See [youtube][/youtube]Fox News was covering some sort of controversy involving Paul Jr this morning, but I missed the gist of it. Did anyone catch that?
I can.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I can not find anything wrong with what he said either.
Do you mean something like if a guy were not "gay enough" to play in a softball tourney?dbackjon wrote:I can.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I can not find anything wrong with what he said either.
One of the big failings of Libertarians is that they think the world is an utopia. Free Market/enterprise did not eliminate discrimination. Only the Government (and Federal at that) has the ability to do that, in the REAL world.
If all men are created equal, as the founders intend, then how can you justify discrimination in PUBLIC Businesses? It is well established that a private organization can discriminate. But if you open your doors to the public, then you have lost that protection. You are no longer private.
How would you like it if you were driving cross country, and couldn't find a motel that let gingers stay there? You are almost out of gas, only gas station for miles has a sign up: No Gingers allowed?
That is NOT America, and that type of thought is dangerous to the true American way of life.
I made the distinction between private and public. It would be different if it was a city-sponsored league.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Do you mean something like if a guy were not "gay enough" to play in a softball tourney?dbackjon wrote:
I can.
One of the big failings of Libertarians is that they think the world is an utopia. Free Market/enterprise did not eliminate discrimination. Only the Government (and Federal at that) has the ability to do that, in the REAL world.
If all men are created equal, as the founders intend, then how can you justify discrimination in PUBLIC Businesses? It is well established that a private organization can discriminate. But if you open your doors to the public, then you have lost that protection. You are no longer private.
How would you like it if you were driving cross country, and couldn't find a motel that let gingers stay there? You are almost out of gas, only gas station for miles has a sign up: No Gingers allowed?
That is NOT America, and that type of thought is dangerous to the true American way of life.
See what we do is we decide as a society who can and who can't discriminate. Whatever the group of the month is that has made the most noise recently and has the most marketable story is the one that it is not OK to discriminate against but it is OK if they do it.
I would think in this day and age that if I knew there were places that discriminated against my kind I could surely work around them rather than go in and give them my dollars for them to hold their views about me and use my money to work against me in the shadows.
OK.dbackjon wrote:I made the distinction between private and public. It would be different if it was a city-sponsored league.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Do you mean something like if a guy were not "gay enough" to play in a softball tourney?
See what we do is we decide as a society who can and who can't discriminate. Whatever the group of the month is that has made the most noise recently and has the most marketable story is the one that it is not OK to discriminate against but it is OK if they do it.
I would think in this day and age that if I knew there were places that discriminated against my kind I could surely work around them rather than go in and give them my dollars for them to hold their views about me and use my money to work against me in the shadows.
There should be NO discrimination in PUBLIC areas.
Rand Paul agrees with you, jon, except that he goes one step further. Not only should there be no discrimination in public areas, says Rand, but there should also be no discrimination by private organizations that accept public money.dbackjon wrote:I made the distinction between private and public. It would be different if it was a city-sponsored league.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Do you mean something like if a guy were not "gay enough" to play in a softball tourney?
See what we do is we decide as a society who can and who can't discriminate. Whatever the group of the month is that has made the most noise recently and has the most marketable story is the one that it is not OK to discriminate against but it is OK if they do it.
I would think in this day and age that if I knew there were places that discriminated against my kind I could surely work around them rather than go in and give them my dollars for them to hold their views about me and use my money to work against me in the shadows.
There should be NO discrimination in PUBLIC areas.
Which is why I support the Constitution Party. modern day republicans are no different than the Dems. Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe are exhibits A &B.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Nobody cares about the republican party anymore they are just as left as...................the left.
Baldy is right, someday Dback will figure out that the fiscal conservatives are not really republicans....they are better than that.
Either way democrats are gonna be smoked in November no matter who they run against.
this is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the other threadOL FU wrote:Well then if then this seat no longer should be safely republican. That shows a total lack of understanding that the only way to guaranty equal protection under the law requires equal protection in the market place. There is no way to acheive one without the other.dbackjon wrote:
Yes, he did say that.
