Rand Paul

[Crazyswordsman]

This speaks for itself:

Click to view video.

He talks about how private businesses should have the right to not serve minority groups.

This is how liberatarianism gets out of hand. He thinks that part of freedom involves the right to discriminate in public places that don't receive government funding. This is just plain wrong, because it would allow a doctor to refuse to treat people based on the color of their skin (something that actually happened in a book Maya Angelou wrote) or a church shelter to deny serving someone based on their religion.

He talks about how true First Amendment protects "boorish behavior." In that regard I wonder how he feels about LGBT/Islam/Atheism, three things that a lot of far right conservatives don't see worthy of any protections. -CSM

[Laika Come Home]

Actually, Rand Paul has stated numerous times that he is against discrimination, but he simply feels that it is a community and town issue instead of a nationwide issue. That's why he doesn't support parts of the Civil Rights Act.

Personally, I agree with him that there are certain elements of society that are better left to local communities and states, rather than the government. This country works better and smarter when there's smaller government and the individual states have more power.

And yes - I'm a libertarian myself. I love how it seems to be far easier for people to dismiss libertarianism as "out of hand" as opposed to actually giving it a try.

[Kil'jaeden]

I guess if you're starting a club or some sort of fringe group it would make sense to be able to discriminate based on race, but for anything else, it would just be a step back.

[Crazyswordsman]

^^You're right, but human rights come before states rights or even municipal rights. -CSM

[Cosmonautical]

The concept that we can allow everyone everything they want simply because it's their preference is nonsensical. Government exists to keep the peace and give everyone a fair chance to live together. Not to hate each other.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's anyone's right to tell them how to feel. I'm just saying it's the government's explicit priority to minimize societal dissent.

Mostly, I have issues with the racial awareness of the US. I will not apologize for being white, and I am not treated respectfully just for my skin color. While I understand that it's the government's duty in part to influence social reform, it seems to just be in part giving minorities a publicly vilified excuse to make whites the enemy. Legitimizing the divide by allowing private establishments to guide themselves would be foolhardy, as it will not improve any of our standing.

[John Galt]

He may say some odd things, but I still like him, simply for the fact that he doesn't support the Establishment.

...

CSM, you should give libertarianism a try. You just might like it.

[Crazyswordsman]

^There's a lot about Libertarianism that's interesting. But you need some basic rules in order to keep things from getting out of control and thus screwing up those who aren't at fault. -CSM

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

^There's a lot about Libertarianism that's interesting. But you need some basic rules in order to keep things from getting out of control and thus screwing up those who aren't at fault. -CSM

You're referring more to anarchy than you are to libertarianism.

[Metal Man]

Let's see... Rand Paul laundry list...
* Rails against Americans with Disabilities act for 'forcing small businesses to install elevators' when there's an exemption against it,
* Believes racism should be legal in businesses (this means things like forcing black people to sit in the rear of the buss)
* Takes donations from stormfront (White supremacist organization, neo-nazis and skinheads)
* Believes criticizing BP for flooding the gulf with oil is "Un-American"
* Retains Ron Paul's finance manager who had in the past accepted neo-nazi donations without question
* Is hated by other Libertarians
* Is disliked to the point he is turning what was an easy Republican win into a potential loss

Yeah, sounds great to me. We need more candidates like him. After all, the Democrats could always use some more formerly-red states in their control.

[Ace Mercury]

I've been reading up the Metafilter thread about Rand Paul (since I had not prior known anything about him). Looks like he's not a good guy =/

While he may be a self-proclaimed libertarian, he's not very good at it:

Originally Posted by http://www.metafilter.com/92151/9-out-of-10-Aint-Bad#3099228

But Rand Paul is a terrible libertarian. He doesn't think women should be allowed to have abortions, he supports increasing Medicare funding to doctors (perhaps coincidentally, he's a doctor himself), and he supports the indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial.

At least there's some nice, level-headed libertarians out there. I think the Civil Rights thing you guys did was cool, and so does this guy:

Originally Posted by http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/rand-pauls-position-on-civil-rights-too-hot-even-for-liberatarian-stalwarts/19485872

"I think Rand Paul is wrong about the Civil Rights Act," libertarian Cato Institute scholar Brink Lindsey wrote in an e-mail. "As a general matter, people should be free to deal or not deal with others as they choose. And that means we discriminate against those we choose not to deal with. In marrying one person, we discriminate against all others. Businesses can discriminate against potential employees who don't meet hiring qualifications, and they can discriminate against potential customers who don't observe a dress code (no shirt, no shoes, no service). Rand Paul is appealing to the general principle of freedom of association, and that general principle is a good one.

"But it has exceptions. In particular, after three-plus centuries of slavery and another century of institutionalized, state-sponsored racism (which included state toleration of private racist violence), the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations wasn't just a series of uncoordinated private decisions by individuals exercising their freedom of association. It was part and parcel of an overall social system of racial oppression," Lindsey said.

"Paul's grievous error is to ignore the larger context in which individual private decisions to exclude blacks were made. In my view, at least, truly individual, idiosyncratic discrimination ought to be legally permitted; for example, the "Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld ought to be free to deny soup to anybody no matter how crazy his reasons (they didn't ask nicely, they mispronounced the soup, etc.). But the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations wasn't like that -- not even close."

Irregardless of the issue of libertarianism, I don't like this guy.

[Crazyswordsman]

Originally Posted by Right-Wing Libertarian

You're referring more to anarchy than you are to libertarianism.

I mean it has to be hard to be sleazy. -CSM

[CaptHayfever]

^That's what she said.

* Believes racism should be legal in businesses (this means things like forcing black people to sit in the rear of the buss)

No, it doesn't; public transit is public, that is, run by the government, that is, not a private business.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Metal Man]

Originally Posted by CaptHayfever

^That's what she said.
No, it doesn't; public transit is public, that is, run by the government, that is, not a private business.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Meh, I meant that kind of discrimination, but different business (more like businesses having segregated water fountains/eating rooms/bathrooms.)

[CaptHayfever]

And on that part I agree with you. However, I think his point is that it's not the government's job to legislate morality, and while a business can be allowed to establish those policies, consumers can then demonstrate their dissatisfaction by no longer patronizing the business. If there are three diners in a town & only one of them keeps a whites-only bathroom, that's probably the one that's gonna go bankrupt.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Crazyswordsman]

^If he thinks it's not the government's place to legislate morality, I'd like to know what his position on abortion and gays are. -CSM

[Deku Trii]

What's abortion got to do with it? If he's pro-life, his views on abortion are probably similar to his views on taking anybody's life. He'd probably need to be for legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, not wearing your seat-belt, and making gay marriage as legal as traditional marriage one way or another.

That's assuming "not legislating morality" means what I think it tends to mean.

[Crazyswordsman]

^Because if you're against legislating morality you can't do ANYTHING to impose your views on someone else. -CSM

[Deku Trii]

The idea usually stops short of meaning you can't tell people they can't steal, assault, kill, etc.

[Sim Kid]

Originally Posted by Right-Wing Libertarian

He may say some odd things, but I still like him, simply for the fact that he doesn't support the Establishment.

...

CSM, you should give libertarianism a try. You just might like it.

I did, but then I found out that it's simply reallocating power to people with no term limits and shouting "SCREW YOU, MOOCHERS" to charitis and people who legitimately need help because they got unlucky.


Or maybe that's because the libertarians out here are all strawmen who do stuff like protest the 19th amendment.

[Crazyswordsman]

^^Two dudes kissing consensually does not count as robbery/rape/murder or any of that. -CSM