Not a bad portrait you paint. 
You mean “Who is John Goat?”
For Libertarians solutions people agree to attempt are the problem. Only solutions that aren’t agreed to be binding are acceptable. Since too few people have agreed to accept Libertarianism as an acceptable solution, it is acceptable to Libertarians.
He is arguing that the federal government has no place in promoting and protecting the civil/human rights of citizens, period. That individuals and businesses should be free to do whatever the hell they want, even if it is abhorant and a violation of those rights.
And that civil rights legislation (and, by logical extension, the abolition of slavery)was an overstepping of federal government powers, since both infringed on the rights of states and the people to discriminate based on race.
Of course, this extends far beyond race issues to the place of government in enacting and enforcing things like workplace regulations and rights, health care reform, pollution controls, prohibitions against monopolies, regulation of food and drugs, provision for retirement or disability benefits, etc…
That flies in the face of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which they loudly claim to adhere to and defend. :dubious:
I agree with an earlier poster who said they wish EVERY teabagger/right-winger would be so blunt and honest in describing their core political beliefs and objectives.
Because this IS their core ideology…the federal government should have no power to promote the general welfare or enforce the will of the people as a whole. (witness the Republican record of attempting to dismantle/privatize virtually every function of federal government and leave us at the mercy of the “free market” and “private enterprise”…INCLUDING the military, turning over provisions and security for our troops to Haliburton, Wackenhut, et al. THAT turned out great, huh?)
The Constitution clearly empowers the federal government to promote the general welfare and enact and enforce laws and rulings which the majority of the states/people have consented to.
When the majority of the population in the respective states decides that slavery or other discrimination based on race is WRONG, and vote to forbid it, the opposition minority has no right to defy the law of the land and the federal government has every right to enforce said law of the land. Nor do they have the right to secede from the Union when they disagree with a majority ruling…the Civil War decided that issue, at terrible cost.
Paul represents those who want to disable and dismantle the federal government and return us to the days when robber barons and other capitalists ran free and wild. Sounds SO terribly romantic, 
but for the vast majority of us/our not so distant ancestors who had to work for a living in deplorable conditions for paltry pay or be beaten or shot by company thugs, have our water and air polluted at will, be driven out of business by large monopolies, have our pensions stolen, never know if the food or medicine we got was poisonous, retire to abject poverty, live as slaves or indentured servants, etc…etc…not so much. :rolleyes::mad:
Always this talk about the “Utopian Liberals”, but history shows that the REAL “Utopians” are those who believe that if only government would get the fuck out of the way, everything would magically fall into perfect place, guided by some logical market or Hand of God. :rolleyes:
Bullshit. We KNOW what happens when that happens; we’ve tried it (most recently under Bush).
Government intervention is not perfect, but it beats the HELL out of what has historically occurred when it was lacking.
The Constitution wisely allows for a strong but divided federal government and for revisions as required and demanded by the people/governed.
I stand in awe, really, of the wording…“All MEN are created equal…” Back when it was written, it meant, by general consensus, all White, property owning men. But the term was broad enough to allow for shifts in the general consensus, so it has come to include ALL men, of whatever race or income AND all women. Brilliant. 
It is a living document, indeed.
So keep talking, Paul. Educate the masses on what agenda you represent. 
Salon.com’s Gabriel Winant sums it up thus: The lesson of Rand Paul: libertarianism is juvenile. For instance:
I think of Libertarianism as an example of the well-worn Yogi Berra-ism: “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”
No, he’s not. He’s arguing that there is no right to being served by a private business. He explicitly stated that he agreed with the parts of the act which related to prohibiting the government from restricting those rights.
His argument is not about whether the feds should protect civil/human rights, but about what those rights are.
Again, no. “Whatever the hell they want” would include breaking every law in existence.
I stand in awe of that, too. But you do know that it isn’t in the constitution, right?
You say the American public demands safe lettuce, so business gives us safe lettuce even if no regulations existed.
So in Third World countries with no regulations, why don’t you eat the lettuce? Do Third World people demand hazardous food and unclean water, so business is just giving them what they want?
I don’t think water is a good example, since that’s almost always managed by the government. You drink what they give you.
As for lettuce… well, in an unfettered market, some enterprising young lettuce seller can offer a choice: here’s some “dirty” lettuce for 20 pesos a head and here’s some “clean” stuff for 25 pesos, and let the consumer decide. If there’s money to be made (ie, a market for it, ie people who “demand” it), then it should be available.
It’s not so much a matter of 3rd world residents demanding dirty lettuce as not demanding clean stuff.
Just like you can, today, walk into many grocery stores in the US and buy organic vs non-organic lettuce. The government didn’t mandate the selling of organic lettuce.
Oh, people in other countries will just charge more for clean food.
Like how there’s all those folks in China and India who sell clean water in bottles.
That were filled up using the local tap.
The ad on my bottom screen offers “Dr. Suess Meets Ayn Rand”. You can’t make shit like that up.
It merely provides us the legal definition of “organic”, huh?
So what?
Consumer reports has its own rating system, with its own definitions.
Ask yourself why they don’t, if there is a demand for it? And “clean” is relative. It’s apparently “clean enough”.
That doesn’t happen in the US?
So the government mandates what it’s legal to call organic, all without any of us having to subscribe to Consumer Reports.
And how do you know that the “clean” lettuce is really clean? Do you have some means of testing it? Maybe its just the dirty lettuce with a misleading label.
(Lettuce is a poor example, by the way, since even in the U. S. the laws for how lettuce can be handled in the field are not really adequate to prevent e coli contamination.)
Is the government the only body that is physically capable of testing things? Maybe it’s just dirty lettuce with a fake government label.
I wasn’t the one who chose it, but I know what you mean. We can substitute something else. Like car safety and maintenance ratings you find in Consumer Reports.
It’s the only one that’s mandated to be impartial and accountable solely, if somewhat indirectly, to the public. A friend of mine used to be an inspector for the FDA; she told me about how strict the rules were to prevent corruption.
That really didn’t answer the question.
Mandatory government testing greatly reduces the likelihood of fake certifications.
Take restaurant health inspections, for example, since that’s where this started. In California restaurants are required to post the latest health rating they received in their windows. That way I, as the consumer, can decide how much filth I’m willing to risk. Some people might only eat in places with an “A”. Others might be willing to risk a “B” or a “C”.
A restaurant owner could, theoretically, post a fake rating. However, part of the government inspection is making sure that the proper rating is posted. A health inspector can show up at any time, at any restaurant, and if he discovers they’ve posted a fake rating, they can be fined.
But if the rating was handled by a private service, then this form of policing goes away. Since the rating system isn’t mandatory, the private inspectors will only be visiting restaurants that are paying to be certified. They’re not systematically working their way through every restaurant in the city checking for fake certificates. Sure, if they find out a particular restaurant is posting a fake rating, they can sue them to make them take it down. But they would have neither the manpower, the incentive, nor the authority to track down all the fake certificates.
Go back and read my post #285.
In short, where does the chase for accountability stop?
You can try to buy clean lettuce, but how can you tell?
If someone tells you their lettuce is clean, why should you trust them?
If you trust them, eat their lettuce, and get sick, how do you hold them accountable?
If you try to publicize their failure, what proof can you offer?
And if you do prove it, how do you prevent them from changing names, and setting up a new shop to do it all over again to someone else?
An impartial arbiter is necessary at some point in the process. It’s a lot less trouble to have it at the beginning than at the end.
This thread really shows why I personally disagree with libertarianism. It’s one thing to claim that businesses who cheat their customers with inferior and/or unsafe products will be boycotted and bankrupted (and even that is highly debatable, as seen here).
Its quite another to argue that customers will do so for businesses purely for social reasons generally unrelated to the core business. As pointed out earlier in the thread, it rarely happens even now. Why would it magically happen in a “completely free” market? Are we supposed to care when it doesn’t? It’s a much more complex question (which, given the complexities of the above question, is saying something).