Rand Paul

Reason Morning Links: Now Featuring the Hot Political Debates of 1964


• The Senate passes a financial regulation bill.

• Dennis Blair resigns as national intelligence director.

• Germany joins the Euro bailout.

• Rand Paul now says he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

• The House wants to extend a national DNA database by taking samples from people arrested but not convicted of crimes.

• Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?

NEXT: Friday Funnies

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.

  1. And a hard raaaaaaaain’s a gonna fall….

  2. “Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, ‘Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.’ And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that. And then asked me if a Smurf screams in the forest and nobody is around does it still make a sound?”

  3. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?

    More Chuck for the buck!

    1. Yeah baby! My rack puts Nancy’s to shame!

  4. The Senate passes a financial regulation bill.

    Next, they’re gonna repeal the Law of Gravity. After that, maybe they’ll make a law the says all dogs must wear diapers.

    1. I wish they would repeal the law of gravity. Gravity’s a bitch.

      1. It’s pulling me down.

        1. Can they outlaw Greece, too?

          1. No, they are pretending that Greece it to big to fail so they can protect the EU and Euro.

            1. I rather they just rename it to Grease.

              1. Can’t do. Grease, unlike Greece, is in the black.

          2. can’t we just sell Greece to the merpeople?

            1. Just how fucking stupid do you think my people are? Release the Kraken!

      2. Yeah, it really sucks being in this boring, repetitive orbit around the sun. There’s a whole universe to explore, for starters! Don’t even get me started on that pesky moon that’s always hanging around, either.

      3. Gravity’s a bitch.

        I know.

        1. HA! AND we have the snatch to match!

      4. Screw that. Let’s just specify that the official value of pi in America is 3.

        I think that extra bit that scientists keep tacking on is left over from that loser Jimmy Carter’s failed attempt to convert us to European style socialism via the metric system.

        I bet if we changed pi to 3 our kids math scores would improve dramatically and the budget numbers would improve.

        1. Yeah, but those hexagonal tires are a bitch.

          1. But hex grids are great for war games.

            1. Hex grids? HEX GRIDS!

              Sounds like some of that satanic D&D that I am always preaching against.

              If only someone had counseled the Pope when he was younger, he might not have been such an uber-nerd in Jr. High.

  5. What’s really behind SEIU’s Bank of America protests?
    (FORTUNE) — Every journalist loves a peaceful protest-whether it makes news, shakes up a political season, or holds out the possibility of altering history. Then there are the ones that show up on your curb–literally.

    Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that — in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action — makes his family fair game.

    Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him….

    1. …Now this event would accurately be called a “protest” if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be “mob.” Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might “incite” these trespassers….

      1. The police later issued a statement saying that if the Baer family had a dog, however, they’d be perfectly happy to swing by and shoot it.

        1. As an in-house counsel, I’m appalled.

          1. As a human being, I’m appalled.

            1. Bet I’m more appalled.

              1. Propose an objective measurement strategy and we’ll see. What do I win if I’m more appalled? What do I lose if not? Most importantly, why is it important to you to declare who is more appalled??

                1. I just meant it strikes closer to home. I was once a banking counsel–could’ve been me. Better go warn the wife and kids.

              2. I’m appalled at all the handwringing.

                1. I’m appalled at the overuse of appalled.

        2. In the photo accompanying the article you can see that the protesters are trespassing on private property. Would it be legal to shoot them,in that state(VA?)?

          1. No. I don’t know of any state where it would be legal to shoot somebody simply because they were on your property without your permission. And I’m betting there aren’t any – even Texas.

            1. From the Texas use of force laws:


              ?9.41. Protection of one’s own property.

              (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

              1. The prosecutor would make your life hell for many months or years and the media would pile on to no end, but yeah, you could shoot them.

                And, frankly, it would be justified. You didn’t used to see this kind of shit ANYWHERE in America 50 years ago, for exactly this reason.

                1. Yes, and I would argue that 500 angry people on your lawn, who do not disperse, do create a reasonable fear for one’s safety.

                  Especially if law enforcement is unwilling to remove them.

                  1. What if the porch collapsed due to too much weight on it? Could they successfully sue even thought they are trespassing?

                    1. good question. If you built the porch yourself and didn’t get permits, you’re totally getting sued.

                    2. What if the porch collapsed due to too much weight on it? Could they successfully sue even thought they are trespassing?

                      Yes, and there is a good reason for it, as defective porches do not discriminate between guests and trespassers.

                    3. right because you would have 500 guests on your porch all the time.

            2. I don’t know of any state where it would be legal to shoot somebody simply because they were on your property without your permission.

              As capitol L most handily pointed out, bullshit I can’t. That whole “terminate the other’s trespass” part of the law is a bitch. I tell you to leave, you best turn around towards the property line and start steppin’. Otherwise, it’s game on.

              You learn all kinds of fun stuff when you go through the CHL course with your in-house counsel.

              1. Also, just about every state allows for deadly force if feel that you, or someone else, are in imminent danger. And, as I said above, a 500 person angry mob would seem to qualify.

          2. You’d think with his obscene profits he could afford to build some sort of sci-fi contraption that would be like a reverse panic room.

            Instead of fleeing to some super fortified room inside your house, you’d hit the button and walls would shoot out the top of your roof and in seconds your entire yard would be transformed from outside to a new parlor inside your “house”.

            Why do that? Because then you’d be within your rights to shoot the felons who were in the act of a home invasion.

            Really why else go to the trouble of swindling widows out of their savings if you don’t use it for cools stuff like that?

      2. Need to stop someone from getting high: they don’t care what they destroy, kill or otherwise fuck up.
        Need to actually protect someones safety or property: sorry, it might cause a problem or upset some people.

        1. Yep, a cop and a “suspect” both shot in a suburban Philly town last night – “suspect” ran when approached about openly drinking beer and smoking a joint.

      3. The problem with Godwin’s law is that sometimes people really are fascists. That is right out of the fascist playbook.

        1. I am working on a corollary to include this. How does “Alinsky’s Law” sound?

          1. Alliteration: Alinsky’s Axiom

    2. Absolutely appalling that the cops refused to take action. If the mob is too big and threatening for three cops, what do you do? Tuck your tail between your legs and run for the donut shop, or call more cops?

      Disgusting. I guess its probably a feature of police states, though, that the police don’t perform their basic duties.

