Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post Reply
User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 2871
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Number 6 » 20 May 2010, 12:47

What is it with this family and slip-ups that leave the sulphurous whiff of racism?
Right after Paul won, out comes his apparent opposition to the Civil Rights act. Now, I understand what he's saying, and he's not necessarily wrong. However, his flailing about here http://voices.washingtonpost.com/
right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html
is just embarrassing. The correct answer was, "Let's start with this. Racism is ignorant, repulsive, and evil. That's not a question, and it's not up for debate. The question is whether business owners have a legal-note that I say legal right to act on their own bigotry. While it's an uncomfortable conclusion, I have to say the legal right is there, although the moral and ethical right is not. And remember that those lunch counters were required to be segregated by law. I've already made clear my opposition to those sorts of laws. So, let's review-I'm not a racist. Racism is disgusting. But in a society in which property rights are respected, some people will have the freedom to be disgusting."
The gun gambit was just pathetic.
Also, I have yet to encounter a mention of Paul in the media that isn't immediately followed by a reference to the Tea Party.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23210
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Mo » 20 May 2010, 12:57

The Civil Rights Act is a stupid battlefield to plant your flag on. There are a thousand worse laws to worry about than the CRA. I believe strongly in freedom of association, but there are other, more abhorrent laws to get worked up about. Especially since Paul says he agrees with 90% of it. Is the 10% that he disagrees with disqualifying? Is he equally offended by other laws he doesn't agree with 10% of?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
J sub D
Posts: 1741
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:36
Location: Way down upon the Detroit River, far, far away
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by J sub D » 20 May 2010, 13:06

Whether it was constitutional or not,* achieved it's aims or not,** you are not going to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's foolish for a politician to even talk about it. It's just tilting at windmills.
Joe Darion wrote:To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go
To right the unrightable wrong
To love pure and chaste from afar
To try when your arms are too weary
To reach the unreachable star

This is my quest
To follow that star
No matter how hopeless
No matter how far***
Noble sentiments but foolish politics.

* Probably not. My business, my property, I can hire whoever the hell I want, I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

** I am unconvinced that forbidding discrimination in the workplace helped blacks climb the economic ladder. It certainly helped the careers of civil rights lawyers and race hucksters like Al Sharpton.

*** Yes, I like cheesy musicals.
EDIT: Oh, and the civil rights and basic human dignity thing too. - JasonL

My guess is this is the love child of some Objectivists what got excommunicated. - Warren

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22887
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Jennifer » 20 May 2010, 13:07

Maybe the Civil Rights Act is immensely unpopular with the folks he's pandering to in his own state. It's like -- the law saying "Only Indians are allowed to run casinos" is way down near the bottom of my injustice-priority list, but here in Connecticut, home of two Indian casinos, a LOT of folks might be willing to give it center stage.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26514
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by thoreau » 20 May 2010, 13:09

In an ideal world, most racial problems (like most other problems) would be addressed (note: not always the same as solved, alas) in some manner that doesn't involve regulation (except, of course, regulations on cops who seem to have a penchant for disparate impacts). In this world, racial problems are addressed (not always adequately) by law, and the only objection worth mounting is "Well, if we went back we could have done it differently and better" which is a great objection for a philosophy debate club and a horrible objection in public policy discussions.

It isn't only horrible because it sounds bad, it's horrible because in policy your coalitions matter and the only way something like that actually translates into practice is via a coalition that implements half of it and does something very ugly for the other half. And, by trying to revisit it you're revisiting a lot of very ugly history, and going into ugly history with "The solution wasn't optimal" rarely puts you on the side of the angels.

If libertarians want to talk about race and pathologies caused by the state, Radley Balko has some excellent points to pick up on. Doctors with the last name Paul and first name beginning with R? Not so much.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 2871
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Number 6 » 20 May 2010, 13:13

I suspect that this whole thing started when someone asked Paul about how his strong property rights stand would affect private discrimination, and he was foolish enough to give an honest answer.
Or maybe he actually is a bigot.
But he's certainly lacking discretion.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12538
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Eric the .5b » 20 May 2010, 13:15

thoreau wrote:In an ideal world, most racial problems (like most other problems) would be addressed (note: not always the same as solved, alas) in some manner that doesn't involve regulation (except, of course, regulations on cops who seem to have a penchant for disparate impacts). In this world, racial problems are addressed (not always adequately) by law, and the only objection worth mounting is "Well, if we went back we could have done it differently and better" which is a great objection for a philosophy debate club and a horrible objection in public policy discussions.
To be fair, take out the cop parenthetical and remove the word "racial" from that passage and you've got every lucid Blue complaint about libertarianism ever.

But yes, the Civil Rights Act is a stupid target to bring up. What's next, Rand, PBS? Food Stamps? Your actual, literal foot?

EDITed.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Ayn_Randian
Posts: 10727
Joined: 08 May 2010, 14:58

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Ayn_Randian » 20 May 2010, 13:19

OK, so what I am reading so far is "Say the right things, even if you don't believe them" and "Because people are dumb, don't speak out against the 1964 CRA, because people cannot grasp the difference between public and private".

Well, whatever - I am glad that he said something. For too long, progressives and their brain-dead hangers-on have been using the CRA as a BS litmus test to falsely Scarlet-letter people as racists.
It has the effect of making me want desperately to do the opposite of what Green Day is suggesting I should want to do. Billy Joe Whassname may have created a generation of war mongers. - Jason L

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26514
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by thoreau » 20 May 2010, 13:22

If libertarians want to address the pressing racial problems of our day, and be forward-thinking rather than backward-looking, then like I said, Radley Balko has a long list of injustices that need righting.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Ayn_Randian
Posts: 10727
Joined: 08 May 2010, 14:58

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Ayn_Randian » 20 May 2010, 13:31

The injustice of the CRA is not about a "pressing racial problem". It's about an ongoing, systemic property rights violation that has spawned other, more egregious property-rights violations. The 1964 CRA is the foundation for what have turned into whole stacks of laws that logically flow from it.
It has the effect of making me want desperately to do the opposite of what Green Day is suggesting I should want to do. Billy Joe Whassname may have created a generation of war mongers. - Jason L

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 2871
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Number 6 » 20 May 2010, 13:36

don't speak out against the 1964 CRA, because people cannot grasp the difference between public and private".
Correct. And your political enemies will deliberately misconstrue your statements.
And frankly, among the long list of property rights that are trampled by the government, the right to not serve dark-skinned people is among those I am least concerned about.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22887
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Jennifer » 20 May 2010, 13:37

It's good to know how to pick your battles, especially if -- as appears to be the case with R. Paul the Younger -- you're not deft enough to handle thorny political issues without getting scratched.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Isaac Bartram
Posts: 1101
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:45

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Isaac Bartram » 20 May 2010, 13:41

Eric the .5b wrote: But yes, the Civil Rights Act is a stupid target to bring up. What's next, Rand, PBS? Food Stamps? Your actual, literal foot?
It's my understanding that he didn't bring it up; he's been asked about it in a couple of interviews.

Politicians across the spectrum are often asked unexpected questions in impromptu interviews. Being unprepared, most give clumsy and ambiguous answers, especially to questions about controversial and/or complex subjects.

How his or her answers are spun is a pretty good test of how the spinner feels about the politician in question.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23210
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Mo » 20 May 2010, 13:44

J sub D wrote:I am unconvinced that forbidding discrimination in the workplace helped blacks climb the economic ladder. It certainly helped the careers of civil rights lawyers and race hucksters like Al Sharpton.
I agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. I believe that forbidding discrimination forced people to interact with peers of different races and helped them realize that they did not conform to the negative stereotypes of their group. This, over time, led to changed social attitudes.

I firmly believe that if we repealed the CRA today, there would be virtually no change to race relations today and freedom of association would be better for it. However, I do believe that w/o the CRA (including the limits on private owners), race relations today would be far worse.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
J sub D
Posts: 1741
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:36
Location: Way down upon the Detroit River, far, far away
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by J sub D » 20 May 2010, 13:47

Number 6 wrote:
don't speak out against the 1964 CRA, because people cannot grasp the difference between public and private".
Correct. And your political enemies will deliberately misconstrue your statements.
And frankly, among the long list of property rights that are trampled by the government, the right to not serve dark-skinned people is among those I am least concerned about.
That's what it comes down to. Pick the fights you can win, not ones that are irretrievably lost. It doesn't matter if the confederate states had the "right" to secede. It's fucking over. You're never going to repeal the Social Security Act either. Putting it on a sound fiscal footing is worth fighting for, but, like the CRA, ending it
Ain't.
Gonna.
Happen.

Let activists try to steer the culture, politics is the art of the possible.
EDIT: Oh, and the civil rights and basic human dignity thing too. - JasonL

My guess is this is the love child of some Objectivists what got excommunicated. - Warren

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12538
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Eric the .5b » 20 May 2010, 13:52

J sub D, let's not get started on what Ain't Gonna Happen, or this thread will become a real downer, not just a collective eye-roll. :)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Ayn_Randian
Posts: 10727
Joined: 08 May 2010, 14:58

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Ayn_Randian » 20 May 2010, 13:57

Believe it or not, but the same mindset from 1964 that outlawed discrimination is what spawned the 2010 mindset that finds it perfectly kosher to forbid "discrimination" against pre-existing conditions. Yes, I really do believe that those mindsets are linked.

Why nibble around the edges? Go for the jugular, and maybe people are not as stupid as we all assume.
It has the effect of making me want desperately to do the opposite of what Green Day is suggesting I should want to do. Billy Joe Whassname may have created a generation of war mongers. - Jason L

User avatar
J sub D
Posts: 1741
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:36
Location: Way down upon the Detroit River, far, far away
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by J sub D » 20 May 2010, 14:00

Mo wrote:
J sub D wrote:I am unconvinced that forbidding discrimination in the workplace helped blacks climb the economic ladder. It certainly helped the careers of civil rights lawyers and race hucksters like Al Sharpton.
I agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. I believe that forbidding discrimination forced people to interact with peers of different races and helped them realize that they did not conform to the negative stereotypes of their group. This, over time, led to changed social attitudes.
You're convinced, I'm not. The proposition "The portions of the CRA of 1964 that outlawed discrimination in private employment and public accomodations helped blacks move faster towards equality more than a CRA that respected the property rights and freedom of association of private citizens would have" can be neither proved nor disproved.

I think we agree that IT'S OVER.
EDIT: Oh, and the civil rights and basic human dignity thing too. - JasonL

My guess is this is the love child of some Objectivists what got excommunicated. - Warren

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7778
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Taktix® » 20 May 2010, 14:04

Ayn_Randian wrote:Why nibble around the edges? Go for the jugular, and maybe people are not as stupid as we all assume.
They are...
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23210
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Mo » 20 May 2010, 14:05

J sub D wrote:You're convinced, I'm not. The proposition "The portions of the CRA of 1964 that outlawed discrimination in private employment and public accomodations helped blacks move faster towards equality more than a CRA that respected the property rights and freedom of association of private citizens would have" can be neither proved nor disproved.

I think we agree that IT'S OVER.
Agree on both counts.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17291
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Hugh Akston » 20 May 2010, 14:11

Eric the .5b wrote:J sub D, let's not get started on what Ain't Gonna Happen, or this thread will become a real downer, not just a collective eye-roll. :)
Agreed. If every thread on this board is going to be so quickly reduced to questions of realpolitik then we might as well have David revamp the whole thing and use the space to gas about books, movies, and celebrities.

I get very tired of the "it's the way things are so there's no use complaining about it" argument very quickly.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22771
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by JasonL » 20 May 2010, 14:19

Ayn_Randian wrote:Believe it or not, but the same mindset from 1964 that outlawed discrimination is what spawned the 2010 mindset that finds it perfectly kosher to forbid "discrimination" against pre-existing conditions. Yes, I really do believe that those mindsets are linked.

Why nibble around the edges? Go for the jugular, and maybe people are not as stupid as we all assume.
Because the jugular of which you speak is only recognized as such by people who are already libertarians? Most people aren't overly concerned with ideology driving consistent policy positions.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22771
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by JasonL » 20 May 2010, 14:22

I get very tired of the "it's the way things are so there's no use complaining about it" argument very quickly.
But there's another valid way of looking at it, right? As in, there can be a practical libertarianism that strives to gain ground on the margins without freaking everyone out with "libertopia or bust".

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7778
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by Taktix® » 20 May 2010, 14:24

Plus, we're discussing a current candidate for office. Realpolitik is quite relevant...
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
J sub D
Posts: 1741
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:36
Location: Way down upon the Detroit River, far, far away
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul.....sigh.

Post by J sub D » 20 May 2010, 14:34

Hugh Akston wrote:
Eric the .5b wrote:J sub D, let's not get started on what Ain't Gonna Happen, or this thread will become a real downer, not just a collective eye-roll. :)
Agreed. If every thread on this board is going to be so quickly reduced to questions of realpolitik then we might as well have David revamp the whole thing and use the space to gas about books, movies, and celebrities.

I get very tired of the "it's the way things are so there's no use complaining about it" argument very quickly.
When you are running for the Senate political reality is something that should be considered. It sorta helps you get, y'know, elected and shit.
EDIT: Oh, and the civil rights and basic human dignity thing too. - JasonL

My guess is this is the love child of some Objectivists what got excommunicated. - Warren

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests