Rand Paul hearts the Civil Rights Act

[quote name='Siterath']It was not the government declaring or bestowing rights, but recognizing those rights. Government at any level is not infallible, and your argument implies that the government's rejection of the rights of blacks and/or women was right.[/QUOTE]
Where exactly in his statement is the implication that the government was right? I can't find it.
 
[quote name='Siterath']
Additionally, if one believes that rights are bestowed by government, one would then also believe that a government could strip those rights at will, and could do so with no justifiable response by the people.
[/quote]
Only if you believe that the government is a separate entity from the people and that in any case, it is not restrained by a constitution.
Lastly, let me pose this question to you. If our government were to cease to exist, and beyond that, if there were to be a total absence of government, would rights still exist?
Click to expand...
No.
Would you, or anyone, still have the right to live?
Click to expand...
No.
The right to feed and clothe thyself?
Click to expand...
No.
Do these maxims, these very rights of nature, exist only in the presence of government?
Click to expand...
Yes (striked for gibberish)

All those things in the absence of government, become privileges, not rights. This is because anyone can take them away from you without penalty, as long as they can overpower your individual person.
 
Back on topic, people!

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/2010_Elec...ck-critics-civil-rights-act/story?id=10705651

There ya go. "Don't listen to what I said, because it's a liberrul hack job." It's "gotcha" journalism.

Definitions:

Liberal Talking Points - Facts that cannot be accounted for using your philosophy/worldview. Rather than adjust worldview, claim the facts don't exist. Simple.

"Gotcha" Journalism - When an interviewer has the gall to ask questions about your opinion. Especially EXTRA "gotcha" when they ask you to back up your opinion with pesky facts. See above for facts that don't fit within your prearranged hypothesis.
 
I watched the Maddow interview last night. By the half way point it's excruciating listening to Rand Paul do everything in his power not to answer her question. He pulls everything he can think of to try to deflect and she won't let him.

It was like watching Curb Your Enthusiasm. Every second of Rand Paul's answers feels like an hour worth of a root canal.

Maddow: Do you support the civil rights act?
Paul: Let's talk about 1840.
Maddow: Do you support the civil rights act?
Paul: I support disabled people n shit.
Maddow: Do you support the civil rights act?
Paul: I heart MLK and MLB and puppies.
 
more or less what I got out of it (by reading a limited number of articles on it) is that he thinks a business should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose to, whether they be black, white, brown or yellow.

then again, I don't really care about him so maybe there is more to it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If a fetus is a person, then it's murder. Plain and simple.

If you happen to be the type of person who believes a fetus is a person, then you don't really see it any other way.[/QUOTE]

I really wished I had taken Vertebrate Development class.
 
Not to defend Rand Paul, but it isn't relevant. He wasn't there when it was debated and he won't have the opportunity to revoke it.

Ask him about current issues. If he can't articulate an opinion, THEN dump him.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The downside of libertarianism is failure to recognize when Big Brother aka the Federal Government needs step in.

Segregation was the result of leaving it up to the states after that civil war.

Libertarianism works great if everybody plays fair.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='IRHari']Everyone will play fair, but only if we leave it to the free market.[/QUOTE]
Playing fair (as far as business is concerned) - is entirely contingent on businesses ability to affect government.

So here is a pop-quiz: Since all regulation comes from the government, taking the above into account, are you more, or less, susceptible to corruption (unfairness) by increasing regulation?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Playing fair (as far as business is concerned) - is entirely contingent on businesses ability to affect government.

So here is a pop-quiz: Since all regulation comes from the government, taking the above into account, are you more, or less, susceptible to corruption (unfairness) by increasing regulation?[/QUOTE]

I have 5% confidence Big Government will do the right thing and 0% confidence Big Business will do the right thing.
 
Yeah! How dare he demand that a corporation pay for the damage it's done! It's OUTRAGEOUS and UN-'Merican to have consequences for our actions!
 