Gotcha and you are correct, but once again the problem from the presumed racist label is not his statements but the way it is protrayed by those against him. I think he is incorrect. I don't think he fully thought out the impact of his view point. I certainly don't think that he thought about the ramifications of making the statement. But the statement is considered racist by people who don't like him simply to smear him. I don't know what someone with a different point of view on these issues can do to combat the partisan nature of the press and the use of race to kill any discussion.OSBF wrote:this is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the other threadOL FU wrote:
Well then if then this seat no longer should be safely republican. That shows a total lack of understanding that the only way to guaranty equal protection under the law requires equal protection in the market place. There is no way to acheive one without the other.
The branding of him as a fringe lunatic extremist begins, he needs to distance himself from the racists/homophobe element of the tea baggers ASAP to have a chance in hell.
He's backed off now, so he's learning to become political (ie; coward) a little more every day that he gets taken to the woodshed....JohnStOnge wrote:See [youtube][/youtube]Fox News was covering some sort of controversy involving Paul Jr this morning, but I missed the gist of it. Did anyone catch that?
And he's absolutely right. I also like that he's basically not backing off.
When it comes to this thing, people seem to take an "ends justify means" approach. But it is absolutely wrong and absolutely contrary to the principles of liberty to have the Federal government interferring with private business decisions.
The decision by one entity as to whether or not to enter into commerce with another entity is a private matter. It has been defined as a public matter in order to justify having government interfere with private decisions.I made the distinction between private and public. It would be different if it was a city-sponsored league.
There should be NO discrimination in PUBLIC areas.
Liberty should be constrained only when you positvely damage someone else. Like if you shoot somebody else you are attacking them. You are not trampling on somebody else's liberty by refusing to associate with them or refusing to enter into commerce with them. You should have liberty with respect to government. Your liberty is not being infringed upon because someone else refuses to deal with you. In fact, if someone else is forced to deal with you by government, THEIR liberty is being inftringed upon.Because, to protect everyone's liberty to do what ever they want is to invariably trample on someone else's liberty
Public accomodation was not invented to justify government intrusion, it was to allow citizens to participate fully in marketplace, and therefore in the country governance and success, regardless of color.JohnStOnge wrote:The decision by one entity as to whether or not to enter into commerce with another entity is a private matter. It has been defined as a public matter in order to justify having government interfere with private decisions.I made the distinction between private and public. It would be different if it was a city-sponsored league.
There should be NO discrimination in PUBLIC areas.
The fact that you offer something for sale does not make it a public matter. If I want to sell something I should be free to sell it to whoever I want to and also to decline to sell it to someone for whatever reason I choose.
If I want to pay for someone's labor I should be able to choose whoever I want to pay and also reject anybody I don't want to associate with. And my reasons are my business. Not government's.
A restaurant, for instance, is not really a "public" area. It is a private business. It is a private area. The concept of "public accomodation" is just something invented to justify government intrusion into private decisions.
Of COURSE it was invented to justify government intrusion. When I'm selling something and government says that I can't freely choose who I sell it to that's government intrusion. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Now, you could argue that it justifies government intrusion because the government intrusion is justified. An ends justify means argument. I would disagree with the idea that government intruding in order to deny people free choice in who they enter into commerce with and/or associate with is justified. But at least we'd agree on the reality of it being government intrusion.Public accomodation was not invented to justify government intrusion, it was to allow citizens to participate fully in marketplace, and therefore in the country governance and success, regardless of color.
The bottom line with Rand Paul is that he is good for America (first), good for the Republicans (second) and is not a threat to civil liberties or civil rights. His approach may or may not have been more effective "in the day," but is definitely the most effective approach for today.Appaholic wrote: ... While I agree with you & RaP in principle with regard to liberty, the sad fact is that history has shown it is not a realistic conecpt in practice. Because, to protect everyone's liberty to do what ever they want is to invariably trample on someone else's liberty...I guess this is where I have to admit that a certain amount of government is not only good, but necessary....the government isn't requiring the business owners to open their private residences to anyone by law, but basically telling them you have to if you want to participate in the public marketplace, you can't discriminate based upon these criteria which are based upon the "All men are created equal" concept....wish the free marketplace could regulate without laws, but history has shown it's incapable of assuring this protection & naive to continue to think it could....