      1. It is absolutely a feature. But they don’t perform their duties against the right people. In totalitarian societies like Cuba, the old USSR or Nazi Germany, a lot of the violence, at least initially before they got a full fledged totalitarian state, was have private thugs go beat up political opponents. The police would then not respond to the violence, unless of course the dissidents defend themselves, in which case they throw the book at them.

        1. It would not surprise me if the police secretly agreed and sympathized with the mob.

          1. Complicating this picture is the fact that BofA is the union’s lender of choice — and SEIU, suffering financially, owes the bank nearly $4 million in interest and fees. Bank of America declined comment on the loans.

            Gosh, what a shame it would be if those loans were suddenly called.

          2. Same union?

    3. God bless the SEIU. They’re doing God’s work.

      1. This seems familiar to me somehow.

      2. Yeah, and people don’t think Card Check is a bad idea? I give you Exhibit A.

    4. Baer needs to start keeping a big canister of bear-spray by the front door.

      Right next to the box of 10,000 marbles.

    5. Brings back memories of a “Tulpa = fascist” thread where Fluffy and I argued about whether freedom of speech included the right to plant yourself outside someone’s house and scream at them all day. A sample:

      Fluffy|3.9.10 @ 2:34PM|#

      And I do.

      But one element of each scenario we have to consider is how plausible it is.

      Unless you think we should abridge fundamental freedoms on the basis of events with extremely low likelihoods of occuring.

      The odds of me, or you, being the target of a “demonstration vendetta” are extremely low – so low, in fact, that the threat of social retalitation [i.e. “we demonstrate right back at ’em”] is sufficient to keep it in check.

      Right now, you could easily greet your neighbor every morning with a “Good morning, shitface!” and as long you did so in a conversational tone, no law in the land could touch you. But I bet you don’t do that, even to people you don’t like. Now why is that? Personally, I’m civil to people to make sure they’re civil in return. I think the desire to not be shunned or heckled is plenty sufficient to keep the public in line, for the simple reason that it already is keeping them in line. See?

      even if they just make life at my residence miserable for four hours a day that’s too much

      On the basis of your downgrade of your scenario, we can now conclude that you just don’t think that any free speech whatsoever should exist, if you’re the target of that speech.

      This makes you pretty much the epitome of the “freedom for me, but not for thee” brigade. But we already knew that about you, didn’t we?

      On the basis of this statement, you don’t even in believe in free speech and assembly even when limited in time and manner; you demand perpetual quiet for yourself and consider any speech against you at all, if you can hear it, to be actionable harassment.

      1. That’s offensive. Stop it.

      2. Wrong.

        If these people had stayed on the public way, they’d be in the right.

        They put themselves in the wrong when they went on to private property.

        So it’s actually nothing like what we were talking about. Nice try though.

  6. Right now, CNBC is running a “Then, and Now!” video clip retrospective on Barney Frank.

    That obnoxious little twerp Carl what’s-his-name is frantically trying to think of a way to say, “Well, that’s not really what he said.”

  7. Great, Paul walksback on this after I get in an arguement with my girlfriend by agreeing with him. I probably have to apoligize for the crack about the “hobnailed boot of the State.”

    1. You too? I almost had to sleep on the couch last night.

    2. tell her your chink friend was denied service at two restaurants (one white run, one black-run) twice, twenty years after the civil rights act.

    3. Find a less opinionated fuckhole, dude.

      1. This. My wife doesn’t give a shit about politics, nor is she registered to vote.
        Pussy & Politics don’t mix.

    4. Coyote–I’m telling you this now as someone who didn’t heed this advise about marrying a liberal: GET OUT NOW!

      1. “If you will not be turned, you will be destroyed!” (Shoots Dark Force lightning from fingertips)

    5. You can disagree with those specific provisions that affect private businesses while still voting for the law because it does more good (in fighting government-mandated discrimination) than harm (in restricting individual rights).

  8. “When this bill becomes law, the joy ride on Wall Street will come to a screeching halt,” Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said

    Harry, your joy ride is coming to a screeching halt.

    1. Fettered minds, shackled markets???.

    2. When this bill becomes law, the joy ride on Wall Street will come to a screeching halt,” Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said

      But government’s joy ride will go merrily on.

    3. Any rise in my retirement investments is also coming to a screeching halt.

      1. What rise. After 8 years, my 401K has lost 1%.

  9. This just in: CNN is reporting that Rand Paul is not a cannibal.
    Repeat: Rand Paul is not a cannibal.

    1. Dr. Paul, have you finally stopped beating your wife?

    2. Have you seen any people eating each other? No, but we are reporting it.

      1. No, but they heard he was “okay with it.”

        1. And “green” too. Recycling at it’s finest! We have to appease our zombie constituency.

    3. Well, we knew this in Phoenix, because the radio commentator on the local news station told us this morning that he is only in favor of slavery.

      1. He is against criminalizing thought and he is for freedom of association, so of course he is a monster. I learned that on MSNBC.

  10. Don’t worry. If you’re innocent, we’ll eat your DNA sample.

  11. “The House wants to extend a national DNA database by taking samples from people arrested but not convicted of crimes.”

    How is that whole “liberaltarian” thing working out for ya?

    1. These people are truly mad; they must be stopped.

    2. They do it in the UK, and it’s a paradise there, right? I can’t wait till it’s as awesome as England here.

    3. What does that have to do with “liberaltarianism”? Social libertarians on the Left generally oppose DNA databases (at least of non-convicts.)

      1. Every single democrat voted for it, appearently none of the social libertarians on the left are in congress.

        1. In fairness, 20 abstained, compared to the 21 abstentions and 32 noes for the Republicans.

          1. Evil triumphs when stupid people hide in their office.

            1. How else would they keep their jobs to do God’s work in my name? Remember the adage “Live to fight hide another day?” Whose the stupid one now?

  12. He is also arguably the single most effective lawmaker lipsmacker of his generation.

  13. “As predicted was inevitable, today the Spanish newspaper La Gaceta runs with a full-page article fessing up to the truth about Spain’s “green jobs” boondoggle, which happens to be the one naively cited by President Obama no less than eight times as his model for the United States. It is now out there as a bust, a costly disaster that has come undone in Spain to the point that even the Socialists admit it, with the media now in full pursuit.”


    I bet the entire “reality based community” still thinks Spain is some kind of green jobs model state.