[quote name='Siterath']It was not the government declaring or bestowing rights, but recognizing those rights. Government at any level is not infallible, and your argument implies that the government's rejection of the rights of blacks and/or women was right. After all, if government grants rights, then it can grant them to whoever it wants. It was right of them when they didn't grant them to non-White men, and it was right of them when they did. This argument of infallibility is simply incorrect.

Additionally, if one believes that rights are bestowed by government, one would then also believe that a government could strip those rights at will, and could do so with no justifiable response by the people.

Secondly, as already articulated, the language of American government (specifically the bill of rights) recognizes inherent rights. Therefore, how can the government grant that which it already recognizes to exist? I'd have no more right to grant water to the ocean. Also, I reiterate, the entire principle of this government (and of republican government as a whole) is that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Once more I ask, how can one give consent if one does not already have the right to give consent?

Lastly, let me pose this question to you. If our government were to cease to exist, and beyond that, if there were to be a total absence of government, would rights still exist? Would you, or anyone, still have the right to live? The right to feed and clothe thyself? Do these maxims, these very rights of nature, exist only in the presence of government?[/QUOTE]
Look, i don't think you post here much so I'll let "and your argument implies that the government's rejection of the rights of blacks and/or women was right." slide. Needless to say, I do not believe that in any way. I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument with you, i'm looking at this from a practical standpoint.
Therefore, how can the government grant that which it already recognizes to exist?
Click to expand...
I don't know, you tell me. It didn't recognize the rights of blacks or women for a long time, despite what you seem to believe are their natural rights. So riddle me this oh philosophical one, if they already had said rights, why did it take an act of our government in order for them to have said rights? Yeah sure, they had them already, but you can argue you have the right to do anything, but if it isn't recognized by your government then the argument is worthless.

You can believe you have whatever rights you want, but for practicality sake, if your government doesn't recognize them, you don't have them under said government.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Yeah! How dare he demand that a corporation pay for the damage it's done! It's OUTRAGEOUS and UN-'Merican to have consequences for our actions![/QUOTE]

I wonder why no one asked who would pay for it?...
 
We don't need the government to try to solve the problems that at private company caused. The solution to the oil spill lies with the free market.
 
The government has rights because the people allow it to have rights.
The people have rights because the government allows them to have rights.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Right, so where were the rights of blacks or women? Why did the government have to declare that they had the same rights as white men if they always had them? We have rights because our government lets us, to think otherwise is being ignorant of history. You may believe you naturally have them, but for practical purposes, it's the government granting you said rights.[/QUOTE]

Their rights were suppressed by the government. Our government was created to prevent this, but sadly it failed to do so for blacks or women for quite some time. They had those rights, but they were oppressed. Practically, a government is needed to prevent others (and foreign nations) from infringing on the rights of its citizens.
 
The idea of "rights" is a man made invention. Otherwise all things from nature would have equal rights, try convincing someone of that. We have rights because we say we do, we have the government to supposedly protect those rights, but of course government is also a creation of man no different than the idea of our rights.

It doesn't make them any more/less right/wrong, but I don't see anything in nature that says we have any rights at all.
 
[quote name='speedracer']And if you can understand the fact that a solid 50% give or take do not feel the same way, then you understand the problem with legislating and using the government to enforce your moral choice.

I'm not saying libertarians can't think it's murder. Whatevs. Legislating morality is wholly outside the libertarian ethos. Plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

So, in your idea of what a Libertarian paradise is, let's say there's a 10 year old girl. She wants to make her father happy. Her father wants to have sexual relations with her. It's all good, right?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, in your idea of what a Libertarian paradise is, let's say there's a 10 year old girl. She wants to make her father happy. Her father wants to have sexual relations with her. It's all good, right?[/QUOTE]

You were the one filming. How did it work out for your sister?

EDIT: I know that is crude. Can we keep it hovering above the gutter?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']EDIT: I know that is crude. Can we keep it hovering above the gutter?[/QUOTE]

It's far worse than crude.

The point being - children can't defend themselves - and are far less equipped to defend themselves from their own parents - either from sexual assault or murder. Therefore, yes, in clear cut cases of abuse against children, the government *should* step in.

