My interest in this matter is primarily limited to: (A) do these comments mean that Stormfront will start fundraising for Rand Paul, and (B) will Rand Paul return their donations, as his father notably refused to do?
If you don’t understand the differences between Progressive movements in America and liberals, I can’t help you in this post. Maybe another thread?
The law of unintended consequences is ignored by most progressive or populist ideas, and I don’t understand anyone who believes morality shouldn’t be used in arguing for or against laws. I’m not saying i agree with all moral arguments. It depends on the context.
In the first of your paragraphs, I do not buy your premises, so I believe you state a false conclusion.
**We are on Protected classes and discrimination in general now? Of course businesses that are open to the public ** can discriminate within the law. Businesses can refuse service to anyone, within the law.
You do not like the current laws that prevent discrimination based on a list of current ‘protected’ classes? What about the laws do you not like?
He should have just said YES or NO. But then, polticians are known for avoiding direct answers, they are know for dancing all around a question without answering.
Oh well, if it is a free speech issue, then in a libertarian way, it would be my right to never patraonize that place (or Mr Paul) in any way, shape, or form ever again (money talks, bullshit walks).
So you believe idealism can be a replacement for laws? Jim Crow ring a bell?
So, did the real libertarian go on the show before or after Rand Paul? And did he have a better answer to the question than Paul did?
Tell that to his Dad. His Dad has essentially the same position, and he’s been in Congress for 30 years.
Rand’s problem is that he just didn’t give a good answer. There’s a defensible argument for allowing businesses to choose their customers, but it’s a complex one and can’t be answered in sound bites. Maybe RP felt that if he tried to give a complex answer he would have been shut down by Maddow anyway, and then his long answer would have been scoured for sound bites to use against him. Or maybe he’s just inexperienced, or he doesn’t know his own philosophy as well as he should.
Or, he could have bailed on it more elegantly. He could have said something like,
He could then have talked about legitimate civil rights abuses against blacks that are going on today on behalf of government - the war on drugs, the treatment of (generally black) ‘crack’ cocaine users who get stiffer punishments than (generally white) users of ‘classic coke’, no-knock raids in poor neighborhoods, The failure of the public school systems in the inner cities and the refusal of government to allow alternatives for poor people, the creation of public ‘projects’ that have the effect of collecting all the poor people together in areas that become stigmatized and which lack role models and investment, or welfare programs which reduce incentives for achievement and institutionalize poverty.
He could also have pointed out that mandating ‘equality’ through government gives real racists excuses for their discrimination, such as assuming that any black person in a good job must be there because of affirmative action. He could ask whether forced busing contributed to the lessening of racial tensions, or whether it made it worse. There’s a long, healthy debate to be had about the government’s long-term effect on race relations and the quality of life for blacks in America.
I asked for you to clarify your point, and you seem to be refusing. I wanted to know the difference between liberals and progressive as it relates to this particular issue - is that not relevant to this thread?
Morality in a vacuum is a poor reason for laws, since morality isn’t necesarily tied to ethics or what’s useful for a society. I do agree that a less racist society is something to strive for, but there can be disagreements on the methods.
My point is that businesses get a free reign to discriminate, with the exception of protected classes. I’m unconvinced that the exception is a net good at this point, or even necesary. Obviously it’s something of a value judgement - if you think the sovereignty of an owner over his business isn’t a big deal, then the current laws seem like a slam dunk.
Again, that they enforce non-discrimination by law, rather than as a natural consequence of social change. They rob a business owner with a small degree of freedom he has over his own property. In general, I’m not so high on the concept of enforcing social engineering by law.
This is an overly broad interpretation of what I’ve said, so no.
I’d like to think that in this day and age a racist candidate would not be elected to public office. It still happens. In over a hundred years racist opinions have not been driven into the ground by people of their own free will. It has been through the force of law that desegregation happened and that discrimination is banned.
Rand has a great theory and I even agree with him on some level. I however am not willing to wait another hundred years for his ideology to work out. The force of law while not the best solution so far has been the only one to work.
To clarify a point of my argument, you mention “through force of law that desegregation happened” and if you’re referring to public schools, I’m all for that. Along with public busses, public drinking fountains, all that - things that are publically owned or government run absolutely should be unable to discriminate by law based on protected classes.
Paul isn’t being asked about his own businesses. When you ask “do you think businesses should be restricted from discriminating against protected classes?” you ignore why some classes need protection. You make it sound like all men are treated equal and some having ‘extra’ or ‘protected’ status is somehow an advantage others do not have.
When you generalize to this extent “do you think business owners should have the right to choose who to serve?” you close the door on the racial or other aspects of the argument(s). In effect, you clean up real ugliness.
I believe businesses that want to serve only a certain group of the public ought to apply for private licenses. Private clubs and businesses should be able to discriminate based on anything they want to. They just should not then complain when the rest of denying them permission to do certain things that need societal or governmental approval. I guess it comes down on what people think a business has the right to do within a given society, with or without that society having a say.
Businesses have indivisible rights?
Because being in the minority does not mean you are no longer one of “the people”. If me and three of my mates vote that you’re not allowed to own a car, the fact that we outnumber you doesn’t change the fact that we’re suppressing your right to act of your own free will.
I know. Thank you.
Boy, all I can say is, I really, really wish thinkers like Sam and Dan were on the national stage, instead of knuckleheads like Palin, Beck, and the inelegant Mr. Paul the Younger. Not that I would agree with them, but I can respect the heck out of their opinions. Thoughtful! Well reasoned! In short, probably unelectable. 
Because such a law would be unenforceable. You can’t monitor or control what people think. However, you CAN enforce laws on how people ACT on those thoughts.
It’s as though you’re saying because we can’t stop people from *thinking *about burglary, there should be no laws against burglary. :rolleyes:
We tried this approach prior to the civil rights legislation in the 1960s. It didn’t work.
Yeah, it would be a lovely world if nobody ever stole from anybody, or swindled anybody, or discriminated against anybody, or if all these evils could be solved by gentle societal pressure without recourse to nasty, oppressive laws. Maybe if we all hold hands and sway and sing kumbaya it will come about.
But what libertarians forget is that most people are selfish. greedy shits and without some sort of governmental intervention they will gladly take advantage of strangers in order to benefit themselves and their friends and relations. It’s a naive, utopian ideology that values theoretical purity over addressing actual real-world ills.
The simple fact is that force of public condemnation wasn’t sufficient to remove segregation from the general society. A “whites only” lunch counter was hardly going to be driven out of business by boycotts of the good people of, say, Birmingham, or many other places both south and north. That’s the reality for minority groups-- they don’t have the power of numbers to protect themselves. Clearly enough, market forces aren’t going to be their salvation.
And so the force of law is required, and the force of law is provided by the Constitution, for just such situations, for the protection of the minority from the will of the majority.
Businesses are blameless, holy creatures that need pay no need to any government or group of “citizens”. Anything they do wrong is clearly no wrong because they did it.
-Joe
Refusing? :smack:
Definitions are important. Progressive political movements are not closed to ideology. Progressive, has become a term some people use interchangeably with radical, leftist, socialist, liberal… A* liberal *idea is not necessarily embraced by a liberal. Think: definitions.
In this particular context of the issue of racism and public accommodation, new laws banning discrimination based on racial status is a progressive and liberal idea. A liberal may or may not agree with a particular liberal law.
I am a liberal. I hold some conservative ideas. These particular ideas may even be progressive or not depending upon where they stand in relation to societal norms.
Laws that ignore what is useful for society should be ignored and repealed. Most laws are put into place to restrict behavior, not advance behavior. Some people will frame civil rights laws as being ‘protective’ of classes giving these classes special privileges, when in reality most civil rights laws were enacted to prevent something abhorrent from continuing. I suspect you fall close to those who would frame things as being about giving special rights. If so, I say if being black with all the protected privileges it brings is so wonderful, try being black for a year. If I’m wrong, you shouldn’t feel singled out.
Owners of a business are not Sovereign. “I’m unconvinced that the exception is a net good at this point, or even necesary[sic].” If you do not see the necessity for civil rights laws, then I believe you to be a young person. Only one of a certain age could possibly deny the necessity of civil rights laws. I will give you slack for age related ignorance. One could reasonably argue the rational behind and the benefits of laws, but the necessity? The civil rights movement would not have been necessary according to this logic.
“Again, that they enforce non-discrimination by law, rather than as a natural consequence of social change. They rob a business owner with a small degree of freedom he has over his own property. In general, I’m not so high on the concept of enforcing social engineering by law.” - natural consequence of social change? You mean like Rwanda, Sarajevo, Uganda, Pogroms?
A business owner who cannot discriminate against minorities has lots of freedom. They have the freedom to engage in commerce among one things. Nothing is taken away except the ability to dictate what is acceptable behavior in a place of public business.
What kind of social engineering are you high on? 
We all believe in social engineering in one form or another. It’s what makes us a society’
It sounds like you’re applying the libertarian principle in a vacuum.
YOU think they didn’t work. There are lots of people, however, who disagree. One is even the subject of the OP!
-Joe
:smack:
Explain please how the approach worked and why there was such civil unrest and legislation passed if things were so hunky dory.