    1. They came for the green jobs but stayed for the tapas.

      1. Obama comes for green jobs, too.

    2. Si, como no.

    3. 1 Green Job = 2.2 Real Jobs

      Good work, Spain.


    4. ?Ay, no me gusta el boondoggolo!

  14. Now this event would accurately be called a “protest” if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But

    It’s a demonstration…of “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

    Some would object that that’s too easy a show to put on, and doesn’t prove anything, when you’re also the Director of Pitchforks. But the director knows his audience:

    Sunday’s onslaught wasn’t designed for mainstream media consumption. There were no reporters from organizations like the Washington Post, no local camera crews who might have aired criticism of this private-home invasion. [Only] a friendly Huffington Post blogger showed up, narrowcasting coverage to the union’s leftist base.

    Not the union’s, exactly, but close enough. And not Baer.

    Not in Baer’s front yard[!!eleventy!!]

    I’m sure he doesn’t mind. He probably knew when they’d show up. Or told them when to, when he’d be away. I guess his son didn’t see the Post-It on the fridge.

  15. Appearing on Laura Ingraham’s radio show this morning, Rand Paul said he regretted his Wednesday appearance with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow

    A) Laur Ingraham , in her own way, is no less odious than Rachel Maddow.

    B) Has (had) Rand Paul (or everybody on his staff of “political strategists” and handlers) never heard of Rachel Maddow? Walking into an obvious and entirely avoidable buzzsaw does not give me great hope regarding his intelligence.

    1. What is wrong with Ingraham? Just because she doesn’t have a dick like Randy Maddow doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with her.


      1. Have you seen Laura’s lack of rack lately? Not to mention a voice so husky it could pull a sled across the tundra…

        It’s clearly boob envy she has.

        1. But that doesn’t stop her from posing for pictures and acting like she’s some kind hot babe on a platter. Ewww.

        2. Dude. The woman had breast cancer. That explains the lack of rack.

          And when she was young she was definitely hitable. Cancer has a way of reducing your sex appeal.

          1. Cancer has a way of reducing your sex appeal.

            I nearly choked on my coffee reading this. FOW

          2. I’m sure there’s a tumor fetish site somewhere on the net that will prove you wrong.

            1. That’s offensive. Stop it.

      2. She is a garden-variety neocon much like Limbaugh and Hannity. Her wafer-thin veneer of fiscal conservatism is offset by the American exceptionalism, bomb the Muslims, deficits are ok when Team Red is in charge, etc.

        1. What I don’t get about her is how she rails on and on about how teh gays are trying to destroy america by adopting kids, yet she has adopted two kids and she isn’t married.


          You can’t tell me that a kid isn’t better off having two loving parents than one.

          And if you are gonna be a single mom, do it the old fashioned way and start trolling the bars at closing time.

        2. She studied at the Hannity-Gallagher school of TEAM RED, for sure.

        3. Define ‘neocon”. Please show your work.

          1. http://www.house.gov/paul/cong…..071003.htm

            Next question!

            1. Sugar freed that link real good.


    2. Has (had) Rand Paul (or everybody on his staff of “political strategists” and handlers) never heard of Rachel Maddow?

      It’s not as if anybody watches her show.

  16. Typing is hard, today.

  17. Rachel Maddow? Who in the fuck is that?

    1. Some guy they gave a show to on a community access station. Think real life Wayne’s world.

  18. How sad. Rand has not only backed away from his original, correct position on CRA, but now he is saying he would have voted for it? This is rediculous. I think he should have to answer the following questions – honestly – before libertarians continue to support him. He is very quickly turning into another Scott Brown. 🙁

    Can the federal government set the private sector’s minimum wage?

    Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants?

    Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform?

    Can it tell toy companies to test for lead?

    Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors?

    Can it tell employers who they can and cannot hire?

    We are waiting for an answer Mr. Paul. Please grow a pair, and defend what is right.

    1. Turning into Scott Brown? Exaggerate much?

      His public opinion on the CRA is any sane politicians opinion who expects to actually get elected. The guy is trying to win a Senate race here.

      Please STFU and donate


    2. You cock sucker losertarians stood by Ron Robust-Christian-Nation-Keep-the Spicks-Out Paul. Now you want to abondon his moronic son for having a dim awareness that decent people support civil rights? Fuck!!!

      1. You cock sucker losertarians stood by Ron Robust-Christian-Nation-Keep-the Spicks-Out Paul. Now you want to abondon his moronic son for having a dim awareness that decent people support civil rights? Fuck!!!

        What civil rights do decent people support?

        1. Freedom of speech, so long as your speech is limited to approved topics at approved times.

          Freedom of the press, so long as your publications are limited to approved topics at approved times.

          Freedom of association, so long as you associate with approved people at approved times.

          The right to bear arms, so long as you only bear approved arms at approved times and places.

          The right against self-incrimination, so long as you’re innocent.

          Freedom of religion, as long as it’s an approved religion.

          Stuff like that.

  19. I am sorry to see Paul back down. There is a case to be made that the time of government discrimination laws has passed. It is a non-racist serious case. It is a case that most of America won’t agree with just yet. But it is a serious argument none the less. So serious in fact, that liberals are terrified of having it. So instead, they just censor what everyone thinks and says by declaring anyone who makes it a racist. It is a sorry state of affairs.

    1. The left is afraid of having a Republican that actually has convictions in the Senate & has decided to crucify him as quickly as possible.

      1. Shit! I am having a banner day!

    2. He’s cutting his losses for a monumentally stupid move.

    3. The subtlety of trying to explain the use of private property by private owners is not a winner in sound bite land. He needs a canned answer to some of these trap questions.

      1. Simple canned answer: “Miss Maddow. If racism were permissible by private establishments, how long do you think such establishments would last in today’s culture? Could a business survive such bad PR? How many people do you know would spend their money there? Legislation is unnecessary because the market eventually sorts things like this out.”

        1. He tried to say that, but Maddow just kept badgering him to answer the question yes or no. You’re not going to get a chance to give a subtle, complicated answer on that show any more than Ron Paul and all the Reason staffers on O’Reilly have been allowed to do.

          Again, he was WOEFULLY underprepared for that interview.

    4. You and your convoluted right-wing ideology are a sorry state of affairs, you fucking dimwit.

      1. It only seems convoluted to you because you are retarded.

        1. + Avogadro’s number

      2. You’re getting awful lazy. 3/10.

    5. A big piece of legislation like that is bound to have things you like and things you don’t. Is it unfair for him to decide that in his judgement, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had more good effects than bad? And couldn’t he be right about that judgement?

  20. “Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?”

    Subsidies for man-bras are only weeks away.

    1. What’s wrong with stimulus money going toward building up America’s infrastructure?

      1. Nothing except that nearly all the world’s production of manziers is in China.

        1. It’s jobs that white people don’t want, John.

        2. I thought they were called “bros”.

          1. If you drive a Ford and live in a tailor park, it is a “bro”. If you drive a Mercedes and live in Westchester, it is a “manzier”.

            1. A tailor park? Is that like a dog park, but for makers of custom clothing?

      2. Hehehehehe….

      3. What’s wrong with stimulus money going toward building up America’s infrastructure?

        Does it qualify as a “green job”? Remember, the hardiest and best fitting bras are made of synthetic fabrics made from petroleum. Has Ken Salazar weighed in on this?

        1. All bras, whether for the male or female boob, shall now be make from organic, unbleached hemp from now on.

          1. Itchy. I foresee a rise in skin care sales, as well. That makes it a win-win, right?

            1. MULTIPLIER EFFECT!

    2. Show some respect. Call the “bro.”

  21. As an in-house counsel, I’m appalled.

    Time to start work on the escape tunnel.

  22. Since Paul did make clear (and rightly so) that he is completely in favor of 9 out of 10 sections of the CRA, it doesn’t seem to unreasonable to say that he would have voted on it in a hypothetical 1964 vote. Getting some people to understand (or not deliberately misunderstand) a principled stand on anything is pretty hopeless at this point, it seems. This is such a non-issue at this point (there is no chance that it is going to be repealed, even in part) that it was probably the wise choice to just try to make it go away. Still, it would have been nice to see someone stand up against this sort of bullshit.

    1. It’s hard to explain principles to people that have none.

      1. +1. It is also difficult to make a rational argument to people whose thinking and decision making is governed entirely by emotion and romantic ideals. Liberals see CRA and think it all must be good and anyone who questions it must be racist.

        You have a better chance having a serious conversation with the worst sort of evangelical about the sanctity of the cross than you do of having a serious conversation with a liberal about the CRA. Both parties belief goes beyond reason.

        1. What pisses me off is that the original intent of the CRA was to remedy discrimination’s negative impact on individuals. But somehow that turned into Affirmative Action.

          1. But somehow that turned into Affirmative Action.

            Couldn’t have me without it. Class envy by proxy of race makes the careers of social justice crusaders, community organizers, and race hucksters. Why do you hate Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan?

            1. They screw over those they pretend to help.

              1. Just like the government.

            2. Is Louis a self-sufficiency guy, though?

              1. But he is a racist, and it goes against Democrat dogma, if they were consistent, that is. I, for one, have no problem with it, as it is consistent with my playbook.

        2. As a product of public schooling in the 90s, I can assure you that after all the propaganda that people my age grew up with, there is absolutely no reason to think about this stuff. It’s just automatically assumed. And this will not change, because teachers are by nature the type of people to be hard liberals.

        3. “+1. It is also difficult to make a rational argument to people whose thinking and decision making is governed entirely by emotion and romantic ideals. ”

          um… am I confusing you with another poster???

        4. John,

          Rand Paul’s argument against Title 2 of the CRA is the exact same argument opponents of the law made in 1964. Most of the ones who managed to still have a public life after that apologized for taking that stance.

          Eventually political battles end, and someone wins and someone loses. Your side lost. Paul’s arguments are no better now than they were then.

          1. Thank you for proving my point Tony. You gave a first rate content free post. All you can say is “we won you lost” and “I know I am right”. That is called faith not reason. What is sad is that you are so un-selfaware you don’t even know how irrational you are. But, I guess that is part of being irrational. If you knew you were being irrational, you would stop.

            1. You’re still fighting a 46-year old battle that you lost, and I’m the un-self-aware one?

              The practical reasons for the CRA are easy enough to explain: endemic racism was (and is) a far, far greater imposition on individual liberty than businesses that cater to the public not being allowed to discriminate. Being discriminated against in the private sector hobbles your ability to participate in your society in an equal way. Society has a very real interest in doing away with this practice if it cares about equality and equal opportunity.

              You don’t have an absolute right to set up a business and make money in this country without interference. You can’t sell my poisoned food with impunity and you can’t serve only whites. Society is much better because of these restrictions than without them.

              1. And again you give a content free response. You can’t really even spot the issue. You come close but you just miss it. All you know how to do is throw you boilerplate. You have no idea how to examine your own assumptions or even really understand what assumptions you make much less understand the other side of the argument.

                It is not really your fault entirely. You live in a world where being close minded is considered a must. That is just what liberals do.

                1. John, you are dead right. In this whole discussion, the one thing I have come to realize is that Paul’s critics have no idea what the argument is here, and don’t have the slightest interest in understanding it.

                  And really, why would they?

                2. John,

                  So far you have yet to offer a single bit of substance while doing nothing but criticizing my lack of the same. I think I understand Paul’s point perfectly. Government shouldn’t interfere with the freedom of private enterprises to cater to who they want.

                  I’m saying government not only has the right but the responsibility to do so in some cases if we want a truly free society.

                  1. so how exactly is the society “truly free” if the business owners aren’t free to limit their services? I get the net increase argument but a net increase != truly free.

                  2. I’m saying government not only has the right but the responsibility to do so in some cases if we want a truly free society.

                    That’s hilarious. So government has to tell us what to do if we want to be free? Did you even read this before you posted? Gotcha: Freedom = Slavery. Thanks for this wonderful insight.

              2. The practical reasons for the CRA are easy enough to explain: endemic racism was (and is) a far, far greater imposition on individual liberty than businesses that cater to the public not being allowed to discriminate. B

                How so?

                If black people were excluded from a white-owned business, what stopped them from creating a business that excluded white people?

                1. jim crow LAWS

          2. “Eventually political battles end, and someone wins and someone loses.”

            Clearly not, otherwise socialists would have given up on taking control of America a long time ago.

          3. No better; still correct.

        5. You know what’s the absolute worst type of person imaginable? Someone raised as a rabid fundamentalist who converts to liberalism. They have the worst characteristics of both. The pure zeal of the fundamentalist, and the blindness of pure emotional thought processes of the liberal. The whole is faaaaar worse the sum of the parts. The only girl I’ve ever been scared of in my entire life was one of these. Really, really bad cocktail.

          1. These days the two are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of fundamentalists who go full liberal on economic issues, and most social issues except abortion and homosexuality. And yes, it is viscerally distrubing.

    2. I agree. I don’t think he should have ever bit on that in the first place. If he want’s to have that argument there are plenty of current issues he could use to do so. Just a lack of political experience on his part I think. Not saying he shouldn’t stand up for what he believes but he shouldn’t let himself get sucked into these non-issues that serve no purpose other then to let lefties beat him up from their moral high horse. He can always make that arguement when when it’s actually revlevent.

  23. re: winner of “Everybody Draw Mohammed” contest

    Weak stuff, reason.

    1. I do like the connect the dots Mohammad, but overall it really was weak.

    2. I liked it. I figured the point of this whole thing was to show how ridiculous these people are being. I think the winner did that perfectly.

    3. Check out Affenkopf’s comment (link) in the Friday Funnies thread if you want to see a real contest.

    1. We told AnonBot NOT to visit Barney Frank’s blog!

  24. the liberals will do all they can to prevent a libertarian republican from gaining a senate seat. I’ve watched all of the interviews, and I think he did better on Good Morning America today, but the interviewers don’t listen to what he is saying. It is as if they can’t wrap their head around the fact that disagreeing with 1 section of the Civil Right Act can be a principled, non-racist belief. That section of the law effects private entities way beyond the issue of racism.

  25. Bad as all this is, perhaps the worst thing Congress did was blow another multi-hundred billion dollar hole in the budget.

    The AP (5/21, Ohlemacher) reports, “Lawmakers have agreed on legislation to extend expanded jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed through the end of the year. Laid-off workers would also continue to get subsidies to buy health insurance through the COBRA program.” The measure “would be paid for, in part, by tax increases on investment managers and some US-based multinational companies.” The AP explains that “lawmakers had been negotiating a provision that would spare doctors from a scheduled 21 percent cut in Medicare payments. They agreed to delay the cuts until 2014, when they will have to address the issue again.” The AP notes, “The House could vote on the bill as early as Friday, with the Senate voting next week.”

    The Hill (5/21, Pecquet)notes, “Without the change, payments to doctors under Medicare were scheduled to receive a 21.3 percent cut in June. Under the deal crafted by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sandy Levin (D-MI) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), the payment will increase by 1.3 percent through the end of the year.” Doctors “would get an additional 1 percent increase in 2011, and further increases would be offered in 2012 and 2013 based on the growth in Medicare health spending.”

    Kaiser Health News (5/20, Villegas) reported that the “tax ‘extender’ bill — with a price tag of $220 billion — extends a number of popular tax cuts and funds small business loan programs. It would preserve special federal Medicaid payments to states and provide extra unemployment payments, among other things.”

    Pay-go? We don’t need no stinking pay–go.

    What is perhaps more depressing isn’t that we keep digging a deeper and deeper hole on the budget, its that Obama and his minions have managed to move the goalposts so that mere hundreds of billions of new debt doesn’t even register any more.

    Apologies for lack of linky. Stupid squirrels.

    1. Pay-go? We don’t need no stinking pay–go.

      But remember, Jim Bunning was the totally insane one for asking that the unemployment benefits be paid for by cutting something useless.

      1. Which is why replacing him with the “totally insane” Paul is a-okay.

  26. His departure highlights the continuing disarray and competition among the disparate elements of the intelligence community ? the very same issues the 9/11 Commission identified and that the national intelligence director was supposed to make a thing of the past.

    I want those deck chairs in rows of seventeen with 6 inches betwen each arm rest and 23.5 inches between rows.

    Oops! Almost forgot. Restrict some civil liberties while you’re at it.

  27. Let’s see who voted no on DNA samples:

    No Democrats, though they did have 20 not voting, mostly extremely liberal Members like Grayson, Hinchey, Jackson Lee, Bobby Rush, and Sestak. 21 not voting Republicans (including Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Flake, Inglis, and, hey, Mark Kirk), and 32 noes.

    Lots of recognizable conservatives among the noes: Broun of GA, Franks of AZ, Hensarling, Hoekstra, Pence, Sensenbrenner,
    Shadegg, and Joe “You Lie!” Wilson of SC.

  28. In other news…
    More on PA Attorney General Tom Corbett, in an abuse of power to further his campaign for governor, subpoenaing twitter to find critics identity:
    “The state attorney general’s office has issued a subpoena threatening officials of the social networking service Twitter with arrest unless they reveal the names of two bloggers who have been critical of Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption investigation. Vic Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union told Pittsburgh’s WTAE-TV that the court action ‘raises grave concerns about abuse of the grand jury process to retaliate against political critics and opponents.’ He said Americans ‘have a right to criticize government officials and to do so anonymously.'”
    Full story: http://www.whtm.com/news/stories/0510/737929.html

  29. Oh, and cheers to Declan McCullagh for remaining such a good civil liberties journalist (not blinded by party loyalties) after all these years.

    1. Declan is the man. I miss his old Politechbot list.

  30. threadjack alert:

    the good people over at Salon have an article (linky) listing exactly what’s wrong with juvenile libertarians. Makes a fun read!

    1. So they just aggregated a bunch of old joe and Tony posts?

    2. The state can think ahead and balance competing interests in a way that no single company can.

      Wow, yes, the state does such a fantastic job thinking ahead…much better than any single company…how is California doing again?

      1. That is not commentary. It is satire.

        1. It’s also constantly busy trimming around the edges, maintaining the thing, keeping it healthy.

          Don’t worry John, it’s OK. The state would just like to trim your hedges.

          1. Why did I click on that link? My head hurts from the virulent stupid now.

      2. They’re not wrong, you know. For example, the state can look ahead, balance the competing interests of proletariat and kulaks, find the kulaks have no interest, and murder them. You can’t find that sort of Solomonic wisdom just anywhere.

    3. The really problem isn’t libertarianism, it’s the innate impulse to control people’s lives.

      Yes, the government provides infrastructure business to exist as they currently do. And they (and we) pay for that infrastructure. That doesn’t mean that the government owns us, anymore than your landlord owns you by dint of you renting an apartment. (And at least the apartment is a voluntary association.)

      1. I wish I could type or blame being hungover or something.

        1. I’ll loan you my hangover.

      2. As the article rightly states, “never, and I mean never, has there been capitalist enterprise that wasn’t ultimately underwritten by the state.” A society has the right to decide that anyone seeking the privilege of making money in it, including all of the subsidies of law and contract enforcement, as well as public utilities and such, should not engage in racial discrimination.

        Nobody is saying you can’t be a racist. You just can’t expect to live off the bounty of this country and act in a racist way while doing so. In a real way, without the CRA, the government is essentially giving its blessing to segregation. It’s not in the state’s interest or the interest of the people for that to be so. And that’s why the CRA is one of the great legislative achievements in the history of the US, and to still argue against it when you’re a privileged white asshole libertarian just shows what an “unreflective and self-absorbed” philosophy yours is.

        1. Do you have the right to coerce people into how to think via legislative fiat?

          You just can’t expect to live off the bounty of this country and act in a racist way while doing so.

          ACORN and SEIU much? See also: Welfare and Minorities.

          privileged white asshole libertarian

          Specifying a race Tony, is in itself racist. Are you a racial minority or a practitioner of self-hate and loathing?

          1. Don’t worry too much about tony, Groov.
            He sleeps soundly at night knowing that the black riff-raff are locked safely away from his gentrified neighborhood, and his conscious is clean, because he supports unions and 46 year old legislation.

          2. Groovus,

            No, I just said nobody can tell you how to think. But society can tell you that your business can’t be underwritten by society while engaging in racial discrimination. It’s one of the great advances of civilization to recognize this.

            How are acorn and the seiu racist?

            I am white, and aware that just being white gives me a large leg-up in society, so it would be the height of arrogance and myopia for me to argue that civil rights legislation just isn’t needed anymore.

            1. I’m not white, and between this thread and yesterday’s Rand Paul thread, I’ll only say I’m baffled to see such great debate over something that’s such a non-issue to me. Maybe it’s a generational difference–I’m in Gen Y and out of the seven states I’ve been to, I’ve only met a single racist and she was over the age of 75. Or maybe states like California and Hawaii are too racially-diverse for anyone to care.

              By contrast, I’ve observed sexism a lot (swinging both ways, too)–but the idea that racism even exists anywhere, or for that matter even the idea that people in modern society recognize race for any reason other than aesthetic preferences for dating, is thoroughly foreign to me. (While I’m at it, literally every person I’ve ever met near my age whose preferences I knew about wasn’t interested in dating or marrying her or his own race. What conclusion can be drawn from that, if any, I don’t know.)

              Personally, when I was in school I didn’t know “race” existed until it kept popping up on demographic surveys. I just assumed that differences in skin color or what-have-you were like hair color, eye color, and height–thoroughly meaningless random fluctuations of genetics, akin to cats having different colors of fur. Certainly I never saw myself as what races I am even after I asked my parents what I should be entering in those surveys; I thought of myself as myself and nothing else, and others as themselves and nothing else, and judged everybody according to their personalities, and as far as I could tell it seemed that everyone considered the same of me. (And that’s why I decline to tell you what I actually am except to say “not the majority.”)

              When my history classes finally got around to racism, I thought then and still think now that if only we’d never heard of it then it wouldn’t pop up again. Certainly I could be wrong–or I could be right. For all that’s feared in the idea of history repeating itself, past and present don’t happen in vacuums–a specific set of circumstances led to racism, and whatever that specific set of circumstances might be, it is not and cannot be the set of circumstances we have today. Technology has changed, and population, and knowledge, and ideals and ideas and philosophy. The history we know today is not the same history known in the past.

              A person can say that an extremely-rigid society made sense when there were only thirty people on the planet and does not make sense now because the threat of extinction isn’t present, and there would be no contradiction in that. (Which isn’t to say I agree, only that it’s not invalid on its face.) A person can say that intellectual property rights for books made sense when the printed word was all we had and information could only be spread slowly by horse, and do not make sense in an age of mass transportation and the Internet, and there would be no contradiction in that. A person can say that civil rights legislation was necessary decades ago and is not necessary now, there may be no contradiction in that either, depending on the reasoning.

              That’s what it’s all about, is it not? Reasoning? Why would it be “arrogance” or “myopia” for you to argue something if you’re white and not if you’re not? If there are certain things you’re restricted from believing or arguing specifically because of your “race,” isn’t that itself racism? I consider it so. Even if not, how many other demographic groups does this extend to? Is it arrogance and myopia for males to participate in lawmaking processes that primarily affect females, and vice-versa, because both live experiences foreign to each other (and probably more foreign to each other than that of different races of the same gender)–or can we say they have more commonalities than differences? Is it arrogance and myopia for younger people to help form laws regarding the elderly, and vice-versa, each having such different goals, experiences, and futures? Can only gay people help make laws regarding gay people? Can only parents make laws regarding parents?

              At what point does it become absurd to argue that a person cannot make any decisions on laws regarding other people because of differences between them?

        2. You spout your mouth off with an astonishing mixture of arrogance, stupidity, and condescension. You really shouldn’t be gloating over us, because it is the policies that you promote that lead to things like this:

          in 2002, 93.2% of prisoners were male. About 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.3% of white males

          This is the reality of a strong central state, and misguided social engineering. But you are enlightened, and self-reflective right? To you people’s lives have no meaning, only the pursuit of power and meddling hold value. You infantile busybody.

          1. Just because I believe that businesses shouldn’t be able to engage in racial discrimination (or poisoning people, or dumping their garbage on my property, etc.) and expect the benefits of operating in my society, doesn’t mean I’m in favor of our highly inept and unjust criminal justice system. That’s the product of conservative prohibition schemes and conservative ideas about punishment. As a liberal I strongly believe in emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment, liberalizing drug laws, and reducing all other causal factors of racial disparity in our prison population, so you’re barking up the wrong tree.

            Your problem is you can’t get past the mind-numbingly simplistic formulation that “government=bad” so you can’t see that it’s possible to use government to promote social justice where it doesn’t exist in the status quo.

            1. Tony:

              You will eventually surrender this argument when the day comes when you realize that you can’t have one without the other.

              I used to think that there was no contradiction between the ideals of liberty I subscribed to and an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy. I learned, to my chagrin, that I was wrong.

              One day it will sink in for you that a state that takes upon itself the right to declare how each man will use his property will also kick in doors and shoot grandmothers while looking for pot, and will also read your email in the name of national security, and will also “disappear” people, and will also stomp on people who farm the “wrong” way, etc.

              There’s no other way for the story to end.

              1. That’s ridiculous and bordering on a slippery-slope. First of all, as governments go, you live under one of the more liberal ones known to human history. There is no such thing as a society without a government that isn’t involved in managing the distribution of resources and property in some way. Without government there is no such thing as private property anyway.

                You just have to make sure it’s a government that’s responsive to you democratically, and that enacts just policies and not unjust ones. You with your fantasy armchair anarchism are playing absolutely no role in making this come about. You treat all governments as equally bad, so you don’t bother recognizing when it can be made better. Our government is guilty of a lot of bad things?but it’s not going away so almost the worst thing you could do is to just sit it out and whine about it. The natural tendency for groups of human beings is to descend into autocracy, so maintaining a just democracy requires vigilance, which is precisely what you don’t want to offer.

            2. Your leaders, your policies, and your goddamn vote perpetuate the ghettoization and imprisonment of minorities, not mine you smug fuck.

              Social justice was the cause that put millions of poor minorities into city housing projects, so convenient for your politicians to round up into prisons with their war on drugs.

              If you think the war on drugs is not a liberal cause, then maybe you should go and look into who voted for mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines.

              1. The war on drugs is by definition unliberal. If Democratic politicians are responsible for it in part, then they were not being liberal on that issue.

                Your alternative to public housing is what exactly? Putting them onto the streets?

                1. The war on drugs is by definition unliberal.

                  Only when “liberal” means the classical definition, the same thing as “libertarian.”

                  Your type of “liberal” accepts so many qualifications on freedom that you cannot say that it by definition excludes the war on drugs.

        3. I am no one’s slave, you vile little dogfucker.

          1. Ahem.

            1. Shut up and go fix me a turkey pot pie!

              1. Mrs. SugarFree, I have a used dull knife for you, honey.

        4. Okay, y’all are doing an admirable job but you missed the key insight into Tony’s worldview here.

          A society has the right to decide that anyone seeking the privilege of making money in it

          Your ability to engage in voluntary, non-coercive exchange with your fellow citizens is not a right but a privilege that can be taken from you by the state. That, right there, should convince you of the futility of arguing with Tony. Anybody who thinks that way is not worth your time.

    4. I clicked on the salon article link and what do I see underneath their condemnation of Rand Paul and libertarians? An article about libertarian republican Gary Johnson, calling him in the title, “The Most Interesting Republican You’ve Never Heard Of”

      1. ^and the relevance of that is they mean interesting in a positive way. hypocrites

    5. I think Chony is moonlighting over at Salon.

    6. As a part time masochist I was wading through the comments. This is awesome:
      if Obama is so stupid and corrupt, and you’re so wise and full of answers to all our problems, how come he’s President and you’re just Chris Sinnard, internet dumbass?

      So now if you’re POTUS you’re a genius by virtue of being POTUS. George W. will be happy to hear that. And that was one of the more intelligent posts.

  31. Wow, 1964 was a great year. Those were the days dude.


    1. Anonymity bot = always fun to read.

  32. Consider this: in 1964, the Cleveland Browns, one of the NFL’s flagship teams, won their fourth NFL championship. That was a long fucking time ago.

  33. The state can think ahead and balance competing interests in a way that no single company can.

    L’etat c’est moi.

    1. One eyed monsters?

      1. And one has pissed himself.
        Drunken brits.

        1. Don’t be crude. Those clearly are chaps, designed to bring in teh gay children.

          1. I thought the yawning blue abyss was a target for when Quaatchi/STEVE SMITH comes in the night.


  34. Where does Rachel Maddow eat lunch? I’m sure she wouldn’t object if I came and sat at the counter in an SS uniform. Because the guy who owns the place shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against me.

    1. She has a regular table at The Thick-Neck Bar and Grill.

      1. I’s still do her.

        1. no, she’d do you.

          1. all-ite

  35. Tinky Winky loves children, Sugarfree.

    1. It that the one with the purse?

  36. Since when is the CRA a relevant topic in modern america, that would be asked about in an interview. This is the blatant bad faith soundbite trap i’ve ever seen.

  37. On the other hand, the crazy right-wing Oklahoma House defeated a similar bill to take DNA samples before conviction by 82-14.

  38. In this episode of Michael Gerson knows best:
    “Paul and other libertarians are not merely advocates of limited government; they are anti-government. Their objective is not the correction of error but the cultivation of contempt for government itself. There is a reason libertarianism has never been — and probably will never be — a national political force: because too many would find its utopia a nightmare.”

    1. Yeah the late 18th Century didn’t really exist. WTF? Do they even know what this country was founded on?

      1. Yes, because nothing says “libertarian utopia” like whiskey rebellions, slavery and slave importation going on in half the country, fees required for travel across state lines, and the Alien and Sedition Acts.

        There has never been a libertarian utopia here in the US. The federal government was far less intrusive, certainly, in the early days of the Republic, but state government interference made up for it.

  39. I cannot type, this morning.

  40. There is a reason libertarianism has never been — and probably will never be — a national political force: because too many would find its utopia a nightmare.”

    No, you fucking retard: Nobody runs for office so they can leave me the fuck alone.

    1. You are the man(or woman) P Brooks.

    2. Libertarians are the one political group that literally wouldn’t affect anyone if elected. Libertarianism is the whole idea of ‘not fucking with people’.

      The meddlers will continue to meddle…

      1. Really? If we had a majority libertarian government, wouldn’t there be vasts amounts of policy to undo? Or would they just stick with the status quo, content with being seen as total incompetents and hypocrites?

  41. I guess I’d better get a year’s worth of ammo, because putting Schumer in the top slot will end up with another round of panic-buying and shortages.

  42. There is a reason libertarianism has never been — and probably will never be — a national political force: because too many would find its utopia a nightmare.”

    Unlike the proregressive utopia?

    I’m ready for it. I’ve already bought my shiny, new wheelwallet.

    1. I’ve already bought my shiny, new wheelwallet.

      Made in a union shop, no doubt.

    2. Unlike leftist utopias like Cambodia, Maoist China and Stalinist Russia. I mean seriously, these people are beyond stupid. You can’t talk to them. We are regressing into animals.