Again, as has been pointed out by others, speedracer's idea of what makes a libertarian is very much confused with an anarchist.

Most libertarians believe that the government should not be there to dictate morals - so long as your lifestyle choices do not directly effect someone else. If I want to smoke, drink, cut myself, suck down some Lard Glug, pay (willing) people for sex, get gay-married, etc., etc - I should be able to do so... but the moment any one of those things has a direct effect on another individual's life, liberty or ability to pursue their own happiness, *that* is when the government should be available to get involved. If I want to smoke on your property, get so drunk that I drive my vehicle into your home or rape you, then the government (through a combination of the courts and through law enforcement) should be there to protect my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Speedracer doesn't get this. The more he posts, the more apparent that is.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Most libertarians believe that the government should not be there to dictate morals - so long as your lifestyle choices do not directly effect someone else. [/QUOTE]

Absolutely, but people don't operate in a vacuum.

[quote name='UncleBob']If I want to smoke, drink, cut myself, suck down some Lard Glug, pay (willing) people for sex, get gay-married, etc., etc - I should be able to do so... but the moment any one of those things has a direct effect on another individual's life, liberty or ability to pursue their own happiness, *that* is when the government should be available to get involved. [/QUOTE]

Smoking will negatively affect anybody on your property including a spouse and children via secondhand smoke. Drinking will negatively affect a family at some point even if it is just financially. Obesity could negatively affect a family if it gets in the way of holding a job. Sex can mess up a spouse if a STD is involved. Getting gay-married probably won't have any more of a negative impact than regular marriage.

When does the government intervene when the problem affects people on one's property within one's family? Libertarianism starts to fall when people act outside of social norms.

[quote name='UncleBob']Speedracer doesn't get this. The more he posts, the more apparent that is.[/QUOTE]

A true libertarian in all matters is a damn near mythical creature. Rand Paul definitely isn't a libertarian.
 
Libertarianism looks good on paper but there's probably a reason why they get like, 3% of the vote when they're on the ballot.

I think Rand Paul will be elected, but only if we leave it to the free market.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Libertarianism looks good on paper but there's probably a reason why they get like, 3% of the vote when they're on the ballot.

I think Rand Paul will be elected, but only if we leave it to the free market.[/QUOTE]

Most people don't want complete control of their lives. They like some sort of safety net. Corporations like safety nets, too. Without them, they might be held responsible for their actions.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Yeah! How dare he demand that a corporation pay for the damage it's done! It's OUTRAGEOUS and UN-'Merican to have consequences for our actions![/QUOTE]

hey man the free market should decide what happens to bp not BIG GOVERNMENT

if people don't like bp holding their dicks while millions of barrels of oil fill the gulf and destroy multiple ecosystems/industries...they should just not buy bp oil until bp fixes it
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Most people don't want complete control of their lives.[/QUOTE]

You've never spoken words with more truth.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Corporations like safety nets, too. Without them, they might be held responsible for their actions.[/QUOTE]

I knew there was a good reason why banks like to own their own politicians.

[quote name='Sporadic']hey man the free market should decide what happens to bp not BIG GOVERNMENT[/quote]

BP harmed public property. The administrator of public property is the government. Should the public be screwed just because it's the public?

[quote name='Sporadic']if people don't like bp holding their dicks[/QUOTE]

Er...if? Sick fantasy, dude ;)
 
This Kentuckian will not be voting for Mr. Paul. Maybe you guys can take comfort in that but I doubt it. There are alot of dumb people in this state.
 
[quote name='jughead']This Kentuckian will not be voting for Mr. Paul. Maybe you guys can take comfort in that but I doubt it. There are alot of dumb people in this state.[/QUOTE]

"I'm the smartest guy ever. That's why those who vote for the person I didn't vote for are idiots. My votes are guided by objectivity whilst the others' are based on rolling of dice. I feel sorry for those unenlightened folks who can never hope to match my intellect."

Also, it's "a lot."
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK'] "I'm the smartest guy ever. That's why those who vote for the person I didn't vote for are idiots. My votes are guided by objectivity whilst the others' are based on rolling of dice. I feel sorry for those unenlightened folks who can never hope to match my intellect."

