Politics

Rand Paul, Property Rights, and Racism

|

As Matt Welch noted earlier, Republican senatorial hopeful Rand Paul is taking heat for criticizing those sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination by private businesses. As Paul's interview last night with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow indicates, many on the left see Paul's libertarian position on this issue as a tacit endorsement of racism (or worse). As Maddow put it, "unless it's illegal, there's nothing to stop that—there's nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Of course, Paul was pretty clear that he supports the federal desegregation of public schools and the federal enforcement of voting rights, as well as most of the other provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so it's unlikely we'll see any wholesale re-segregating if his "world view" ever reaches the commanding heights. Maddow can rest easy.

But this controversy does raise the very important topic of the government's central role in American racism. First and foremost, Jim Crow was a legal regime, one that relied on state and local laws to restrict the political, social, and economic liberty of African Americans. Those laws interfered with the right to vote, to acquire property, to contract, to travel, to associate, to marry, and to keep and bear arms. Under the 14th Amendment, state and local governments are forbidden from violating such rights. Yet as we all know, the courts only selectively enforced the 14th Amendment during the Jim Crow era. Indeed, the Supreme Court has yet to enforce the 14th Amendment when it comes to gun rights. But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

It's also important to acknowledge that economic rights are not in some inherent conflict with civil rights. In fact, we have significant historical evidence showing that legally enforced property rights (and other forms of economic liberty) actually undermined the Jim Crow regime. Most famously, the NAACP won its first Supreme Court victory in 1917 by arguing that a residential segregation law was a racist interference with property rights under the 14th Amendment.

Finally, keep in mind that Plessy v. Ferguson, the notorious 1896 Supreme Court decision that enshrined "separate but equal" into law and become a symbol of the Jim Crow era, dealt with a Louisiana law that forbid railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to blacks. That's not a market failure, it's a racist government assault on economic liberty.

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.

381 responses to “Rand Paul, Property Rights, and Racism

  1. Where’s Muhammad???

    1. Can you imagine that line of books?

      “The infidel Waldo has been replaced by The Prophet Mohammad. But, bwahahahaha! Since you cannot display his likeness, you’ll be looking forever! Shhhh…don’t tell the American pig-dogs. It’s our little joke.”

  2. Many Americans seem to believe there is no such thing as “private” property. The government owns everything, and merely condescends to allow us to use some of it.

    1. Belief, or, Rational Interpretation of Property Taxes?

      1. The latter.

    2. Many Americans seem to believe there is no such thing as “private” property. The government owns everything, and merely condescends to allow us to use some of it.

      Didn’t the SCOTUS essentially endorse that idea in the Kelo ruling?

    3. Many more Americans fail to be so deluded, as dogmatic libertarians are, as to believe that there is no continuum between public and private space in the real world.

      When the commonwealth creates a downtown shopping district, it is clear that any retail business in that district is on the public teat — taking advantage of the public’s investment in myriad ways. It is perfectly reasonable for the public to impose rules on that space — including a rule that says a retail business may not discriminate against members of the community for arbitrary reasons. It’s called a “deal.”

      When someone like Rand Paul comes into widespread public awareness, people are gobsmacked when he is so committed to a fantasy-world theoretical idea that he can’t acknowledge, even to himself, the real-world implications of that idea.

      The insular nature of libertarianism, where the deluded encourage the deluded until all the converted believe they are normal, places hard limits on its potential popularity. It’s the same with Scientology — it can grow to a certain extent, but it shrinks back as soon as people realize how untethered from reality it is.

      1. When someone like Rand Paul comes into widespread public awareness, people are gobsmacked when he is so committed to a fantasy-world theoretical idea that he can’t acknowledge, even to himself, the real-world implications of that idea.

        So without the Civil Rights Act, black people will open up restaurants and laundromats and put up “Blacks Only” signs?

        1. actually, they wouldn’t, because the private banks would refuse to loan money to help them open their small businesses because they’re black. hey, private property and all.

          1. actually, they wouldn’t, because the private banks would refuse to loan money to help them open their small businesses because they’re black. hey, private property and all.

            All private banks, including those owned by black people?

            1. Now we’re just getting ridiculously out of touch with reality. Where were all of those black banks? They weren’t just going to appear in a vacuum — capitalism doesn’t work without the capital part, and that’s not easy to come by in the face of institutionalized discrimination. You can’t snap your fingers and say “Poof! Go free market, go!” and expect it to work instantly. There’s this idealistic assumption of a level playing field that we really just need to do away with altogether, because it’s disingenuous as hell.

          2. Why would any sane business refuse to do business to with somebody this day and age based on color? Economic forces are stronger than racial forces. Why would you sacrifice making more money just to not do business to black people? If this were the case (which would be highly unlikely), someone realizing this would cash in on it and start making loans to black people, which the other place would probably struggle to stay in business.

            1. An issue to take in a few common libertarian ‘conclusions,’ that are reached is that they seem to forget the axiomatic importance of ‘rights.’

              By this I refer to the insistence of natural, ‘inalienable’ rights, and from this, they derive limits on those rights based upon how they come into conflict with the rights of another.

              Oftentimes, libertarians give heavy focus to the individual’s sphere of freedom, but never the sphere of influence. More on this later…

              The further away, in terms of actual owned property, we get from one’s own body, the less damaging abridgment of one’s property rights is to the person.

              For example, if I slashed the tires to your car, the injurious effects to you are nowhere near the same as if I slashed your wrist.

              The average libertarian wants to equivocate these two damages, when it is obvious that they are not equivalent.

              Now, we focus on the pertinent issue of private business discrimination. It is necessary now to talk about one’s sphere of influence and one’s sphere of ‘freedom,’ defined of course as the available actions one could take. The act of you sitting at your house carries with it a small sphere of influence, and consequently, the sphere of freedom is larger.

              In private business, one’s sphere of influence is much larger—business decisions of a certain type can directly have the effect of diminishing the rights of other citizens—and consequently, one’s sphere of freedom must be limited.

              Discrimination based on passive, unchangeable characteristics, is an active attempt on the part of the business owner to deprive a certain group of their rights. Even assuming that it was not ‘meant’ to be this way, there is no way for it not to have such an effect.

              By example: if a black man finds himself at a job, paid in currency, he will not be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor. Even if one lone business refuses him service based on the color of his skin, his right to the pursuit of property has been diminished.

              His labor is valued at the currency he received, yet he cannot enjoy that full value because of the arbitrary action by the business owner.

              Some libertarians have attempted to dodge such a question by assuming a ‘barter’ economy—ridiculous of course, but a necessary indulgence—for even then, the black man would have to make more products than a white man would for a similar exchange, thus depriving him of the fruit of his labor still.

              Now we must return to the question of how the private business owner will be harmed if we abridge his right for the sake of preserving the minority’s right to pursue property.

              The private business doesn’t stand to lose revenue—so the business owner’s livelihood itself is not affected, whereas in the alternative scenario, the black man’s livelihood is. The rights affected of the business owner are too distant from his person and his inalienable rights to outweigh the rights gained by the minority individual/group.

              Where libertarians like to dodge, of course, is by conflating a private business with a ‘private home.’ They are not the same thing, and libertarians would do well to learn about different types of property and the different uses of them.

            2. “If this were the case (which would be highly unlikely), someone realizing this would cash in on it and start making loans to black people, which the other place would probably struggle to stay in business.”

              And yet racial discrimination did happen, which shows that your Libertopia doesn’t exist except in your head.

        2. It’s possible that Rand Paul believes this, I guess.

          His latest position on CRA Title II is support of it: “Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to insure that private businesses don’t discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers.”

          This update on Rand Paul’s ever-changing position may not be up-to-the-minute, however. Perhaps his campaign will offer an RSS feed to make it easier to find out his position of the moment.

      2. Thank you for pointing out a perfect example of why the state shouldn’t “create a downtown shopping district.”

        You are the one who is deluded into thinking that most people are bad, and we need the benevolent government to step in and enforce goodness.

        It’s not a libertarian tenet, but I think that many libertarians believe that most people are generally good, and if you let them deal with each other freely, they generally won’t fuck each other as much as the government fucks everybody over.

        1. Apparently, we’ve had different landlords.

      3. “When the commonwealth creates a downtown shopping district”

        Actually, strictly speaking, private enterprise should create downtown shopping districts, not the commonwealth… and then we don’t run into these problems.

  3. The mistake Paul made was taking the bait in the first place. He was right in his later reflection that this was only brought up to make him look bad.

    1. Rand Paul could have said, “I do not oppose Title II and would not have in 1964.”

      Or he could have said, “I oppose Title II, and here’s why…”

      Instead, he dodged the issue.

      “…this was only brought up to make him look bad”? Er, no. It was clearly brought up to seek clarification on his position.

      The Maddow interview, in which she never got personal and in fact tried to keep Paul from making things personal, is what it looks like when a dogmatic libertarian is invited to express his ideas outside the bubble of delusion.

      Fellow cult members will happily agree with you to ignore the real, actual history of civil rights in this country in order to accommodate a theoretical belief in absolute separation of public and private space. But non-cult members won’t.

      1. You mean the real, actual history of civil rights where the government was the worst offender?

        1. Yeah, most offensive of the feds to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, to send the FBI to interfere with Klan activity, and to integrate the military after the Second World War. That just got in the way of The Market overturning Jim Crow.

          1. Remember, you’re dealing with libertarians, who think that government is evil.

  4. Word up, but where’s Mohammed (phub)?

    1. You’re not the only people wondering.

  5. Sorry, guys. I keep having to restart this torrent of Blow It On Your Ass. It’s slow as camel dung in the northernmost reaches of the Caliphate. You go on subduing the kafir while I figure this shit out.

    1. Are there a lot of seeders involved in this torrent?

  6. I’m sure it’s already been said, but it was a mistake for him to bring this up. It’s a non-starter today. You can’t criticize *anything* in the CRA without being labeled a racist. Team Blue has made sure they poisoned that pool.

    Not that I disagree with Paul one bit, but you gotta know when to hold ’em….

    1. You can’t criticize *anything* in the CRA without being labeled a racist.

      Incidentally, the same goes for the other CRA.

      1. Barry Ritholz will give you $100,000 for criticizing that CRA. Go collect, big guy!

    2. absolutely. nobody will ever get elected on a platform of criticizing the CRA. even if their criticism is correct. way too much bait for the liberal racists.

      1. But how do you deal with liberal racists if you don’t confront them?

        1. *After* you get elected.

          But I will reiterate what I have said here before: there is no upside for a white male to discuss race with anyone. None. Zero. Zip.

          1. There is no upside for ANYBODY to discuss race unless they discuss the evil pale races.

      2. If their criticism is correct, they can make their case. Rand Paul couldn’t make the case. Maddow gave him ample opportunity to defend his position. He wouldn’t even state it!

    3. Did he bring it up?

  7. unless it’s illegal, there’s nothing to stop that?there’s nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Now see, she’s begging the question. She’s implying that people want to segregate themselves along racial lines. That’s obviously not true. This is typical liberal thinking: people won’t get along and do business with each other unless we force them too. She’s insulting Americans and ignoring the huge swaths of positive, voluntary movements towards tolerance in our history.

    1. Progressive carry the mindset that everyone else is flawed and will only behave if the state makes them behave. Progressives are by far the most depressing people ever, because the assume the world will degenerate into a dystopia without the government.

      1. ironically, that is a classically conservative impulse… Maddow and Hobbes have a lot on common.

        1. Its not so much a “conservative” impulse though of course many conservatives share it. It is a basic pro-civilization impulse.

          1. It’s a basic illiberal impulse since it suggests that “civilization” is imposed on the unwashed masses by an enlightened elite through orderly violence; rather than something that is originated and codified by those self-same masses.

            1. No, it’s a realistic impulse. Because progressives realize that in fact, in a situation with no laws and no state, people don’t act very well.

