In Which a Leftist Defends Rand Paul

Well no, not exactly, but when it comes to his comments about civil rights legislation this is about as close to a defense as Paul is likely to get from the left. Here's Alexander Cockburn:

It's the easiest thing in the world for a grandstanding liberal to push a libertarian into a corner. Then they'll get praise for their unflinching courage, like Morris Dees' South Poverty Law Center putting another "hate group" in the Index and waiting for the contributions to roll in.

Here's Maddow, brandishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as though this is the only matter worth considering in the forthcoming race between Rand Paul and the Democrat, an awful neo-liberal prosecutor, Kentucky's current attorney general, Jack "I'm a Tough Son-of-a-Bitch" Conway. Between Conway and Paul, which one in the U.S. Senate would more likely be a wild card – which is the best we can hope for these days – likely to filibuster against a bankers' bailout, against reaffirmation of the Patriot Act, against suppression of the CIA's full torture history? Paul, one would have to bet, and these are the votes that count, where one uncompromising stand by an outsider can make a difference, unlike the gyrations and last-ditch sell-outs of Blowhard Bernie Sanders, no doubt a hero to Maddow and [Amy] Goodman. Liberals love grandstanding about what are, in practice, distractions. You think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to come up for review in the U.S. Senate?

If Rand Paul hadn't been so preoccupied with winding up for what he plainly thought was his knock-out punch, concerning Maddow's posture on the right to bear arms in every restaurant in America from Joe's Diner to Le Cirque, he could have turned the tables easily enough, just by saying that this ritual flourishing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't have too much to do with what has happened to blacks since that glorious day, from an appalling school system, to blighted housing, constricted employment possibilities, shriveled share of the national income and most recently the great transfer in US history of money and assets from African Americans to rich white people by the mortgage speculators, given free rein by Democrats and Republicans.

Comments

[Spoonman.]

"Who gives a shit about [Rand Paul's views on the CRA, Ron Paul's views on the Civil War, Bill Clinton's views on poon]" is something that needs pointed out more often.

[CoyoteBlue]

Since Paul is this week's designated hate figure for the Left, due to reverse power of the Liberal chatterati (example: retired grandmother from Alaska) I predict he will easily become Senator, get a show on the History Channel and win a grammy.

[Nash]

Perhaps this is why Palin endorsed him: To give those attacking her a new chew toy to play with, thus momentarily stopping the attacks on her.

[Sarah Palin]

Lordy, why would I want them to stop? You have any idea how much loot I have raked in from those rabid Dems hatin' on me?

[Sarah Palin]

And I spent it all on beef jerky!

[Sarah Palin]

You don't keep this figure by shoving carbs down your throat. Dr Atkinson's Diet all the way, bitches!

[Tulpa]

Sarah Palin has a show on History? I'm boycotting them after they started doing "Modern Marvels" episodes on paper towel dispensers and the like.

[CoyoteBlue]

No her show is on TLC. I thought that Paul could do a history show on the changing status of our liberties.

[Colin]

I'm surprised you're not linking to Julian Sanchez's excellent article on the matter at Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/238323

[SIV]

Excellent? Sanchez offers nothing relevant. That meandering piece is lame by both the low standards of Sanchez and i>

[SIV]

and Newsweak

[Skole]

Sour grapes?

How many times have they rejected your articles on the principled reasons for legalized cock fighting?

[SIV]

Where does Sanchez address what is "wrong" about Rand Paul's position?
He seems to think any government infringement of rights is OK to promote "equality".
The central fact obscured by our polarized political discourse is that Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul don't inhabit completely alien moral worlds.

Actually they do...but Sanchez and Maddow are collectivist peas in a pod.

[Tulpa]

His point was that after centuries of oppression and being kept separate from white society, libertarian philosophy that makes sense when you start from a blank societal slate in year 0 doesn't necessarily make sense. Not sure if you're one of our resident Confederate sympathizers, but that was certainly the tack taken by the Union after the Civil War with the Freedmen's Bureau (in what was supposedly the 19th century golden age of libertarianism).

I find Julian's argument pretty compelling, but in the end I think handing over that kind of do-gooder power to the government is going to cause more problems in the long run. So ultimately I don't think that section of the CRA should have been passed; rather the infringements on economic liberty posed by Jim Crow laws should have caused the courts to throw them out, had they not thrown that argument out the window in the Slaughterhouse Cases. But I don't consider someone unlibertarian because they think the CRA was necessary.

[Michael Ejercito]

Not sure if you're one of our resident Confederate sympathizers, but that was certainly the tack taken by the Union after the Civil War with the Freedmen's Bureau (in what was supposedly the 19th century golden age of libertarianism).

The Freedmen's Bureau assisted newly-freed slaves.

I do not find how this would contradict libertarian ideals, since the services of the Freedmen's Bureau was essentially compensating people who were victims of a government institution (slavery).

So ultimately I don't think that section of the CRA should have been passed; rather the infringements on economic liberty posed by Jim Crow laws should have caused the courts to throw them out, had they not thrown that argument out the window in the Slaughterhouse Cases.

Would states have the power to have state CRA's that do the same thing on a state level?

[The Commerce Clause]

Would states have the power to have state CRA's that do the same thing on a state level?

Over my dead body. I love it when the right people are in charge.

[Tulpa]

Jim Crow laws were imposed precisely because racists feared the South's rigid caste system would collapse if business owners were free to integrate, as historian Charles Wynes noted in his 1961 study Race Relations in Virginia.

This can't be said enough...but it doesn't make a very good sound bite.

[Michael Ejercito]

This can't be said enough...but it doesn't make a very good sound bite.

And it shows that it would not take a majority to destroy the rigid caste system.

Most white people in that place and time were perfectly content with segregation. But if a significant number of them decided to integrate...

[Charles Wynes]

Thanks to you guys for playing into our current rigid caste system!

[AlmightyJB]

Yawn. I'm so bored with this non-issue.

[Second AlmightyJB]

Yawners too.

[Third AlmightyJB]

I second that yawners.

[Almighty JB the Fourth]

Me too. Thirds?

[I'm with JB]

Agreed.

[sol]

WTF is a horographist?

[Nipplemancer]

a watch/clock maker

[EJ]

"and most recently the great transfer in US history of money and assets from African Americans to rich white people by the mortgage speculators"

This is such typical lefty thinking. Because black people were really stupid and dumb and didnt know what they were doing... so they unwillingly took out really bad mortgages. They really need smart white people (like me) to hold their hand and tell them what to do.

[Tulpa]

Considering that blacks are disproportionately affected by cigarette taxes and the looming VAT, while the govt dumps money into the pockets of too big to fail white bankers, there is indeed a wealth transfer going on. He just gets the mechanism wrong.

[Chad]

I don't think there is a liberal on earth who supports a VAT and doesn't support either some sort of refund or some sort of policy which increases the progressivity of our tax system in other areas.

But thank you for noting that sales and excise taxes actually make our current tax system pretty flat, and almost offset the progressivity of the income tax. Property taxes are also slightly regressive.

Now, when you accept the fact that the government needs more revenue and that there is no way in cold hell we are going to balance the budget without tax increases, get back to me. Until then, you are just being childish.

[Nash]

I'm pretty sure we can balance the budget with spending cuts. Have they gotten to the subtraction chapter in your math textbook yet?

[Tulpa]

that there is no way in cold hell we are going to balance the budget without tax increases

I'm not sure how physics works in cold hell, but it would seem that spending cuts are just as effective a way to balance the budget.

And if your point is that significant spending cuts are not politically viable, keep in mind that neither are tax increases in the middle of a recession at the same time as the feds are handing off billions of dollars to banks, the Maes, and connected industries like the automakers.

So perhaps we should not consider political unpopularity as a deal-breaker, because if we do, NOTHING will be done to remedy this problem.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Keep taxes where they're at, and cut the budget. Repeat as necessary.

[skr]

omg a liberal who doesn't like property taxes. Can you please move to CA and argue that position with your friends?

[coarsetad]

Liberals love ALL forms of taxes, just as long at the percentage paid increases along with wealth of the payee.

[tkwelge]

All taxes are regressive. The poor tend to bare the brunt of any taxation. I know I'm beating a dead horse on this one. However, it bares repeating.

[Tara Davis]

Exactly. From my first job delivering papers until 30 years later, I've been at almost every income level up to and including middle-class, and in all that time, never once was my paycheck signed by a poor person.

[tkwelge]

Not to mention all of the jobs that I've had to work like a dog at, because my employer couldn't afford to hire another person. Basically, an employer responds to higher taxes by making each employee do more work in the same work day.

[ChicagoTom]

Basically, an employer responds to higher taxes by making each employee do more work in the same work day.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Employers should be trying to maximize the efficiency and productivity of their workforce, regardless of the tax incentives.

It sounds to me like you're just upset that you didnt get to loaf as much as you would have liked

[Cunctator]

I guess I won't be getting back to you.

[.]

Now, when you accept the fact that the government needs more revenue and that there is no way in cold hell we are going to balance the budget without tax increases, get back to me.

Yeah? So what does it need it for? And please don't tell me it's to balance the budget, because you know that will never happen - not even if the government confiscated every penny everyone makes.

[benjoya]

you're right. a balanced budget hasn't happened in 10 whole years, and that was only after the government took every last cent of our money! how did we ever get it back?

[tkwelge]

the budget was never balanced

[oncogenesis]

Now, when you accept the fact that the government needs more revenue

FAIL

[Tulpa]

Liberals love grandstanding about what are, in practice, distractions.

That happens on both sides (and in most discussions where the sole purpose is to make the other person look bad). Obama being in Jeremiah Wright's church, John Edwards' haircut, Hillary Clinton lying about the source of her name -- all of these were made into big deals despite having little effect on any conceivable policy decision.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Obama's church attendance does affect his policy decisions, Tulpa. The other things you mentioned, were just fun to pick apart, and still are.

[benjoya]

were just fun to pick apart, and still are.

just like rand paul's belief in the right not to serve black people.

[benjoya]

sorry, should be 'the right to not serve black people.'

and eliminating the cruel tyranny of the minimum wage should be a priority for the next senator from Kentucky! And stop enslaving those hard-working mine owners with government regulation, too!

[benjoya]

fun to pick apart, no?

[The Libertarian Guy]

Except he didn't advocate for that being a modern-day policy. Nice try, though.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Wow, benjoya... I'd like to see a link to your favorite liberal talking-points dispensary. Care to post it for us?

[benjoya]

he believes in the right to not serve black people. do you?

[alan]

You really think you are going to successfully grandstand your categorical muddle on a libertarian site? Why don't you turn your attention to your local fishwrap's blog where there are people dumb and ignorant enough to be afraid of your collectivist bullying.

Yes, if I don't want you on my property for any reason you have no business being there.

Next, you are going to try to tell me every public swimming facility in your metropolitan area was as freely open to all races. What a croc of shit.

I have news for you buddy. At least up until the early nineties there was a pool hall on the same block as the Woolworth's sit in where white college kids venturing up town were kicked out all based on the melanin content of their skin.

Nope. No hypocrisy from the left. Do they support race based admissions policies? Of course they do. If the right people make the decisions, and the right people are the beneficiaries.

Take your high horse and shove it up your ass, slaver.

[benjoya]

thank you for being upfront and honest about your belief in the right to refuse service to people based on their ethnicity or religion. if only your compatriots were so forthright, then we could discuss our basic philosophical disagreement. unfortunately, not even that paragon of freedom rand paul will freely admit this belief.

[Bruce D]

Fair enough, benjoya, a person DOES have a right to refuse service according to race. But simply because one has a right does not mean one has to do it or that it would be noble. People have a right to do many things that are objectively despicable, even evil. The question is exactly where is force justified in stopping such actions. Libertarians believe that force is only justified to defend or retaliate against the initiation of force or threat thereof.

Even though refusing to serve someone on the basis of race is wrong, it would be a greater wrong to compel someone to serve someone else against their will.

In general, if we want to maintain freedom, nonetheless extend it, we will have to tolerate many things that are wrong and that we hate, and find ways to eliminate them without the use of government coercion. Otherwise, initiation of coercion becomes a convenient, but addictive "solution" spreading throughout society for any number of issues.

Indeed, it was government coercion in the form of the slave laws in the antebellum South and Jim Crow laws that gave rise to the problem in the first place.

[Scott]

"At least up until the early nineties there was a pool hall on the same block as the Woolworth's sit in where white college kids venturing up town were kicked out all based on the melanin content of their skin."

Actually, that resentment might go a little deeper than the epidermis. Lest you forget.

[alan]

Actually, that resentment might go a little deeper than the epidermis. Lest you forget

So 'turn about is fair play', is okay on someone who wasn't alive in 1964, or would it help you visualize the situation a little better if I pointed out the people I know first hand who were asked to remove their cracker asses from the property were a Jewish couple from Italy? A situation that caused me deep embarrassment as a native to the city, state and country.

To think I was giving the left who visit here enough credit for being able to see beyond race that they would intuitively understood that these factors should not have mattered to the substance of the argument. You just cannot overestimate how fucked up in the head leftist are about race. I had the lowest of expectations considering how you would respond to my post, and I am still disappointed.

[Scott]

Ok, first its "white college kids" now its "a Jewish couple from Italy." Not necessarily mutually exclusive categories, but nonetheless a curious switch wording.

btw I had commented on another article on this site, "Everybody Loves Rand," that people had overreacted to his Civil Rights Act comments. For example, Rachel Maddow. Yet, one of the "leftists" (btw nice muddled category there) that was most offended by the CRA commments was Jim Clyburn. Ask him if race still matters. Or better yet ask Rush Limbaugh who never passes up an opportunity to make an issue out of it. "Rightists" play the race card as well.

[alan]

Ok, first its "white college kids" now its "a Jewish couple from Italy." Not necessarily mutually exclusive categories, but nonetheless a curious switch wording.

There is no contradiction there, asshole. A young married Jewish couple from Milan between the ages of 20 and 22 attending college here, so yes a couple and 'college kids.'

Her father was a party boss for the Communist in Milan at the time they changed their names to 'something socialist something' because Communism had fallen out of favor. I have written about her at length here before because in spite of being a European Communist she was still to the right of most Democrats I know.

As I pointed out except for the fucked up mentality on matters of race from the left, there should have been no need to put a finer point on the circumstances but you assume a generic white person who owes something to a generic black person never mind whenever something like this is mentioned.

I know you don't like the table turned, but fuck you if you are going to use 'lest you forget' where you assume the person (me) you are trying to win rhetorical points from is just another generic white person who owes something to a generic black person.

[alan]

Oh, after you apoligize for questioning my veracity, eat some shit stuff crow and choke to death, motherfucker:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/01.....umber-is-h

alan|1.8.09 @ 2:23AM|#

for some reason I almost assumed it.

I can vouch for the beauty of Milanese women. I had a study partner in college from there. Interestingly, her dad was the cities communist party boss at that very time they dropped communism from their name. She gave me some of the new stickers her dad sent her with the new party name, quite spiffy looking.

[EMp]

Those college kids probably felt as welcome as the proverbial "turd in a public swimmin' pool", eh? 😉

[The Libertarian Guy]

That is NOT what he said, benjoya.

[benjoya]

he said he wouldn't support the part of the civil rights act that would tell people how to run their private businesses. you think as senator, he would enforce the federal law against god-fearing kentucky entrepreneurs.

oh, then he walked it back. no wonder he's such a rising star in the libertarian firmament.

[Warty]

GOTCHA!!!!! YER RACISTS!!!!!!!!1

[benjoya]

still "really fun to pick apart" IMO

[Cunctator]

As Senator, he wouldn't have the power to "enforce" laws. Executive function. That is the problem with many people. They don't understand the diference in the functions of the three Branches.

As a Libertarian, I will say flat out that I believe discrimination by private people and businesses is perfectly legal. The Constitution is a restraint on the Government, not the People.

Discrimaination is dispicable, by it isn't illegal, nor should it be, to be a moron.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Yeah, you nailed it, benjoya... we libertarians are all racists. Yup. An' we're all barefoot racist inbreds. Yup.

My God, you liberals are so fucking stoopid.

[benjoya]

your well-reasoned argument has convinced me. now can we move on to getting the government to leave BP alone?

[Kyle Roberts]

Benjoya, check your copy of the U.S. constitution. The Senate does not enforce the law, it writes it (well, some of it, at least).

The executive branch enforces it, but I guess that the separation of powers is an alien concept to you.

[benjoya]

no, that's a good point. i understand separation of powers. that's what upsets me (and the odd libertarian) about warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, etc.

[Free speech.]

Cunt.

[wayne]

It wasn't until late in this thread that I realized that you meant, "the right to not serve black people", as in, refuse them service in a restaurant, hotel, etc.

I quite naturally thought you were making a reference to the race-pandering, state sanctioned racial spoils system ala affirmative action in all of its odious incarnations.

[wayne]

Oh, to answer your question, yes I believe I have the right to not serve anybody: black, white, brown, etc.

[benjoya]

now we're getting somewhere. if only you had a candidate that agreed with you.

[wayne]

now we're getting somewhere. if only you had a candidate that agreed with you.

If only I could decipher your meaning?

[benjoya]

just that you're clear in your position, but paul has walked back from it.

[benjoya]

you really didn't get that?

[wayne]

no, i really didn't. Paul is not my candidate, though, as I live in CA. I do like Paul for his mostly Libertarian positions.

Paul's position on CRA is ethical IMO. He simply makes the point that he disagrees with forcing private businesses to do business in a manner not to their liking. This can't be construed, except by brain-dead progressives, to mean that he would refuse to do business with anybody for racial reasons, or that he would condone the practice by others.

If CRA were abolished today, do you think all of us old white guys would dust off our white sheet costumes and bring out the nooses? Such a notion strikes me as utterly absurd, and quite repugnantly racist.

[Michael Ejercito]

he believes in the right to not serve black people. do you?

Only if there is a right to not serve white people, or you .

The law, in its majestic equality...

[robc]

I support private property rights to the extreme. Do you?

[benjoya]

no. i'm not an extremist.

[Marshall Gill]

i'm not an extremist.

No but you are extremely stupid, doesn't that count?

[benjoya]

get a load of H.L. Mencken here!

[Banjos Kick Ass!]

*rolls eyes*
Yes believing in freedom of association is extremist. And freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.

Hey my fellow freedom lovers don't be so hard on benjoya, he has it all figured out. His "new" way of thinking just goes above our heads. We extremist just need to stop being so afraid of this new way of thinking, ignore the cognitive dissonance, turn our brains off and accept it with open arms. After all, if we don't then they will call us racist.

[benjoya]

my fellow freedom lovers

precious. i'll bet your lobbying your representatives to close gitmo every day.

[J.T.]

Do you believe in the right not to let black people in your house?

[The Libertarian Guy]

You didn't post your liberal talking-points links, benjoya. Tsk tsk. And here I asked all nice and polite-like.

[benjoya]

sorry. i read josh marshall, glenn greenwald, and andrew sullivan. i'm sure the google will help you find their blogs.

[The Libertarian Guy]

I don't want to read that shit, benjoya... just wanted you to be honest about who feeds you your ideology.

[benjoya]

oh, i thought you were being open minded. my error. thank you for your interest, though.

[benjoya]

and you did ask for "links" which among the computer literate means "hypertext." you can google that one, too, einstein.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Hypertext and propaganda are two different things, benjoya.

[benjoya]

like i said, among the computer literate (i have faith you will join our ranks someday), the 'links' you repeatedly asked me for would be inferred as 'hypertext.' (if i tell you what that means, how will you learn?) again, i appreciate the interest, as i could give a rat's ass what you read.

[Jeff]

That explains so much. I believe you've contracted Andrew Sullivan's brain AIDS.

[benjoya]

brain AIDS, doctor? well, IIRC, sullivan is HIV+, and he seems a little too sanguine about the tories' new government, but i wouldn't ascribe the latter to his medical condition. as far as contracting a disease through reading a blog, well, that part is more plausible, and would explain quite a lot. unless you were just making a homo joke, which i strongly doubt -- that would mean libertarians are stuck in adolescence (as well as the 80s), and i just know that's not true.

[benjoya]

and, needless to say to the adults here, sullivan has a lot of views one might call libertarian, e.g., he's against the drug war, and thinks warrantless wiretapping is criminal, but i guess if he's not onboard with your guy paul, he's got brain AIDS or something. good argument, you'll go far. and i wish you would start now.

[benjoya]

all right, i stole that last part from groucho.

[Jeff]

I only reckon Sullivan has brain AIDS because he's an incoherent fuckwad, and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it isn't brain AIDS, then I have to believe he's in his right mind when he accuses everyone who is against the Iraq War of being fifth columnists and everyone who is for the Iraq War of being a coward, and takes time away from his shitty blog to investigate Sarah Palin's womb.

[Sudden]

I believe in the right not to serve white people. Do you?

[benjoya]

no i don't, haven't you been paying attention? i'm perfectly okay with the civil rights act's prohibition of ethnic/religious discrimination in private business. Jeez, how many ways can i say it? ?Habla Usted Espa?ol? Sprechen Sie Deutsch?

(wow, maybe professor jeff's theory of blogs transmitting brain disease does hold water.)

[Commander Mudkip]

I believe in freedom of association, do you? I do not believe it is ethical to use the strong arm of the state against someone who does not share the same beliefs as me, do you?

and you think you aren't an extremist ideologue...

[benjoya]

I do not believe it is ethical to use the strong arm of the state against someone who does not share the same beliefs as me, do you?

depends. if you believe jews are the devil and you won't pump their gas or serve them a Big Mac, i'm okay with the government stepping in, as is rand paul (for the last day or so). again, good thing we're clear: me, rand paul and other extremist ideologues on one side. you and the moderate people on the other.

[Commander Mudkip]

Because obviously the government has never discriminated against Jews.

[benjoya]

non-sequitur -5.

[Commander Mudkip]

Yup, silly me. Let's ignore history and economics and start rabbling about a fictitious Jew in a fictitious free market not getting his gas pumped.

[benjoya]

jesus christ. okay, he's not a jew. he's a sri-lankan-american. and it's not a gas station, it's a -- feedlot, i don't know, whatever. and if you say "we don't serve sri-lankan-americans at my feed lot," i have no problem with the government telling you different. and that is how the law stands today. neither i nor rand paul revere wants to change that. so, once again, shorn of specifics that distract you, it's: me, jack conway, rand paul, and the entirety of the civil rights act on one side; you and the rest of the freedom lovers assembled on the other.

and 'rabbling' isn't a verb, AFAIK.

[triangleman]

There's a good troll 🙂

[benjoya]

thanks for your support. now i must take my leave until jack conway's victory party or an H&R thread on obama's 'un-american" comments toward BP, whichever comes first. welcome to the working week. i know it don't thrill you, i hope it won't kill you.

[mr simple]

just like rand paul's belief in the right not to serve black people.

So every time I encounter a black person I have to challenge them to a dance battle? This will not be pretty.

[Rod Serling]

"...to not serve black people"...ITS A COOK BOOK!!!!

[benjoya]

ha ha!

[Tulpa]

Demonstrate an example where it plausibly affected a policy decision.

John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Teddy Kennedy belonging to a virulently anti-abortion and anti-gay church, and attending services there weekly, has never seemed to affect their policies.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Wright's theology hates capitalism and personal wealth, Tulpa. Which is pretty much Obama's entire fiscal policy strategy.

[Tulpa]

That may be more of a "birds of a feather flock together" phenomenon than a direct effect.

[robc]

Well, then based on "birds of a feather", it is legitimate to look at who a candidate hangs with.

[affenkopf]

Obama's church was anti-war, didn't affect his policy decisions.

[Poppin' Caps Lock]

HA! +10

[Chad]

It is not a "distraction" to point out that someone puts idealogy before common sense. This is entirely the problem that libertarians and Rand Paul have. Your logic leads down some really ridiculous paths, and forcing you to state this proves how ridiculous you are for heading down them.

[CoyoteBlue]

The Ends justify the Means?

[Tulpa]

Whereas for liberals, we don't even have to follow the logic of your ideology to come to some ridiculous conclusions; we can see them all too visible in the fabric of our society after 80 years of your logic being carved into it with the policy knife.

[Jarred]

Zzzzing!

[benjoya]

a little long and unfunny (for all its profundity) for a four-z 'zing', doncha think?

[Tulpa]

It makes sense to have a longer "zing" for a longer comment.

[Groovus Maximus]

Heh heh, that's what she said!

/adolescent snark

[Mike Laursen]

You've just described something that goes on within all camps of political philosophy. Ideologues are not unique to libertarianism. Visit your local Green, Democratic, or Republican Party central committee meeting sometime.

[DWCarkuff]

Yeah, the notion private property is a ridiculous path. However, the politics of expediency has never led people down a dead end and has never led to any sort of horrors. Maybe I wouldn't find progessives, so called, nearly as repulsive if only they could be honest about their contempt for liberty and their willingness to sacrifice others in the name of their ideology.

[Warty]

Why do you people engage Chad as if he had serious points or was interested in a real discussion? I don't get it.

[Tulpa]

Oh, look who's telling us to stop what we're doing now. Boring! Fuddy Duddy! Wet Blanket!

[Warty]

You're reaching here, Grandma. Keep trying, though.

[Steff]

Mostly because I enjoy presenting my points, even if he doesn't agree with them. While I think his philosophies are desperately, painfully naive, I don't think he's on the level of Max or Edwin.

[Mike Laursen]

I dunno. Why do people spend time playing wii bowling?

[J.T.]

You know a full well most of us do not have the ability to back down from an argument. I think that is inherent in libertarians.

[inerrant libertarian]

I disagree.

[-]

At least it's childish and unproductive.

[benjoya]

fun-nee!

[Michael Ejercito]

Your logic leads down some really ridiculous paths, and forcing you to state this proves how ridiculous you are for heading down them.

What was ridiculous about Rand's path?

[Mike G]

Well, God bless Alexander Cockburn (he said mischievously) for being one of the few to recognize that the Civil Rights Act is unlikely to be the main issue Rand Paul has to deal with in office. I'll worry about the practical effects of Rand Paul's libertarianism when there's any reason to think that you could get 49 other votes for ANYTHING involving less government and Congress not sticking its fat face into the middle of it all.

[marlok]

I read the article, and Cockburn still manages to call tea partiers insane and racist. I like the guy's contrarian streak, but ultimately the guy's a Stalinist and his criticisms of the left reflect that viewpoint.

[Mike G]

Believe me, there's something for everyone to dislike about Cockburn, but at least he cut through the conventional wisdom of the week, which is that the Civil Rights Act is somehow threatened by one legislator having vague doubts about it. Rand Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act are right up there in importance with his views on the Council of Nicaea and the designated hitter rule.

[J.T.]

vague doubts about 1 out of 10 articles, I might add.

[Gene Berkman]

I don't think he meant that all tea partiers are insane and racist, but clearly some are. More likely insane than (openly) racist, since some think you can have limited government and a War on Terror at the same time.

[Walt]

I don't remember seeing that the war on terror was a tea party plank.

[DangleDommy]

Dude that is downright scary when you think about it. WOw.

Lou
http://www.complete-anonymity.at.tc

[AlmightyJB]

"WTF is a horographist?"

Someone who tatoos ho's.

reply to comment link wasnt working.

[BakedPenguin]

Cockburn deserves respect for intellectual honesty. I'll have to remember this the next time he writes something that pisses me off (which will be soon enough).

[robc]

I clicked on the full article, he loses all the respect for using the term "tea bagger".

[robc]

Is the entire left still in elementary school sexually?

[Tulpa]

I sure hope not, since that would mean I'm in some serious trouble with the law.

[Woody Allen]

Excuse me....umm. Excuse me, Mister Tulpa, sir. I just, oh gosh I am so embarrassed, I think I just wet myself....I just wanted to tell you that I like the cut of your jib. But don't take that the wrong way. Oh piffle!

[Max]

Rand Paul opposes same-sex marriage,is opposed to abortion without exception, and supports a constitutional amendment to completely ban abortion. Some fucking libertarian!

[The Libertarian Guy]

Max, you're a liberal. We don't expect you to understand grown-up things.

[Max]

I understand that rand paul is a carbon copy of his Christian Identity old man:

"I'm a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife's a deacon there and we've gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. I think that ? in some ways it's funny, 'cause people talk about laws, and they say, "Well, we have a law against this." Laws really only work because most of us don't even need the laws. You know what I mean? Ninety-eight percent of us won't murder people, won't steal, won't break the law, and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws, I mean, you have to have laws, but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day-to-day life."--Rand Paul

[The Libertarian Guy]

*yawn*

[benjoya]

ftw. smartest thing you've written all day.

[The Libertarian Guy]

We're waiting for you to write something intelligent. Get to it.

[Mike G]

Oh my god, a politician with a moral compass! He must be stopped!

[wayne]

The only disagreement I have with the quote from Rand Paul, is the implication that you must be Christian, or a theist of any kind to share the values and traits he lists. I, personally, share those same values and I am atheist.

His larger point is correct, though. You only need laws so that society has a defensible basis to bitch-slap those (very few) who have no moral compass.

[EMp]

Maybe showing some political naivete on my part, but how would this be 'Christian Identity'-centric in any way? D'ya mean the phrase "a people"? If criminals (of any hue) did not steal, murder, rape, etc. - you don't think it would take care of a lot of societal ills? Hmmm...

[Tulpa]

Tips

* Test the water first to make sure it's a comfortable temperature.

* Wear a long-sleeved sweatshirt (which you don't mind getting wet) or long gloves while bathing your rat to avoid scratches in case they try to climb up your arms and get out of the water.

* Some products for "dry bathing" ferrets work well on rats. They're essentially a non-toxic light foam that you can apply with your hand.

* When rinsing the rat, it works well to run the water (not too forcefully) at a nice lukewarm temperature and "shower" the rat.

* Rats poop when they are frightened, so be prepared.

* Don't let your rat get cold aftwerwards. A blow dryer set to the lowest warm setting and at the lowest fan speed can help to dry and warm your rat unless he is frightened by the noise.

* If your rat is frightened by the noise of the blow dryer, throw a hand towel or kitchen rag over his back and rub him dry. Whatever you choose NEVER send your rat back to the cage still wet.

* If you don't want to fight your rat every time he gets dirty, get him used to open water as soon as possible. A rat which has only been around water from its bottle will be a great deal more stressed then a rat introduced to swimming early on. The best way to start a young ratlet on the path to bathing is to set up a little ratty swimming pool for some supervised summer fun. A shallow bowl or paint pan works well for this.

* If your rat is scared of bathing, instead of the usual dunking, try enticing him with his favorite treat to willingly enter the water.

* Have a few practice baths that include no shampooing, no dunking, no stress, just lots of treats and the option to swim.

* If you have a group of rats try bathing them all together. Everything is less stressful when you have your buddies around.

* Make bathing a routine; it's not required but it's a good thing to start. It may be stressful the first few times but if you do it enough they'll get used to it eventually.

* If you don't have the right kind of shampoo, don't use any at all. It isn't even necessary unless your rat is smelly. If its coat is just dirty it should rinse out without problems.

* If you trim your rat's claws, it's a good idea to trim them after you wash your rat/rats. This will minimise the depth of any scratches, by ensuring claws are short (and smoother-tipped than if you clipped them just before washing).

!!!Be ready for them to poop. It flies out of them like a rocket in a bath!!!!

Warnings

* Bathing a rat can be very stressful to it, and it's usually not necessary unless the rat has gotten something messy on its fur. Use caution with skittish or ill rats.

* You may end up getting scratched, bitten, soaking wet, or all three if your rat isn't very well behaved. A rat can climb your arm like a squirrel climbs a tree.

* Never use people shampoo on your rat. It is much too harsh and can cause serious skin problems. Only use baby shampoo or small animal shampoo.

* If you wash your rat on a regular basis only use shampoo every other time. Too much shampoo can be damaging to its coat and skin.

* All rats will be a bit frightened on their first bath day, but if your rat is truly terrified stop. If its first experience with water is a horrible one filled with dunking and showering, it'll probably scar it for life and he'll never enjoy the water. Rats have excellent memories and he will remember if you ever try to bathe him again. A bad first bath experiance creates a vicious cycle of biting, scratching, and soaking.

[Mike Laursen]

Tulpa, I'm having trouble getting the blood stains off of my rats. What do you recommend?

[Tulpa]

Warfarin should take care of your rat's blood.

[Safety Man]

Remember to remove the cat's teeth before pouring gravy on your crotch!

[Mike Laursen]

Thanks! Until you told me about it, I was a Warfarin stranger!

[Warty]

What's the best way to clean rectal slime off hamsters?

[Nipplemancer]

2 parts water, 1 part fabric softener and a dash of bleach.

[Nipplemancer]

2 parts water, 1 part fabric softener and a dash of bleach.

[Mikey]

I just have to disagree on one little point.

"Everything is less stressful when you have your buddies around."

Shitting your pants is one activity that is way less stressful alone.

[wayne]

+3

[Slut Bunwalla]

If you read this as though "rat" is slang for a sexual organ, it's, like, fifty times more hilarious.

[sage]

Give it up, dude.
Grow some balls and find a handle you want to keep.
If you can't find a reason to disagree, then either leave, or join us. First posted 5/21/10

[dennis]

I don't think most libertarians are big fans of Rand Paul. He's worse than his father even on the things his father is bad on. Even at LRC, there have been ample criticisms of Rand Paul over the last few months. I would argue that this whole thing is absolutely silly. That some are trying to portray his comments as somehow beyond the pale is more telling about the their religious faith in the state than anything about Rand Paul.

[?]

Okay, now I think Paul might be a racist. The only right-wingers Cockburn ever defends are the ones who hate Jews. SHOW US THE NEWSLETTERS!

[alan]

I have a hard time hating on Cockburn (that was funny by the way). I once sent him a paragraph length note remarking on a car he rented to drive through the Southern states. He wrote back a fifteen hundred word travelogue comparing South Carolinian, Georgian, LA, and Texas dining establishments.

[Ken Shultz]

Not that Robert Byrd holding the title of "Exalted Cyclops" should be relevant in any other way here, but somebody should mention that in places like West Virginia, Kentucky and elsewhere, liberal/left views on race aren't necessarily what gets people elected...

In fact, being falsely accused of racism probably plays a lot better with swing voters in Kentucky than just about anything else could. Whoever Rand Paul's running against better get himself accused of racism quick, or Rand Paul's gonna clean his clock in November.

[robc]

Maybe Conway ought to leak black v white conviction rates since he has been AG.

[benjoya]

being falsely accused of racism probably plays a lot better with swing voters in Kentucky than just about anything else could.

except maybe for being accurately accused of racism.

[robc]

Considering where Paul's strenth is, that wouldnt work.

Asshat.

[benjoya]

hey, i said maybe.

[benjoya]

all right, the "swing voter" part disables my lame attempt at humor. consider it walked back.

[wayne]

What is racist about Paul?

[benjoya]

nothing. see retraction above.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Show the accuracy rate of labeling people as racists, benjoya. Not what you fucking liberals CALL "racists", which is pretty much everyone a cunt-hair to the right of center.

[Bob Smith]

great transfer in US history of money and assets from African Americans to rich white people by the mortgage speculators, given free rein by Democrats and Republicans

Lax loan underwriting is the fault of whites? Cockburn's racism is insulting.

Giving underqualified blacks mortgages that they soon default on is a transfer of wealth to the mortgagee? In what universe does this idiot live? After legal fees, lost interest, fixup costs, and resale costs, banks usually lose money on foreclosures.

What about blacks who got mortgages and made out like bandits in the big runup in property value? Seems like an undeserved windfall for those who wouldn't have qualified for mortgages but for said lax underwriting. Don't forget banks don't get a dime of that. Should those homeowners refund their gains, or does the disapproval run in only one direction?

[The Angry Optimist]

how about this? I am sure there are black loan officers, and white people who made out like bandits flipping houses. So, let's drop the race thing altogether, because money is green.

[Liberal Lefty]

But if we left race out of the equation, we wouldn't have any cards to play. I mean, if we can't lay useless ideological traps concerning laws written nearly 50 years ago, and threw out unverifiable claims of real estate based racism we would have much beyond our income equality tirades.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

But -- but -- then, how could those liberals get elected?

[FredSaid]

Cockburn may have been referring broadly to "mortgage speculators" such as AIG and Goldman Sachs, who played games with each other using big piles of shitty loans as tokens. To keep playing the games, they needed more and more piles of shitty paper they could knowingly pretend were golden. Those papers needed signatures, and poor people, largely inexperienced in finance schemes beyond a rental contract and starry-eyed at the thought of actually owning a home while making only 25 grand a year, were a good source of those signatures.

Within a few years or less, those poor people found out they didn't sign on to the American Dream, but instead a nightmare. They were delivered to financial ruin, while the people at the top of the scheme, who created the demand for shitty paper in the first place, made out literally like bandits (except that your conventional bandit has at least some risk of accountability).

"African American" is not an exact proxy for "poor people," but plenty of African Americans are included among the victims of the mortgage con game. Of course, for Rand Paul to claim he stands in defense of them, he'd have to acknowledge a couple of obvious facts:

1) The criminals at Goldman Sachs, AIG and the like are the sort of bad actors who will always be with us, using their power to exploit any and all loopholes we foolishly allow to exist.

2) The preponderance of evidence indicates that robust, independent regulation of their industry is the only realistic way to stop their bad acts.

And neither one of these facts is allowed to be true in the Libertarian Fantasy Universe, where the free market solves all problems with its magic wand.

[Tulpa]

The people who got in trouble on mortgages were (1) mostly not poor, and (2) could have just walked away from the mortgage and faced no consequences beyond a bad credit score.

Considering the libertarian response to this crisis was to let the lenders suffer for their foolishness and/or fraud, while both your team and the other one responded by bailing them out, I don't think you can really paint libertarians as fans of the status quo.

[Michael Ejercito]

Defending the right of businesses to have segregated lunch counters is no different in principle from defending the right of neo-Nazis to march, or Holocaust deniers to deny the Holocaust.

[FredSaid]

Actually, it is different.

1) Permanent business use of a retail space that, realistically, is subsidized by all taxpayers in the community.

vs.

2) Speech.

A given area is only going to have a certain amount of public accommodations in the space zoned -- and always taxpayer-subsidized -- for that use. In some districts that might just be one or two hotels, for instance. Allowing one or both to institute a "No Blacks Allowed" policy would be allowing a business that is using taxpayer resources (the streets, the sidewalks, the recent Downtown Revitalization Program) to arbitrarily exclude certain taxpayers.

When it comes to public accommodations like hotels and restaurants, the business owners are generally leveraging the value a finite community resource (infrastructure paid for and maintained by the entire tax base) for their own profit. The community can and should demand fairness in service as part of the bargain.

What so many libertarian commenters fail to realize is that a business owner who doesn't like this deal can move his business to truly private land (i.e., zoned for private clubs, and probably lacking in taxpayer-provided bonuses like free parking lots and easy walk-in and drive-by traffic routes) and exclude whoever he likes for any arbitrary reason. It is only the business owner who wants to exploit the value contributed by all taxpayers AND exclude certain taxpayers who would have a problem with Title II.

[Walt]

Your argument seems to be that because of roads, all business and individuals have a special duty to interact with others how the government arbitrarily dictates as being in current favor. Is that in the interstate commerce clause?

Let me ask - what if I built and maintained all the roads for 50 miles around my business. Would I then have the right to control all personal interactions of any business in that region?

Roads are the new key to moral authority.

[Burnsy]

It's not just roads. It's all public infrastructure and services e.g. water/sewer, police/fire protection, etc.

A business would have to be pretty far off the grid to not benefit from services supported at public expense. But hey, if you want to open a supper-club in bumfuck whereversville, have at it. But don't expect to go on the public dole when your business tanks.

[Michael Ejercito]

It's not just roads. It's all public infrastructure and services e.g. water/sewer, police/fire protection, etc.

So people who rely on public infrastructure like roads, water/sewer, and fire/police can be banned from denying the Holocaust? Or burning an American flag?

Why did not people who support criminalization of flag burning think of this rationalization before?

[mr simple]

Permanent business use of a retail space that, realistically, is subsidized by all taxpayers in the community.

Oh I get it, you have no idea what you are talking about. All your beliefs come from some ridiculous blog or freshman studies courses. Anyone who knows what the real world is like, including someone who has tried to start a business, would wonder wherevthe subsidies were when they were buying/renting their location, renovating it, paying utilities, paying taxes, etc. You're statement is a common myth employed by progressives that businesses somehow owe their existence to government or "society" as if there were never busnesses before government gave ou licenses. Go to any message board for the Paul stories and you see this over and over: random lists of things governments do. Things, by the way, the businesses and the individuals working in the business pay for with their taxes and could probably be run better by private institutions.

[Me]

Add to that no understanding of property law, officious inter-meddling nor the takings clause could occur in said freshman class.

[Walt]

Are black businessmen forced to serve klansmen under Title II? Would asking that they take their business elsewhere be an intimidation tactic?

[Michael Ejercito]

A given area is only going to have a certain amount of public accommodations in the space zoned -- and always taxpayer-subsidized -- for that use. In some districts that might just be one or two hotels, for instance. Allowing one or both to institute a "No Blacks Allowed" policy would be allowing a business that is using taxpayer resources (the streets, the sidewalks, the recent Downtown Revitalization Program) to arbitrarily exclude certain taxpayers.

So streets and sidewalks count as subsidies for businesses.

Curiously, Nazi nithings used public streets to march in Skokie.

[Tulpa]

Wait just a minute. Obi Wan just told Luke that he hasn't gone by the name "Obi Wan" since before Luke was born -- which contradicts Ep III, where Yoda refers to him by that name AFTER Luke and Leia were born.

[Kolohe]

http://www.morningstar.nildram....._Sith.html

[Kolohe]

Fixed Link

[Tulpa]

R2's first priority is transport. He arranges to be captured by a group of Jawas and, once on board their transport, he makes a deal with them (possibly using emergency funds stored about his person) to take him where he wants to go. The Jawas refuse to go directly to Kenobi for fear of marauding Sandpeople but they agree to R2's second request : transport to the Skywalker farm. They even get to keep the purchase price if they can sell R2 and 3PO there. The Jawas shake on it and go through with the plan.

No they didn't! They were going to sell the Skywalkers that red upside down trash can droid on wheels, and immobilized R2D2 when he started acting up.

[Groovus Maximus]

The Jawas were greedy and wanted the quick sale of R5D4 (the red trashcan). They knew he had a bad motivator. A droid flashing cash (R2D2) would logically have a very rich master, particularly one that would permit a smartass droid to develop with a lack of memory wipes.

It is coincidence that "Jawa" looks like "Jew"? They are both desert merchants.

[Hazel Meade]

Actually, R2D2 just lied about the whole thing and made the r5d4 unit's motivator explode himself, cause he was trying to complete his mission of delivering his message to Obi-Wan.

[Spoonman.]

And wouldn't the One Ring have been just as secure in that swamp with the faces?

[robc]

Not at all. It wasnt safe at the bottom of the river where Smeagol found it either.

[Spoonman.]

Exactly what my wife says too. But don't the things in that swamp drown you if you get in, as you'd have to to find it?

[Syd Henderson]

Do you really want one of those things wearing the One Ring?

[Groovus Maximus]

I see what you did there. Well played Tulpa.

[Tulpa]

I wouldn't know any other way to play.

[Ray]

Of course The Civil Rights Act itself isn't important now. But lefties are fond of using every liberal piece of legislation as something every non-racist should love and support 1000%. She could just have easily asked Paul what he thought of the legislation that made MLK Day a national holiday.

[tkwelge]

Private businesses already have the right to ban customers for almost any reason, including breast feeding. I believe that business owners should be able to ban anybody that they want for any reason that they want, and if they ban people for reasons of race, I just won't go there. If enough people don't attend, they'll go out of business. Problem solved.

[tkwelge]

Although this whole issue seems kind of irrelevant to me, but not for the reasons mentioned above. I have to ask the question, "Should the police enforce the rules of private businesses?" To me, the answer should be, "No." Unless a black person goes into a "white's only" bar, and simply wants to sit down and read the paper, would there be any grounds to call the police to have him removed? Again, I'd say, "No." Now, they would be allowed to not serve the black man drinks, but they'd have no legal authority to prevent him from entering a public place (unless they are willing to post bouncers at the door to screen entrants, but even then any use of force may be suspect). I'd say that no private business should have the right to remove anybody forcefully with police muscle, unless that person is breaking some sort of public laws. However, a bartender shouldn't have to make anybody drinks unless he wants to. Most of the time, he'll want to.

[tkwelge]

Sorry, first two posts of the day, that's why they sound strangely written. Remove the word "although" from the first sentence, and remove the word "unless from the second sentence.

[tkwelge]

Remove "unless" from the third sentence that is. Damn it. I should start using preview more often. Oh well.

[robc]

A bar isnt a public place. The owners can prevent him from entering, as it is private property.

The law they have them removed for is trespassing.

[tkwelge]

I used to be a security guard, and trust me, that whole "trespassing" thing is more complicated than you would think.

[benjoya]

thank you again for your forthrightness. similarly, if the country club where paul celebrated his victory wouldn't let me in cause i'm a big ol' jew, that's their right, correct?

[Michael Ejercito]

thank you again for your forthrightness. similarly, if the country club where paul celebrated his victory wouldn't let me in cause i'm a big ol' jew, that's their right, correct?

Only if you have the right to exclude Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or atheists from your country clubs.

[benjoya]

of course. that follows naturally. but you didn't answer the question. do they/i have that right?

[benjoya]

actually, the question should be 'should i/they have that right,' cause under current law i/they don't.

i don't find that unjust, which seems to make me a minority on this thread.

[Michael Ejercito]

of course. that follows naturally. but you didn't answer the question. do they/i have that right?

They should have that right only if you have a similar right to do so.

Otherwise, they should not have that right.

[benjoya]

one more time, i'll type slowly. according to the law as it stands, neither i nor the fuckoffjew country club have the right to exclude people based on their religion. i don't feel oppressed by that. i assume you do. correct me if i'm wrong.

[BakedPenguin]

It's not a question of oppression. It's whether or not you have the right of association on your own property, or you don't.

[benjoya]

okay, so to leave hyperbole out of it. i'm okay with the civil rights act in its entirety, making me a small minority on this thread (although paul the younger now agrees with me -- he's a rock, that one). i'm glad we could clear that up. finally.

[Hazel Meade]

Most bars have bouncers for the purpose of removing unwanted patrons.

[tkwelge]

Yeah, but it is definitely fuzzy when it comes to removing somebody with physical violence, especially when that person is not acting violently. There is a big difference when using violence to remove somebody who hopped a fence to enter your property and using violence to remove somebody who walked in through an open door who isn't causing anybody trouble. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to exclude others, just that it is more complicated than what you make it out to be. It used to be my job to remove people from properties. It just isn't that simple. And the police won't even step in to remove people who ARE causing a disturbance.

[Tony]

So what, racism is just one of the variables that go into the beautiful, perfect equations that make the market produce the best of all outcomes? Or, no wait, as I'm constantly told, it's not about outcomes, it's about balancing liberties, and apparently the right of business owners to be racist assholes trumps the right of black people to participate in commerce in their society. You know I was willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, that he's just a misguided ideologue who puts his OCD libertarian principles over reality, but the more I read about his various conspiracy theories and associations, I'm not so sure. It's not so cute, I think.

[Groovus Maximus]

You never answered my question on the other thread Tony.

[Tony]

What, about what the end goal of progressivism is?

The answer is there is no end goal. It is not a utopian philosophy, it's a pragmatic one. Which means that you tweak society (and the marketplace) as needed to provide greater fairness and justice to more people. It is one of progressivism's great strengths that it is not bound by rigid first principles (except maybe the notion that we can and should improve society and extend its benefits to the most number of people possible).

[Michael Ejercito]

Which means that you tweak society (and the marketplace) as needed to provide greater fairness and justice to more people.

Libertarians have another goal, which is the freedom to do as one pleases as long as it does not violate rights.

Was it socially just or fair to permit Nazi nithings to march in Skokie?

[Tony]

I believe exactly the same thing, I just recognize the existence of externalities. It takes a much more sophisticated system of governance to actually ensure this freedom than libertarians will admit to.

[mr simple]

This is assinine. Government does not grant rights, it can only take them away. How can government enforce someone's right to free speech, association, owning guns, etc.? It can only accomadate through inaction. Having the right to bear arms doesn't mean that someone should be forced to sell them to you. Having the right to freely associate doesn't mean someone has to give you use of private land.

[Michael Ejercito]

I believe exactly the same thing, I just recognize the existence of externalities.

What were the externalities of Nazi nithings marching in Skokie?

Or the Institute of Historical Review lying about the Holocaust?

[Jeff]

I believe exactly the same thing, I just recognize the existence of externalities.

Then why don't you externalize your head from your ass, Tony?

[Groovus Maximus]

The answer is there is no end goal. It is not a utopian philosophy, it's a pragmatic one

Tony, that is incredible load of horsehit and you know it. The end goal of your monstrous Utilitarian philosophy is control. The minority is dying to be in control out of vindictiveness and "Get even-ism". That is the correct answer. You also never answered the question, "It a black man or woman engages in the same discriminatory and predatory behavior on a fellow black person as a racist white person, is the black man or woman racist?" Also, see: Implicit Association test.

It is one of progressivism's great strengths that it is not bound by rigid first principles

No Tony, that is its greatest insidious and subtle evil. Progressivism's lifeblood is the fact that there is no inherent check on it's growth of power in the name of "fairness". Any business will tell you that "making it up as we go along" is an extremely poor business model and destined (barring exception) to fail; the same applies to governance. Any philosophy that is dependent on vague and subjective terms is inherently flawed and will only grow if if its adherents blindly accept the premise with the irrational belief that their principles will not come to bite them in the ass because "they are special, the right people are in charge, and they are good little Progressive children of the State."

Fluffy and SugarFree are right: you will not see the vile nature of your belief system until you are a victim of it.

[Tony]

The end goal of your monstrous Utilitarian philosophy is control.

I'm so glad I have you to tell me what I believe! I certainly don't believe in control for its own sake. I do believe that certain restrictions on minor liberties (say, the liberty to discriminate while catering to the public) must be sacrificed in order to achieve greater liberties (the liberty to participate in commerce and not be victimized by racism). You believe this too, of course, just with respect to a narrower range of things.

The minority is dying to be in control out of vindictiveness and "Get even-ism".

I won't even try to get into the motivation behind this paranoid psychoanalysis.

It a black man or woman engages in the same discriminatory and predatory behavior on a fellow black person as a racist white person, is the black man or woman racist?

I suppose black people can be racist against black people. What's your point? They still aren't allowed to operate a business that caters to the public and discriminate based on race.

Progressivism's lifeblood is the fact that there is no inherent check on it's growth of power in the name of "fairness". Any business will tell you that "making it up as we go along" is an extremely poor business model and destined (barring exception) to fail; the same applies to governance.

Making it up as we go along is the only thing we can do. Any philosophy bound by rigid first principles is likely to be inherently flawed. Life is just too complex to be led by easy philosophical precepts. Pragmatism is about building on the knowledge gained in the past and applying it to the real world. Libertarianism is about subjecting everything to simplistic (and therefore most likely flawed) first principles and ignoring the consequences.

you will not see the vile nature of your belief system until you are a victim of it.

I am the beneficiary of progressive principles, and so are you. We have a decent social safety net, and a more fair and just society than the ones that came before. Lots of work needs to be done, of course. NOT to impose control for its own sake, but to figure out how best to make the freedoms we both value available to everyone in a real way.

Curiously, we are also victims of libertarian principles (like the most recent recession), but like someone with Stockholm's syndrome you make endless excuses.

[Groovus Maximus]

I'm so glad I have you to tell me what I believe!

Deductive reasoning is a cruel mistress, isn't it?

I certainly don't believe in control for its own sake.

Do I have to suspend disbelief here? Or would you get offended if I just called you a liar?

I won't even try to get into the motivation behind this paranoid psychoanalysis.

I am not paranoid. I merely wish to see consistency applied in all situations resultant from the Progressive agenda, regardless of the actor. When this happens, yet another group will object and more laws are passed to pacify that group, ad infinitum. Progressive government has a nasty habit of insulating itself from its disasters. See: Das Kapital, John Maynard Keynes, Despots, Collectivism, Obamacare, George Orwell, Alduos Huxley. I submit the "Slippery Slope" be retired as a logical fallacy.

Life is just too complex to be led by easy philosophical precepts.

No, Tony. It's not. I do not have the right to anyone else's labor. I am not entitled to anything in life I cannot obtain honorably and ethically. Stealing is wrong. Do not spend more than you have. IF you must borrow, borrow prudently and do your homework before entering into a contract. Understand that success is not guaranteed and you do have the right to fail. Work for the betterment of yourself, in turn you will benefit others, with the caveat that they, in turn, do not have the right your labor. Not everyone is going to like you, some may even hate you for all sorts of irrational reasons. Life is not fair and equalization of outcomes is impossible. What is mine is mine, and I am prepared to defend it. Envy is part of the human condition and must be tempered by self-restraint, not by coercion of the state unless self-restraint fails and a another actor is called to remedy the situation.

I am the beneficiary of progressive principles, and so are you. We have a decent social safety net, and a more fair and just society than the ones that came before. Lots of work needs to be done, of course. NOT to impose control for its own sake, but to figure out how best to make the freedoms we both value available to everyone in a real way.

There is truth to that. I went to a state school for medicine. I could have gotten into a private school, but chose not to apply. I was able to get private funding for my education, because I was deemed a good risk. I enjoy some of the things that government provides, provided they are enumerated. Wealth redistribution, in the name of "fairness", is not one of them. I take exception to the "fair and just society" and "real way" because they are vague terms, therefore subjective. Lots of work needs to be done? For what? Vague platitudes and feel goodism legislation? And who is we, kemosabe? The end result of this is control for it's own sake and the conclusion is inescapable.

Curiously, we are also victims of libertarian principles (like the most recent recession), but like someone with Stockholm's syndrome you make endless excuses.

I am no one's victim. I am my own person with the right to self-determination and have the right to succeed and fail. I have made no excuses and certainly do not suffer from Stockholm Syndrome; if I did, I would not be declining to accept CMS. The most recent recession was caused by numerous factors, most notably Federal meddling and exacerbation, but the thing they all have in common was they were, and are, continuing to be bailed out at the expense of others, namely taxpayers. I call this theft.

[Tony]

laws are passed to pacify that group

So legislation aimed at ending apartheid is actually just pacifying black people. Could you at least try not being a racist cretin? I don't like getting into it because you guys protest so much but you make it difficult not to question your perception of the world.

Life is not fair and equalization of outcomes is impossible.

So because it is impossible, we shouldn't even try? And not even trying is the most morally laudable way of handling this reality? Life isn't fair, therefore we should reinforce its unfairness as much as possible?

provided they are enumerated

Oh poppycock. What's enumerated is arbitrary. So because it's written in the constitution, it passes libertarianism's muster? Fine, what's constitutional is determined by case law. So all these things are for all intents and purposes enumerated. Wealth redistribution IS explicitly enumerated. All taxation and spending require it, and the power to tax is right there written down for any idiot to see.

I am no one's victim.

Which you could hardly say the same about blacks in the south in the 1960s. Legal discrimination was doing violence to a group of people, and each individual within that group. What possible reason does the state have to sanction that?

[Groovus Maximus]

So legislation aimed at ending apartheid is actually just pacifying black people.

Yes. A legitimately disenfranchised group demanded equal access upon essentially the threat of violence. A socialist government under the auspices of the ANC was instituted. And guess what? They tried all the wonderful socialist things in the name if equality, and found that socialism doesn't work. People got left behind because the distribution of resources didn't reach the people! By definition South Africa should be a shining mecca of socialism....and it isn't. In fact, SA didn't get an infusion of capital
until...wait for it...free market ideas were introduced. They figured out, economically at least, equalization of outcome is impossible. So now, you have even more SA's broke poor and destitute, and can no longer be blamed on racism.
Yet, the socialist approach to social justice is still going strong, and a fool's errand.

Could you at least try not being a racist cretin?

I do not discriminate on the basis of race in my practice. I will, however, discriminate on the basis of ability to pay. I have friends from all over the spectrum. According to you, I have no right to freedom of association, either in business or personal. Are you saying you have a right to my skill and labor when you are sick? What if I don't want to treat you because you voted for Obama?

So because it is impossible, we shouldn't even try? And not even trying is the most morally laudable way of handling this reality? Life isn't fair, therefore we should reinforce its unfairness as much as possible? Life isn't fair, therefore we should reinforce its unfairness as much as possible?

It is realistic and pragmatic. You are a fan of pragmatism, no? Or do you wish to steal more of my money and labor to make life more "fair" for others? The success of such socialist redistribution schemes has proven patently inefficient and false. Free market mechanisms are much more efficient.

Fine, what's constitutional is determined by case law. So all these things are for all intents and purposes enumerated. Wealth redistribution IS explicitly enumerated.

Then I never want you to bitch about corporations spending money on political campaigns. You have been schooled and pwn'd enough regarding The Commerce Clause.

Legal discrimination was doing violence to a group of people, and each individual within that group. What possible reason does the state have to sanction that?

People incite violence on people regardless of laws present. There are so many statutes against murder, yet we have failed to eliminate the act of murder. Forcing people to occupy space with people they do not like and do not wish to associate with has brought more problems than panacea. I agree with Tulpa to point, I don't think life is complex, however, the more complex the law, the more complex life is. The reason the State would sanction such things is control over the individual.

[EMp]

Your last paragraph there, Groovus, pure artwork....

[William Shakespeare]

More matter, and less art

[Dale Carnegie]

Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain -- and most fools do.

[pmains]

So because it is impossible, we shouldn't even try?

Why would you want to try to do something impossible? Political grandstanding seems to be the answer.

[Burnsy]

Groovus Maximus (love the name): Milton Friedman advocates abolishing MD licensure. This would increase the supply of MD's thus driving down the cost of medicine as well as the income of physicians.

Please defend your livelihood.

[Tulpa]

Life is just too complex to be led by easy philosophical precepts.

I agree. However, the law need not be so complex.

[Tony]

Tulpa,

Let me be more specific. The interaction of human beings is in fact too complex to be adequately addressed by a few libertarian microeconomic platitudes. It is not up to the task of ensuring justice in any meaningful way to most people.

It's fine to say people shouldn't discriminate in the way we are discussing. But they do and they will, and they should be prevented from doing so. Because discrimination is a form of violence, against individuals and groups, which is all the more insidious because it contributes to an atmosphere of violence.

[Tulpa]

Actually they don't. If the CRA were repealed tomorrow, very few "public accomodation" business would start discriminating. It is you who is out of touch if you think otherwise.

[Michael Ejercito]

Actually they don't. If the CRA were repealed tomorrow, very few "public accomodation" business would start discriminating. It is you who is out of touch if you think otherwise.

Outside of backwards places like Chicago anyway.

[Michael Ejercito]

Because discrimination is a form of violence, against individuals and groups, which is all the more insidious because it contributes to an atmosphere of violence.

How is it violence to deny people something to that they were not entitled in the first place?

[MatTrue]

The interaction of human beings is in fact too complex to be adequately addressed by a few libertarian microeconomic platitudes.

Well then, how about we all get Tony's permission before interacting with another human being? Better yet, Tony can come up a set of rules for every possible interaction of class, race, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, political party, educational level, government pay grade, union membership, and willingness to sacrifice for the collective.

a.k.a. The Vision of the Annointed.

[Enyap]

+1

[Tulpa]

The problem with not being bound by "rigid" first principles, or any first principles at all in my experience of progressivism, is that it's never logically clear which position on an issue is the correct progressive one; so whichever one is favored by the more powerful branch of progressives becomes the one true progressive position.

Take school vouchers. There is no doubt that children in underperforming public schools would be better off if they could move to a private school. However, this threatens public school teachers and administrators, who have a much more powerful lobby than inner city families do, so antipathy toward school choice became the "progressive position" on the issue.

Yes, first principles sometimes make things more difficult. But NO principles make it easier for the powerful to bend everyone to their will. It's a balancing act, and progressive are just as terrible at it as anarcho-capitalists are.

[Tony]

The progressive position on education is that it should of high quality and available to everyone regardless of ability to pay. That is, it should be socialized. Progressives, rightly, are weary of ignoring the problems of public schools in favor of outsourcing students.

I'm not saying it's totally relativistic, it's just not dogmatic. Hence, pragmatic.

[Tulpa]

You're assuming that a way to ensure a product or service is high quality is to socialize it.

Doesn't sound very pragmatic, or even empirical, does it?

[Me]

Ahh, no.. is that bashing of us eminently kick-ass and ever so cool anarcho-capitalists or sarcasm?

[qwerty]

All sophisticated philosophical systems are based on first principles. If you're not basing your beliefs on principles, your philosophy sucks. Yeah, it is that simple.

[Michael Ejercito]

Or, no wait, as I'm constantly told, it's not about outcomes, it's about balancing liberties, and apparently the right of business owners to be racist assholes trumps the right of black people to participate in commerce in their society.

Tony,

There is no inherent right for anyone to participate in commerce with any specific person.

Why would defending the right of people to be racist assholes be different from defending the right of people to be Holocaust deniers?

And you might not have heard this, but the ACLU did in fact defend the right of people to be racist assholes in this place called Skokie.

[Tony]

Yes, you have the right to be a racist and to talk, write, or march about it. You don't have the right to discriminate if you operate a business that caters to the public, a restriction allowed under the interstate commerce clause.

[tkwelge]

The interstate commerce clause was created to ease trade between the states. Not to give the government the ability to say, "Interstate commerce clause! Neener neener neener, we get to regulate what you're doing, neener neener neener!"

[Tony]

Okay, so take it up with the courts. You don't get to decide what's constitutional while completely ignoring case law.

[tkwelge]

Good argument, Tony. You are so disingenuous, it's not even funny. Like you even give two shits about what the constitution says. You simply want the world to play by your rules. You just use the constitution when it is convenient and ignore it when it is inconvenient, so why even discuss the constitution?

I don't believe in strict adherence to the constitution, anyway. But I do believe in the spirit of the law when the laws make sense. Turning the commerce clause into an arbitrary line (except it is applied to things that are not interstate or commerce) of regulation that isn't even strictly enforced makes no sense, and the original intent of the clause has been forgotten forever.

[Tony]

Well I believe a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause has been mostly good for society. For instance, it has helped to do away with Jim Crow.

All I'm saying is I have case law on my side and you do not. Whether something is constitutional is not a matter of what you believe in your heart, it's a matter of what the case law says. If you disagree, you are free to take it up in the courts and see how far you get.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Jim Crow is long-dead, and will never be coming back, Tony. Get over it.

[Tony]

>Jim Crow is long-dead, and will never be coming back, Tony. Get over it.

Forgive me if I don't take a libertarian dogmatist at his word that all racial animus in society has been resolved and therefore we should repeal all those pesky unconstitutional laws that helped just that come about.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Jim Crow is STILL dead, Tony. Quit implying it will be making a comeback.

[Mr. FIFY]

Notice how he sidestepped your initial question, TLG. Par for liberals, though.

[pmains]

Jim Crow laws violated freedom of association, etc. Using the commerce clause rather than simply enforcing the 14th Amendment was a circuitous way to strike down already un-Constitutional laws.

[tkwelge]

In other words, "Neener neener neener!"

[tkwelge]

THe positioning of my last comment makes it completely irrelevant. WHoops.

[Tulpa]

I guess that means you have to consider BCFR to be unconstitutional, and any federally-connected gun bans. (Soon to include all handgun bans).

[Michael Ejercito]

You don't have the right to discriminate if you operate a business that caters to the public, a restriction allowed under the interstate commerce clause.

Just because the government has the power to do something under the Constitution does not make it a good idea. See state laws against marijuana for an example.

Is there an inherent entitlement to buy from or sell to a specific business?

[tkwelge]

You don't HAVE to utilize that business. You don't have a right to be served by anybody against their will. If somebody doesn't want my money, fine, they won't get it. At least they are not taking money from you and giving you little or nothing in return, as many government departments do.

[Tony]

You don't HAVE to run a business either. If you do, you have to abide by the rules of the society that supplies you with customers (and utilities, police and fire protection, etc.).

[tkwelge]

Why? Running a business is a private act between a business and it's customers. Why would I have to follow rules made by a third party? What you are arguing is that once I enter society or interact with it, I give up my individuality to the social will, which is determined by a minority that loosely represents differing constituencies. I disagree.

[tkwelge]

According to people like you, neither customers nor business owners have a direct right to control the interactions between customers and business owners. YOu believe that both parties must submit to a higher will. That's a tough case to sell, sir.

[Tony]

Of course business owners are not totally free. Depending on what they are selling they often have to submit to inspections and licensing, and yes they have to abide by laws regarding nondiscrimination in both service and hiring. I believe these to be good things. They are minor restrictions on liberty that lead to much greater freedoms, such as the freedom to eat wherever you want with reasonable sureness that you won't be poisoned or discriminated against.

[Tulpa]

Most people in Montgomery, AL were white and did not like being around black people. No freedom of theirs was restricted by the Jim Crow laws. So their freedoms were lessened by forced integration of bus lines and lunch counters.

While my personal opinion is that people with that attitude morally deserve to have such freedoms violated, I don't see where your greatest good for greatest number philosophy goes against it.

[Tony]

Tulpa,

You're right, the freedom of racists to act on their racism was curtailed. Wah. Legal discrimination is a form of violence. The state should not sanction it.

[Michael Ejercito]

Legal discrimination is a form of violence.

It is only violence if it violates rights.

And there is no inherent right to do business with a particular establishment.

[Burnsy]

A little broad don't you think? If I own the only source of water within 500 miles and sold that water only to people I like, you would insist you have a right to "do business" with me regardless of my personal feelings about you. You would not have your family suffer to protect my "rights".

[Michael Ejercito]

A little broad don't you think? If I own the only source of water within 500 miles and sold that water only to people I like, you would insist you have a right to "do business" with me regardless of my personal feelings about you. You would not have your family suffer to protect my "rights".
reply to this

And how exactly would you obtain a monopoly on water?

[qwerty]

Legal discrimination is a form of violence.

Now you're just playing with words. Not serving somebody isn't the least bit violent. Bringing in a cop to force someone to serve you at gunpoint is.

[tarran]

If you do, you have to abide by the rules of the society that supplies you with customers

Wow, so you think business owners who served blacks in defiance of Jim crow laws were wrong

How about business owners who served Jews post enactment of the Nurenberg Laws. They were wrong too?

How about people who defied the attempts of the Federal Government to enfoce the fugitive slave laws? Were they wrong? Are you seriously arguing that Harriet Tubman should have been jailed, tortured or even hanged for her efforts to defy the rules created by the society she found herself within?

You know, Tony, if you lived in Indiana in the 1920's I'll bet you would have been quite the enthusiastic supporter of the KKK.

[Tony]

What's right or wrong is often different from what's legal or illegal.

I happen to think it is both illegal for business owners to discriminate, and right for this to be so.

[tkwelge]

Yeah, but you're bouncing from one side to the other on this argument. You're trying to turn a simple discussion of freedom into a emotionally charged issue of racism on one hand, than you are trying to argue legality on the other hand. Let's at least stick to the issue of whether or not it is right to allow private discrimination, and the legality issue will come second.

[Tulpa]

So Tony, would a ban on discrimination in choosing who to work for (rather than who to hire) be constitutional? That is, a ban on people refusing to work for black people or women or whatever.

Such a ban would seem to be as justified by the Commerce Clause as employment discrimination laws are.

[Tony]

First of all, that I'm sitting here having to defend the ERA is absurd. The whole reason this discussion came about is because Rand Paul's views are so far out of anything remotely mainstream that it's shocking. These libertarian excuses for opposing this law are the same ones used by the bigots in 1964. And it's been absolutely vindicated by history in the minds of everyone who isn't a bigot or a libertarian.

But that wasn't your question. I don't know, nor really care, how the kind of law you describe could possibly be enforced or justified under the interstate commerce clause.

[Tulpa]

Same way you justify employment discrimination laws under the Commerce Clause. It's essentially just the flip side of the same issue: employment decisions affect interstate commerce.

I think that justification is a load of bull, but that's why I think federal employment discrimination law is unjustified.

[Walt]

You mean the bigot democrats, right? As I recall they were the opposition.

[Walt]

Should government have the right to legislate and create an enforcement division against any act or behaviour that the majority find distasteful?

Like picking your nose and then shaking someone's hand? I think everyone would agree that's disgusting. And we could use the commerce clause to justify legislation, because theoretically the victim could get sick and miss work, which in the wide web of commerce might somehow affect a business across state lines.

[The Libertarian Guy]

So, Tony, you're saying we're bigots. Thanks for finally coming out of the, er, other closet.

[J.T.]

Well, no, most bigots opposed the whole thing, and their belief in private property rights wasn't consistent with their support for segregation LAWS. Either way, it doesn't really matter. We are theorizing about the implications for private property rights in something that was passed 45 years ago, and that none of us has any intention of trying to get repealed.

[Michael Ejercito]

These libertarian excuses for opposing this law are the same ones used by the bigots in 1964.

They were defending a principle, just as the ACLU did when defending the march in Skokie.

[Hazel Meade]

You can't understand how one could have principled belief that people have right to control their own lives and property without being racist?

That like saying you can't understand how beliefing that people have a right to express any opinion couldn't be racist.

Just because such principles if enforced might enable racists to speak freely. Or in this case, utilize their own property freely.

Personally, I don't get your position. You guys are like doctrinaire church-goers in the 1540s talking about blasphemy laws and why the government should force businesses to close on sundays cause it might contribute to a lack of church attendence if they don't.

In ever era there is some doctrine or creed that the majority feels is sacreosanct and which the state is justified in enforcing.

But no matter how good just and right you feel those beliefs are, putting the government in the role of promoting them turns them all into dogma. Do you really want to "win" by having the state persecute people who disagree with you? Is that moral, and what doors does that open?

What other just, good and right morals should the government be enforcing?

[Me]

How many times do positive rights versus negative liberties have to be explained?

[longwalksinparis.blogspot.com]

Libertarianism's macaca moment... love how all the rugged individualists squirm in defending a cockeyed ideology

[mr simple]

I love progressives wilful misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the issue and their vindictiveness in going after anyone who doesn't preach the party message.

[robc]

I dont see much squirming. Most of us here arent, thats for sure.

[barfman]

*barf*

[longwalksinparis.blogspot.com]

Anyone with an ounce of commonsense can tell you that libertarianism and capitalism are just as F'd up as Marxism. I bet alot of you libertarians know as well.

[Tulpa]

According to your friend Tony, being fucked up is a feature, not a bug.

[barfman]

*barf*

[longwalksinparis.blogspot.com]

Whether you guys like it or not Rand's become the darling of the neo-nazi's and Klan. Don't believe me, then go some of their websites. Must be something in it for them.

[The Libertarian Guy]

You're making it sound like Rand SOUGHT OUT the support of Klansmen and their ilk, which is a goddamned lie and you know it.

[J.T.]

Obama was implicitly endorsed by Al-Queda, and praised by Castro and Muammar "End Switzerland" al-Gaddafi. Does that mean he's a terrorist or commie or crazy bejeweled African dictator?

[J.T.]

Obama was implicitly endorsed by Al-Queda, and praised by Castro and Muammar "End Switzerland" al-Gaddafi. Does that mean he's a terrorist or commie or crazy bejeweled African dictator?

[Tony]

No but you damn well know Paul and his paleocon racist allies would make an issue of it.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Prove this supposed Paul racism, Tony. Using your side's bastardized definition doesn't count.

[SIV]

Use Julian Sanchez's definition*: "Private property rights and freedom of association are just cover arguments for bigots"

*as some comenter embarrassingly linked with praise above*

[The Libertarian Guy]

So, IOW, if we get rid of ownership of private property, and make freedom of association illegal... Tony will be happy?

[Groovus Maximus]

Don't forget entitlement to the labor of others (odd, I thought this was defined as "slavery"). Then he may be happy, until something else that displays "iniquity" rears it's ugly head. Then more laws.

[Tulpa]

Where did he define things that way? From the piece linked to above:

There's no doubt the libertarian argument, springing from the sanctity of private property, was adopted by bigots looking for respectable cover?and the line between them has not always been as sharp as this libertarian writer would like...Yet there's nothing intrinsically racist in the argument in favor of property rights?and indeed, any real liberal ought to at least have some sympathy for it. Strong property rights have often been the friend of unpopular minorities: Jim Crow laws were imposed precisely because racists feared the South's rigid caste system would collapse if business owners were free to integrate, as historian Charles Wynes noted in his 1961 study Race Relations in Virginia.

[SIV]

You edited out all the "newsletter" stuff where he implies libertarian ideas- in practice- are RACIST.
That whole Sanchez piece is embarrassingly awful.

[Tulpa]

You're going to need a quote to justify that, not the output of the SIV filter.

Did Sanchez sleep with your girlfriend or something?

[Michael Ejercito]

Whether you guys like it or not Rand's become the darling of the neo-nazi's and Klan.

Just like the ACLU became a darling of neo-Nazis when they defended the Skokie march?

[dadanarchist]

Alexander Cockburn is a 9/11 Truther and Climate Change denialist - why are you making common cause with him?

[a]

You are a fucking liar:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ni.....52006.html

[longwalksinparis.blogspot.com]

You guys know libertarianism is just plain crazy when you go to some dinner or wedding and start talking the talk... that's when all the eyes start rolling

[nekoxgirl]

Actually, in my social circle, it's all the Hopey Mc-Changeys spouting the latest talking points MSNBC gave them that get the eyes rolling, not the libertarians.

[barfman]

*barf*

[DanD]

How to Act Like a Modern, Common Vampire

TIPS

* Don't know what to write in your journal? Pretend you are on a mission and write about how it's going, or write about yourself as a vampire. Make a life story for yourself, write something like "I do not know what to do. My friends do not know I am a vampire. I have been dead for 10 years and I saw new computers." or something like "I will suck my friend's blood if she bleeds but I just cannot control myself." Drop it somewhere so that someone can see it, but keep your eye on where you purposely drop your journal so that the next time you see the person that read it you could stare at them and bite your lips like you thirst for their blood. Then they will be freaked out. You could also write in your diary how many years you have been 'dead' and what you have seen and done. Maybe you helped win a battle or started a fad and no one but you and other vampires know.

* Even though this is fun to do at night, you do not have to be bound by the convention that light harms vampires. Going out in the daytime is fun, too. Maybe you could even carry a pretty parasol and comment on how bright it is.

* Flea markets are good places to find jewelry for this kind of thing. The items you will find there are often unique and fairly cheap. It is also a good place to find old keys, or dig around in your attic and find some cool old thing to use.

* Do not let age stop you. You are never too old to use your imagination to have fun. If people cannot tell you are pretending, why shouldn't you?

* If you have friends who like vampires, see if they want to join the fun.

* Even though clothes should be simple, wearing velvet and/or lace is recommended.

* Another cool thing is to pick a person and be protective of them and keep watch over that person. Don't be obvious though, be subtle and secretive. Do not cross the line and become a stalker.

* Another thing that makes this kind of vampire fun is that you can be comfy in all weather. You can easily do dark coats or even cloaks in winter, and cute little dresses in summer. (Do not forget sunscreen)

* Even though dark is ideal, you do not have to wear all black. Blood red, dark purple, maroon, and medium/dark grays are also great but do not be afraid to add a little color like orange or pink. It draws the eye and looks really cool.

* There is not a set personality for this character type. What kind of vampire do you want to be? Playful and mischievous? Mature and wistful? Tough and action-ready? Warm and wise? It all depends on your personality and what you feel up to that day. But remember not to be too brooding.

* If you do not want to buy the things you need, because you cannot find them or they are expensive, make them! It is very easy to make and decorate small objects for this.

* This type of vampire is common in anime and manga, so maybe watch and/or read some with stories about vampires just to get an idea.

* If you want, bring something red to drink, like cranberry or pomegranate juice. Alternatively you could consume fake blood.

* Move quickly and quietly, or act like you are exploring.

* It is good to set the mood with some music. The perfect band to listen to on your vampire for a day adventure is Darling Violetta, or Nightwish if you are into a lighter form of metal and opera.Kamelot is also a good band to listen to.

* If you are not the type that minds rain, then nothing is stopping you from doing this in the drizzle. After all, even though you are acting like a mellow vampire, a little gloominess always helps.

* If you want, buy some vampire fangs, but don not get big ones, to be more realistic, and to hide them if needed. A good brand is Scarecrow, and the subtle fangs work just fine.

* If you are going to walk, walk fast with long steps to look like your gliding, but do not act like your trying to walk fast. Also, when walking vampires do not move their arms.

* Do things really fast, like opening doors or backpacks but do not mess up so you look like graceful and flawless; like you have been doing it for a long time.

* Try not to take too much out of the book "Twilight" as lots of things in there are a bit far fetched and it is only one author's view of vampires anyway.

Warnings

* People may think you are just acting weird for attention.

* You are better not trying to isolate yourself from others.

* People may not guess what you're doing.

* If you are doing this as a way to be "goth," do not do it.

* Do not trespass on people's property when exploring.

* If you bring a knife, do not flash it in public, or you might get in trouble.

[P Brooks]

The whole reason this discussion came about is because Rand Paul's views are so far out of anything remotely mainstream that it's shocking.

Somebody get the smelling salts!

[Axiomatic]

If you wish to find where 'Progressivism' is on a map, start looking for the ass end of everywhere.

[alan]

Treating this as a sort of weekend thread.

I read through the comment section to the Salon link in an earlier thread. While Libertarianish political positions are on the rise, I am really beginning to worry. There is a lot of banter that goes back and forth between Tony, Chad and us that makes for entertaining blogpost, but my God. This is shaping into something of a much more serious nature.

Look at this quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....84111.html

The Rand (Paul or Ayn) philosophy, by putting private property rights at the same level of human rights, equates the status of things with the status of human beings. If property is considered equal to human beings, then it's not a very big leap to considering human beings as property. I believe this country is already familiar with this philosophy, manifested 150 years ago as slavery.

It is so depressingly backasswards that I don't even feel like insulting it. Then add in the common meme that you see in the Salon thread and on too many progressive sites that turns the parasitical relationship between government and business inside out where you are the parasite and the public employees are the host.

They will not relent until they have it all.
I don't think they will sober up until after it is impossible to correct this nonsense through peaceful means.

[Groovus Maximus]

They will not relent until they have it all.

That sir, is the answer to all the questions I have been asking Tony. You wield the Razor of Occam well.

[alan]

Thank you very much, kind sir.

Ironic because as I was reading some of your previous post, I was envious of their length, as it reminded me that I use to do that, write lengthy rebuttals to the arguments they throw around, but their willful ignorance has worn down any desire left in me to help them.

[Tee-Hee]

I was envious of their length,

[Groovus Maximus]

What more can I say? I am blessed! In many, many ways.

[don't say]

citation

[Groovus Maximus]

Cite this! 🙂

[alan]

but some of them are massive, huge even.

If they were in hard back they would be 11 and a half inches in height and 3 1/2 inches thick.

Don't stop digging until there is enough room for everybody, I say!

[alan]

I would however suggest looking into the demise of the Soviet Union which came to the end through peaceful means, and also examine how at least the party apparatus, though not the party elite, was neutered after the fall for a context of how it can occur, the neutering of America's public sector that ways such a heavy burden on us.

[alan]

hat ways such a heavy burden on us.

weighs such a burden, I was thinking of what a funny title 'ways and means' is in the House Committee nom.

[Tulpa]

Not sure if I consider deploying nuclear missiles and missile defense technology at a rate they could not keep up with to be peaceful means.

[alan]

Talking about internal matters of the party going down without much of a fight beyond one fubarred coup attempt, not external.

[alan]

BTW, you were excellent in some of the post above.

After reading that Salon thread and that other link, and with the old lady visiting her mom this weekend in Pinehurst, I made some gin and juice to counter the negativity, so a bit light headed right now. So if you are fishing for compliments, ol' pal, now is the time.

[Tulpa]

Oddly enough, I was just talking to a Russian guy yesterday about idioms in English that make no sense in Russian because of cultural differences. The first on his list was "fishing for compliments," because in Russian culture, brutal honesty is considered a virtue and they are not generous with compliments even when deserved.

[alan]

Make that doubly oddly because I was talking the other day to a Russian in the same field of business as I am, and he is a metal artist on the side, btw, who made the same point.

It would not have occurred to me to use that phrase if not for that conversation!

[Tulpa]

My Russian was a logician, so at least it's probably not the same person....

[alan]

It is likely a common meme with the Russians, as he has expressed that view several different ways over the years.

[alan]

Same guy who thinks Medvedev has cut a deal to give Obama a PR boost later this Summer. I believe he is right about that to an extent. Don't buy that it will be sinister and conspiratorial, but Obama will have something to have some phony niche on his bow to show for the tit for tat he has obviously already signed on to during the last state visit.

[DanD]

Well, you're right that the demise of the USSR didn't require direct warfare with the US, but tens of millions of people died in the communist purges and because of famine, so I myself wouldn't say it was amicable and peaceful in its decline.

[alan]

Please, for the sake of discussion understand, I am not talking about the Communist party on its upswing, at its most robust Stalinist marching forward moment in the 20th century.

I am talking about its fall. That time period after Russia was booted out of Afghanistan, and when the very Soviet Union was carved up in '91. The transition was a peaceful one.

Those other matters are largely irrelevant to the internal concerns that I raise in relation to the concern I raise them.
When the time comes where there are few remaining options, how do we transfer this nation to a post-leftist Republic in a peaceful manner?

A nuclear arsenel surrounding DC and the state capitols does not seem practical to me, so I don't know how Ronald Reagan's foreign policy would get weighed into this, and a Stalinist purge would, well, not be peaceful, so that is another thing I would like to avoid.

[Hazel Meade]

Just thinking .... if discrimination against some people on the basis of race or ethnicity is impermissible, what about divestment campaigns or economic sanctions?

Isn't a divestment campaign against Israel unlawful discrimination, since it amounts to refusing to do business with someone on the basis of nationality? Especially when such campaigns involve discriminating against individual Israelis (i.e banning certain speakers) or even businesses that do business with Israel?

Similarly, isn't "buy american" or "buy local" discriminatory? Functionally, if you refuse to buy goods made in China, aren't you effectively discriminating against the Chinese?

The only difference is which end of the exchange you are on. So a private business not selling a black person a sandwhich is impermissible, but a private individual not buying a sandwhich from a black-owned restauraunt is?

I can't see how you can philosophically justify these distinctions.

[DanD]

If you're not refusing service to a black person, it's not discrimination.

Duh.

[matth]

Lucky for them they don't feel the need to be philosophically consistent.

It's all about the asymmetry of power. Somehow in the progressive worldview the seller has all the power. So the buyer must be protected. I doubt it's possible for a customer to violate a business owner's rights short of shoplifting. Kind of like how it's impossible for minorities to discriminate.

[Hazel Meade]

but it could easily cut both ways. if all the white people in a town refuse to do business with a black-owned business, the black busienss won't be able to survive. And lets have NO DOUBT that this really did happen and did contribute to black poverty.

[alan]

That is all true. On one hand, the left supports open immigration but on the other they will go native and be the loudest bigots when it comes to free trade, screaming 'they took our jerbs!.'

The only commonality I can find between these duel principles is the one we discussed yesterday, that which is most conducive to expanding political patronage in their favor.

Look at the 'public accommodation' argument, as well. It blurs the distinction between the public and the private and says in effect that your economic transactions are done in your public citizen capacity, akin to voting, instead of your private capacity as someone with needs and wants, so it must fall in the domain of the state.

Nonsense, but look at the justification for the 'public accommodation' approach to civil rights:

If X shopping mall, and x employer and x drinking establishment in a given town all have rules that don't allow blacks to use their services than it adversely effects blacks economically.

By that logic, you can only conclude that it is a violation of the civil rights of Mexicans to not allow free, open and unhampered trade.

[Comrade Zero]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up, but what about hospitals?

I'm interested more in another question, though. How does one define "private" for this discussion?

[Tony]

Those of you defending the Paul position, again, do not share that opinion with anyone except vocal bigots and libertarians (who I'm assured rarely overlap), and certainly not the somewhat pragmatic corporate playthings who write in this magazine. You are using the exact same language used by the bigots of the past. That doesn't prove anything, but surely even ivory tower anarchists such as yourselves understand the importance of perception, which adds guilt to association whether you like it or not. You have common cause with cynical bigots from 40 or more years ago, of whom those who didn't later apologize for their flimsy property rights defense of a great social injustice, were consigned to historical villainy.

Speaking of guilt by association, one can't help but notice that the one area in his life where Ron Paul is a pragmatist is when he felt it prudent to ally himself with white supremacists in order to spread the good word. I can't be a libertarian, even if I were sympathetic to its philosophical precepts, because my pragmatism doesn't extend to allying myself with those pragmatically allied with bigots, and those who for the most part are openly skeptical of selected scientific realities in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons, that religious dogmatists are about other realities.

You guys resemble your practical allies too much for my taste. You're all fascists in one form or another, finding inequality not only natural but desirable, and thus favor an aristocracy in one form or another. It's just because it's dressed up in a propaganda of liberty that you're confused about this.

No, I will take the practical reality of segregation being illegal over the totally unempathetic fantasy of absolute property rights. Because I actually value people, and I don't confuse people with their property.

[Tulpa]

You're all fascists in one form or another, finding inequality not only natural but desirable, and thus favor an aristocracy in one form or another.

It's only an aristocracy if the positions don't change from generation to generation. ie, if the offspring of people on top are also going to be on top, and the offspring of people on the bottom are going to be on the bottom. Libertarians don't find that kind of system to be terribly desirable.

In practice, progressives seem to be OK with it. Today, the son of the long-time governor of New York announced his run for that office; Joe Biden's seat was passed off to a placeholder to keep it warm for his son; and when any Congressional seat in New York or New England opens up, the first thing that gets checked is whether there's a Kennedy available.

All while the urban public school systems the progressives have controlled exclusively for nearly a century ensure that the offspring of the other end of the economic spectrum remain where their parents are.

[mr simple]

You're all fascists in one form or another, finding inequality not only natural but desirable, and thus favor an aristocracy in one form or another.

This statement makes so little sense it's astounding. I'm not even sure where to start. Fascism was a populist and socialist movement, so you actuall have more in common with it than we do. Fascism and monarchism are not compatible. Libertarians do not revel in inequality, we just have the chutzpah to acknowledge it exists and that here is nothing government can do about it. Even as government could, and tries, to make us all equally poor, it sets those who work in it in a higher class, thus killing equality.

[Jersey Patriot]

because my pragmatism doesn't extend to allying myself with those pragmatically allied with bigots...

You pragmatically align yourself with Barack Obama, who is currently continuing to fight three useless land wars in Asia that are sending thousands of innocent people to their death. You won't associate with people bigoted against brown people? Well good for you. Now how about the people that murder them?

[Tulpa]

Three? Do you have access to classified information the rest of us don't?

[Groovus Maximus]

The: War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq, and the War on Drugs.

Those are three, not including the War on Individual Rights and Autonomy, War on Free Market Economics, and the War on Free Speech, all in the name of "Remaking a "fair" America in His Image."

[Michael Ejercito]

You guys resemble your practical allies too much for my taste. You're all fascists in one form or another, finding inequality not only natural but desirable, and thus favor an aristocracy in one form or another. It's just because it's dressed up in a propaganda of liberty that you're confused about this.

Inequality is a fact of life everywhere, all the time .

[wayne]

I can't be a libertarian, even if I were sympathetic to its philosophical precepts, because my pragmatism doesn't extend to allying myself with those pragmatically allied with bigots...

And yet you are an open supporter of the only government-sponsored bigotry left in the US: affirmative action.

Your high moral ground shifts under your feet.

[Hazel Meade]

So, I'm pragmatically allied with Holocaust deniers because I defend Freedom of Speech?

[Michael Ejercito]

So, I'm pragmatically allied with Holocaust deniers because I defend Freedom of Speech?

To the same extent that Jeff Jacoby is.

[The Libertarian Guy]

If we're anarchists, Tony... how can we be fascists? Can't have fascism without shitloads of government - and guess which party wants that.

Well, the other one does, too, but in different areas.

[JBA]

You clearly don't know what fascism is, and possibly not aristocracy either. I'm also willing to bet that when you say "unempathetic," you mean "unsympathetic." You also seem willfully stupid regarding how important a role property plays in people's lives, as well as how defending it from the government results in the arrest (and possible killing) of that person.

In a word: Seriously?

[CJ]

I can't be a libertarian, even if I were sympathetic to its philosophical precepts, because my pragmatism doesn't extend to allying myself with those pragmatically allied with bigots, and those who for the most part are openly skeptical of selected scientific realities in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons, that religious dogmatists are about other realities.

If I had to reject a belief system on the basis that I don't like some given percentage of people who adhere to it, I'd have to abandon every belief--and that's literally impossible, since at very least I'd still wind up believing that I should believe nothing.

Churchians (as opposed to Christians) are pretty charitable. Should I reject the idea of charity? Hillary Clinton said we should debate with any administration. Must I then believe that we should all shut up and let whoever's in power run amok and unchallenged? Bush and (Bill) Clinton started a Haiti relief fund. You know where I'm going. These are the sorts of problems that would come up.

When I develop a belief or reach a conclusion, I don't run out and check whether Bush or Obama or you or John (the poster here) or Hitler or David Hume or anyone else I commonly have massive disagreements with also subscribed to it just to make sure I'm "in the clear." It would be the most self-defeating method of decision imaginable.

[Michael Ejercito]

If I had to reject a belief system on the basis that I don't like some given percentage of people who adhere to it, I'd have to abandon every belief--and that's literally impossible, since at very least I'd still wind up believing that I should believe nothing.

David Duke has been a prominent antiwar activist for nearly eight years.

[&]

So what have we learned today?

[P Brooks]

So what have we learned today?

Tony wants us all to be wards of the State.

[CoyoteBlue]

The Word for today is 'Pragmatic'.

[Neu Mejican]

Discrimaination is dispicable, by it isn't illegal, nor should it be, to be a moron.

LOL...whose law of spelling applies here? I forget.

And, btw, discrimination is illegal according to several laws, all well vetted by the courts and deemed constitutional according to the constitutionally mandated process.

Remember folks...rights are a mechanism for judging the correctness or incorrectness of individual acts.

(always tied to a claim: "What I did was justified" in the face of a counter-claim "what you did was not justified")

When property right claims are used to justify racial discrimination enough times...it is a sign that the society needs to re-calibrate what "acceptable behavior" looks like by removing that particular justifying argument from the arsenal of the racist when a civil dispute takes place.

[Tulpa]

The spelling criticism, the re-defining of words to suit his purposes, the carriage returns after every sentence, the arguments to authority, and most of all the warm bath of smugness. I'm having a fit of Neu Mejican nostalgia, but it will wear off soon enough I fear.

[alan]

I was just browsing through old threads wondering where you disappeared. Good to see you.

Given that logic, When property right claims are used to justify racial discrimination enough times...it is a sign that the society needs to re-calibrate what "acceptable behavior" looks like why would we bother to retain the rights of private clubs to discriminate?

You really cannot make an economical argument because there is still the exchange of monies and services involved.

It is merely custom where particular justifying argument from the arsenal of the racist that we retain this distinction between a 'public accommodation' and a 'private club.'
Indeed, the distinction was needed for the purpose of allowing these entities to discriminate. May I hazard to guess that many of those congressmen were much more likely to be members of 'private clubs' than to own their own private businesses?

Surely, for the sake of consistency, should we not abolish this distinction?

[Tulpa]

You're a better man than I, alan. I couldn't make heads or tails of that sentence. It seemed that he was saying that property rights need to be abolished because they provide an argument against discrimination laws, but I couldn't believe even he was going to go down that path.

[Tulpa]

And, btw, discrimination is illegal according to several laws, all well vetted by the courts and deemed constitutional according to the constitutionally mandated process.

So, post-Citizens United, you have now changed your position on whether BCFR was unconstitutional? The Courts have spoken, and by your logic you must obey.

[Michael Ejercito]

When property right claims are used to justify racial discrimination enough times...it is a sign that the society needs to re-calibrate what "acceptable behavior" looks like by removing that particular justifying argument from the arsenal of the racist when a civil dispute takes place.

Freedom of speech claims are used to justify Holocaust denial.

Should that be removed to suppress Holocaust denial?

[Neu Mejican]

No.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why not?

[Neu Mejican]

Will...as far as I can tell, the only harm that comes from holocaust denial is to the speaker's reputation.

We could elaborate, but I am pretty sure we both know both sides of the argument pretty well.

[Neu Mejican]

Well,,, not "Will"

[Tulpa]

That's not obviously true. It's possible such statements can stir up anti-Semitic sentiments.

Now, given how completely most people in this day and age have rejected anti-Semitism, I think your statement is probably right in practice. But the same can be said for racial discrimination: practicing such will only harm one's business, given the attitude of the vast majority of denizens of the present day.

[Neu Mejican]

tulpa...

You are missing an important element. Denying access to essential services is a direct harm. Denying a well known fact might encourage acts that are actually harmful (I guess), but the act itself carries no harm to others beyond possibly offending them.

[Gilbert Martin]

" Denying access to essential services is a direct harm."

Wrong as usual.

There is no such thing as affirmative rights. There is no right to require anyone else to do business with you, whether it is for something you claim is an "essential service" or anything else.

[Michael Ejercito]

Denying access to essential services is a direct harm.

Is there an inherent entitlement to those services?

[Michael Ejercito]

Will...as far as I can tell, the only harm that comes from holocaust denial is to the speaker's reputation.

It can also harm people who are genuinely interested in history, by tricking them into believing that there was no Holocaust.

Plus, the reason people deny the Holocaust is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative. Could making National Socialism an acceptable political alternative be harmful?

[moran]

Discrimaination is dispicable, by it isn't illegal, nor should it be, to be a moron.

LOL...whose law of spelling applies here?

Myne.

[MatTrue]

The interaction of human beings is in fact too complex to be adequately addressed by a few libertarian microeconomic platitudes.

Well then, how about we all get Tony's permission before interacting with another human being? Better yet, Tony can come up a set of rules for every possible interaction of class, race, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, political party, educational level, government pay grade, union membership, and willingness to sacrifice for the collective.

a.k.a. The Vision of the Annointed.

[Neu Mejican]

alan,

Surely, for the sake of consistency, should we not abolish this distinction?

Not necessarily. But an individual club's reason for refusing membership to an individual who wants to gain membership is on shakier grounds post-CRA if that refusal is based solely on race.

tulpa
have now changed your position on whether BCFR was unconstitutional?

Well, I am not sure I had, prior to Citizen's United, a strong position on the constitutionality of BCFR (I had a lot of sympathy for some of the "it's not" arguments). I am not sure I agree with all the details of the decision, but for now the constitutionally mandated process for determining such things says the law needs to be re-written to conform to the constitution. I continue to feel that there needs to be a clear distinction in the law between the status of "person" versus "corporation" when it comes to basic rights being used as an argument to justify a certain action. People, imho, have rights (e.g., to life) that make no sense when applied to corporations.

[Neu Mejican]

It seemed that he was saying that property rights need to be abolished because they provide an argument against discrimination laws, but I couldn't believe even he was going to go down that path.

Glad alan was able to clarify for ya...

Certainly people have property rights and those are a good thing. But, again, they are meaningless until they are placed in the context of a particular dispute about a particular action. For most disputes, the argument "my property, I get to decide" works good enough. It is only at the margins, where it is not an easy call, that you need to get more specific. Laws, in large part, help to define those boundaries for cases that are not as easily decided. If no one was using the "it's my property" argument to justify racism, there would be no need to write down a law stating that this particular claim was illegitimate.

[Michael Ejercito]

If no one was using the "it's my property" argument to justify racism, there would be no need to write down a law stating that this particular claim was illegitimate.

And why should the government stop racism or Holocaust denial?

[Tulpa]

And by what principle do we know the "margins" of property rights are? That's the question.

The libertarian answer is that the limit of property rights is where your property, or your use of your property, starts harming, in clearly demonstrable ways, other people or their property. In most cases this is obvious -- just because a bullet is my property does not give me the right to fire it into another person's head -- but in the few murky areas where statutes can't be expected to cover, we have the common law court system to settle such disputes. (And no, the inability to eat at a particular restaurant is not a clearly demonstrable harm.)

As far as I can tell, the progressive estimate of where property rights end is whenever progressives don't like what you do with your property.

[Groovus Maximus]

There are days I marvel at your brilliance Tulpa, and this is one of those days. The past couple of days, actually.

I take it you have been dispersing Tulpaseed(tm)?

[Tulpa]

Actually, the opposite cause and effect relationship usually obtains for me. So no, you shouldn't take that.

[Tulpa]

Might also have something to do with spring semester being over and not wasting my energy dealing with mathophobes.

[Neu Mejican]

And by what principle do we know the "margins" of property rights are?

There is no principle that covers all possibilities. A search for one is misguided.

The point being that rights are broad stroke solutions that work in most situations. At the margins where those broad stroke solutions begin to break down, societies often find the need to codify additional clarifying rules. But even then, individual acts within specific sets of circumstances may defy prior attempts to predetermine the answer. That's why we have a process for handling individual cases.

[Tulpa]

Societies don't codify additional clarifying rules. Individuals do.

So in the lack of some guiding principle, the decision will be made based on how powerful and well-connected the winners and losers from each option are.

[Neu Mejican]

Wrong. In so many ways. But, even if we take your premise at face value, the well connected winners will also have the power to decide which principle is used.

[Neu Mejican]

The spelling criticism

I wasn't criticizing the spelling. God knows I make more typos than most.

There was a law floating around here, (joez law?) that pointed out the tendency to misspell things increased to nearly 100% when someone called into question someone's intelligence...

[Pedant]

Muphry's law

[Neu Mejican]

That fits, but this was a H&R internal law...pretty sure it was joe who first put it out there...but I DO FORGET.

[Neu Mejican]

And, actually, the H&R internal law I was thinking of was not about correcting spelling, but questioning someone's intelligence. So this one is close, but not it.

[anarch]

joez lwa

[Tulpa]

And then there's the claiming you didn't write what you just wrote. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

[Neu Mejican]

And then there's the claiming you didn't write what you just wrote. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

This comes, for the most part, from the stark difference between what I write and what you read into what I write. I realize I've been around longer than you, so you may not remember joe'z law (unless it was some other law, I do forget), but that was what I was referring to.

[P Brooks]

When property right claims are used to justify racial discrimination enough times...it is a sign that the society needs to re-calibrate what "acceptable behavior" looks like by removing that particular justifying argument from the arsenal of the racist when a civil dispute takes place.

If we can use a "greater good" argument to deny the proprietor of a private business the right to decide whom to serve a hamburger to, what restriction is there on government control of private property?

As much as I would like to see an explicitly racist business fail, it might not. It might be a raging success.

As distasteful as that is, it is not the same as a situation in which the government establishes prohibitions based on race. And it is not as distasteful as a situation in which government restricts the formation of businesses which will compete by offering service to all comers.

[ed]

An overtly racist business that is "allowed" by government to exist would actually be a good thing. And it would probably fail. Because in no time, everyone in the community would know who and what and where this racist business was, and they'd most likely avoid it, thus driving it out of business. People who continued to frequent the establishment would do so at great peril to their private and public reputations. In this day and age, running an overtly racist business is not a very smart business model. But it shouldn't be illegal.

[Libertymike]

what if the racist business provided a good or service for a price less than the going rate? what if the racist business provided better service than its multicultural competition?

Suppose that racist business is black owned. Do you still think it would fail?

[ed]

Whether it fails or succeeds isn't important. But if it is such an evil place, people surely will find out about it and be free to avoid it or do business with it or further expose it to public scorn or simply ignore it.

[Tulpa]

That's an implausible hypothetical. There has to be a reason they are able to provide better services for lower prices, and their non-racist competitors will figure it out and duplicate it. It can't be sheer economy of scale, because businesses that alienate huge swaths of potential customers don't tend to grow enough to produce such.

Otherwise, your hypothetical is basically an example of how a monopoly could be created by the free market, which I don't think is plausible.

[Groovus Maximus]

Not quite Tulpa. If the business is a specialty business, such as a dealer in sartorial goods, like say, persian rugs and the proprietor's business is populated only by a particular nationality, say Persians (Iranians). The proprietor is known for anti-[insert cause du jour] sentiments, yet his inventory is top notch and his prices are excellent. Another business opens up, multicultural owned and more palatable to the community. However, this competing business has higher prices and the inventory is average to mediocre, hoping to get more business because their views are more to the communities liking. The Persians running the first business are a very small, but vocal, minority in the community.

Who will get the business, the unpleasant merchant with unpopular views but superior product and prices, or the friendly merchant with higher prices and mediocre knock off's but banking on emotion to win business?

[Tulpa]

OK, but by that logic it would be easy for a monopoly to exist in that industry if the first dealer had multicultural views. In that case, our libertarian treatment of that industry is way off for many other reasons.

[Libertymike]

Tulpa, I did not exclude every conceivable form of business enterprise in the hypothetical (at least I did not intend to do so). True, I did not go into any depth in describing a particular business or how its racism manifested itself in relation to a given company's operations.

But, let me take a crack. There are numerous caucasian women who offer their companionship services exclusively to caucasian men. There are even african american women who do not provide their companionship services to african american men. Do you think the average caucasian gentleman seeking some adult entertainment and companionship would choose not to patronize a given adult entertainer because she advertizes that she will not provide her services to african american men? Assume that the women is very attractive, offers her services at slightly less than the going rate (i.e., slightly less than the going rate for women of her caliber) and provides GFE with reviews to confirm it all.

Real world, Tulpa. Are there some white guys who would not see the women who advertizes that she will not entertain black guys even if the woman is very attractive, priced right and GFE? Perhaps a few, but the overwhelming majority, imo, would act in their enlightened self interest. Of course, most would not engage in the analysis that you or I might. Most, imo, would consider the racial restriction as irrelevant. I bet though that many would intuitively recognize the profound difference between the historically dominant definition and conception of racism, i.e., a government policy based on race, and an individual who expresses racial preferences which do not involve state coercion.

[Libertymike]

Groovus Maximus-

You could also apply the principle to a healer who abhors allopathic medicine.

Perhaps the healer is chinese and perhaps he will only treat asians. Perhaps he has a tremendous track record of helping people to heal as his patients would tend to do so the less often they visited medical doctors.

Its just human nature that the vast majority of prospective asian patients would not be dissuaded from seeking the healer on account of his racial preferences. Sure, if the healer was extraordinary and a very sick white women, a victim of allopathic "cures" wanted to become his patient, it would suck. I would join Tulpa in condemning the healer in that instance.

However, in the main, such a healer's racial preferences would not be of much concern to me and should be of no concern to anybody else. If the healer is engaging in consensual economic activity, without coercion, duress or fraud, why should anybody pay any attention so the misanthropic multiculturalists?

[ed]

The fact remains that we humans discriminate all the time, and there's very little that government can do about it. Social engineering doesn't work. They can't control what I think. If I'm a bigot and I don't want Asians in my restaurant, I won't be so stupid as to put a NO CHINKS sign in my window. I'll simply ignore him till he complains, then provide very poor service to him and him alone, hoping he tells his friends about his unpleasant experience so none of them comes back. And if I don't want to hire a black guy, I won't write NO NIGGERS in the ad. I just won't hire him. Freedom of association includes freedom to discriminate, which means freedom to make choices, so long as you are not initiating force. Not serving an Asian is not force. Not hiring a black man is not force. He has no inherent right to my paycheck.

[Neu Mejican]

If we can use a "greater good" argument to deny the proprietor of a private business the right to decide whom to serve a hamburger to, what restriction is there on government control of private property?

Similarly, when the worst harm the law causes is that it requires a racist to accept money from a paying customer and serve a hamburger to someone he is uncomfortable with, it seems to be a pretty small restriction on liberty.

[cynical]

On the other hand, the law increases the acceptance of government intervention into business decisions to serve a social agenda. Too much of that, and you effectively end up with corporatism.

[Neu Mejican]

The key words here being "too much of that," it seems. There will always be debate about where that boundary ends up.

[Tulpa]

The current state of the boundary effectively includes "anything that doesn't infringe the explicit text of the Bill of Rights or restrict abortion".

In logic, the slippery slope is a fallacy. In the behavior of human societies, it is a tautology. Once it was accepted that govt could interfere with private business decisions to prevent active discrimination on the basis of race, every other minority or historically oppressed group also clamored for such protection. Seeing as how everyone is a member of some minority, the law can't cover every minority, so the most well-connected and vocal got protections written into the law, so that the impermissible discrimination types form a list longer, and less coherent, than your average Super Bowl Party shopping list.

And then in the 1990s, we got the ADA, which prohibited businesses not from refusing service, but from failing to set up their business in a way that caters to the needs of handicapped people. At least the racial, gender, sexual orientation, color, religion, veteran status, etc discrimination laws didn't cost anything to comply with; the ADA forced businesses who had no intention of discriminating against handicapped people to dump loads of money into ramps, handicapped accessible bathrooms, and even special software for e-businesses.

So yeah, I'd prefer that the debate had centered around the beginning of that process, not the state it's degenerated into at this point in time.

[Neu Mejican]

The roots of this are, of course, a phrase you may have heard. "All men are created equal."

Put shit like that out there and people start to believe it and before you know it they expect to be treated as equals even when they go into a restaurant for a burger.

[Michael Ejercito]

Put shit like that out there and people start to believe it and before you know it they expect to be treated as equals even when they go into a restaurant for a burger.

Whose restaurant is it?

Whose burger is it?

[Hazel Meade]

Also, the definition of "disabled" has expanded significantly, which ius partly driven (at least at the college level) by the advantages that having such a diagnosis offers (access to drugs, extra exam time, etc.)

[Neu Mejican]

Also, the definition of "disabled" has expanded significantly, which ius partly driven (at least at the college level) by the advantages that having such a diagnosis offers (access to drugs, extra exam time, etc.)

While there is a grain of truth here (i.e., there is a desire for accommodations for smaller differences)...I don't see the actual "definitions of disabled" expanding in any significant way (I've been working in the field for over 20 years). In many areas definitions have been narrowed, but overall they have remained fairly consistent...despite one or two categories expanding slightly (e.g., Autism Spectrum Disorders).

[Neu Mejican]

And then in the 1990s, we got the ADA, which prohibited businesses not from refusing service, but from failing to set up their business in a way that caters to the needs of handicapped people.

This is a highly distorted take on the ADA.

At least the racial, gender, sexual orientation, color, religion, veteran status, etc discrimination laws didn't cost anything to comply with; the ADA forced businesses who had no intention of discriminating against handicapped people to dump loads of money into ramps, handicapped accessible bathrooms, and even special software for e-businesses.

If they had no intention of discriminating, why wouldn't they have taken these steps anyway?

[alan]

Off Topic:

New York Times demands that the Mongolians revert back to Communism,

Environmentalists and government officials agree that the two decades of unbridled privatization and a boom in cashmere exports upended the traditional mix of livestock, which had long favored sheep over goats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05.....amp;st=cse

Par for the course, they also get all of their facts wrong to make that argument forgetting that traditions had been eviscerated through Communist rule, and a general ignorance of goats for which I can vouch.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....more-58257

Freedom, there is no condition for which it exist too obscure for the NYT to oppose it.

They will not relent until they have it all.

[TPN]

And as Chony just mind numbingly demonstrates again and again and again and again (until you just wish Flanders was dead), they draw endless energy from a bottomless reserve of sophistry, straw men and a burning core of sheer unblinking will to power.

[Tulpa]

I need some goats to get rid of the poison ivy in my backyard. I was thinking about making it into a bonfire in my asshole neighbor across the street's front yard, but that would be too cruel. Urushiol inhalation is not an attractive way to die, even for your enemies.

[Burnsy]

An interesting article in the Times; although your conclusion is a little off base. The problems caused by goats overgrazing the Mongolian steps aren't new. Prepare to pay extra for your pretty pink cashmere twinset next fall.

[alan]

Probably a little much to ask of someone to review for a subject that could honestly be called less than riveting, but the links in the second article show the facts in the NYT article were of the pull out of the ass quality.

http://www.un.org/Depts/escap/pop/journal/v11n4a2.html

http://www.thebeefsite.com/art.....-situation

Actually, I would love to see such an obscure issue become the center of such contention that Reason staffers feel compelled to shut the thread down to stop the hemorrhaging.

Don't have the time for it right now, but we should call it a date sometime for a real knock down, drag out over the political economy of Mongolian Steppes herding just for the mayhem it would unleash.

[Hazel Meade]

The horror, people changed their clothing tastes and suggenly it became more profitable to raise goats.

We have to put a stop to people's changing tastes.

[&]

If the H&R editors never added another post to this site, would this one get commented on forever? What odd and unforeseeable twists and turns would it take? Would it eventually end up back where it started? And, finally, if nobody were here, would it make a sound in the woods?

[Pedant]

Has anyone considered that a society whose democratically elected government can pass a law prohibiting private racial discrimination is probably a society that doesn't need such a law?

[Michael Ejercito]

Has anyone considered that a society whose democratically elected government can pass a law prohibiting private racial discrimination is probably a society that doesn't need such a law?

Very good point.

[TPN]

Indeed. Watching Madcow bore (into Paul, but the other meaning applies too) with her simpering self-assured leftist litmus gotchas, a similar thought struck me:

Damn, for people claiming the word "progressive", these people seem to have little or no faith, much less recognition, that there has been any progress in our society, even since the advent of all their various state interventions.

They are simply class and race obsessed, seeing enemies lurking all around their fictional benighted ones. To admit progress would be to release the demons, and they'll have none of that when demonization is their stock-in-trade.

It's pathological and they thrive on it, in their total absence of any coherent philosophical principle or intellectual honesty.

[ed]

They already control many aspects of your life, but they won't be happy until they can control your mind. And they think they can achieve that through force, intimidation, imprisonment. But they're wrong.

[Tulpa]

Our democratically elected government passed laws against murder and rape too. Does that mean we don't need them?

[Groovus Maximus]

Depends. Is Steve Smith, the Sasquatch Extraordinaire, covered under these laws?

I keed, I keed.

Seriously, the arguable harm between shouting "Nigger", "Spic", "Cracker", or "Chink" at someone is dwarfed by the finality of murder and viciousness of rape. However, shouting those epithets to the wrong person may result in the latter.

[Pedant]

You're conflating mala in se with mala prohibitum.

[Tulpa]

That distinction is a matter of opinion.

[Neu Mejican]

That distinction is a matter of opinion

Tulpa: re-defining of words to suit his purposes...priceless.

;^p

[cynical]

Murder is usually a problem even when it only occurs rarely or on the fringes of society. Segregation and racism have to be widespread to be the sort of problems worth addressing with laws.

[Neu Mejican]

Agreed.

[Nash]

An interesting comparison is sexual orientation discrimination today. It is NOT covered under CRA, but state laws and common sense appear to be adequate enough protection.

[Neu Mejican]

Unless you are in a state that explicitly restricts based on sexual orientation (i.e., laws banning same sex couples from entering into certain contracts or designating beneficiaries...etc.)

[benjoya]

and hearty thanks to the proprietors of this fine blog for their silence on rand paul's views, pre- and post-walkback. if the editors had had anything to say about it, this thread wouldn't have lasted so long!

[alan]

Still here? You've got that horse up your ass yet? No?!? Well, keep trying.

[benjoya]

you have a vivid imagination. raised on a lonely farm, i imagine.

[alan]

Well, thank you, and 'tis a pity it isn't a gift universally distributed. And no, not raised on a farm.

[benjoya]

hmm, bestiality imagery comes so easy to you. circus? petting zoo?

[alan]

Good Lord, man. I didn't ask you to have sex with the horse. Just cram him up your ass. Whacking off while doing so is totally unnecessary.

[benjoya]

you obviously speak from experience.

[alan]

One hand clap. Strained comeback, but at least you are still trying.

[Ron L]

benjoya|5.23.10 @ 4:42PM|#
"and hearty thanks to the proprietors of this fine blog for their silence on rand paul's views, pre- and post-walkback. if the editors had had anything to say about it, this thread wouldn't have lasted so long!"

And a hearty thanks to you! I just read the comments, and such brain-dead strawmen have been missing for quite a while!
Are you proud of your ability to argue with issues no one raised? Or just ignorant enough not realize you're doing so?

[benjoya]

and a hearty thanks to you! i assume you are one of the editors, and not just a bootlicker covering for their absence. kudos. this thread will go on forever!

[benjoya]

and since you're apparently an editor, not a bootlicker, how about a thread on paul's and conway's respective views on whether oil and mining companies should be freed of the heavy hand of government regulation and whether criticizing British Petroleum is "un-american" (in paul's words).

[The Ghost of George III]

indeed! how dare you subjects criticize the hard-working entrepreneurs and shareholders of British Petroleum after all they've done for you? ingrates.

[Catotarian]

Lew Rockwell is off the hook for the Ron Paul newsletters. Clearly Rand Paul was the author of that racist hate literature.

[Neu Mejican]

(And no, the inability to eat at a particular restaurant is not a clearly demonstrable harm.)

I don't know about that. The supreme court decisions related to Title II seemed to find it a clear harm.

eg...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....p;page=294

[Catotarian]

Confronted as we are with the facts laid before Congress, we must conclude that it had a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination in restaurants had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce says Waaaa!

[Neu Mejican]

The more relevant quote related to actual harm to individuals.

Moreover there was an impressive array of testimony that discrimination in restaurants had a direct and highly restrictive effect upon interstate travel by Negroes. This resulted, it was said, because discriminatory practices prevent Negroes from buying prepared food served on the premises while on a trip, except in isolated and unkempt restaurants and under most unsatisfactory and often unpleasant conditions. This obviously discourages travel and obstructs interstate commerce for one can hardly travel without eating. Likewise, it was said, that discrimination deterred professional, as well as skilled, people from moving into areas where such practices occurred and thereby caused industry to be reluctant to establish there.

[ed]

Why is it "illegal discrimination" if a restaurant chooses not to serve me, but it's perfectly fine if I "discriminate" against a restaurant by choosing to not eat there?

[benjoya]

get this guy on the supreme court, stat.

[Dankilian]

My impression of the discussion: Some of you agree with Rand Paul's initial statement about the right to refuse people based on race, though many of you couch that race thing with "for any reason" (let's keep our ideology as abstract as possible, lest we actually have to deal with the consequences). Some of you feel it's not an issue because you can never learn from the big questions of history. A lot of you see this issue as some liberal trap, as if taking an ideology to it's logical conclusion is a trap. Some of you just like to swear and call people stupid. Some point out that it's evil to refuse people based on race, but evil for the government to stop such practices, so for the sake of ideology you would let the racists win. That doesn't make you racists, I guess, but it doesn't make you realistic people, and it certainly doesn't make you good for America. Zing away, I'm not coming back.

[alan]

Zing away, I'm not coming back.

Ah ha! Caught you! You peaked. Just couldn't resist could you?

[alan]

Since you did peak in. Let me fill you in on what is cockeyed about the view point you expressed.. You assume that by supporting that portion of the CRA banning private parties who provide a 'public accomadation' from discrimination entitles you to be free of conscious, and wag your finger at us. By supporting it, you do not also support discriminatory practices.

Unfortunately, when you expand the scope far enough to where you can see the larger picture, you do support some horridly discriminatory practices, and you do so as a matter of cultural custom (that 'realism' you speak of) instead of principle

I can conclude this by what you are not willing to address.

As I have pointed out previously, given that provision takes an axe to 'freedom of association', and given that the justification for doing so is economic, there can be no rational basis for not including private clubs under the law, except for the fact a customary exception was made for them.

As Hazel pointed out, you as a consumer have more power to decide where your money goes than does the person asking for your business, thus a history of people not willing to frequent those owned by individuals who belong to targeted groups is more economically detrimental than the discrimination the CRA counters.

Yet, there has never been a serious proposal to remedy this fact due to the reasons I stated.

You only oppose certain discrimination out of custom that is convenient for your conscience to support.

You may find such circumstances nearly impossible to disentangle, but so do businesses that have to deal with the red tape of compliance on a daily basis.

The most hilarious case I am familiar with is of a local business that had to keep a Haitian woman on who had a bat shit insane panic attack where she thought her coworkers were demons. Due to affirmative action, it was easier to keep her on for the term of her contract than to deal with the red tape of firing her.

You failed to address any of this in your blanket denunciation of us even though we wrote about this at length, so why should we accept your opinion as that of an honest broker when you have not accessed our arguments fairly?

[Michael Ejercito]

Some point out that it's evil to refuse people based on race, but evil for the government to stop such practices, so for the sake of ideology you would let the racists win.

Holocaust denial is evil and dishonest.

Should the government stop it?

[P Brooks]

Some point out that it's evil to refuse people based on race, but evil for the government to stop such practices

Wrong.