.

  • ||

    The hell we are. And we're leaving in droves, by the by because we're sick of pompous bastards like you who think you can bank on our blind support. Sorry, bud. Those days are over. Your ideology blows.

  • ||

    I'm not white. These REASON dudes make a whole helluva lot more sense than you do, honestly.

    How is it the ideology of white privelege? It benefits anyone who is willing to work hard and wants to government to have less influence so that anyone (black, green, red) can keep more of their property. Sounds fine to me. If you're willing to work for it, you can do whatever you want.

    My dad was an immigrant who barely spoke the language and had little money to his name. He worked his tale off. He didn't get handouts or any type of assistance. One generation later he has two kids who are doctors and one who is a banker. That man and his wife couldn't have got that in their country of origin (which is steeped in progressive statism).

    That story isn't unique.

    As for your contentions, the economic tenets of classical liberal though favor anyone who is willing to work for it. It doesn't benefit those who wish to rely on the state.

  • Fluffy||

    Dude, during the French Revolution the peasants in Brittany fought as hard as they could for their lords and their bishops.

    The Germans and Japanese fought like hell against their own liberation.

    It is very, very common for people to have extreme attachments to social and governmental institutions that are against their interests or against justice. In fact, it's almost the natural state of affairs.

    And if after the last 24 months you still think that it's libertarianism that favors the status quo in the distribution of power in the private sector, you're insane. What libertarian was it that used taxpayer money to pay off AIG's bad bets against Goldman again?

    Actually, the traditional liberal argument against libertarian economics is that it's too disruptive - with too many wild booms and horrific busts, and with no breathing space left for the construction of stable communities. The economic history of the United States from 1750 to 1932 does not support the contention that laissez-faire supports the status quo, since the composition of the upper class turned over several times in that period. Look at the European stereotypes about the uncivilized nature of the American upper class during that period to see what I mean.

  • Tony||

    Still not buying it. MAYBE if you started civilization from scratch and no group had an inherited advantage would a libertarian economy be a fair system (you'd still have the problem of booms and busts though). But we can't start from scratch, and I'm not interested in academic mental masturbation.

    True, liberals haven't achieved a perfect society, but they haven't exactly been in charge in a while. In fact, the economy has been bludgeoned by libertarian beliefs (deregulation, unions decimated, employers empowered) for the better part of 30 years with nothing to show for it but vast wealth inequality.

  • Oh no not this again||

    +1

    And now comes the silence.

  • cynical||

    The economy has been bludgeoned by a corrupt/inept political class that is distant from and largely unaccountable to the American living outside of the beltway. The answer isn't handing more power to the government to bring down the oligarchs (something it isn't terribly inclined to do to begin with), but handing more power to the people to control the government. It might still result in ridiculous policy, but at least then we can blame America's downfall on America's citizens, rather than its elites.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    *yawn*

    Did Tony say something?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    True, liberals haven't achieved a perfect society, but they haven't exactly been in charge in a while. In fact, the economy has been bludgeoned by libertarian beliefs (deregulation, unions decimated, employers empowered) for the better part of 30 years with nothing to show for it but vast wealth inequality.


    Inequality is the natural state of things.

  • Tony, simplified||

    Libertarians are greedy, capitalist racist scumbags.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Ha! This post is awesome. Libertarianism is unequivocally the ideology of white privilege--its economic tenets favor the status quo in the distribution of power in the private sector. Its believers are almost universally white. Yet you are a libertarian out of altruism for all those people who--apparently--are too stupid to come to libertarianism on their own even though it's supposedly in their own best interest.


    What is your problem with ethnic privilege?

    Ethnic privilege has been around for thousands of years and only in the 20th century was it ever questioned.

  • Zeb||

    A+, Fluffy

  • PicassoIII||

    From another 40ish, white, educated, gainfully employed, urban libertarian male.
    Fuck off! And what Fluffy said @ 2:56.

  • ||

    if it's all or nothing between neocons and progressives...i agree...

    wars can be ended.

    progressivism is herpes.

  • ||

    Personally I think the Jim Crow laws themselves were unconstitutional restrictions of economic liberty in light of the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th. But there's no way the powers that be would have accepted striking down Slaughterhouse as a means of bringing about desegregation; that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater from their POV. Of course, from my POV that baby is the antichrist and deserves to be flushed, but I'm not the powers that be or were or ever shall be world without end Amen.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    0
  • STEVE SMITH||

    0
  • Contemplationist||

    Sure, if the results of ending private anti-discrimination statutes was shown to be that bad, you'd have a good case that libertarians are head-in-the-clouds utopians. However, you may want to check all manner of Black achievement statistics pre and post civil rights act, such as number born to single parents, unemployment, educational attainment, etc.

    And then, get back to us.

    Second, a lot of "private discrimination" in the South was states and localities forcing private businesses to discriminate.

    So here you have the classic case of

    1) Government restricting liberties of one group.
    2) Instead of removing liberty restrictions, they restrict private property rights which weren't shown to be problematic anyway.