              1. Do you actually believe, as Maddow seemed to, that if the CRA were repealed tomorrow, that “No blacks allowed” signs would sprout up on businesses across the country? Maybe at a rural bar near an Aryan Nation compound, but anywhere else? Any business that did so would get a shit-ton of terrible publicity, demonstrations, and boycotts. 99% of customers wouldn’t want to be seen in such a place. It would be pure commercial suicide. Do we really need a federal law in 2010 to prevent idiot, bigoted business owners from destroying their own businesses?

                1. PapayaSF,
                  Are you actually implying that we allow the market to decide these things? I suspect that you are one of those backward people who believe that businesses will act in their own best interests and that those interests are best served by appealing to as many potential patrons as possible. How absurd. Don’t you realize that the ultimate concern of any business is color……….. the color is green.

                  1. I actually have a dim memory of some economic study done about 50 years ago that indicated that segregated businesses did worse because of it. If that was true in the Jim Crow South, it’s got to be far more true today.

                  2. The free market ain’t free, see, you mugs gotta pay to play.

                    But then again, socialism has never stayed social for longer than an hour or two after being implemented anywhere.
                    Any kind of democracy is now a high-risk scenario thanks to the gradual privatization of fucking everything, and the transfer of governmental power to corporations – regardless of whether they are state-owned or privately held – and policy dictated by profit margins. As long as we have to use people (instead of unthinking, unambitious computers) to govern ourselves, we are always going to be looking for the least-damaging leadership… we can just go ahead and abandon the prospect of one day actually having effective or gainful leadership ever again.

                    Coast Guard’s taking orders from BP to bounce journalists from oily marshes and shorelines.
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbtuLjEyVA
                    Think I’m gonna organize a few busloads of photo-snappers and disperse them along the gulf shores to tie up more USCG resources so that hopefully some extra tasty drugs and cheap labor will be able to sneak into our harbors.

                  3. Are you actually implying that we allow the market to decide these things?

                    Yes.

                    If businesses exclude black people, black people will create businesses that exclude white people.

                    1. Look up “Black Star Lines” or Marcus Garvey. Then look up how he was treated by business leaders of his day. The Market didn’t save him when The Old Boy’s Network decided it was time for him to go.

                      But you already knew that, and were playing devil’s advocate, right?

                2. “Do we really need a federal law in 2010 to prevent idiot, bigoted business owners from destroying their own businesses?”

                  If this principle actually works, why didn’t lunch counters automatically desegregate themselves before 1964?

                  1. 1) Nearly all lunch counters were already desegregated in 1964, and 2) it’s 46 years later. Times change. Do you really think public displays of racism are anywhere near as common now?

                    1. No, public displays of racism are nowhere near as common because of the very laws that Paul and libertarians oppose. You can’t logically take credit for the results of a law you didn’t support, then use that very success of that law as proof that it was not needed in the first place.

                  2. In many states they were required by law to remain segregated. Social pressure would have desegregated nearly everything without the Jim Crow laws. Perhaps not as quickly, but I bet it would have happened in the 60’s. And it would have avoided, or at least lessened some of the horrible violent backlash against desegregation if it happened more organically and voluntarily.
                    No one here is against the bulk of the CRA that forces government at all levels to eliminate racist policies.
                    It is absurd to think that we would go back to a segregated society today if that part of the law were repealed, and that is really the only thing relevant now. What happened happened. The CRA did good things. But to argue that we would slip right back to 1964 if that provision were taken away is just stupid.

                  3. because there were laws against it dipshit

                3. “Do we really need a federal law in 2010 to prevent idiot, bigoted business owners from destroying their own businesses?”

                  Your statement ignores the central fact that the CRA was not about “controlling” bigots; it was about using the Commerce Clause to empower the insulated minorities those bigots impacted in commerce. If you were White in the South, it did not matter to you that Blacks, Asian, and Hispanics were treated by custom and by law as second class citizens; because it was no skin off your nose. But if you were in those disfavored groups, these customs and laws cost you money, time, comfort, anxiety and the ability to operate in commerce as freely as your White comparators. How is a Black trucker going to be as efficient if he has to deal with Jim Crow laws and customs, and perform to the legitimate expectations of his employer, too? And, more importantly, what happens to his family if he can be passed over for a job he is qualified to fill, just because of his color?

                  In comparison, exactly what did the bigots “lose”? The right to discriminate. How important is that “right” in the balance of things? Not very. Your right to punch in the air extends as far as my nose. Just as the right to build a sewage treatment plant wherever you wish is not very important when compared to your neighbor’s right not to be impacted by the smell; hence, zoning codes prohibiting you from doing whatever you want with lands.

                  The ignorance of Rand Paul’s analysis stems from his ivory tower failure to actually analyse the real-life implications of his unworkable philosophy. He never addresses what happens to Black people who cannot buy a decent house because of restrictive covenant, or can’t compete for a job because of permissible racism that benefits less qualified Whites. From an economic perspective, they are hobbled. For Paul, this is simply not important enough to justify putting some fetters on a business, fetters that will NOT force them out of business, but would . . . force them to take money from Black people and let them use the john, too. Alas, the Court and the Congress have spoken — the “freedom to discriminate on the basis of race” (a freedom nowhere mentioned in the Constitution) is less important than the promotion of the general welfare and interstate commerce through prohibitions on discrimination, concepts all addressed in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Paul looked foolish because his position made no sense.

              2. in a situation with no laws and no state, people don’t act very well.

                They don’t act very well with them either.

                1. They act worse without them. Way worse.

                  1. How the fuck do you know? When have you seen a society that is not already fucked up and torn apart by war and poverty try to function without laws. Maybe you are right, but you have no basis for certainty on the subject.

              3. No, it’s a realistic impulse. Because progressives realize that in fact, in a situation with no laws and no state, people don’t act very well.

                Progressive states like the U.S.S.R., Cuba, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea do not act very well.

                1. The comparison isn’t between the USA and Cuba, which both have laws and a state. The comparison is between reality, and the fantastic delusions of libertarians.

                  1. Oh, and libertarians are not the same thing as anarchists. Most of us here are OK with government and laws that are needed to keep people from hurting each other or committing fraud (and some of us can even tolerate public roads).

                2. Yeah, but they play some cool 7/4 stuff.

      2. Progressive carry the mindset that everyone else is flawed and will only behave if the state makes them behave.

        Of course progressives think that. We think it because it is obvious to anyone who has ever observed humans in their natural setting. The fact that libertarians claim not to believe this, I take as an extreme case of naivete.

        1. So by the virtue of this miraculous “realization” of yours about the apparent “animal nature” of humans, that gives you the duty of making us “better” by your standards using the inescapable force of federal law?

          1. No, the point is that I realize how society would actually really be if there was no state. And I don’t want to live in such an awful society. Note that you already have a libertarian nation on this Earth, its called Somalia. What I don’t understand is why you all don’t just move there. It fits everything you say that you want out of society.

            1. So now you’re saying that libertarians are all anarchists? That’s profoundly incorrect. Disagreeing with a government that steps beyond its constitutionally-mandated boundaries is not advocating for anarchy.

              Something tells me you’re also misinformed about Somalia. It’s a complex situation, but it’s not dust, death, and decay, not by any means.

              http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

              1. Hey DnD, you’re the one who said that it was insulting to say humans need laws and a state to behave. I was pointing to a place where there is no law and no state. If that is not really what you want, then perhaps you do, actually, understand the importance of laws.

                1. Is your view of the world this polarized? I mean, really? Or are you just playing to get a rise out of people?

                  Until you learn to read and comprehend what people say instead of ascribing to them whatever uninformed caricature fits your fancy and ignoring anything that disagrees with it, it’s a waste of my time to engage you.

                  1. What caricature DanD?

                    In your original comment you said:
                    Progressives are by far the most depressing people ever, because they assume the world will degenerate into a dystopia without the government.

                    What I’m telling you is that, in reality, the world would in fact degenerate into a dystopia with the government. I’m taking the literal statement you started out with, and arguing that the position you placed yourself in opposition to is actually the realistic one. So, what “caricature” are you talking about? I’m simply taking your own statement.

                    1. sorry, degenerate into dystopia without a government

                    2. If the world or any society degenerates into dystopia, it will do so regardless of government. People are not civilized because they have governments – they have governments because they are civilized.

                    3. ., there is no simple causation here. It can happen both ways, to be sure. What is sure in my mind is that without a state, your society will in fact degenerate.

                      Its like I’m arguing that people need kidneys to live well. You’re like, “no, dialysis is just peachy, trust me Ayn Rand said so!”

                      OK, so then, if you really think stateless societies are so great, why are you living in a society with a state? Why don’t you move to, say, El Salvador, where the state power is much weaker?

                2. i’m pretty sure i obey laws not because i’m afraid of imprisonment but because I think the actions are morally wrong.

            2. Somalia is not a libertarian society as it does not protect property rights, or really any negative rights. It’s anarchic, do not confuse the two concepts, it’s a very amateur thing to do when arguing on Reason.com

              1. JR, as I stated earlier I was simply reacting to DanD’s comment:
                “Progressives are by far the most depressing people ever, because they assume the world will degenerate into a dystopia without the government.”

                I mean, if that’s not actually what you believe, then maybe you shouldn’t say you beleive it.

                1. That wasn’t me that said it. It was kinnath. If you weren’t such a snarky asshole I would pity you.

                  1. Sorry for mistaking you for kinnath. I’m totally uninterested in your pity, though, so don’t worry about that.

                    What I really want to do is force you (plural you, all y’all), to take a realistic look at Americans, or just at your fellow humans, and acknowledge certain basic realities. Among these basic realities:
                    1. Most people are mediocre, with some people exceptionally talented or exceptionally stupid. If people are rewarded according to their “true economic worth”, most people will end up completely fucked.
                    2. Markets do certain things well, but encouraging morality is not one of them. Historically, racism has often been a profitable business strategy.
                    3. In the absence of strong state regulation, markets can’t even do the things they are good for (price discovery, hedging, etc.).

                    I want to remind you of these things, but I suspect that your entire schtick consists of denying them, and inventing legalistic fantasy reasons to ignore them and other basic realities. And so I will simply use whatever form of activism is necessary to prevent you from instituting your panglossian regime of laws.

                    1. Oh, fuck off. Give and example (post-slavery, we can all agree that slavery is totally evil) of racism working out well as a business strategy. Jim Crow laws were imposed because many businesses did not want to voluntarily segregate, because it is bad for business.

                    2. Give and example (post-slavery, we can all agree that slavery is totally evil) of racism working out well as a business strategy.

                      Blockbusting was very profitable.

                      Or, consider the meat-packing industry of today. They profit enormously from racism against hispanics, because they hire hispanics, and their workforce has its wages held low due to constance ICE raids.

                      Or, for a more complex example, consider the prison industry. As fear of blacks increases, the populace embraces tougher sentences for small drug crimes. As sentences get tougher, more blacks are locked up. As more blacks are locked up, the prison industry gets more profitable.

                      Jim Crow laws were imposed because many businesses did not want to voluntarily segregate, because it is bad for business.

                      This is incoherent. Jim Crow laws were imposed because businesses wanted them, along with the rest of the white society.

            3. Note that you already have a libertarian nation on this Earth, its called Somalia.

              Do the rulers of Somalia preach, let alone practice, libertarianism?

              And how is Somalia worse than the U.S.S.R, Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, Cuba, or North Korea?

              1. Do the rulers of Somalia preach, let alone practice, libertarianism?

                Absolutely, they do. The leaders of Somalia are the warlords. They operate in a stateless condition. They are the folks who are ruthless enough to get paid, take territory, invest in armies, weapons, defenses, vehicles, commodities, etc. They do it all without any government.

                They prosper by intelligently and/or ruthlessly eliminating their competition. They are the Randian supermen. Somalia is the most Libertarian nation that exists on Earth.

                1. Absolutely, they do. The leaders of Somalia are the warlords. They operate in a stateless condition. They are the folks who are ruthless enough to get paid, take territory, invest in armies, weapons, defenses, vehicles, commodities, etc. They do it all without any government.

                  And they are less of a government than Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., or militarist Japan because…

                  1. …because they don’t have a constitution or a monarchy or a democracy. They have no real system at all beyond tribalism. They aren’t organized enough to exterminate millions of people, like Nazi Germany was. They aren’t organized enough to do anything more than survive.

                2. Look, you fucking retard, stop arguing with the anarchist in your head. Libertarians are for consistent and enforceable rights. Where does that exist in Somalia? The situation you describe in Somalia is quite anti-libertarian.

                  1. If a libertarian situation, were actually a reality, you would likely be much worse off. You want people to be have their “actual economic worth” respected. The reality is that economically most people are worth very little, and would find that their worth dropped with out the state to artificially hold it high. You are not exempt from this.

                    I bring up Somalia because its just a further journey down the libertarian road. In Somalia, not only is your “free market value” uninterfered with, there is also no artificial security to keep weak people from being exploited. This is simply a deeper form of the same thing.

                  2. Libertarians are for consistent and enforceable rights.

                    …unless they are the sorts of rights ennumerated in the Civil Rights Act. Those are unimportant.

              2. The funny part, though, is that if you had to live in Somalia, it is likely you would end up either enslaved or dead very quickly.

                1. This whole libertarianism = Somalia meme is idiotic, even moreso than the leftist = Communist comparisons that are often bandied about. Does Somalia have the structures necessary to preserve and maximize negative liberty, and is that the goal of its leaders? No? What a shocker — atheist is blowing smoke up his ass (better than what usually goes in there). Somalia is in no way the extreme of libertarian thought: inasmuch as the goal of libertarians is to promote a government that maximizes negative rights to the exclusion of all else, you’d have to find somewhere that matches those extreme tendencies.

                  1. But, Eric, Somalia does have perfect protection of negative rights. If you are a warlord, you have a complete private army to prevent your rights from being trampled.

                    And of course, the people who aren’t warlords have no rights, because they aren’t considered people. In this way Somalia is perfect exemplar of what libertarians are hoping to institute: perfect rights for the strong, and fuck everyone else.

        2. is flawed and will only behave if the state makes them behave.

          And who or what will make the state behave?

          1. Mme. Guillotine, naturellement.

        3. atheist: We think it because it is obvious to anyone who has ever observed humans in their natural setting.

          But have humans ever really been observed in their natural setting? It seems they are always affected by government intrusion to some extent, and therefore we have no idea what totally free humans would act like.

          1. But have humans ever really been observed in their natural setting?

            We have plenty of information on how tribes of apes act. We have data on how the apes act, when they work together, when they exploit each other, and when they try to kill each other. So just take that data, which we have, and add in guns, cars, bombs, electricity. That’s humans in their natural setting.

    2. She’s implying that people want to segregate themselves along racial lines. That’s obviously not true.

      Actually, it’s already true. People, by and large, segregate themselves along class, racial and/or cultural lines.

      There’s nothing wrong with that, but you generally, no matter who you are, want to live next to people who have shared experiences. Same goes for social circles. You’ll have some racial integration, just by dint of living in a racially diverse area, but chances are that your regular friends are going to be in the same economic and cultural class as you. Whether that works out demographically to include multiple races is up to the social circle.

      1. if it really was true, why would there be such huge public support for the civil rights amendment?

        1. There is a vast gulf of difference between self-segregation and racism.

          Most of my friends are white males. Some are women and some are black or asian. The fact that most of my friends are white males is due to me being a white male and long-term friendships favor shared backgrounds, not because I hate anyone who doesn’t look like me.

          Now, most of them are screaming Team Blue liberals, but that’s a different problem. Libertarians ’round these parts are far and few between.

          1. “some are black or asian”

            You can’t tell for certain?

            1. He’s friends with Tiger Woods.

          2. Yes, but you’re getting away from the point. If the Civil Rights Act were repealed tomorrow, I don’t think the daily course of business would change one bit. You wouldn’t see racially segregated restrooms and restaurants popping up everywhere. You’re exactly right that most people associate based on shared background, but that’s not necessarily a racial thing. I grew up in a lower middle-class neighborhood. A family of Sudanese immigrants lived three houses down, an Indian family lived next door, there was a laundry list of different ethnicities within a few small blocks. Our afterschool playtime would be a diversity hound’s wet dream. But we kids didn’t even think about it. We had the shared language of English, the shared love of backyard football and bicycles and Nintendo, and we all learned the same things in school. The various shades of our skin didn’t affect our discourse in the least.

            My next door neighbors are black, but they would never, ever, EVER go near a predominantly black housing project. When I go to Wal Mart and I see a white couple wearing Tweety and Taz t-shirts with their horribly tattooed stomachs hanging out over their waistlines, I want absolutely no association with them whatsoever. If you (not you, JW, but the “universal” you) call that “segregation,” then how the hell would an “integrated” society by the same standards function?

            1. If the Civil Rights Act were repealed tomorrow, I don’t think the daily course of business would change one bit. You wouldn’t see racially segregated restrooms and restaurants popping up everywhere.

              Like I said, you sound very naive.

              1. Says the person who is convinced that all libertarians are anarchists.

                The CRA will never be repealed, so we’ll never know for sure, but to call me naive without any stated basis is lol-worthy.

                1. The stated basis is that you don’t understand, or perhaps refuse to acknowledge, that when laws change society changes with them. That’s what makes you seem so naive.

                  1. The stated basis is that you don’t understand, or perhaps refuse to acknowledge, that when laws change society changes with them.

                    My, my. You are a simple one.

                    1. So, JW, you’re saying that when laws change, society remains exactly the same? Do I have that right?

                    2. So, JW, you’re saying that when laws change, society remains exactly the same? Do I have that right?

                      Pretty much.

                      Which laws passed from 2000-2006 made you go “Of course! I’ve been looking at it all wrong!”

                    3. Which laws passed from 2000-2006 made you go “Of course! I’ve been looking at it all wrong!”

                      Two easy examples:
                      1. “The Patriot Act” of 2001 and “Patriot II”, which instituted all kinds of ways for the federal government to spy on people and abuse their civil rights in the name of “fighting terror”.
                      2. The legal memos of John Yoo, which became the basis of our regime of torture in Abu Ghraib, Bagram airbase etc.

                      Both these laws had a pretty profound effect on how I viewed my fellow Americans. I saw them in a much darker way.

                  2. Oh, oh! I know! We should just legislate that everyone should get along, not commit any crimes, and all work together for the benefit of society while expecting no material gain the process!

                    Wow, atheist! Thanks to your help we fixed that damned problem of humanity!

                    1. Obviously, laws, while they have an effect on human society, have limited power as well. I have no interest in starting a totalitarian society, just one with laws and with a state. Which you seem to be against, for your own reasons.

              2. As others should have said, all you have to support that claim is your worthless opinion. You don’t even have anecdotal evidence! Do you really think that there would be nothing to stop widespread segregation without state intervention these days? I guess massive protests and boycotts from people of all races of segregating institutions wouldn’t have any effect, would they?

                Don’t feel bad, I’m sure you’re smarter than literally hundreds of people worldwide. You just have to go out and find them!

                1. I accept the punishment from the internet gods for my ad hominem. That comment was a reply to atheist. Boy is my face red.

                2. Xenocles, since there are plenty of people who, even under the light regime of laws we have now, want to segregate themselves away from those of other races, that is a sign that if the light regime of laws were repealed, then yes I think those people would get even more into segregation, and would do it quite openly.

                  1. I don’t think anyone here wouldn’t stipulate that open racists exist or even that some of them would choose segregation if allowed. What would society do? My guess is that it would remain open and ridicule those who don’t. Regardless, the crux of the matter is that you and your ilk don’t actually do any good by holding a gun to the heads of the racists and forcing them to act your way. You aren’t changing anyone’s mind; you’re just coercing them. You may be getting a result you like now, but wait until someone you don’t like uses your methods against you.
                    Example (based on your handle): Religious majority decides that everyone needs to go to a church. You say you’re protected by the 1A? Oops, so is freedom of association, but you already trashed that one.

                  2. while millions more wouldn’t

                  3. And why do you want to do business with or otherwise associate with such people? Racists are a marginalized, generally hated group at this point. They are not going to take over American culture in the absence of forced de-segregation of private businesses.

              3. Like I said, you sound very naive.

                Even if “whites only”, “blacks only”, and “no irish need apply” signs started popping up, so what ?

                1. Then, you’re starting down the road to renewed tribal warfare in the USA.

                  1. Then, you’re starting down the road to renewed tribal warfare in the USA.

                    When was the last time that happened in the USA?

                    1. Well, there have been race riots as recently as the 1990s (Rodney King). There were worse ones in the 1960s (MLK assassinated). There was a straight-up planned mass extermination of blacks, by armed whites with vehicles in Oklahoma in 1921, the “Tulsa Race Riots“. That is what I mean by tribal warfare. I think you’d see a lot more of it if, for instance, the CRA were repealed like Rand Paul appears to want, but is too chickenshit to say on TV.

            2. If the Civil Rights Act were repealed tomorrow, I don’t think the daily course of business would change one bit. You wouldn’t see racially segregated restrooms and restaurants popping up everywhere.

              Agreed.

              1. Speaking of segregated bathrooms, why do we continue to support sexual segregation?

                1. Because women don’t want to have to get leered at by men every time they take a piss, and men don’t want to have to show their junk to women?

                  1. So as long as people are offended or made very uncomfortable by the presence of people in certain groups, including groups against which discrimination is unconstitutional, segregation is acceptable?

                    In that case, we don’t even need to repeal CRA to bring back private discrimination.

                    1. So, you are actually arguing that separate bathrooms for men and women are tantamount to racial segregation? Do I have that right?

                  2. actualy i think it is more about leaving the toilet seat up and pissing on the floor

                    1. Also a good point skr

                  3. In the civilized world (you know, not Somalia), we generally have stalls to separate people while they expose their junk.

                    1. Yeah but men like to have urinals to piss in, and the women probably wouldn’t want to hear men taking a dump, or vice versa. Overall I think its just fine that we ahve separate male & female bathrooms.

                2. Speaking of segregated bathrooms, why do we continue to support sexual segregation?

                  Our society holds gender discrimination to a lower level of scrutiny than racial discrimination.

        2. why would there be such huge public support for the civil rights amendment?

          Most people have a affinity for a sense of fairness and the fact that most people aren’t racist.

          1. Most people have a affinity for a sense of fairness and the fact that most people aren’t racist.

            So why was the civil rights act needed if most people were not racist, at least outside of backwards places like Chicago, Illinois?

      2. Yeah, but Maddow’s apparant belief is that if the Title 2 provisions were repealed, that immediately restauraunts all over the country would stop serving black customers, and Denny’s would hang a “whites only” sign on it’s door.

        Which is completely silly.

        I can imagine you might see some discrimination by small businesses in city areas with a lot of gang activity. Say convenience store clerks kicking black teenagers out, to the extent this doesn’t already occur. But I also suspect that there would be enough public backlash to prevent it from becoming systematic.

        1. Yeah, but Maddow’s apparant belief is that if the Title 2 provisions were repealed, that immediately restauraunts all over the country would stop serving black customers, and Denny’s would hang a “whites only” sign on it’s door.

          She is of course incorrect.

          I would suspect that a repeal of Title II of the CRA, “whites only” and “blacks only” signs would pop up in backwards places like Chicago, Illinois.

          But would these signs pop up in places like Hollywood or Manhattan’s Park Row?

          Which is completely silly.