I think someone earlier mentioned the utopic nature of libertarian beliefs, and it's on full display here. Again, the theme that government is somehow seperate from the people or the "market".JohnStOnge wrote:Of COURSE it was invented to justify government intrusion. When I'm selling something and government says that I can't freely choose who I sell it to that's government intrusion. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Now, you could argue that it justifies government intrusion because the government intrusion is justified. An ends justify means argument. I would disagree with the idea that government intruding in order to deny people free choice in who they enter into commerce with and/or associate with is justified. But at least we'd agree on the reality of it being government intrusion.Public accomodation was not invented to justify government intrusion, it was to allow citizens to participate fully in marketplace, and therefore in the country governance and success, regardless of color.
I just really, really disagree with the idea that you, me, or anybody else has the right to force someone else to associate with us or enter into commerce with us. Such laws do not further the cause of liberty; they are substantial attacks upon liberty.
Great post, dback.dbackjon wrote:
One of the big failings of Libertarians is that they think the world is an utopia. Free Market/enterprise did not eliminate discrimination. Only the Government (and Federal at that) has the ability to do that, in the REAL world.
Exactly Skelly.Skjellyfetti wrote:Great post, dback.dbackjon wrote:
One of the big failings of Libertarians is that they think the world is an utopia. Free Market/enterprise did not eliminate discrimination. Only the Government (and Federal at that) has the ability to do that, in the REAL world.
I think it's pretty clear that Rand Paul is not at all racist. His position is not, it seems to me, driven by his views on race. But his position is driven by his libertarian ideology... which he seems to carry to something of an extreme. That seems, frankly, just as troubling.
Milton Friedman put the ideology like this: "no one who buys bread knows whether the wheat from which it is made was grown by a Communist or a Republican, by a constitutionalist or a Fascist, or, for that matter, by a Negro or a white." Not only does this "illustrat[e] how an impersonal market separates economic activities from political views and protects men from being discriminated against in their economic activities for reasons that are irrelevant to their productivity—whether these reasons are associated with their views or their color" but it also "enables people to cooperate peacefully in one phase of their life while each one goes about his business in respect of everything else."
The irony here is that at the time it was written, the civil rights movement was well underway. Only two years before the publication of Capitalism and Freedom one of the defining moments of the movement took place: a number of black students refused to leave a lunch counter after being denied the cups of coffee they wished to purchase. This is one of many examples of discrimination in the quintessentially economic activity of consumption and such discrimination was a major focus of this movement. It sought in large part the end the endless discrimination in the economic activities of blacks throughout the nation. Being denied access to a great many stores, restaurants, services and the like (i.e. consumption) as well as many job opportunities (i.e. employment) solely based on color was a major source of contention and anger of those involved and was the motivation for many of the now famous sit-ins and protests.
I'm not disagreeing with what was necessary for that time as I don't think Paul is. The thing is that we have things in place that were relative and necessary then. They are not relative and necessary now.Skjellyfetti wrote:Great post, dback.dbackjon wrote:
One of the big failings of Libertarians is that they think the world is an utopia. Free Market/enterprise did not eliminate discrimination. Only the Government (and Federal at that) has the ability to do that, in the REAL world.
I think it's pretty clear that Rand Paul is not at all racist. His position is not, it seems to me, driven by his views on race. But his position is driven by his libertarian ideology... which he seems to carry to something of an extreme. That seems, frankly, just as troubling.
Milton Friedman put the ideology like this: "no one who buys bread knows whether the wheat from which it is made was grown by a Communist or a Republican, by a constitutionalist or a Fascist, or, for that matter, by a Negro or a white." Not only does this "illustrat[e] how an impersonal market separates economic activities from political views and protects men from being discriminated against in their economic activities for reasons that are irrelevant to their productivity—whether these reasons are associated with their views or their color" but it also "enables people to cooperate peacefully in one phase of their life while each one goes about his business in respect of everything else."
The irony here is that at the time it was written, the civil rights movement was well underway. Only two years before the publication of Capitalism and Freedom one of the defining moments of the movement took place: a number of black students refused to leave a lunch counter after being denied the cups of coffee they wished to purchase. This is one of many examples of discrimination in the quintessentially economic activity of consumption and such discrimination was a major focus of this movement. It sought in large part the end the endless discrimination in the economic activities of blacks throughout the nation. Being denied access to a great many stores, restaurants, services and the like (i.e. consumption) as well as many job opportunities (i.e. employment) solely based on color was a major source of contention and anger of those involved and was the motivation for many of the now famous sit-ins and protests.
Spot on, Brother Bear!Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I'm not disagreeing with what was necessary for that time as I don't think Paul is. The thing is that we have things in place that were relative and necessary then. They are not relative and necessary now.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Great post, dback.
I think it's pretty clear that Rand Paul is not at all racist. His position is not, it seems to me, driven by his views on race. But his position is driven by his libertarian ideology... which he seems to carry to something of an extreme. That seems, frankly, just as troubling.
Milton Friedman put the ideology like this: "no one who buys bread knows whether the wheat from which it is made was grown by a Communist or a Republican, by a constitutionalist or a Fascist, or, for that matter, by a Negro or a white." Not only does this "illustrat[e] how an impersonal market separates economic activities from political views and protects men from being discriminated against in their economic activities for reasons that are irrelevant to their productivity—whether these reasons are associated with their views or their color" but it also "enables people to cooperate peacefully in one phase of their life while each one goes about his business in respect of everything else."
The irony here is that at the time it was written, the civil rights movement was well underway. Only two years before the publication of Capitalism and Freedom one of the defining moments of the movement took place: a number of black students refused to leave a lunch counter after being denied the cups of coffee they wished to purchase. This is one of many examples of discrimination in the quintessentially economic activity of consumption and such discrimination was a major focus of this movement. It sought in large part the end the endless discrimination in the economic activities of blacks throughout the nation. Being denied access to a great many stores, restaurants, services and the like (i.e. consumption) as well as many job opportunities (i.e. employment) solely based on color was a major source of contention and anger of those involved and was the motivation for many of the now famous sit-ins and protests.
Some things are good for the time frame they are necessary for but become a hindrance if they stay around past their usefulness. I think they perpetuate divisions that are well on their way to healing on their own. Collectively we elected a black man and to me that says that the country is past the tipping point where these kinds of things are a necessity.
Take the coffee shop example. Could you imagine the mass exodus and the resulting failure of a business that would conduct itself that way today?
If there are people that want to operate like this wouldn't you want to know who to avoid?
Am I completely off base here?
I know that getting approval from one side or the other spells doom for getting the honest opinion from the other side but I thank you.native wrote:Spot on, Brother Bear!Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: I'm not disagreeing with what was necessary for that time as I don't think Paul is. The thing is that we have things in place that were relative and necessary then. They are not relative and necessary now.
Some things are good for the time frame they are necessary for but become a hindrance if they stay around past their usefulness. I think they perpetuate divisions that are well on their way to healing on their own. Collectively we elected a black man and to me that says that the country is past the tipping point where these kinds of things are a necessity.
Take the coffee shop example. Could you imagine the mass exodus and the resulting failure of a business that would conduct itself that way today?
If there are people that want to operate like this wouldn't you want to know who to avoid?
Am I completely off base here?
Jon, 223 years ago a handful libertarian dreamers wrote a pretty practical governing document. Only eleven years earlier, the same group of dreamers wrote a fairly practical "utopian" document. It's not too late.
I think the "utopic" outlook is on the other side of this discussion. Libertarians do not believe in utopia. They believe in Liberty. When you have Liberty, there is good and bad. If people are free, they will do things you might rather they not do. It's the other side that takes the attitude that the fact that there is a problem automatically means government should fix it that is closer to a "utopic" world view.I think someone earlier mentioned the utopic nature of libertarian beliefs