The thing is, Rand actually is racist, but like most conservatives does his damndest to hide it, rationalizing it, "Oh, it's the restaurant's choice." Of course he'll never outright admit, "Yeah I'm a bigot, I hate everyone but the aryan race," but he'll support every piece of legislation that makes life for minorities harder.
Going for the "Gotcha" is right. Rand has no desire or plan to undo civil rights...BUT... The point is you cannot regulate the hearts and minds of people and a private owner should be able to choose who he does business with. I like my racists flaming and out in the open so I can avoid them. It would bother me to fund such ugliness and I suppose we have all unknowingly done so. On the whole civil rights was a huge plus but should have applied to public sector allowing private to be scum if so.
Why does it just have to be about blacks and gays?
I'm black, sure, but the Civil Rights Act is designed to protect EVERYONE that is discriminated against. This is includes African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, etc.
If a business doesn't want to serve black people, who cares? Its their business, they can choose to serve whoever they want. If a business refused to serve me, then fine, i'll take my business somewhere else. And I doubt it would be a problem anyway. If one business refused to serve blacks, its not like everyone is going to jump on the bandwagon and do the same thing. I'm sure that even whites would boycot that business being so idiotic and childish about who they serve.
@zoeleutheros If there is only one store, then its not a town. And if you have to drive to the next town to get your goods, then why would you live there anyway? Your argument is so stupid and illogical on so many levels its ironic that you're calling me dumb.
@onsaphi Funny thing about poor people is they don't have cars. And yes there are bumfuck places with only one grocery store and a gas station and a couple traffic lights. You know redneck places that tend to be redneck...And you're black and all of a sudden, you can't shop there...Think about situations like this and realize you're being narrow minded and naive.
@zoeleutheros Then where do they get their food from if they can't shop in the town they live in? Why would they be dumb enough to move to a town that won't serve them? And if they lived there before the business opened, then it makes no difference anyway. Think about what you're actually saying and realize that you make no sense.
@onsaphi You're very naive and your defense of this version of libertarian thought is just unwise and hilarious. You're being general and you're not willing to recognize that there are circumstances where this can seriously affect someone. Also you don't consider the historical and social context of this conversation, you know displacing and forcing people into a certain lifestyle, making them poor and with zero to little social mobility.
@zoeleutheros Let me clarify, and thanks for the ad hominem. By meaningful, I was referring to the nature of anti-"private" discrimination laws, which are applied at the federal level. Your situation applies to an exceptionally small (and continually shrinking) proportion of the American population (rural areas). To justify a national policy on the basis of what may happen in a highly specific setting is absurd. That is what I meant by "specific."
@jsgoodfella Okay, so wait, it's okay not to care about the rights of minorities or people of a numerical minority? We should only care about the majority? I could have sworn that Thomas Jefferson said something about the tyranny of the majority over minorities. But, hey, what do facts matter when you're talking to someone with his or her head up their ass. I will continue to attack both your character, your intelligence, and your dumb arguments.
This Zionist twat loves to put people against each other. White and blacks don't need laws that force integration upon them. If there's a bar/restaurant that denies black people to enter, blacks might as well avoid spending their money there. These are the same scare tactics that the biased media always resorts to. This is the year 2011, with mixed interracial couples everywhere, the racist card is getting old.
She was trying to get him to state plainly whether he would support the side of the private business or the minority in a clear case of business owner racism. He dodged the question through the entire interview, which can only mean he knows that his side would be politically disadvantaged to reveal it (gee, I wonder why?). A reasonable ideology knows when to drop certain agendas, but libertarianism just keeps on blazing through with pro-segregation ideas for the sake of purity.
Liberals are just retarded. Imagine what a huge business opportunity it would be for black or gay entrepreneurs, if mainstream businesses discriminated against them and they could respond by offering their products to niche, minority-only markets. Of course this would never happen anyway, because very few businesses above the mom and pop level would discriminate without very good reason.
Not being able to drop a sacred cow for the sake of ideological purity is retarded. Supporting segregation just to prove how much you believe in unfettered capitalism has no benefit to society, and it has no benefit to your ideology.