          Not in Chicago.

    3. Liberals believe in original sin more than Fundamentalist Christians – humans are pure evil by nature, unless they are beaten down by law, they will behave horribly!

      1. No, actually they believe in it quite a bit less. A liberal would say that we need right-thinking people to create the laws that discourage people from their evil nature. A Christian would say that there are no right-thinking people and that those who create the law are pure evil themselves.

        And would be correct.

      2. That’s SO Old Testament.

      3. You’re behind the curve. Librul is so 1994. In 2010, the hipsters call their political enemies progressives.

        Get it straight or you’ll be sent to work in the uranium mines.

    4. She’s implying that people want to segregate themselves along racial lines. That’s obviously not true. This is typical liberal thinking: people won’t get along and do business with each other unless we force them too.

      That’s not quite right. It’s more that it’s part of the progressive dogma that racism is rampant in the country, and that they are not racist which is what makes them better than everyone else.

      So obviously, if you think that there is racism hidden everywhere, you’re going to believe that if we take away equal opportunity laws that society would immediately return to Jim Crow.

      To any normal person this obviously is NOT the case, but you can’t tell that to a progressive. He’d have to stop believing that racism is endemic, which would force him to question his own moral superiority over all those other unenlightened Americans. So good luck with that.

      1. To any normal person this obviously is NOT the case, but you can’t tell that to a progressive. He’d have to stop believing that racism is endemic, which would force him to question his own moral superiority over all those other unenlightened Americans. So good luck with that.

        If racism was endemic, there would have never been a Fourteenth Amendment.

  8. “unless it’s illegal, there’s nothing to stop that?there’s nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

    “Of course, I don’t mean me or any of my friends. It’s just those hillbillies in flyover country we have to worry about.”

  9. It’s unbelievable that nobdy asks Rand Pauk aboutthe racist newsletter that his daddy published for years.

    1. Can we make May 21 Everybody Draw Max Day? Apparently that’s how you make annoying things disappear around here.

    2. Rand Pauk sounds like the name of an Inuit holy man.

    3. They’d first have to ask his father, which they rarely do. Never could figure out why.

      1. Yeah, Ron Paul is the Teflon racist.

  10. The Daily Kostards are already saying Paul is a racist. This should prove that no libertarian should ever sympathize with the Left on anything. You are no better than Dick Cheney to them. As soon as you are running against one of them, you are the enemy to be demonized no matter what.

    1. Rrright… conservatives have never demonized anybody.

      1. The difference is that conservatives demonize communists, welfare bums, terrorists, and criminals. Liberals demonize people who want to pay less tax and live in safe neighborhoods.

        1. lets not forget the immorals d’jour

      2. Most conservatives don’t demonize Libertarians, except for some Church Ladies on the social con side, but everyone knows they are idjits. Even if they don’t agree with Paul’s ideas, they don’t just assume he is a racist asshole. They think he is following his philosophy to better the country.

    2. At first I read that as “Daily Custards.”

      I could go for that.

  11. Rand Paul’s spokesman resigned in December. In addition to having a My Space post on MLK day that said “Happy Ni**er Day” he also had the following post:

    “So, I was in Rivergate Mall today in line to get some pizza and I noticed a group of Afro-Americans were looking at me with hate and whispering stuff. I was wondering WTF and procceeded to sit facing them and give them the “what the fuck are you looking at look”. Anyway after a few snarls they quit looking at me. I was like do these fuckers think I am someone else or what? Anyway I finished my food and went to find some new shoes. About 10 minutes later, another group of Afro-Americans are giving me the same looks, it then dawns on me, there has to be something on this hoodie that is pissing off the Afro-Americans. And sure enough when I get outside the mall I look and bingo. KKK …. LOL!”

    The communications director was named Chris Hightower. This is just another example of Rand’s spinelessness. The fist post was clearly satire, and came from a friend. The second is only offensive if you have the “PC Disease” – just as Rand Paul backed away from his Civil Rights stance, he backed away from Chris Hightower. Is that consistency you can believe in?

  12. Hi losertarians,

    This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly, regulated by the US department of energy.

    I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.

    After that, I turned the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration.

    I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food which has been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

    At the appropriate time as kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved car and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank.

    On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

    After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the departmental of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, I drive back to my house which has not been burned down thanks to to the state and local building codes and the fire marshal’s inspection, and it has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

    I then log onto the internet, which was developed by the US department of defense, and post on the free public access website reason about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

    Seriously. Just shut the fuck up.

    1. You have children? I don’t believe it for one second.

      1. Cut n’ paste. I’ve seen it on other liberal dumbass sites. “Oh, how could I possibly wipe my ass without OSHA oversight and an ISO standard?”

        1. yeah the fear of death isn’t compelling at all.

    2. Max, please take Karl Marx’s dick out of your mouth before speaking to us.

      1. So on Reason, you can post that Max has a dick in his mouth, but not that Muhammad does.

    3. hi Max,

      you are a moron. seriously.

    4. Max, I know its hard to believe, but people did successfully go to work before The New Deal. Some even made it back home in one piece.

      1. Lies. Before the New Deal “workers” were simply fodder for machinery which ran on their ground-up bones and organs. None of them ever came home alive and vast numbers had to be imported from overseas. They couldn’t wait to get here, for some reason.

      2. “Max, I know its hard to believe, but people did successfully go to work before The New Deal. ”

        Totally. Even kids! Many children who worked in factories came home more or less in one piece. If they lost a finger, they were often allowed to take it home in a paper bag (after they finished their shift), so technically they didn’t “lose” a finger. It was still their property!

        Child Labor laws have done a lot more harm than good. If the market didn’t want goods produced by U.S. children working 16-hour days, people wouldn’t have bought them.

    5. how does the local police dept. (i say as a member myself) prevent your house from being plundered of all its valuables? (and i realize this is a boilerplate post but still)…

      in my entire career, i have probably caught no more than 10 burglars in the process of burglarizing a house. and i’ve probably responded to at least 2 or 3 hundred burglary reports (iow after the fact).

      i am sure those stats are pretty common. burglaries are a pretty easy crime to commit w/o detection since they are usually done to unoccupied homes (while owners are at work, etc.). we catch a fair amount trying to fence stolen property, but very few IN PROGRESS

      an alarm, that summons the police, will be a deterrent (burglars prefer unalarmed houses), but the best defense against burglary is nosy neighbors, a well secured house etc.

      we do our best, but if somebody wants to burglarize your house, it’s not the cops that are going to be a deterrent.

      1. Hey pig cop. When you see your fellow officers breaking the law, you ALWAYS arrest them for it, right?

        1. Pip, why the gratuitous insult? Do you think you might bring him around to a more libertarian viewpoint by insulting him?

          I know it’s hard after reading Balko for any length of time, but not every cop is a power-tripping dirtbag. Cut people slack until they prove that they are utterly undeserving of it.

          1. Exactly. Pip there has a fabulously black and white view of how it works. Funny enough, I didn’t see him supporting the NYPD whistle-blower who was doing just that.

            1. pip’s troll-fu is weak. i don’t bother much any more. it’s no different from arguing with a racist. SOME cops commit crimes and break the law, therefore all cops are pigs. same “logic” as racists use to malign an entire race or ethnicity based on the actions of a few.

              i’m not sure if he even IS more libertarian, so how would he persuade me to change thusly? maybe he is. i am certainly not a pure libertarian (drink), but i’d vote for a ron paul over an obama or mccain, so that puts me clearly in the correct camp, methinx.

          2. my locked door and my dog were great crime deterrents until the SAT team kicked in my door and shot my dog only to say, “oops wrong house.”

              1. although those SAT teachers an be awfully authoritarian

      2. Thought experiment: My local police department disappears tomorrow. Over the course of the next year, will the burglary rate in my town go up, down, or stay the same?

    6. This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly, regulated by the US department of energy.

      Actually, you know why most US and European power is generated by large fossil-fuel-burning plants? Because electrical power generation was forcibly centralized by the granting of monopolies to utilities and the seizure of private property via mandatory easements for power lines. The natural way for power generation to develop in a market economy would be for decentralized sources to provide most power, due to the difficulty of centralizing without fiat monopolies. A decentralized pattern would favor renewables, and would have favored renewables even 100 years ago.

      So fucking with the market got liberals the power generation methods they now hate and blame on the market.

      I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.

      Again, the politicization of water delivery has resulted in the overdevelopment of water-poor areas past the point of sustainability, and widespread economic destruction. It also has enabled sprawl, because it allowed developers to force taxpayers to subsidize the extension of expensive water and sewer facilities onto green fields sites. So fucking with the market got liberals the land use patterns they claim to hate, and that they blame on the market.

      After that, I turned the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration.

      Broadcast journalism is routinely lambasted by liberals as being a source of corporate domination of the polity. And it exists because a conscious decision was made by the state to crush small private radio operators and turn over spectrum to large companies, to make radio an “industry”. So fucking with the market got liberals the media situation they say they hate and that they blame on the market.

      I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food which has been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

      US agricultural policy created continental monocultures and agribusiness, to the detriment of local production. So fucking with the market got liberals the agricultural industries they claim to hate and that they blame on the market.

      At the appropriate time as kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved car and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank.

      Automobiles produce most of the greenhouse gas emissions liberals claim they hate. There would be vastly fewer roads, and much denser development, and therefore fewer automobiles, in a free market.

      1. Beautiful. That brought a tear to my eye. Well done.

      2. Because electrical power generation was forcibly centralized by the granting of monopolies to utilities and the seizure of private property via mandatory easements for power lines.

        You can get a building permit for a home run on generators in my state. But as a developer not having power lines and easements to each lot would be idiotic and I would not be able to sell my lots. I know because i also own lots without power and they are worth substantially less then lots with power.

        You points have some merit but you go to far in many of your claims.

        1. But if electricity production in this country were more decentralized, as it might have been without the interventions Fluffy notes, things would be different and lots without nearby power lines would be more salable.

      3. Excellent takedown. Well done.

      4. “Automobiles produce most of the greenhouse gas emissions liberals claim they hate.”

        Actually, electricity generation tops the list.

    7. “On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service…”

      You can still mail shit, like, from your house? Huh. I thought the USPS was just for junk mail these days.

    8. I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t get laid.

      1. Might that be because the government f–ked with that market too by outlawing certain types of consensual transactions which would have accommodated that ‘need’ or ‘want’?

      2. His preferred partners have tails and the government has made that illegal too!

    9. There is what is seen, and then there is what is not seen.

    10. I wanna play!

      Leave Us the Hell Alone

      […] This morning I woke up on my “don’t remove the tag” mattress, walked through my building code compliant house, used the federally compliant toilet, dressed the kids and drove them to their “state certified” charter school where they’ll eat a state approved lunch.

      I got back in my state registered, emissions compliant, insured (by state requirement) car and drove the legal speed limit back to the house. I then walked through my Scottsdale code compliant yard (no weeds in our “desert” landscaping”)into the house, drank pasteurized (USDA required) juice, and ate cereal processed in an inspected facility with milk from an USDA compliant dairy. I then took my FDA approved prescription pills (from a licensed pharmacy of course) and played with the state-licensed dogs.

      I took a call on my federally taxed cell phone (instead of the federally taxed land line), stopped by our FDIC insured bank (which received TARP money that it didn’t want and is not allowed to pay back), and drove along city streets (paid for by sales and property taxes) to the closest Costco (which has a business license of course and pays mandated worker’s comp). I bought beef franks made from inspected beef in an inspected facility, buns made in an OSHA compliant factory, and a gallon of Frank’s in an approved plastic bottle.

      All of this before 10:15 am.

      […]

      No wonder I feel trapped. I can’t do a single thing with my own property that doesn’t involve one government agency or another (or several). I feel like a rat being funneled through a maze, and I am cognizant of the danger that someone will block off the exit. It’s my claustrophobia writ large.

      This is just wrong. I’m a grown woman. Why does the government have to meddle in all of my affairs? Why do I have to jump through hoops just to accomplish the most simple things in life?

      It’s all about power and control. Always has been always will be. […]

      (H/T Liberty Papers)

    11. Hi statists.

      This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock, powered by electricity from a propane generator and a make shift waterwheel from a stream in my back yard (don’t tell the army corp of engineers). Of course i was already awake from the Rooster i keep on the back 40.

      I then took a shower in the clean water provided by my well.

      After that, I turned the TV to watch cable to see what the the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by china.

      I watched this while eating my breakfast of home grown eggs and unpasteurized milk i bought illegally from my neighbor.

      At the appropriate time as kept accurate by my roster (i should shoot the motherfucker) I get into kit built airplane possibly landing to purchase additional fuel of red diesel so i don’t have to pay taxes on it using some silver i give to a guy in a pick up truck with a fuel tank.

      I drop the kids off at the private school (public school will not make them useful human beings only wardens of the state)

      After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work cuz i own my own businesses and i am not an idiot and i contract out my work to avoid stupid unnecessary regulations.

      I then log onto the internet, which was built by private interests and post on the free privately owned and maintained access website reason about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

      Seriously. Just shut the fuck up.

      1. Fucking awesome

    12. I then log onto the internet, which was developed by the US department of defense, and post on the free public access website reason about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

      How are Amadou Diallo and Timothy Cole doing?

  13. And now for some egregious blog-whoring:

    “Rand Paul and Positive Law in a Stateless Society” | http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1587

  14. Not long ago, I walked into a small Hispanic-owned salon in a strip mall and asked for a haircut (I live in a predominantly Hispanic community with people of mestizo and Indian descent from Central America). They were clearly not busy, yet the woman told me they couldn’t take me. And she wouldn’t say why even though I belabored the point that they weren’t more than two or three customers waiting (I speak Spanish, but chose not to in this situation, as I felt unwelcome in the first place).

    I actually went to another Spanish-run salon in a slightly more affluent community about two miles away and was served with no problem, even though everyone in there spoke Spanish. I’ll definitely go back there.

    It is interesting and eye-opening to have the shoe on the other foot, because I do feel miffed and discriminated against in the first case. Hell, I think more honkeys should be discriminated against just so they know what it’s like. To be sure, I won’t be going back to patronize the discriminating salon and have told others about it. However, I’m not sure a law to compel these people to cut my hair if they’d rather not is the right way to go. However, not being sure about it is grounds enough to be called a racist. In any case, it’s a good opportunity to call bullshit on hysterical fringe-baiting.

    If anti-discrimination laws regulating private business have helped in some way to nudge people to treat all people more fairly, then we can agree that that is a net benefit, and that may be the strongest argument for them. But then again, that’s outcome-based lawmaking. Or is it?

    1. Have they? I doubt it. Demographically we are roughly about as segregated as we were in mid-1960s. You can’t force people to live with each other; well, you can, but then this wouldn’t be a free society at that point.

      If you look at the major professions black representation in them has actually fallen per capita; that has not been the case for hispanics or women where it has risen. That ought to tell us something about the ability of the law to dictate outcomes in this area.

    2. How do you know they didn’t have a lot of appointments? If that’s your own proof, it’s pretty thin gruel.

    3. While I was reading, I first thought your anecdote was to supposed to illustrate that anti-discrimination laws are ineffective.

      Then I thought it was supposed to illustrate that freedom of association works both ways–in this case, to the detriment of the allegedly racist business. Would you really want some racist to give you a haircut anyway?

      But then you acted like you weren’t sure what the conclusion was.

      So it was a wild ride, with a surprise twist at the end.

    4. Do you really want someone who doesn’t like you cutting your hair? I think you were lucky they told you to get stuffed.
      Would an aggressively bad haircut be considered a hate crime?

  15. The fucking troll problem is just out of goddamn hand today. Between the obvious sockpuppets and the racist spoof chiming in to agree with us, it’s just ridiculous.

    Seriously, who are the fuckstains that crawl out of the woodwork everytime R* Paul is mentioned? And why don’t they treat themselves to a Drano enema?

    But I guess as long as Baff isn’t around, the new ban happiness around here doesn’t have a problem with anything they say.

    1. Seriously, who are the fuckstains that crawl out of the woodwork everytime R* Paul is mentioned?

      He’s like a Siren song for stupid.

      1. Too bad he’s not the Pied Piper of stupid.

    2. What the fuck did I do, sir?

      1. Sorry, Baff. I was commenting that they are happy to ban you, yet no one else.

    3. Its because your website is being mocked by other websites for its absurd commentary, and people like me are coming here from those other websites.

      1. atheist – people like me are coming here from those other websites

        and making absurd commentary.

      2. What site do you come from with absurd-free commentary?

        1. Its Alicublog: alicublog.blogspot.com. And its not “absurd free”, it’s dedicated to mocking crazy people on the internet. “Reason” is perfect.

          1. I see you’re investing your time wisely in visiting and commenting on a site that you actively dislike, whose forum members you find insipid, and where nothing of value is being produced for you. Heckuva job, atheist.

            1. Hey, thanks.

  16. So Rand Paul is in favor of segregated theater lines (like my hometown Fox Theater had until the 1960’s).

    The “nigras” were forced into the balcony after a backdoor line.

    Thats OK. He can be who he wants to be – this is a free country.

    1. No he’s not. He’s in favor of the theater deciding how they queue or to whom they sell their tickets.

      1. Whatever he believes, he is not helping by being evasive. One day he is against the the Civil Rights Act, the next day he is for it.

        One day he supports his spokesman, the next day he fires him for telling a joke.

        Just another politician. 🙁

        1. You fail at parallels, Mrs Hightower.

      2. He’s in favor of the theater deciding how they queue or to whom they sell their tickets.

        Exactly the point!

        Put the nigras in the back!

        1. So, now we know that if shrike ran a theater, he’d segregate it.

          And we’re the racists.

          1. Bear in mind that shrike is a self-described libertarian in the tradition of Heinlein and Rand.

            Put that together with the things that he actually says, and you’ll conclude there’s just a lot of stuff that he doesn’t get and probably never will.

            1. yeah – like I meant that.

              Rand Paul is a paleo-con whom Ayn Rand would not support.

              Fuck him.

    2. You lived in Atlanta? Man! That is one self-segregated town.

    3. For the record, when I was a kid I hated that the local theater had the balcony permanently roped off. I always thought it would be so cool to sit up there.

    4. Oh come on shrike, you’re just trolling now.
      Did you even read the entire interview? He’s pretty damn clear that he doesn’t think anyone should discriminate and would not discriminate or support anyone who did.

      It’s obvious that his position is based on pure principle, not on any covert racism.

    5. So Rand Paul is in favor of segregated theater lines (like my hometown Fox Theater had until the 1960’s).

      Just because he permits them does not mean he likes them.

      Big difference between the two concepts.

      Do you support laws criminalizing Holocaust denial?

      If not , does that make you a Holocaust denier?

  17. I read the transcript of Rand Paul’s interview with Maddow. It read as if he was trying hard to evade the obvious question. Should the government have the power to tell a shop-keeper, or restaurant owner that they must serve people of all races and creeds, or sexual predilections? That question has been answered already in the law, which is never going to be overturned. Is that “right”? Not to my way of looking at things. But, this is simply a case of honesty not being the best policy.

    He will never, unfortunately get elected. Ask Geroge Allen, who simply said one silly thing, and was destroyed. Not that Paul and Allen have much in common, except the fact that after Novemember 2, they will both have been destroyed by the liberal media.

    1. Rachel Maddow lured Rand Paul onto her show and then distracted him so much – he probably was hoping she would kiss another girl – that he was unable to straightforwardly answer a question that he must have known he was going to be asked.

      I also heard that Rachel Maddow used her mind control device to force George Allen to call an Indian guy a monkey.

      Stinking liberal media.

      1. I also heard that Rachel Maddow used her mind control device to force George Allen to call an Indian guy a monkey.

        The liberal media could have, you know, buried the story .

  18. just having this debate is a super clear lose

  19. It’s amazing how narrow-minded, dogmatic and myopic libertarians’ positions can be. Yeah, sure, I agree that people have the right to free association in business in theory – but the REAL LIFE HISTORY says otherwise, doesn’t it? It’s amazing how you dumb nerds can be so stuck on this magical f*cking theory stuff. Sometimes real life just don’t work the way you want it to. Oh, only the government should be barred from discriminating – but every business should be able to? Do you really think the situation would ever remain like that – that you could have the majority races discriminating completely in the private sphere but somehow magically all the discrimination ends in government offices. It didn’t and never will work ouyt like that and you all knopw it. People are bastard coated bastards with a creamy bastard center, and money always finds power. There are a bajillion little nuances in the law that racist business owners could use to keep the law effectively racist, while still being able to maintain a facade of neutrality under the law. Real estate law especially is rife with these sorts of things.

    With racism being OK in our economic lives – you know, the part of your life that makes up like 90% of what you do – certain races could easily gain a power foothold locally.

    Different races and religions all over the world have eaten each other alive, regardless of how much you claim that racism wouldn’t be profitable for a business. You fools just need to accept that the world dfoesn’t always work out according to your theories.

    1. So, to sum up, the government that codified slavery and discrimination into law is the same government you expect to fix the residual problems by codifying discrimination into law, just in a different fashion?

      1. T – excellent point. I could not agree more.

      2. WTF are you talking about? Your response doesn’t even make sense.

        Yes. If the government makes racial discrimination illegal in economic matters, then racial discrimination will be illegal in economic matters.

        1. Once more for the slow. The government was the organization that codified discrimination, hence the expression ‘Jim Crow laws’. Note that last word there? Laws? That means the government did it. So what was the fix? A whole bunch of laws that obsessively categorize people by race and collects shitloads of data to enable government (again) to make decisions based on racial characteristics, i.e. discriminate.

          So you’re expecting the same organization to come along and fix the very problem it created, by using the same methods. Seem a little backwards to you, or are you just stupid?

          1. no, they fixed it by making such discrimination illegal, both for laws and businesses.

            You a little slow or something?

            1. How is saying, “You have to hire x-amount of black people” NOT discrimination? It’s identifying people entirely based on the color of their skin!

              Man, what planet do you live on?

            2. you are slow, eddie.

              they did not make it illegal to discriminate based on race, they made it illegal to deny non-whites based on race. that distinction created a mack truck sized lawsuit incentive for instances where an “improper” number of non-white candidates are being hired. that is pressure to positively discriminate towards non-whites. it is the flip side of disparate impact and it is as real as your rantings of IDIOT FUCKTARD SCHMUCK RETARD

            3. You are missing the point. T is suggesting that there are OTHER MEANS to eliminate discrimination, besides codified legistlation, and that legislating anti-discrimination has some inherent problems due to the dynamics of power.

              Basically, ALL LAW, all government is going to serve the establishment, due to the very nature of the thing. You can never have a government that isn’t run by established interests. So when you try to approach a power disparity by involking more power all you are doing is creating a new emplowered class. You aren’t equalizing anything, you’re just rearranging the deck chairs. you aren’t undoing the underlying social divisions.

    2. What are you talking about? You have so many different, contradictory ideas in your first paragraph. Anyway, the only reason that ‘different races and religions all over the world have eaten each other alive’ is because laws (backed by force) were created and enforced that gave advantages to one race or religion over the other. Duh.

      1. nobody – “duh” indeed. Another excellent point. Laws – the source of strife.

        1. “Laws – the source of strife
          Freedom – the stuff of life”

          William “Braveheart” Wallace – Scottish Warrior and Leader

          1. “Freeeeeeeeeeeedom!!!!!!”

