Idea: stop painting your opponents as unintelligent, or anti-intellectual.
So things have gotten significantly worse in the past 40-50 years, right?
“Hound” him? Look… as entertaining as your sweaty man crush on Ron and Rand is, when a politician in 2010 says or infers they do not support certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you’re taking a dump in the pool. That you expect him to be given a pass because it’s just a tiny little dump relative to the overwhelming splendor of his magnificent paradigm is boggling.
What is the point of this passage? There is no intellectual challenge to the ideas of liberty, only name calling.
What I have known many liberals to do is, rather than explore common ground (of which there is plenty) you pick out the smallest segment of libertarian arguments, like Civil Rights, in an effort to dismiss liberty entirely. You ignore the major issues and focus on small details which you consider “wacky” or “fringe”. Did Ron or Rand seem to lend credence to a “conspiracy theory” on a youtube video? Did Rand Paul seem to have certain reservations about a small section of a fifty year old bill? Did he at one point associate with certain groups who are out of the mainstream?
This is all irrelevant. There are overriding issues that make up the libertarian philosophy. Nobody is going to Washington and getting rid of Medicare and Social Security. But they may push to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. They may push for transparency in government at all levels. They may try to end Agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare.
And most importantly, Ron and Rand Paul will NEVER be bought out by special interests and corporate lobby money.
I don’t support Ron and Rand Paul because of any personal traits. I support them because on the major overriding issues of the day, namely Foreign Policy, Economic Policy (Federal Reserve Transparency, ending too big to fail, preventing a dollar crisis) and personal liberties (ending the Patriot Act, restoring Habeas Corpus, restraining the Executive) they are right philosophically. I don’t even agree with them on everything. I am Pro Choice for example. And I don’t even mind that much government mandating an end to segregation in private business (though I understand and respect the argument against that).
You are not seeing the forest for the trees. We could absolutely use a significant libertarian voice in our government, if only so that on critical issues of substance Austrian economics and civil liberty violations and many more issues will be part of the discussion and debate on Capital Hill.
First of all, I am not writing propaganda. I am voicing my opinion. I didn’t pursue a formal degree in economics. I got a Bachelor’s Degree in business from Loyola Marymount. Yet, given the economic climate, it is not easy to make it even with a degree. Not to mention being tens of thousands in debt. I started reading this stuff after I saw the mess our country was in during Bushes second term. I paid very close attention to Ron Paul’s campaign in 2007 and volunteered and donated money to the cause. I felt we were being lied to and I felt a strong desire to understand the issues. Ron Paul opened my eyes to libertarian philosophy (I was already a libertarian, but more of the “let me smoke pot and leave me alone variety”). Once the financial crisis hit, I KNEW Ron Paul and the Austrian economists were right. There was no doubt in my mind. Due to my understanding of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle I could see why the crisis occurred, how the bubble formed and why the policies of stimulus, bailouts and propping up bad debt would fail and make the problem that much worse.
So, given the current circumstances I simply had a strong desire to learn what was going on in banking and the economy. So, I plan to be involved in some capacity pushing libertarian philosophy, but no as of now I have no plans to pursue a formal degree in economics or anything like that. But, I’m only 25 so depending on what happens in the world I could certainly pursue more formal education in the future. I am not ruling it out.
The fact that you call it a “rookie mistake” for a political candidate to submit to be interviewed on a mainstream news show demonstrates that YOU don’t want any serious debate on his political platform. You seem to just want idol worship for the Paul family.
Yeah, nothing screams “anti-liberty” like being concerned about Civil Rights. :rolleyes:
If you think that the “common ground” between liberals and libertarians is so much more significant than their ideological differences, then why don’t you come on over and join the liberals, instead of stamping your foot and demanding that they join you? Why are you expecting other people to overlook their reasonable and principled objections to your positions, just because you’d like to be something more than an infinitesimal minority?
How do you know this?
Please note your answer cannot include any personal traits:
This is a very poor example. Banning Interracial marriage was always unconstitutional. That was an example of oppressive government laws like Jim Crow. Government should not be involved in marriage at all.
In a constitutional republic, a majority cannot take away the rights of the minority. That means that if an interracial couple decides they want to get married even if 95% of the public opposes it the government has no right to stop them.
Government should protect every bodies rights equally. Any violence against anyone should be prosecuted. Any discrepancy in any laws in the way they treated minorities should be eliminated (many still exist unfortunately). All public discrimination should end. Institutionalized racism should be eliminated.
But as people evolve and the majority opinion shifts for the better, the minority opinion should be protected by law. We support the right of the KKK to hold marches and rallies openly. Not because we approve of what they say, but because we oppose restriction of Free Speech for anyone, no matter how offensive.
It is the same with private property. If you make the claim that all business should not be allowed to discriminate, what is to stop the government from making similar laws regarding your home? Should a racist be allowed to refuse to allow blacks to come over to his dinner parties? Of course he should. So why is it different with a private business?
How many racists do you think there are in this country? I would guess no more than 5% of the population. It is a generational thing as well. People under forty I think are almost completely non racist. There are pockets of lingering bigotry in this nation, but they are dieing out as they should. The notion that without laws people even today wouldn’t be repulsed by “Whites Only” signs on businesses is ludicrous. Of course they would.
I support, obviously, women’s suffrage, civil rights and the Gay and Lesbian community in their fight for equal rights. I support a repeal of don’t ask don’t tell. But in nearly all cases these movements are against institutional, governmental discrimination and discrepancy in the way the law is enforced. None of them have the right to tell private property owners to provide special accommodation or to prevent individuals from writing racial epithets against them. This violates the rights of the individuals. It is offensive and abhorrent but should be protected.
I’m glad you acknowledge that fact. You know, this was never part of his platform. If you vote against him it should be because you oppose cutting spending and balancing the budget, you oppose term limits and campaign finance reform and you oppose ending overseas wars and violations of personal civil liberties.
Not because of an overblown position that was thrust to the forefront in a calculated attempt by his opponents to marginalize him and make him seem like a radical.
Good post, Der.
See, what happens if the KKK doesn’t just open a restaurant, but runs for elected office? And they manage to get elected, then deny any non-whites trying to obtain a business license? What if they just stall and stall and stall, never refusing but never granting? Next election, they can honestly say that they accept business license applications from everyone, and they never deny anyone based on color, race, sex, etc. But the racists nearby know the real score, so they move to that county or city or state, and now we have the population voting in KKK members until that place is solidly whites-only.
My point is, in addition to not acknowledging that there might be no competition, they also assume that any competition will be fair, that people don’t tell lies or mislead others, and that a whole host of other human failings don’t exist.
This little comment was hardly worth responding to, but I take offense with the characterization that “many of his followers are racists”. With all due respect you just pulled that “fact” straight out of your ass. How many opening racist supporters of Ron Paul or Rand Paul have you MET and talked with? None? Well, then you have succumbed to the media narrative depicting anti government people, Tea Partiers as racists.
There are some far right people, like the militias and deep south groups that are racist, or have a racist element to them. But they don’t vote libertarian. They didn’t support Ron Paul in his presidential run (his support was generally in the mountain west, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and eastern states like New Hampshire and on college campuses from California to New York). The deep south right wing people support candidates like Huckabee and evangelical Christian wackos.
Don’t confuse the two.
jrodefeld, if you are going to quote a blog post or material written by someone else, please make it clear you didn’t write it. Otherwise it looks like you’re taking credit for their work. And keep your cites reasonably short. Your quote from “Maggie’s Notebook” was very long and I would have cut it down to a paragraph or two if other people had not already quoted from your post.
He DOES. Have you been living under a rock? Ron Paul and his son have always been opposed to the war on drugs. Most libertarians are opposed the war on drugs.
Because businesses are places of public accommodation, and they are dependent on public support in the form of things like roads and police and fire departments to conduct their business.
It is not reasonable for any private individual to expect access to another private individual’s private dwelling unless such access is offered to them personally. However, it is reasonable for a member of the public who conforms to reasonable restrictions on, e.g., dress and behavior to expect access to a place of public accommodation that purports to serve the public.
Just because a business is “private property” doesn’t mean that you automatically have as much control over it as you do over your private dwelling. Similarly, while you’re allowed to get drunk in your private dwelling, you’re not allowed to do so while driving your car on the public roads, no matter how much it’s your “private property”.
The difference is a dinner party is not a public accomodation; a restaurant is.
Look, this is settled law, ruled on by the Supreme Court. They are the ultimate constituitional scholars. You just sound petulent when you insist that the libertarian interpretation is more correct than the Supreme Court. You are wrong; they are right, and stamping your foot won’t change that.
See the issue with this is that you’re right, these are all sensible policies. Pretty much everyone would agree with these policies on the general soundbite level. Who’s going to say: no, I want more government spending and a bigger defecit? They aren’t even unique to the Libertarians at that level.
There’s no debate there, so obviously people are going to focus on the differences and the niggling little details (what program’s will you cut? You say you’re for total freedom, but can I marry my pig?). If you truly want others to understand your ideas these are precisely the issues that need to be raised. But saying that you don’t want to focus on the details you imply that all you really want is a circle jerk for obvious soundbite policies.
More freedom! Less spending! Yay!
Government has a very strong interest in marriage (albeit more the state/local government than the federal government). The religious function of marriage has taken a backseat to the civil and governmental functions since only a state or local government can grant a marriage certificate. Having the government as the official grantor of marriages is critically important because it sets a minimum standard that is universal across the jurisdiction, such as the minimum age of consent to marry, sometimes blood tests, ensuring to some degree that neither individual is already married or being forced into the marriage.
Also, since marriage grants each spouse an interest in the real and personal property of the other spouse - that in some states cannot be completely disinherited - the government also has a stake in protecting these interests and enforcing spousal rights or the wishes of a spouse in a will. Government also has an interest in a stable and functioning society, which (the theory goes) is something that married families can help provide. So, the government promotes marriage through tax incentives such as the “married filing jointly” income tax status.
Okay. Its fair for you to learn about libertarian philosophy and disagree with it. I don’t have a problem with that. At least you have read the relevant material. But I do maintain that many on this forum (and a majority of the general public) have NOT read any of this literature. The point is people shouldn’t write off a philosophy without studying it. That is all. You can’t argue that many don’t do exactly this.
A more major point was that people were claiming Rand Paul was stupid (the same way they characterize Sarah Palin). This is the main reason I posted the intellectual works that Rand and Ron Paul are intimately familiar with. You may disagree, but there have been great intellectual figures throughout history that wrote about liberty and extolled its virtues. Austrian economics is a very valid economic philosophy. The notion that Rand and Ron Paul are stupid is ludicrous. This was my point, not to brag about my own achievements (though I noted some of the works I have read to illustrate that I understand what Rand and Ron mean when they make their arguments).
You say they’re crap. No intelligent reasons why. Just dismissive. I have posted quite a few links over the several threads I have authored and I don’t claim that I haven’t made some mistakes in looking for a readable cite for one of my points. The real basis for my arguments come in the form of lengthy books that I have read. I obviously don’t expect any of you to read entire books, given that you complain when I post twenty minute youtube videos.
Okay, this was a mistaken link and I have already acknowledged that. By the way this was not from Ron Paul’s campaign account but from an impostor uses his name. I was looking for a different cite and linked to this instead. I guess I should hang my head in shame for the rest of time for making a mistake.
There were no racist rantings from either one of these men. Yeah, lets just overuse the term racist even more than we are already doing. Do liberals know of any other slur to attack opponents with? You think Chris Matthews is a racist?
What is the objection? Though they are not always accurate, they serve to get people a quick understanding of a complex subject without too much effort. Like when I linked to the Wikipedia article about the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. Is that objectionable? In fact here it is:
So, should I ask everyone to read Human Action or will a Wikipedia link suffice in certain instances?
Okay, more exaggerations and untruths. On the whole I have stayed far away from conspiracy theories in my posts here. I maintain that there are very serious people concerned about dissolving national sovereignty and various plans to slowly integrate North America into a more cohesive continental organization.
That is all. I have stayed away from “conspiracies”.
Most people haven’t responded in a meaningful way to much of the links I post. Your “response” usual consists of giving me rules of which sources I can post and why. You say: no youtube videos, no links from anyone you consider “conservative”, no Wikipedia articles, no Austrian literature because it is “too long”, nothing that you consider conspiratorial.
I have probably posted two hundred links throughout all the pages of threads I have created or participated on. If I link to an author giving the Austrian perspective of why government stimulus will only delay to necessary correction I expect people to respond with a counterpoint, maybe a few links to back it up.
Maybe they could start with, “The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle and the objection to the mis allocation of credit and unsustainable resource deployment is wrong and misdirected because…” Then I would have some respect for the opinions of many here.
But it never gets that far. Its always “he’s a loon, that’s a crackpot nut-job website”, name calling and obfuscation of the real issues. Now, some haven’t done this and I appreciate that, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Well, you would do well to appreciate the libertarian philosophy, even if you disagree with it. Everyone is libertarian in certain issues. You believe in the First Amendment and the rite of habeas corpus. You believe in free association and competition in the marketplace. But you have thus far failed to provide a competent explanation of why liberty in some areas is worth defending, yet in others not so much. Also, what about the national debt and the economic crisis and rising unemployment? If you don’t agree with me, fine. But if you side with this current administration, I am sure you will be embarrassed in short order.
As for Conway cruising to victory in November, don’t bet on that. You don’t see the type of attacks that we have witnessed on anybody but a front runner. The political climate is such that any “establishment” candidate will have trouble and any “outsider” has the upper hand. Desperate smears like Conway asserting that Rand Paul favors repealing the Civil Rights Act will backfire on him.
Prepare to become acquainted with Senator Rand Paul by the end of the year.
He’s the son of Ron Paul. Trust me, he’ll be pretty libertarian. He is using the Republican apparatus to become elected however. He is not going to campaign on the war on drugs or immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. He is playing it safe.
If only Rand Paul agreed with you regarding SSM…
“Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states. He supports gun rights and thinks abortions should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the pregnant woman is at stake.” NYT
Seems to me that Paul believes that state governments can quite rightly be “involved in marriage” to the point of outlawing marriage arrangements between homosexual couples.
Note that this quote also casts doubt on your claim that he wants drug legalization (it very carefully mentions only Federal enforcement), and stakes out an abortion position rather far outside the mainstream. Claiming that a woman must carry a fetus to term even if it might kill her seems diametrically opposed to liberty, but what do I know… I didn’t read all of your links or watch the videos.
You sound like the characterization that liberals make of Right Wingers attacks on learning and scholarly activity: “The liberal elite are too busy reading all those books and getting that fancy college degree. Vote Palin.” Except in this case a liberal is criticizing a libertarian for “learning” and understanding “economics”.
I know how you feel. Its easy to react emotionally to an issue like this. But if we can’t defend property rights and freedom of speech for people we abhor and find repugnant, we don’t believe in these core liberties at all.
The truth is, during the civil rights battle, tactics of protests, boycotts and shaming and economic factors truly ending segregation much more successfully than a law.