Also, it's "a lot."[/QUOTE]

I smell a Paulestinian...
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']"I'm the smartest guy ever. That's why those who vote for the person I didn't vote for are idiots. My votes are guided by objectivity whilst the others' are based on rolling of dice. I feel sorry for those unenlightened folks who can never hope to match my intellect."

Also, it's "a lot."[/QUOTE]

"I am superior. In case you didn't know, check my catch phrase. I am a great at spelling and grammar and I certainly would like to tell you about it."

Seriously? Are you just teasing about writing a hasty sentence or are you willing to stand up for Rand Paul? Because I will certainly put on my grammar hat and spell check and go to war.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'].

Again, as has been pointed out by others, speedracer's idea of what makes a libertarian is very much confused with an anarchist.

Most libertarians believe that the government should not be there to dictate morals - so long as your lifestyle choices do not directly effect someone else. If I want to smoke, drink, cut myself, suck down some Lard Glug, pay (willing) people for sex, get gay-married, etc., etc - I should be able to do so... but the moment any one of those things has a direct effect on another individual's life, liberty or ability to pursue their own happiness, *that* is when the government should be available to get involved. If I want to smoke on your property, get so drunk that I drive my vehicle into your home or rape you, then the government (through a combination of the courts and through law enforcement) should be there to protect my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Speedracer doesn't get this. The more he posts, the more apparent that is.[/QUOTE]


that's why your my favorite uncle Bob.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Again, as has been pointed out by others, speedracer's idea of what makes a libertarian is very much confused with an anarchist.

Most libertarians believe that the government should not be there to dictate morals - so long as your lifestyle choices do not directly effect someone else. If I want to smoke, drink, cut myself, suck down some Lard Glug, pay (willing) people for sex, get gay-married, have an abortion, etc., etc - I should be able to do so... but the moment any one of those things has a direct effect on another individual's life, liberty or ability to pursue their own happiness, *that* is when the government should be available to get involved. If I want to smoke on your property, get so drunk that I drive my vehicle into your home or rape you, then the government (through a combination of the courts and through law enforcement) should be there to protect my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Speedracer doesn't get this. The more he posts, the more apparent that is.[/QUOTE]
Fixed that for you Bob. I even found a way to add more liberty to your libertarian.

And where was I arguing for no government at all? Have we broached economics, commerce, supremacy clauses, defense? I must have missed that. Silly me. I thought social decisions was but one facet of government and our lives. I'll try to keep it simple for you.

[quote name='UncleBob']So, in your idea of what a Libertarian paradise is, let's say there's a 10 year old girl. She wants to make her father happy. Her father wants to have sexual relations with her. It's all good, right?[/QUOTE]
In the interests of the simple, I guess I'll answer you after all Bob.

A libertarian would argue that because there is another party involved (and here's the important part, watch closely cause you might miss it) AND BECAUSE THAT PARTY IS MENTALLY UNABLE TO ENTER INTO A BINDING CONTRACT DUE TO AGE, that no, sex with minors should be illegal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']A libertarian would argue that because there is another party involved (and here's the important part, watch closely cause you might miss it) AND BECAUSE THAT PARTY IS MENTALLY UNABLE TO ENTER INTO A BINDING CONTRACT DUE TO AGE, that no, sex with minors should be illegal.[/QUOTE]

A libertarian who believes a fetus is a person would argue that since there is another party involved and that party is completely unable to enter into any kind of contract that, no, you can't murder the fetus.

Besides, why is a child "mentally unable to enter into a binding contract"? I mean, there are some really mature children out there. You're just pushing your morals down the throats of would-be pedophile fathers.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A libertarian who believes a fetus is a person would argue that since there is another party involved and that party is completely unable to enter into any kind of contract that, no, you can't murder the fetus.

Besides, why is a child "mentally unable to enter into a binding contract"? I mean, there are some really mature children out there. You're just pushing your morals down the throats of would-be pedophile fathers.[/QUOTE]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2903018788_a7c2b47961.jpg

2903018788_a7c2b47961.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A libertarian who believes a fetus is a person would argue that since there is another party involved and that party is completely unable to enter into any kind of contract that, no, you can't murder the fetus.[/quote]
I can't say it any plainer. For the hundredth time, a statistically significant portion of society fully disagrees. Unlike murder. Unlike a father fucking his child. Society as a whole is then faced with a choice: do we enforce the morality of one half of the population on the other half? A philosophically consistent libertarian faced with this choice will choose to let the individual choose for themselves what is right for them.

Period.

Why this is so easy to understand when we talk about drug use, gun ownership, etc. yet it turns into such an unfathomable position when we talk about abortion is beyond me. A very statistically significant part of the population abhors guns. A very statistically significant part of the population abhors drug use. And yet we clearly understand that even though Mr. Dirty Hippie Liberal would take every last gun and throw gun owners in jail if given the opportunity, we also understand that others feel differently and (libertarians would say that) we should err on the side of the individual choice.
Besides, why is a child "mentally unable to enter into a binding contract"? I mean, there are some really mature children out there. You're just pushing your morals down the throats of would-be pedophile fathers.
Click to expand...
And now you're arguing de facto anarchy and asking me to defend libertarianism from it? Try to pretend to keep position somewhat straight.
 
I'm sure there is a reason why the Libertarian party is considering running another candidate along with Ron Paul and the Democratic candidate.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I can't say it any plainer. For the hundredth time, a statistically significant portion of society fully disagrees. Unlike murder. Unlike a father fucking his child. Society as a whole is then faced with a choice: do we enforce the morality of one half of the population on the other half? A philosophically consistent libertarian faced with this choice will choose to let the individual choose for themselves what is right for them.[/quote]

I, personally, agree that it should be up to the individuals involved to choose.

All I'm saying is this - if you consider a fetus to be a person, then you are morally consistent with libertarian ideals to say that an individual should not be allowed to have an abortion - i.e.: terminate the life of another person.

Now, we can argue back and forth about if a fetus should be considered a person - but to someone who considers a fetus to be a person, you and I can't just pick and choose who counts as a person and who doesn't. It doesn't matter if a large chunk of the population doesn't consider a fetus a person. There was a time when a large chunk of the population didn't consider Native Americans and Africans to be people either. You can't just deprive them of life because you, personally, don't consider them a person (not you-you, but the general "you").

Period.

And now you're arguing de facto anarchy and asking me to defend libertarianism from it? Try to pretend to keep position somewhat straight.
Click to expand...

No, I'm trying to take a peek into your strange world that you consider to be a Libertarian Paradise.

Again, running under the idea that PersonX considers a fetus to be a person, what's the difference from a mother killing the fetus or the mother killing the baby?
 
[quote name='IRHari']I'm sure there is a reason why the Libertarian party is considering running another candidate along with Ron Paul and the Democratic candidate.[/QUOTE]

Because Libertarians are the living embodiment of "No True Scotsman"?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Because Libertarians are the living embodiment of "No True Scotsman"?[/QUOTE]

Why would a true Libertarian argue BP shouldn't be responsible for whatever damages occur from their oil leak?

I can get the whole argument about private companies refusing service to a specific group of people because damages are in the future.

However, I don't understand why an individual or corporation wouldn't be responsible for the damages occurring in the present.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Why would a true Libertarian argue BP shouldn't be responsible for whatever damages occur from their oil leak?

I can get the whole argument about private companies refusing service to a specific group of people because damages are in the future.

However, I don't understand why an individual or corporation wouldn't be responsible for the damages occurring in the present.[/QUOTE]

Libertarianism was always about protecting wealthy interests to the exclusion of almost every thing else.

Basically every other supposed tenet is window dressing when it comes to running interference for people who would let others shit in your drinking water for a dollar.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Libertarianism was always about protecting wealthy interests to the exclusion of almost every thing else.

Basically every other supposed tenet is window dressing when it comes to running interference for people who would let others shit in your drinking water for a dollar.[/QUOTE]

That is only libertarianism in practice. The theory is wholly different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top