    Third, check out David Beato's research on classical liberal/conservative activism on civil rights. Check out Frederick Douglass' classical liberalism

    Find out how many times, businesses were eager to hire Black employees, but racist unions colluded with racist legislators to enforce minimum wages to force them out of the labor market.

    okay, after all that. I hope you can see, that you may turn out to be correct that private property will turn out badly for minorities, but you may understand our skepticism EVEN from a utilitarian point of view.

  • ||

    Scandal: Rachel Maddow wants to repeal the entire first amendment! Doesn't believe in right to peaceful assembly!

    I think Paul could of handled this better by reinforcing what the Constitution says about peaceful assembly and free speech. While racism is a nasty thing to experience and talk about, private property rights and the U.S. Constitution give people the right to be racist and the right to peaceful assembly.

    If Rand took the same type of political argumentation that he was facing from Maddow, and said to Maddow that her position was inconsistent with the first amendment. He should have drawn the parallel to those who are now saying that he wants to Repeal the Civil Rights Act.

    Rand should take the argument to the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, even for intolerable and hateful views, every time this subject comes up again in the future. Rand should say he will not seek to repeal the First Amendment, like some (Rachel Maddow) thinks he should.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Since the current civil rights regime consists of selling most black kids into failing schools, from which they drop out or graduate as illiterates, in exchange for educrat union votes, it is about time someone demands we have a conversation about scrapping civil rights legislation as it exists and starting over. This time without violating the freedom of association.

  • ||

    So regulations aren't hurting me - they've probably actually increased my lifetime income, by holding down people who aren't as adept at me at skating through them.

    Hell, Fluffy @ 2:56, I'm a libertarian, and I owe my lifetime income to the regulatory state.

    And I second everything you say. The entire progressive agenda is nothing more or less than the extension of the Total State into every aspect of our lives. Their opposition to war (as we have seen in the past two years) is purely strategic partisanship. There can be no partial or temporary alliance of convenience with them. They are anathema to freedom.

  • ||

    Rand's views aren't what fueled his blowout win in the primary. It is his refreshing honesty that won over the Tea Partiers. Yesterday's answer is just an example of that honesty and today the Tea Partiers have an even bigger hard on for him. I can't wait to see Senator Paul taking the oath.

  • Sudden||

    "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

    Ironically, in NAACP v. Alabama, the court determined this provision of the First Amendment to carry with it an explicit right towards freedom of association. The corrallary freedom of disassociation logically follows (albeit without similar SCOTUS precedent, only a Rehnquist dissenting opinion IIRC) because if one can choose who they wish to associate with, they must therefore by empowered with the same freedom to choose whom they wish not to associate with. Its really fucking simple, which is why precious few ordinary Americans seem to understand it.

  • Oh no not this again||

    Let's review shall we,

    The battles this magazine has fought over the last two years.

    1.)The financial crisis is all in your head.

    2.)Phil Gramm may be an insensitive ass, but does he have a point?

    3.)FDR prolonged the great depression.

    4.)Unions and deadbeats are the cause of the financial crisis, and Bill Clinton ( to be fair that was a commentor, but fuck it.)

    5.)Mark Stanford is the next great libertarian hope.

    6.)Paul Ryan ditto

    7.)Now Rand Paul ditto (see a fucking pattern here?)

    8.)Repeal of the civil rights act

    There was more, but it's obvious just by scanning the comment section, this place has really gone down hill. There are more Lone Wackos now than before Obama was elected. What does that tell you?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Hey, where did you cut'n'paste this from, originally?

    Because it was retarded from the get-go.

  • ||

    I love all these comments from people who have never experienced the effects of racism in their lives. It is easy to be a libertarian purist when no one made you feel like an outsider in your own country (I don't mean your immigrant ancestors; I was treated this way). My family has fought in every war since the American Revolution; yet, you sit here and justify why I should be okay with not being able to use the same restrooms, gas stations, and hotels as others because of the color of my skin.

    I guess it is okay because it would never happen to you. But, most of you will never understand how arguments like this truly burn the souls of most African Americans. It is not to be justified. On this, you do not negoitiate.

    I am from the Deep South. Businesses did not only discriminate because the government told them to do so; you fail to understand this. The government was enforcing the will of private citizens. Otherwise, why did private citizens just not accept the change in law happily?

  • cynical||

    "My family has fought in every war since the American Revolution; yet, you sit here and justify why I should be okay with not being able to use the same restrooms, gas stations, and hotels as others because of the color of my skin."

    No one's suggesting you be okay with it. In fact, everyone supporting Paul is suggesting enough people would not be okay with it that segregated businesses could never exist outside the fringes of society. We don't ask that you "be ok" when someone uses a racial slur either, but if you demanded that they be imprisoned for it, you would be guilty of the greater evil.

  • ||

    You're painting with pretty broad strokes. I don't know how you are aware of what anyone else on this site has experienced.

    Being refused service or treated with little or no respect is insulting and demeaning. But there is no right to not being offended in this country. Using force to require someone to trade with you is far worse. It wasn't businesses that were restricting the right to vote or refusing to provide equal protection. If those had been granted, the business issues would have resolved themselves quickly.