            Braveheart

      2. Bullshit. Did it ever occur to you that throughout most of history a strong, centralized state wasn’t even the norm? Not everything has to do with government, read a fucking history book, you dweeb.

        People are plenty good at becoming balkanized and killing each other like maniacs, without any government help. But you know what governments can do? Make racism a completely outdated and unprofitable philosophy by changing the rules of the game – and by that process begin a slow death of that terrible philosophy.

        1. Dude, the only way people can kill each other with impunity is if it is deemed legal.

          1. Oh I don’t know about that. People in my neighborhood kill each other with impunity daily.

          2. not really, they could just do it. Ever heard of a riot? Or murder? Or that maybe not every place in history has had a strong centralized state and law didn’t matter so much?

        2. Well, it would help if progressives would stop teaching african americans, and every other minority, to identify themselves as members of tiny oppressed victim classes that are engaged in a costant battle for liberation from the evil white man.

        3. Bullshit. Did it ever occur to you that throughout most of history a strong, centralized state wasn’t even the norm? Not everything has to do with government, read a fucking history book, you dweeb.

          Yes, most of history had people in hunter-gatherer tribes.

          Were those tribes in complete anarchy?

    3. here are some nuances I’m talking about:

      deed restrictions. Because of deed restrictions, you can effectively own land forever. You can say that you won’t deed the land to anyone unless they use it in the manner you prescribe. This makes it like you can own land forever – your wishes can effect the land long after you’re dead. Such a policy is already specious in terms of being true to the concept of property rights. On the other hand, it is used in Houston as an alternative to zoning, so maybe it is a good thing. Either way, we’re stuck with it, since it’s part of our common law system. So, racists could easily bar minorities from entire communities forever, if it weren’t for the fair housing act and the CRA. And since most of America was surveyed and granted to Americans when blacks had no rights, who do you think would have the advantage in land ownership to start with?

      How about advertising? What if businesses put ads in the paper or on TV for their store or for hiring, then when some types of people get there, they’re turned away because of discriminatory policies. Are you really going to tell me those schmucks don’t owe people money for the gas and time they wasted? Shouldn’t they be required to pay for the extra ad space to mention that they’re discriminatory in the first place? Or what if I’m eating in a restaurant, and THEN I learn that they’re racist. I don’t want to patronize such businesses, so I’d leave, without paying the check, regardless of how much I already ate. Clearly the store owner would call the cops and report it and if he ever finds my name later try to prosecute me. Should we have the government waste its resources like that?

      How about privacy rights and credit ratings? If we had really strong privacy rights, checking someone’s economic history might be very difficult, so banks might use race and racial statistics to help them decide whether to give loans. Can you guess how much privacy some good old boys would vote for in economic matters?

      There are a million little nuances like that in the law that could be used to promote racism and you idiots know it, but you refuse to admit it. Even in libertopia, the government would be just too damn tied in to the economic world.

      1. you owe reason for the bandwidth you are taking up right now.

        1. He also owes me for wasting my time.

      2. Because of deed restrictions, you can effectively own land forever.

        Hi. I’m a lawyer.

        In Anglo-American common law we have this thing called the Rule Against Perpetuities, some form of which exists in every state in the country. The Rule exists precisely to prevent the kind of dead-hand control of land that you’re bitching about, and works by invalidating conditional future interests in land that fail to vest within a reasonable amount of time. In other words, it’s not possible to “effectively own land forever” via restrictive covenants or conditional conveyances; those restrictions and conditions get knocked out of a deed if they’d result in dead-hand control persisting too far into the future.

        Stop being a fucking idiot and talking out your ass, please.

        1. Yeah, but rules against perpetuities wouldn’t invalidate restrictive covenants in subdivisions (a la Houston, where they’re a substitute for zoning) where people are on a regular basis moving in and out of the subdivision. Again, vast tracts of land/housing could be made off limits to minorities. And developers would put racial restrictions in their subdivisions, even if not all of their customers are racist. Having restrictions against minorities wouldn’t bother non racists, but not having restrictions would bother racists, so developers would opt for having racial restrictions, and just a portion of the population/customer base could thus create an impetus to discriminate on a large scale.

    4. Re: Edwin,

      It’s amazing how narrow-minded, dogmatic and myopic libertarians’ positions can be.

      Espousing liberty and freedom is being myopic and narrow-minded?

      Yeah, sure, I agree that people have the right to free association in business in theory – but the REAL LIFE HISTORY says otherwise, doesn’t it?

      So, people don’t have the freedom to associate with whomever they wish? Is that what you’re saying? Does your mommy choose your friends for you, then?

      Oh, only the government should be barred from discriminating – but every business should be able to?

      Yes. Next question.

      Do you really think the situation would ever remain like that – that you could have the majority races [sic] discriminating completely in the private sphere but somehow magically all the discrimination ends in government offices.

      Is that a question?

      People are bastard coated bastards with a creamy bastard center, and money always finds power.

      … but the government is populated by angels . . . Right?

      With racism being OK in our economic lives – you know, the part of your life that makes up like 90% of what you do – certain races could easily gain a power foothold locally.

      Really? You seem quote obsessed with this race issue, almost to the point of paranoia…

      1. You didn’t respond to any of my points. Thank you for proving that a good chunk of libertarians don’t really have any arguments, just smart-aleck responses.

        1. Yeah OM, none of those responses you gave exist. Stop being such a smart-aleck and answer this guy’s questions with simple words, like yes and no.

    5. right, we’re the idiots. We acknolwedge that the world has it’s problems and we can’t make them magically go away with laws so instead we just try to keep people as free as possible and be tolerant of the offensive stuff as long as it doesn’t involve violence or fraud, etc. Of course we could be like you and delude ourselves into thinking that we can actually coerce everyone into a utopian society that is “free”.

    6. “money always finds power. ”

      Money finds power, not vice versa. Suggests to me, if you want income equality, you start by working toward power equality. A strong, unbounded central government staffed by an elite and largely unelected political class would seem to be moving in precisely the wrong direction.

    7. It’s amazing how narrow-minded, dogmatic and myopic libertarians’ positions can be. Yeah, sure, I agree that people have the right to free association in business in theory – but the REAL LIFE HISTORY says otherwise, doesn’t it?

      How does real life say otherwise?

      If white-owned businesses exclude black people, black-owned businesses exclude white people.

      It is as simple as that.

      Do you really think the situation would ever remain like that – that you could have the majority races discriminating completely in the private sphere but somehow magically all the discrimination ends in government offices.

      Yes.

      With racism being OK in our economic lives – you know, the part of your life that makes up like 90% of what you do – certain races could easily gain a power foothold locally.

      That is the natural state of things.

      Ask a Malay in China or a Korean in Japan about how that works.

  20. Very well said.

    Unfortunately, Paul wasn’t. He came across very poorly with Maddow.

    Fortunately, I don’t think it was fatal.

  21. The Market is never wrong! Why you can trust redneck, cousin-fucking neaderthals to act in their own ecomomic self-interest every time. Leave it to private enterpirse. Too bad more blacks, Jews and Mexicans aren’t libertarians so could unserstand this shit.

    1. Max, you really should slow down. It really improves spelling and grammar. In any event, latest word out of anthropological circles says that neanderthals did in fact fuck their cousins, cro magnon. So, you probably have some cousing fucking genes left in you too. I guess there’s hope yet that your head will magically withdraw from you ass.

      1. It’ll have to if he’s going to have that reverse-lobodomy.

    2. Aren’t you forgetting idiots, Max? Why aren’t there more idiots like you that are libertarians?

    3. Why you can trust redneck, cousin-fucking neaderthals to act in their own ecomomic self-interest every time.

      No.

      If they do not act in their own economic self-interest, they pay the price or someone bails them out.

      Too bad more blacks, Jews and Mexicans aren’t libertarians so could unserstand this shit.

      If white business owners exclude black people, black business owners exclude white people. What could be more fair than that?

  22. Edwin, it is you who need to look at the reality. Blacks have been ruined by the government. The government gave them free housing, free school, free food, and paid daddies to leave their families.

    In the olden days, blacks may not have had the same level of access to certain stores, but I can guarantee you that they were happier, safer, and had intact families that went to Church.

    Now they are destroyed, all thanks to the government. And who was oppressing them before this? The government. How do you like those Apples?

    1. Wow! Just like Social Security (50x welfare) “desroyed” all the fucking old folk – who still demand their goodies!

      You’re a fucking genius!

      1. Socialist Insecurity certainly destroyed the thought of retirement for any of us who are under 40ish.

        1. No it didn’t you small minded fuck.

          1. If you are under 40, your peers should just go ahead and shoot you for being dead weight to them, but you serve my interest just fine. I’m getting mine, and you are stupid enough to pay it down for me.

      2. Do you really need an explanation of the difference in sociological effects between a pension for retired people and welfare for the young and able-bodied?

    2. Go away. You won’t find much sympathy here for the notion that ‘blacks’ were happier when they dealt with institutionalized racism but went to Church. We aren’t so paternalistic.

      1. “The death of a democracy is the day when a group of citizens realizes it can vote itself to government handouts.”

        Marcus Aurelius, Roman Philospher & Leader

        1. Absolutely, positively false attribution of a paraphrased suspected Alexander Fraser Tyler quote. Well done.

  23. It wasn’t individuals who bombed that black church in Burmingham. It was the government, right? The government shot Martin Luther King, right? The KKK? all FBI agents, right? Fuck, the government has done all the bad shit.

    1. Well Max – that is an interesting theory. Are you 100% certain that the Oil Well in the Gulf of Mexico was NOT an inside job perpetrated by Obama? Even Limbaugh said this may have been a possibility – certainly no friend of government conspiracy “trutherism.”

      Stranger things have happened…

    2. Remember how all of the local government officials stepped in, investigated these crimes, and prosecuted them to the full extent of the law?

      Oh wait…

      1. In case you don’t realize, MP, you just ADDED to Max’s argument. The whole libertarian B.S. about “only the government shouldn’t discriminate” is nothing but empty words. It might not work out like that, and you know it. You stronger, bigger state or federal agency, backed up by some effective laws, to squeeze localities in order to effectively stop racism, governmental or otherwise.

        1. Does it add to Max’s idiotic idea that libertarians have to say all crimes are perpetrated by the government?

    3. Re: Max,

      It wasn’t individuals who bombed that black church in Burmingham. It was the government, right?

      Oh, I just love it when leftists pricks revel on non sequiturs, like happy pigs on the muck.

      The government shot Martin Luther King, right?

      Yes. Cui bono if not it? Next question.

      Fuck, the government has done all the bad shit.

      So far, yes: Wholesale pillaging of our productive efforts, taking of our property, sending our sons and daughters to be slaughtered in undeclared wars, experimenting on our bodies, destroying our financial systems, imposing stupid and destructive laws . . .

      1. again, you responded to none of the points that guy was making

        1. Were you expecting him to? Let me save you some trouble, they don’t reply to your points, just have fun with it. If you take some of these people too seriously you’re apt to get mighty depressed.

    4. It wasn’t individuals who bombed that black church in Burmingham. It was the government, right? The government shot Martin Luther King, right? The KKK? all FBI agents, right? Fuck, the government has done all the bad shit.

      So what are you saying, Max? You love the state but you hate the people that live in them?

      Reminds me of a joke about France.
      France is nice except for the people who live there.

      The US Government is nice except for the people for whom authority is theoretically derived.

      That is the mental maze you have contorted yourself into and it is the central dilemma of the modern left.
      Everything you regard as a ‘benefit to humanity’ is in practice an imposition you place on those who you hate. There was a time you hated a smaller group of people than now, racist, capitalist, and a fairly definable list, but now your hate is all encompassing with the exception of yourselves.

      That is why you will be stuck in the wilderness soon for a mighty long time.

      BTW, who sent all those black kids off to fight in ‘Nam? Wait, before you answer, let me help you because you seriously need a lot of help, Dupont! Lol! You are too fucking easy.

    5. It wasn’t individuals who bombed that black church in Burmingham. It was the government, right? The government shot Martin Luther King, right? The KKK? all FBI agents, right? Fuck, the government has done all the bad shit.

      Those were acts of murder, and prosecuting murder is a legitimate function of government.

      1. If that’s the case, I’m moving to Iceland.

  24. So Rand Paul is in favor of segregated theater lines (like my hometown Fox Theater had until the 1960’s).

    The “nigras” were forced into the balcony after a backdoor line.

    The important question is- who “forced” you to subsidize their asshole policy by giving them your money?

    1. Right.. the “niggers” lined up to buy theater tickets at the Atlanta Fox were “subsidized”?

      Go fuck yourself in your ass.

      1. shrike, max, and sherman are all the same person?

      2. No, Mr. Brooks said they were “susidizing” the theater owner (and so were you if you went there, so you were supporting segregation)

  25. Great points made by Mr. Root. Of course, it seems a good number of fellow travelers are fleeing this discussion just when salient points like these are being raised. Too bad Rand Paul didn’t have some of these facts at his disposal with Maddow.

  26. It just goes to show how new Rand is to all this – he apparently didn’t go into the interview assuming that Maddow’s sole purpose was to ambush him and try to make him look like some kind of knuckle-dragging troglodyte.

    I hope he’s learned something from this: the press is your enemy, not your friend, and will stop at nothing to try to destroy you.

    1. I think that’s the most depressing thing about this issue. He showed me he’s something of a light-weight, like his dad.

      A politician worth his salt knows what a partisan hacker like Maddow is out to do. Yet Rand walked right into it, and performed poorly at that.

      Does not speak well to his political sharpness, and unlike some I think this episode is a big, big mainstream blow for Rand Paul. This is going to be a John Stewart/late show talking point for the elites here on out, and it will a potent weapon for setting him up as a kook.

      1. Exactly… he is running for one of 100 senate seats, he is not getting high in his freshman dorm room.

    2. Look at the libertarian bitching about the press–the PRESS, the watchdog of government–because it drilled some holes in the stupid dogma of one of your pet politicians.

      It’s not unfair to ask Sarah Palin what newspapers she reads just because she can’t answer the question. And just because Paul fucked up his answer doesn’t mean anyone treated him poorly.

      1. The press was waiting for something like this to happen, and you and your kind are all too happy and drooling to say “lookit! Jon Stewart was right! “Aryan” rhymes with “libertarian!”…

        All so you can peddle your statist bullshit with perpetual majority rule. Thanks a lot, Tonys of America.

      2. Look at the libertarian bitching about the press–the PRESS, the watchdog of government–because it drilled some holes in the stupid dogma of one of your pet politicians.

        The press lost its credibility as a watchdog of the government when it ran that hit piece on President back in September of 2004.

      3. MSNBC is not the “watchdog” of the government. It is the government. It is General Electric, which makes all its money filling government contracts to slaughter innocent brown people. (Or in direct bailout transfers.)

        Rand Paul threatens threatens Rachel Maddow’s brown-people-slaughtering money train.

        Of course she attacked him. The bloody, irradiated, dismembered corpses of brown people is Rachel Maddow’s lifeblood.

        (And Keith Olbermann’s, and Mika Brzezinski’s, and Joe Scarborough… and all the other white-only hosts on MSNBC.)

  27. Right.. the “niggers” lined up to buy theater tickets at the Atlanta Fox were “subsidized”?

    Have a nice day, Shreeeeek!

  28. Rand’s fucking father published a racist newsletter for years, for Christ’s sake. Who but a true believer libertarin cultist wouldn’t suspect Rand might be a fucking racist?

    1. Re: Max,

      Rand’s fucking father published a racist newsletter for years, for Christ’s sake.

      They were racists? News to me – can you provide an example?

    2. My father was a speed boat racer (hydroplanes) so I must be a speed boat racer too!

    3. What the fuck is your point, Max? He had every right to publish whatever stupid tripe he damned well pleased just as I had every right to rescind any of my future support for him for doing exactly that. What is it about you fucking “liberal” nitwits that makes you think that only if the benevolent state were to force everyone to sweep their prejudices under the rug and “get along” that everything would suddenly be hunky dory? And why are you so perpetually obsessed with the idea of everybody getting along, anyway? Freedom is not limited to rational behavior.

      1. Ron Paul is not a racist, either. But the Maxes of the world are too fucking lazy to use the word properly.

  29. Hey, libertarians, you know what? You know what could never happen? It’s not like if people were allowed to discriminate in commerce again, that some people would, which would grow resentment in the discriminated-against people who normally wouldn’t have even grow a racist sentiment in the first place. And then minorities would start their own racist businesses. Which would then piss off the white majority even more, causing more racial resentment. All of this leading to more and more balkanization, and eventually race riots.

    No that could never happen, right? It’s not like bad ideas can be just as contagious as good ideas. There are no vicious cycles or anything.

    1. The ONLY entity balkanizing this country is the government.

    2. You know what would be great. If non-libertarian trolls such as yourself stuck to explaining your own opinion about controversial topics rather than stating some strawman opinion you think is held by all libertarians.

      1. What strawman? That’s the only argument half the libertarians have, just babbling “strawman! strawman!”. There is no strawman – you idiots are dumb enough to really believe that you could repeal American anti-discrimination laws and everything would be fine and peachy forever with race relations. That’s what this whole two articles were about. And I’m telling you that that’s a really stupid, half-baked belief. And by the way, just because I take account of REALITY when forming my opinions, doesn’t bar me from being a libertarian. I’m a libertarian, but I take into account REALITY. Like the REALITY that this country isn’t libertopia, and largely formed while it was the farthest from it. And that it still isn’t libertopia, and localities and states still have plenty of law-making power. And that maybe human nature is just a certain way, and no amount of high-an-mighty philosophizing will ever change its sometimes brutal nature.

        1. “you idiots are dumb enough to really believe that you could repeal American anti-discrimination laws and everything would be fine and peachy forever with race relations.”

          you are dumb enough to think that if you empower the state to such an extent that it can intervene in every transaction that its interventions will be equitable and fair?

          that is pretty big leap of faith.

        2. Dude, I’m a libertarian and think there was merit to the anti-discrimination laws. So, there. OK, maybe you aren’t engaging in strawman building, but instead are trying to paint all libertarians with a broad brush.

        3. I’m a libertarian

          You’re not. You claim to take into account REALITY, but your argument revolves around your fantasy of what might happen if anti-discrimination laws were repealed.

          Then, based on this nightmare scenario that you’re sure will come to pass otherwise, you’re all-too-eager to trample on the right of free association.

          Well, guess what, bucko. That’s not libertarian. It’s totalitarian.

          1. fantasy? There’s no fantasy. it already happened. That’s why they passed those laws. Try reading a history book.

        4. … you idiots are dumb enough to really believe that you could repeal American anti-discrimination laws and everything would be fine and peachy forever with race relations.

          And you are dumb enough to believe that passing such laws will insure that “everything would be fine and peachy forever with race relations.” Has it? You’re the idiot!

    3. Sure, excepting for the strong economic (which have always been there) and social (which today are stronger than ever) incentives not to behave that way.

      Your fantastical precautionary principle argument is a pretty weak excuse for the existing racist regime imposed by the government.

      1. Yo, what the hell are you feebs talking about? The government is promoting racism? You schmucks are complaining about a law that makes racism ILLEGAL and then turning around and saying that the government is promoting racism? That’s retarded

        Is affirmative action stupid and racist, and promote racism? Yes. But THAT’S IT. That’s ONE policy that could be changed. But the CRA and the fair housing laws STOP racist activity by making illegal.

        Are you guys listening to yourselves?

        1. Any government act that is providing special privileges (whether they be positive rights or extra-legal rights) to a group on the basis of race is inherently promoting racism. A particular act may not be causing people to act in a racist manner, but it will cause people to continue to think in a racist manner, since the government has proscribed that race is a function of the decision making process.

          1. So what you’re saying is that by making it illegal to be racist in business dealings – hiring, housing, selling, etc. – the government is PROMOTING racism. THAT’S RETARDED.

            1. At a certain point, those laws go from nudging society towards racial tolerance to codifying the existence of racial sub-divisions.

              I would argue that their ability to act as a nudge has long expired. Society has been nudged as far as it’s going to by those laws. Now they only act to codify racial divisions.

              1. Thank god we have your omniscient wisdom to tell us when the fight for racial equality has come to an end. We can tell the thousands of people engaged in civil rights lawsuits to just pack up and go home… there is no problem anymore, because MP says so!

            2. I’m sorry Edwin, I thought you said we should only be giving arguments, not just stating “THAT’S RETARDED.”

        2. I’m curious, Edwin…if all the anti-discrimination laws suddenly vanished, would you start acting in a racist manner?

          1. When did he stop being a racist? I’m a minoritah, and all I’m hearing is condescension and sanctimony and quite a bit of self love from that guy.

            If he bothers to reply just watch the subtext. It will be, ‘you owe me so you need to kiss mah ass!’

            Since I pointed it out, the other option will be a ‘fuck you’, denigrate my intelligence, etc. Same shit, different day with these leftist.

    4. You know, if you force people to walk on eggshells around other people for fear of becoming social pariahs, that might also breed resentment — a silent, festering resentment since all avenues for venting are closed off. Because they never know what the hell exactly will be misinterpreted or get them into trouble, they’ll just try to avoid people of the easily offended minorities altogether. Then balkanization, then race riots.

      Were there more race riots (as opposed to, say, nonviolent civil rights protests) before or after the passage of the CRA?

      1. That’s a good question. There were definitely race riots before passage, as far back as the World War One era in some of the urban areas – Chicago comes to mind. There were also a bunch of riots which occurred after passage, but the most famous and widespread were those that were precipitated by the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

    5. And then minorities would start their own racist businesses.

      And that is the proper response to majorities having racist businesses?

      No that could never happen, right? It’s not like bad ideas can be just as contagious as good ideas. There are no vicious cycles or anything.

      Maybe we should allow vicious cycles to reach their conclusion.

  30. *sigh*
    None of this matters, Damon.
    If you are against some parts of the Civil Rights Act, you are for seggregation. If you are against banning salt, you want people to be fat and die of heart attacks. If you are against the Patriot Act, you are for the terrorists.

  31. Well, I’ll be damned. Rand Paul really is a libertarian. He is a lot closer to being my favorite senator if he wins.

    1. He’s still anti-immigration.

      1. Also not evidence of any racism

  32. The notion that people espouse libertarian positions out of some latent or overt hatred of people of other races is silly and very possibly clinically insane.

    1. I know that is why i want the government to balance its budget and cut my taxes. So I can hate black people.

    2. The people who believe that essentially hate their fellow humans, and assume the worst of human nature at all times.
      Basically, secular Catholics.

  33. “I’m curious, Edwin…if all the anti-discrimination laws suddenly vanished, would you start acting in a racist manner?”

    Again, not responding to my arguments. Seriously, do you guys even have any arguments, or just smart-ass comments? Do you guys know the difference?

    And no I wouldn’t, but plenty of racist fucks would. And that would breed racial resentment in plenty of people who weren’t racist before. And the whole thing could, and I think history shows probably would, snowball.

    1. you don’t think disparate impact creates racial resentment?

    2. PS – your second paragraph is awesome. you just assumed your way to a race war. very charles manson-ish.

    3. Hey, libertarians, you know what? You know what could never happen? It’s not like if people were allowedforced by law to discriminate in commerce again, that some people would, which would grow resentment in the discriminated-against people who normally wouldn’t have even grow a racist sentiment in the first place. And then minorities would be prevented by licensing and other barriers to entry from startingstart their own racist businesses. Which would then piss off the white majority even more, causing more racial resentment. All of this leading to more and more balkanization, and eventually race riots.

      No that could never happen, right? It’s not like bad ideas can be just as contagious as good ideas. There are no vicious cycles or anything.

      Fixed.

    4. Interesting.

      At first you say that what you quoted was not a real response or argument. Just a smart ass comment.

      Then you respond to the question posed to you as if it IS a serious part of the discussion.

      So which one is it?

      I’m curious, do you start all your posts by saying “libertarians have no arguments”? Is this an instinctual defense mechanism?

    5. And no I wouldn’t, but plenty of racist fucks would. And that would breed racial resentment in plenty of people who weren’t racist before. And the whole thing could, and I think history shows probably would, snowball.

      When was the last time it snowballed?

      1. When Southern cops were releasing dogs on and shooting firehoses at bkacks. And the Klan was killing blacks for fun.

  34. I’m afraid Rand is going to suffer the lion’s share of Democrat smear attacks since Sarah Palin isn’t running for anything. Hope he gets a better PR team.

    1. Palin is no great shakes in the mental department and she still managed to twist the left in knots. Rand Paul is of a higher caliber, so best advice I can give them is this, next time they better bring Kryptonite. The pea shooters they used on Palin might as well have been shooting out gold coins given she got rich off of those fools victimizing her.

  35. By the logic of certain portions of the Civil Rights Act (much of which I agree with), it should be illegal for me to not allow black people into my own home.
    Even if I have a “Nigger Beware” placard on my door.

  36. And no I wouldn’t, but plenty of racist fucks would.

    “Now, as for myself, well I have no problem with those people. [lowers voice to a whisper] But some of the people around here are rather unenlightened, if you know what I mean.”

  37. Are libertarians also opposed to laws against race discrimination in private employment? In union membership? Transportation services by privately owned carriers?

    1. I’m not one, but as a regular poster I think I can hazard an answer: triple yep.

      1. The principle involved would seem to be exactly the same as for restaurant service, hotel accommodations, etc. Yet without the laws against employment discrimination, especially, it’s hard to see how the pre-civil rights caste system in the South would ever have been dismantled.

        1. It is hard to see if your view of the economy is one where most people are employees of a few large employers, and that’s the way it should be.

          If you view the economy as something that is, or should be, dominated by small business, entrepreneurs and self-employed people, it’s not hard to see at all.

          My view is that the greatest gains blacks have made has been through entrepreneurship. And it’s worth noting that libertarians generally believe that free market policies are best for social mobility of everyone, regardless of race.

        2. It’s not hard at all. As the social climate became increasingly harsh towards racists, less and less discrimination would be done.

          1. I mean, how do you think the Civil Rights Act was passed in the first place against the wishes of the Southern racists? Popular opinion was against them.

        3. Yet without the laws against employment discrimination, especially, it’s hard to see how the pre-civil rights caste system in the South would ever have been dismantled.

          If white-owned businesses discriminate on the basis of race, black-owned business discriminate on the basis of race too.

          See how that works?

      2. MNG, I reserve the right not to let a mentally feeble cunt like you anywhere near my door.
        Try it. And you’ll die trying it.
        Fucking low-life paranoid twat.

    2. Isn’t it more insulting to give someone special treatment because of the color of their skin?

      Civil rights is nothing more than hand holding. It is sad and insulting to say that blacks can’t take care of themselves and therefore need a Civil Rights law.

      1. “Civil rights is nothing more than hand holding.”

        Heard it here first, folks.

        1. Considering that you are normally surrounded by a bubble of liberal, YES- OBAMA-men, that doesn’t surprise me.

      2. They did/do need laws to enforce the “equal justice under law” concept.
        The free market does rely on equitable courts to enforce property rights and contracts.

        What is unnecessary is laws forcing private individuals to treat other private individuals equally.

        If an employer gets into an employment contract with a black man, the government is completely obligated to enforce the terms of the contract so the emplyees gets paid what he is entitled to. However, it cannot (or should not) force the employer to enter into the contract in the first place.

    3. just out of curiosity,
      I can only speak for myself and my self says yes to all of the above. I’m also against laws that force private employers to hire somebody that is not qualified for the job. I’m against laws that force unions to accept people who will work for less than the negotiated wage. I’m against laws that require private transportation services to give rides to people who will not abide by their rules. As long as it is not physically injurious to somebody else I’m against any law that requires me to do something that I choose not to do.

  38. Edwin,

    It’s funny watching try to reason with these moonies. Just tell them to go suck Ron paul’s cock.

    1. “funny watching try”

      Funnier watching you try to fucking string together a cogent thought from that moist pussy you call a brain, Min.

      1. + the fucking universe

  39. What is a more important freedom? The right of business owners to discriminate, or the right of minorities to be free from discrimination and to take full advantage of all the choices available in the marketplace?

    1. The right of people to work 12 hours days of backbreaking labor with no vacations or weekends, that is, to spend most of their lives in a state tantamount to indentured servitude, is freedom, because teh evil government isn’t involved.

      1. Lack of consent is what qualifies slavery as slavery, not the amount of work done. If I agree to work 12 hours days of backbreaking labor with no vacations or weekends, who are you to say that I can’t? Dumbass.

    2. To be free from discrimination is to be free from judgment by other members of society; to demand it is to demand complete control of the thoughts and opinions of everyone else.

      To take full advantage of all the choices in available in the marketplace in the way you seem to imply is to deny the principles that allow a “marketplace” to exist, namely the requirement that any transaction have the consent of both parties.

      So, option A, seeing as it’s the only one that should properly be called a freedom at all.

    3. There is no right to be free from discrimination. You don’t have a right to control my opinion of you.

    4. A “right” to be free from discrimination?

      There’s no such thing.

      There is no such thing as a “right” to require someone else to do business with you.

      That would be an affirmative right.

      And there is no such thing as affirmative rights.

  40. Luckily for Maddow, my bar doesn’t let dykes in.

    1. … or jiggaboos.

  41. What is a more important freedom? Your right to free speech, or my right to be free from oversimplistic inanities?

    Absent instigation of force (i.e., preempting “Hurr durr my right to enslave your daughter durr hurr…”) Freedom To > Freedom From.

  42. Thirty-five years ago, it was also hard to see how you could have a live voice conversation with anyone in the world, any time- Star Trek put cell phones on par with instantaneous transmission of matter. Just sayin’ …

  43. 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?

    1. You’re 5/8ths correct! Jonny, what has this fucking retard won?

      1. I’m curious, which ones are wrong? I’ll admit #4 is mostly on the weekends. Seriously, this rand paul, and the arizona threads are crawling with wannabe Lone Wackos. I may be a retard, but I’m an observant one. This site is less about libertarianism, and more about how to maintain destructive relationships with republicans, and not the decent kind either.

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

      6.)Paul Ryan ditto

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

      That can be easily trumped with one Obama, no need to look for a pattern on that one. You are just a fucking loonytoon to have thought anything coming out of his mouth was ever a cogent point.

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

      Public employee unions are a big part of our fiscal crises, financial crises was cause by deadbeats on both WallStreet and Mainstreet, and a few in the ghettos.

      3.)FDR prolonged the great depression.

      Even if it hurts your ass to acknowledge it, that is just a fact jack. Your sweet little multiplier will never ever be better than .80 percent because it’s made from the ground horns of unicorns (or to be more precise mirrors the percentile burden of government which burdens even more in the hard times).

      Even if you wont acknowledge it, you know it is true, and your macro professor sold you snake oil.

      Pity, ’cause you wanted to believe so hard. Now you have all of this evidence stacked up against you.

      Sowry, but it is true. Don’t cry. Okay, just let it out give me a good ol’ ‘What the FUCK do you know!’ Go ape shit, I don’t care if screaming at us in denial keeps you from blowing your brains out than do it!

      Remember, there are so few under forty left who are willing to pay my Social Security bills, I can’t have you cop out on me.

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

      Who the fuck remembers Phil Gramm except vaguely? Is the left obsessing over that guy? You don’t like have hundreds of pictures of him cut out from old newspaper clippings on your wall do you? Let it go, everybody else has.

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

      Yeah, that was some funny shit. I got to give you that one.

  44. Three cheers for liberaltarianism!

    Yeah, it really took a cro-magnom reject to think that one up.

  45. Ahhhh…Now I remember why I haven’t been reading these threads much lately.

    1. Has there been a “global warming” scandal thread I haven’t seen?

  46. 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.

  47. Maddow and her friends are so right! Just look at all the recent cases of people who have tried to segregate their businesses and have been arrested for it!

  48. It’s pretty simple. replace the word “Libertarian” with “White Person” and the screeching of the American Left makes a lot more sense.

    1. It’s pretty simple. replace the word “Libertarian” with “White Person” and the screeching of the American Left makes a lot more sense.

      Are not most people on the American Left white?

      why do they hate their own kind?

      1. Because they’re stupid tribalists.

  49. The left are cockroaches. Look at them scurry. Professional race-baiters on MSNBC cannot comprehend a free mind that is also free to discriminate. They reveal themselves as thought police, and they are proud of it.

  50. HAHAAA now Rand the nutbag just went on the teevee and said that BP and the Coal mine disasters were just “accidents”, why does it have to be anybody’s fault? Holy crap this guy is comedy gold!

  51. “Witness this and the Black Caucus march stunt”

    I love this construction too, it was a “stunt” to walk past the teabaggers with a big mallet. They couldn’t stop themselves! It’s not fair to walk past them and be black! They were forced to yell! amazing stuff. Do randroids even think about their knee-jerk nuttiness, or are they really just insulated from reality in a perfect hermetic community?

    1. You know the answer don’t you

    2. You know the answer don’t you

  52. For Obama supporters honestly hoping for a post-partisan politics, a focused and de-radicalized tea party, working together with conservatives to solve problems, and political disagreement based in difference of values instead of Orwellian arguments about facts, Rand Paul is exactly what this country needs. For those who value heterodoxy, whether Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, Rand Paul should be a welcome addition to the U.S. Senate.

    Rachel Maddow’s contention that Paul supports racism because he believes private businesses should be able to discriminate, is like saying that anyone who supports states’s rights supports slavery.

    http://www.theinductive.com/bl…..tucky.html

  53. Rachel Maddow’s contention that Paul supports racism because he believes private businesses should be able to discriminate, is like saying that anyone who supports states’s rights supports slavery.

    Or that people who support freedom of speech support Holocaust denial.

  54. All these discussions about Rand Paul and Libertarianism seem to ignore the fact that he is not a Libertarian.

    Just look at the man’s position on the civil rights issue of TODAY. He opposes anti-discrimination law in the private sector for gay people. No surprise there. That would be a principled stand for a Libertarian who opposed government-imposed racial desegregation of private lunch counters.

    But what about discrimination by government? He’s all for that, too. No same-sex marriage, no civil unions, no adoption rights.

    Today’s version of Jim Crow? He’s all for it.

    (No, I am not EQUATING the two forms of discrimination, nor am I claiming comparable harm or any sort of equivalence. There are a few parallels and Rand Paul is on opposite sides of his own argument regarding them.)

    1. So, Rand Paul has a bunch of incoherent stances that he claims have to do with constitutional matters but actually sound like some kind of cover for a racist ideology?

      Sure sounds like a true Libertarian to me!

  55. Even with the Civil Rights Act, businesses have discriminated on the basis of race. They do it surreptitiously, but they do get caught once in a while.
    One relatively recent prominent example is Abercombie and Fitch. Google Abercombie Fitch and Race discrimination, if you don’t believe it happens.
    I believe it is okay for the federal government to punish Abercombie and Fitch for this. Many of you don’t; because you believe that the public disapproval will be sufficient punishment.

    As far as I know, Abercombie and Fitch are still in business even after said discrimination. The wrath of the public did not shut them down as the public didn’t care by and large.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.