      1. Real liberals don’t have utopias, and the authoritarian societies you cite are in no way “leftist,” authoritarianism being the opposite of liberalism. This isn’t even a straw man.

        1. Real liberals don’t have utopias, and the authoritarian societies you cite are in no way “leftist,” authoritarianism being the opposite of liberalism.

          Yes, but only because “real liberals” and liberalism refers to what is now called libertarian thought. Your type of thinking is called social democracy and/or socialism.

    3. They think it’s a nightmare only to contemplate it as a change. If they’d been born into it they wouldn’t even notice it, let alone consider it a nightmare.

  43. Why not put Schumer in? Replace one statist dumbass for another, what’s the difference?

    1. I already feel nauseous when he’s on TV 2-3 times a month. I really don’t think I would survive seeing that smug cynical dipshit asshole spouting off every day.

      That’s the difference.

      1. I’m way more hittable than he is. In every sense of the word. The rough stuff makes my pussy gush!

      2. He is an extremely effective interviewee. I want to scoop his eyeballs out of their sockets with a grapefruit spoon and eat them while he watches, when I see him on TV, but you have to admit he’s very good at making a point and seeming calm, friendly, and rational in the process.

  44. Does anyone really think that if we were to get rid of the Civil Rights Act that T-Mobile would stop selling cellphones to blacks? Or that KFC would start to discriminate against blacks?

    Puhleeeease – in todays markets and technological culture segregation is just plain old bad business.

    1. Does anyone really think that if we were to get rid of the Civil Rights Act that T-Mobile would stop selling cellphones to blacks? Or that KFC would start to discriminate against blacks?

      That stuff would only happen in backwards places like Chicago, Illinois.

  45. A society has the right to decide that anyone seeking the privilege of making money in it

    This is your brain on Progressivism.

  46. A society has the right to decide that anyone seeking the privilege of making money in it

    Sort of like how feudal barons had the right to decide which merchants get to make money in their respective fiefdoms.

    1. A society has the right to decide that anyone seeking the privilege of making money in it

      Someone with some dough to play around with should offer a ten thousand dollar reward for the first leftist who can come up with an argument that isn’t based on an anthropomorphically unsound premise.

  47. From that stupid-ass Salon “hur dur libertarians are dumb” article:

    for the system to work, you need some kind of bare bones apparatus for enforcing contracts and protecting property.

    Well, first off, you don’t necessarily need that, not really. It’s nice, it certainly helps, but it isn’t 100% essential.

    Secondly, as Salon would know if they’d done any research beyond talking to That One Guy Who’s Always Reading Ayn Rand in the Break Room (what’s up with him, lol), most libertarians agree that one of the proper roles of government is enforcing contracts via the courts system. So Salon is essentially beating on a straw man that doesn’t even exist here.

    1. If you recognize some necessary role of government, such as the barebones system of contract and property enforcement, then any differences others may have with you are simply policy disagreements. Maybe there are other aspects of “getting along in society” that government has a legitimate role in enforcing. Indeed, no society that I can think of has ever functioned by only serving as watchdogs for trespassing and fraud. Life is just a lot more complicated than that. Yet you pretend that even contract and property enforcement are suspect, that possibly we’d all be more free if It just got out of the way and let us sort things out with guns. The world you envision from your comfortable place in modern civilization is truly a nightmarish darwinian hellhole, a place you’d never choose to live. So I suspect that what you really want is a baseline of comfort you enjoy because of the protections of your modern society (including an intact and strong system of governments), but without having to pay for it, in other words a complete adolescent fantasy world. Libertarians, again, are the ultimate free lunchers.

      1. Tony, it doesn’t matter how many different ways you find to repeat it.

        The difference between a “night watchman” state and a state that enforces “other aspects of getting along in society” is that the former regards each person as autonomous and having rights and the latter doesn’t.

        I can maintain a night watchman state while not disturbing anything that any citizen does with their own person or their own property. I can’t maintain the other sort of state that way. It’s a fairly mundane and obvious distinction.

        It’s a difficult one for you to grasp, because to you it’s a restriction of your liberty if you can’t walk on to my property without my consent.

        “Life is just a lot more complicated than that.” Perhaps, but every time you actually give me an example, it boils down to, “it’s inconvenient or unpleasant for me to not be able to walk all over your property rights and associational rights, so shut up”. And that’s not quite as noble a sentiment as you appear to think it is.

        1. It is very much a restriction on my liberty not to trespass on your property. I don’t have the liberty to trespass. I don’t have that liberty because a neutral enforcer is there to prevent it, or to punish me after the fact (thus deterring me). Your right to maintain your property unmolested is not written in the fabric of the universe. It only exists because somebody enforces it, and because your society deemed it something worthy of being enforced.

          So there is no real distinction between that and other enforceable restrictions on liberty that society deems proper for it to function.

      2. Tony, that’s not even what I said, you fucking imbecile.

  48. Salon commits the elementary error of confusing libertarians with anarchists. IOW, the article is too stupid to read.

    Basically, they’re trying to say “ZOMG!!! Libertarians support only 90% of the CRA, so they want to lynch African-Americans with blowtorches!!!”, only with more syllables.

  49. Well, I guess this means that Rand Paul isn’t going to get the black vote, after all. Or the socialist vote.

    I’m sure he was counting on that.

  50. A society has the right to decide that anyone seeking the privilege of making money in it

    I hope everyone realizes that, taken literally, this means that society has the right to declare that entire classes of persons don’t own their own labor and have no right to dispose of that labor in private commerce.

    We did that in the United States, actually. Until 1865.

    1. Hmm. Should have read the whole thread, I see.

  51. I think Paul’s statement that he will not work to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was exactly the right approach. Unless he believes that during the next 6 years, ending federal prohibition of racial discrimination in employment and retail services is important, he should be willing to say, he will not work to do that.

    I don’t think he should ever say what he would or would not have voted for 54 years ago.

    I think all of this talk about being against racism and for individual rights for all people is the right thing to say.

    Of course, after making the mistake of talking about this issue, he now gets stuck with probing question about it.

    I think the “I am not sure how I would have voted when I was 2 years old” over and over may be the best bet.

    I think libertarian historians should follow Acton’s approach and hold past politicians to the bar of justice. I don’t think libertarian political leaders should do do this.

    Political leaders should focus on the future not the past. If you aren’t going to try to repeal something, say it.

    Start talking about what you want to do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.