  • ||

    Yeah, we're all rich white Protestants. We don't look out for anyone else but our own kind. Exactly, you got us.

    Oh wait, I'm Jewish. Darn, guess I can't be a libertarian since I belong to a minority group that has been affected by bigotry. Guess I should just throw out all that stuff about individual rights and become a commie like my stereotype says I should be.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Businesses did not only discriminate because the government told them to do so; you fail to understand this.


    Some businesses did discriminate because the government told them to.

    The government was enforcing the will of private citizens


    And the government was enforcing the will of private citizens when it passed civil rights legislation?

  • Oh no look who is being naive||

    The left believes itself to be in possession of a magic wand that whenever they are in trouble all they have to do is wave at everyone else who is not TEAM BLUE that causes them to be on the defensive on matters of race. Witness this and the Black Caucus march stunt, Felipe Calderon less than twenty four hours ago and on so many, many, many, many other occasions.

    That shtick is so played gentlemen. What Paul said, which is a correction of categorical errors you have intentionally muddled over the past two generations will be seen as refreshing to most people especially the suburban middle whom you mistakenly believe you have eating out of the palm of your hand.

    You are so done. You will go at Rand Paul with such vehemence even those inclined to say a 'pox on both houses' will support TEAM RED at the elections.

    One last thing, that last bit was just some friendly advice, but I know you too well. You wont see it that way.

    'OH YEAH LIBERTARIANTARD, WE ARE GONNA NAIL HIS ASS TO THE WALL LIKE TAILGUNNER JOE DID TO THE REDS!!!! YOU'LL SEE. WE ARE GONNA WIN! WIN! WIN!'

    Well, yeah. Do what you gotta do. The Democrats in the 80's did so miserably the New Republic had a quadrennial Recriminations Issue. That is a bit of history I'm looking forward to seeing repeated though I would be shocked if the left of today is capable of any kind of introspection.

  • Cunty McShitballs||

    When Cunty McShitballs builds a "shitass pet fuckers" across from your starbucks, and he gets a government subsidy, and your starbucks gets a government subsidy and bans negroes, and the shitasspetfuckers bans negroes, what should a person do? Not drink coffee or not get their pets fucked, and buy million dollar cans of puppie chow? ...All because some people are the victims of racial prejudice? (Google Louis CK if you're lost now...)

    I don't think Americans have the gumption to withstand that kind of temptation. Million dollar doggie chow. MMMmmmmm. Mocha brepta vechiacco double venti supreeem. MMMMmmmm.

    Wally world tells petitioners to "shut the fuck up, or get off their property", and Rand Paul is not out there with a sign that says "boycott fascist Wally World". He also sometimes fails to see that Rachel Maddow can make the smartest bureuacrats and the dumbest libertarians pine for a responsive response.

    Seriously. Investigate some anarcho Marc Stevens, and you'll quickly deduce that legally, Rand Paul's response was a "nonresponsive response".

    I agree whole heartedly that he should have either said "YES" or "NO" and THEN continued with the "Whys and Wherefores".

    After all, Marc Stevens would have given up on him after the first "Yes" or "No" answer was failed.

    It's philosophy 101. Socratic questioning. Maddow was on the hunt for a white whale, and she was just doing what Rand, and every libertarian should have expected her to do: Allow him the chance to seize failure from the jaws of success.

    Few Libertarians can speak to negroes on issues that matter to anyone (much less negroes). Why? Because they are repurposed relics of the racist rectal raunch regurgitating retard Reagan romantic Randite Republican Party.

    Ron Paul is one of the few who figured out jury nullification of law when he was young and rebellious. He still flings truth every now and then. But it has been a long time since he hosted a show on jury nullification.

    He should do it again, and run on that issue, and make it #1 again.

    Nullification is #1. Just phrase it more intelligently, and give us some history. Do the Thom Woods shake, rattle, and roll. Because that's what they're singing in the ghettoes and on the subway platforms.

    Peace. Rand, give 'em responsive responses, and then tell em why "shitass petfuckers" will go out of business anyway...

  • Cunty McShitballs||

    http://www.thomasewoods.com/bl.....omment-746

    ---That's how it's done, damnit! "Thom Woods rehab for Rand" in da house. Studyup, boy, Woods is gonna run for Veep, then President.

    America needs Thom Woods. Seeya at the Convention Thom. We need to have a heart-to-heart about putting your smiling face on a ballot. Somewhere, somehow, we want to see if an intellectual can getellected. There's almost a symmetry there, and it's "almost beautiful".

    Rand, seriously. Spend 100 hours on the Chicago El, talking to people about the Jon Burge tortures. Have it shape your view of reality. Soon, you will crawl out of the other end of the political rabbit hole, and you will be like Neo at the end of the Matrix, blocking all the smiths with one arm.

    Individual Freedom, Peace.

  • Dave||

    This whole Rand Paul Civil rights act thing does highlights a problem I, and maybe others, have with modern "Libertarianism", namely; that to some it is just a haven for their racism, a way to lauder their philosophy intellectually, and an way to attempt to transform their racism into public policy.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement