Rand Paul for Senate 2010 - Page 33 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Rand Paul for Senate 2010

...

Page 33 of 107

First

13 23 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43 53 83

Last

Page 33 of 107

First

13 23 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43 53 83

Last

05-20-2010 , 01:09 AM

#801

Mempho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

Are you reading my posts? I am really not sure why you are so lost. I don't think I can help you anymore than I already have, so we can just drop it.

One of your classic Jack-in-the-box moments.

05-20-2010 , 02:15 AM

#802

chucky

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,998

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

I never did get your old avatar.

The animated guy typing away? Its the main character from the incredibles

05-20-2010 , 05:49 AM

#803

Ponies

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,726

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_582872.html

Quote:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?' Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.
But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...

Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:

Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion... Story continues below

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.

05-20-2010 , 06:51 AM

#804

Bigdaddydvo

King of the Politics Forum

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 21,379

He's getting hammered hard for this on the morning news shows.

05-20-2010 , 08:36 AM

#805

The 13th 4postle

banned

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,244

He better get his **** together on this issue fast.

05-20-2010 , 08:36 AM

#806

Nichlemn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 9,480

Quote:

Originally Posted by chucky

The animated guy typing away? Its the main character from the incredibles

Also, if you look carefully, you'll notice DVaut1 posts with timestamps of 7:30pm followed by DVaut1 post with timestamps of 7:35pm, both of which are 500 words long.

05-20-2010 , 08:40 AM

#807

Mempho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,296

You can't only hang onto the Constitution when it's convenient.

05-20-2010 , 08:43 AM

#808

EvilSteve

Midlife Crisis

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 13,195

Quote:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

I certainly think the answer is yes. A private business should be able to decide who they will and will not serve, on any basis whatsoever. But if I was running for office, I'd have to tiptoe around that issue like crazy (or tell the truth and never get elected). Really a smart line of questioning for Rachel Maddow to use. A principled libertarian response = racism, in the minds of most voters (and I don't think Kentucky is an exception). Hope I'm wrong about that.

05-20-2010 , 08:51 AM

#809

Zygote

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,740

what about the special olympics disallowing abled-people? what about some gyms allowing only women? what about religious groups not allowing allowing others to participate in their rituals?

Last edited by Zygote; 05-20-2010 at 08:56 AM.

05-20-2010 , 09:20 AM

#810

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigdaddydvo

He's getting hammered hard for this on the morning news shows.

At least they waited one whole day after his son put the fear of God into the establishment to send out the "DESTRoY ALL PAULS" memo.

05-20-2010 , 09:27 AM

#811

bobneptune

banned

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,400

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilSteve

hi steve,

as a voter in kentucky who agrees with rand paul on most issues , i find this terribly disquieting.

i get this "principled" libertarian position of the inviolable concept of private property, but few voters are going to agree with it once it gets put out there in the media, and believe me they are going to trumpet it 24/7.

i own private property and i love private property. however, when you go into a business like a restaurant, you give up the right to exclude people on the basis of race, religion, etc. most americans are going to agree with this interpretation of the constitution and correctly so.

these kinds of "principled" positions is what puts strict libertarians in the tin foil hat crew even though many agree with a large part of the agenda.

05-20-2010 , 09:30 AM

#812

Zygote

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,740

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

should individuals be allowed to choose their friends or who they date?

05-20-2010 , 09:33 AM

#813

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

So, you really believe in private property.

05-20-2010 , 09:41 AM

#814

Nichlemn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 9,480

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

The legalistic and democratic arguments are easy. The moral arguments are much harder. You're not going to win votes with detailed philosophical arguments, though, so yeah, not really worth it.

Kind of odd though, given the criticism here of Paul's many non-libertarian views, that he'd stay principled on as small a matter as this. If Paul's going to burn political goodwill, wouldn't most of you libertarians rather it was for substantive issues?

05-20-2010 , 09:41 AM

#815

EvilSteve

Midlife Crisis

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 13,195

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

i own private property and i love private property. however, when you go into a business like a restaurant, you give up the right to exclude people on the basis of race, religion, etc.

That seems to be true under the law. But do you think that's the way it should be? If so, why? Presumably you agree that I should be allowed to choose who I invite to my house for dinner. If for some reason I don't like black people, I shouldn't be forced to invite them to the house.

Now lets say I open a restaurant. But I don't want to serve black people. Why should I have to? And don't say "because discrimination in a public place is illegal under the civil rights act", I already know that. I'm asking why you think the distinction is justified. I can exclude people from my house because it's my property. Isn't the restaurant my property too? If so, why can't I decide who is and isn't allowed to eat there?

05-20-2010 , 09:42 AM

#816

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ponies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_582872.html

Seems like he should have just lied there and take the more standard line since he isnt a staunch libertarian anyway.. Especially when (I think) there is some constitutional justification for saying the popular type answers. .

05-20-2010 , 09:43 AM

#817

bobneptune

banned

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,400

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

So, you really believe in private property.

i think i do, but probably to the same extent you do.

what if all the grocery store and restaurant owners independently decided the didn't want blacks or jews or irish in their stores claiming the inviolability of their private property?

then what?

and, that would never happen isn't an acceptable answer.

in the real world, there are some limitations on free speech (no yelling fire in a crowded movie theater) and private property.

maybe in the tin foil hat world of academia, but certainly in the real world.

05-20-2010 , 09:47 AM

#818

EvilSteve

Midlife Crisis

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 13,195

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

what if all the grocery store and restaurant owners independently decided the didn't want blacks or jews or irish in their stores claiming the inviolability of their private property?

then what?

If all the current store owners refuse to serve blacks or jews or irish, there should be a nice business opportunity for someone who wants to open a non-racist grocery store or restaurant. All those potential customers with nowhere else to go.

05-20-2010 , 09:52 AM

#819

Zygote

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,740

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

if all these stores did it and patrons continued to go there, and no competitive places arose we can safely say no constitutional democratic society can help protect those civil liberties anyways.

05-20-2010 , 09:55 AM

#820

bobneptune

banned

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,400

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilSteve

you can be as discriminatory as you please as far as who you invite to to feed in your house. you can hold klan rallies if you please.

once you attain a license to serve food to the public, you are compelled to obey all the laws that go along with that.

no one compels you to open a restaurant, but once you do, you must accept all comers.

now, if you want to open a private restaurant with a group of members, then , that is a different story.

05-20-2010 , 09:57 AM

#821

T50_Omaha8

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,741

I don't understand why a, "Yeah, there's a philosophical debate within the libertarian movement on this issue, and many people believe in defending the rights of property owners above all else, but as a practical matter these sorts of philosophical issues are hardly even worth discussing when we live in a country where (insert government atrocity here)" type answer wouldn't do.

05-20-2010 , 09:58 AM

#822

Zygote

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,740

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

now, if you want to open a private restaurant with a group of members, then , that is a different story.

what is the difference between a private restaurant that only allows certain people and what you attest? what makes a restaurant private versus public?

05-20-2010 , 09:59 AM

#823

T50_Omaha8

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,741

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

you can be as discriminatory as you please as far as who you invite to to feed in your house. you can hold klan rallies if you please.

once you attain a license to serve food to the public, you are compelled to obey all the laws that go along with that.

no one compels you to open a restaurant, but once you do, you must accept all comers.

now, if you want to open a private restaurant with a group of members, then , that is a different story.

Is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would qualify as a food service establishment and be subject to the same exact slew of regulations and so forth. (I'm not talking about the race issue here; the need for licensing is what annoys me.)

05-20-2010 , 10:00 AM

#824

Nichlemn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 9,480

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobneptune

What if everyone decided they didn't like jazz anymore, so jazz musicians stopped making any money? Then what? And, that would never happen isn't an acceptable answer.

We need to know exactly what about discrimination you find objectionable. Is it the consequences it has for the discriminated against groups? If so, then surely discrimination on the grounds of not liking a form of music should also be objectionable. Since you probably don't agree with that, you must have another reason, but is it consistent with the rest of your political views.

I made a thread a while back where I go into more detail on this. Perhaps we should move the discussion there or into a new thread to avoid hijacking this one too much.