So in Capitalist Utopia, it's Rich Gay Men, Rich White Men and Rich Black men, all in neatly bordered parts of the city, because no one cares about the other 250 million Americans who just want equal treatment.
>>because very few businesses above the mom and pop level would discriminate without very good reason
It was the cultural standard for the last century. Where have you been? Businesses have and do discriminate. Big businesses have and do discriminate. It was accepted decades ago that a black man would NEVER be a CEO of a company. It took laws and cultural changes to make this end. We have improved, but it is stupid to say that segregation can never come back.
This dyke really tried hard to make him look bad ,but the fact is a private business is a private propriety.Much like your in your house,you decide who let in, and who to kick out.
>>but the fact is a private business is a private propriety.Much like your in your house
A private business is nothing like your house. They are both private properties, but that is where the comparison ends. A private business exists in the public domain to serve its interests. If it behaves in a way which is detrimental to society, that behavior must be stopped. Segregation is an excellent example of this and it amazes me that people forget it.
@kDest Of course.But it have to infringe on other people's rights,much like an individual person.Deciding who to let in and who to kick out from your business is not detrimental to society.
>>Deciding who to let in and who to kick out from your business is not detrimental to society.
What happens when people are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, nationality and sexuality? They act according to their irrational prejudices in a concerted effort to terrorize the numerically or politically weak members of society.
Giving business this power means that you will bring back segregation. It is detrimental to society.
Rand is for personal freedoms/CHOICES for everyone. You can try to say he is racist, but that's ignorant. He is basically saying "Go ahead and let a bussiness be racist, but it's thier fault when they go out of bussiness for being stupid" What's wrong with that? I'm sorry that I don't need the government to hold my hand and tell me what is right or wrong. It's not like the guy is saying he wants seperate water fountains, he is saying let private bussinesses make thier own choices.
"Give a knife to a psychotic killer and release him onto the streets. It's his fault if he kills, and we have police standing by to catch him."
"Put a Methamphetamine drug stand right next to a high school. It's their fault if they take a hit and start acting disruptive to the other students. The offenders will be expelled."
If you put any thought to it, it's clear that giving businesses the power to discriminate can only harm society, with no benefits.
What did I say about legalizing meth or giving knives to psychotic killers? Don't strawman me. I'm talking about a private corporation being able to pick who they want to give thier business to. You are fearmongering right now, you're saying that because of those RIDICULOUS scenarios a private business shouldn't have that right. It's up to the people to boycott the racist jerks, not the government. As soon as you let the government make your moral decisions you fail as an American.
Those were not straw-men. They were parodies of your reasoning, which is essentially, "Give unchecked power to businesses to affect society nationwide at the whims of their bigotry. What could possibly go wrong? If something does, we'll clean it up AFTER THE FACT."
>>It's up to the people to boycott the racist jerks, not the government
It is government's duty to police business for requirements of fairness, safety and well-being to the rest of society.
You just strawmanned me again. I never said "Give unchecked power to businesses to affect society nationwide at the whims of thier bigotry...we can clean it up after the fact". I am stating that a PRIVATE business has the right to accept certain people and decline certain people. If you don't like it, go to another one and they will miss out on money. The Government is here to make and enforce laws, not regulate personal choices (unless the people demand it, like the 1960s).
Yes you did. You said that businesses should have the power to discriminate. That is power which is unregulated, in other words, unchecked.
>>I am stating that a PRIVATE business has the right to accept certain people and decline certain people
They do NOT have the right to segregate society. Segregation is not a matter of merely choosing customers. It is about shaping society in fear-based ways.
>>As soon as you let the government make your moral decisions you fail as an American
So should we decriminalize child slavery and prostitution now? What makes these values reprehensible enough to you that you support government's duty in protecting society from them, but you are willing to subject society to the horrors of segregation all over again?
Don't give me "freedom," because besides ignoring the "freedom" of men to be treated equal, raping society is not a freedom.
The People demanded it and the Government gave it just like it should be. What the hell is up with you pegging me as some monster? Legalize child slavery? What the fuck, when did I say this? I'm about done with this man. I can't debate you if you're going to piss on my character like that everytime I try to retort.
Business discrimination is decentralized, because it isn't ONE business that does it, but hundreds of them. Minorities are numerically and usually economically disadvantaged to affect change directly. It is segregation all over again.
>>I can't debate you if you're going to piss on my character like that everytime I try to retort
What, are you used to callous indifference? You just said that you want businesses to be able to segregate us. You deserve every bit of scorn.
If you disapprove of child slavery (I assume you do because just about no one does), and approve of government's efforts to stop it, then you acknowledge that there are problems with society which require state intervention and protesting is insufficient for because protests happen AFTER the problem has occurred. Why would you consider segregation to be a lesser evil to society than slavery (for example)? Is that clear enough for you?
No, because we aren't talking about fucking civil rights. We are simply talking about WHO a PRIVATE business can accept. I wasn't saying they can enforce child slavery, or any inhumane shit...I am stating that if they don't want to give someone business...they don't have to.
>>No, because we aren't talking about fucking civil rights.
Are you telling me that there is a disconnect in your mind where, if businesses were suddenly allowed to be as bigoted as they wanted, you cannot associate this with the obvious consequence being a society flooded with privately enforced racial segregation? Does it not register in your mind that the definition of a minority is inferior population? That this combined with associated poverty means little bargaining power.
Do you also not understand that there is a latent bias in perception of prejudice in favored groups? Because they are not discriminated against, they cannot empathize to a degree, and are oblivious to its presence, or severely underestimate its incidence.
I assume you are of an ethnic majority. Try going somewhere where you are completely alien and experience how intimidating that is. Then remember you are protected by laws. Imagine being alien all the time without those laws.
I'm white, yes. Do you know that the 14th Amendment forbids discrimination of color or race. I don't empathy, I assume you are Korean since your profile says so, but I grew up in California and now live in Indiana. While I know this isn't switching countries, I have been hounded for being a liberal, even threatend and beaten up a couple times to be honest. I still stand buy that a private business has the right to who they give business to, this is why we also have public businesses.
>>Do you know that the 14th Amendment forbids discrimination of color or race
Yes. It was a landmark. Why should the state be prohibited from discrimination on basis of color and race if private business shouldn't?
>>I assume you are Korean
Actually, I was trying to see what Youtube looked like from the North Korean location settings years ago. Since Youtube self-censors based on country, I thought it would show nothing. Since then I forget how I changed it. I am mixed.
>>I have been hounded for being a liberal, even threatend and beaten up a couple times to be honest
For anyone to know that though, you need to open your mouth and espouse ideas. Imagine if everyone always knew, irrespective of this. Your potential employers, people you meet, businesses, etc. Then imagine that those latent hostile attitudes existed still, and your only allies are a small circle in society. Everything you work for requires double or triple the effort.
Because when people see you, they don't know you. They know only their preconceptions based on others who LOOK like you, and they are afraid of you. Now you struggle hard every day and happen to live in a generation that will usher in civil rights. Your struggle seems nearly over, but you hear people on national radio talk about the freedom of people to treat you unfairly. They never once talk about YOUR concerns. What about YOUR freedom to be treated equally? Doesn't that matter?
>>I still stand buy that a private business has the right to who they give business to
No one ever denied them that right. What was denied was their ability to act irrationally to the detriment of society. Because when you are a minority, you are often invisible and fear surrounds your image. It is not a classical liberal ideal to defend property over human or social welfare. That is why libertarianism is not liberal. Egalitarianism is a core classical liberal ideal.
You think because I believe people have a right to thier own property (funny you say how that is a right wing stance, seeing as that's the basic ideal of communism) I am somehow advocating hurdles for minorities? It's not a detriment to society in the least, it's letting people do what they want to do. I know for a fact if a store opened up right now and said "No special needs people allowed" that store would be closed within the month, because the people won't give it business.
It isn't happenstance. One makes the other possible. Like if you defend the definition of property which includes people, then you make slavery possible, even if you never intended it. If you give property owners complete power over their domain, abuses will happen. The art of society is balancing the needs of the individual with the welfare of the group. Society cannot exist as disassociated individuals. It requires cooperation.
It was the foundation of segregation pre-1964. Property owners were given full permission to act within their conscience, and they did so: ruthlessly enforcing their prejudices by keeping coloreds in a separate class of society. The laws of segregation simply reflected the prejudices of the people. Even without those laws, segregation would have existed, just without the "separate but equal" quality.
>>I know for a fact if a store opened up right now and said "No special needs people allowed" that store would be closed within the month, because the people won't give it business
You're naive. You don't understand the deep currents of prejudice in our society because you are the majority race and culture. It still exists everywhere, just look at the Obama Muslim myths. They want to call him a nigger but Muslim is the safe word. We need these laws to keep these people restrained.
Your profile says you live in Korea, if that is true than you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not naive, everybody in the world isn't racist like you think.
Read further down the comments. I already explained about that. Besides, it doesn't matter what I know from experience. The Obama example I gave is more than sufficient as an example.
>>I'm not naive.
You cannot help but experience a distorted view of racism because you are in the majority and thus do not experience the actions of your race towards outsiders. Your intuition on the matter is born from a privileged experience of life.
Oh fuck you, my mother used to hit me with alcohol bottles as a kid, she would beat the shit out of me until she finally died from her liver going out. I don't have a "pivileged" experience, It seems to me that you are being the racist one assuming that just because I am white I live in a three story house with a dog named Sparky and was handed all of my accomplishments in life. America isn't divided by race, they are divided by class. You are either poor, rich, or richer here.
You clearly misunderstand the difference between family experience and societal experience.
>>It seems to me that you are being the racist one assuming that just because I am white I live in a three story house with a dog named Sparky and was handed all of my accomplishments in life
You understood nothing of what I said the last several replies. Nevermind it. I'm done replying to you, the gulf between us is too great for you.
Societal experience? Please, tell me where i've had it easier than others because of my race. Apparently i'm just a freaking winner because i'm white. Again, America is divided by class, not race. If anything, affirmative action (a law specifically forbidding a person to hire someone based on skin color, it also means businesses have to have a "quota" of other races) makes it harder for a white male to get a job. I think your gulf is too wide, this isn't a nation of bigots.
You're wasting words. I'm done having this exchange with you. I made my position and its justifications abundantly clear but you seem unable to understand them. It is a waste of my time to repeat myself.
It is only a dark skinned guy can speak this truth.That was the mistake Rand Paul made a lot of these people have not learned to look besides skin colour.So as a strong independent black man if any man wheter white or black chooses with his own property not to trade with me then fine I am not a weak dependent wimp.The Truth is clear to all those who wish to put race aside annd see a man as a man.No man no matter what shade he is has a right to another man's property that is common sense
Voltaire a great enlightenment thinker said " I may dissaproveof what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it "
I am dark skinned I hate the idea that somebody is going to discriminate when it comes to anything when dealing with trading their property.But it is still their property and their rights.I mean I do not know one strong black man who is going to force peo[;e to provide a service of their own property that they do not want to only dependent wimps do that
Liberal do-gooders think that laws will end all that is bad in the country. It is so inconvenient when the reality is that laws are not effective and sometimes have the reverse effect and many unintended consequences. Rachel has major issues talking with people smarter than her. Rand Paul owned her even after the ridiculous ambush and setup she led him with.
@UBSCARED: The point you are missing is that there is a difference between what rights are and what is legislated or done by government. During World War II the government rounded up Japanese CITIZENS and put them in internment camps. Rights? Nah. The government isn't the creator of your rights so naming this act or that act is pointless. Neither is the government in the business of protecting your rights. If it was, it wouldn't have enslaved you with a fraudulent monetary system.
A private business is no different than a person's private home. It is the individual owner's right to invite in or exclude anyone they wish for any reason. The media wants to make this about race so they can create president for more intrusion into our personal lives. Racism is largely a creation of the media as a divisionary tactic. We are all one people. The days of these deceptions are nearing an end. Soon, everything once hidden shall be revealed.
@VoteLib3rty No it's not. A business is located in a commercial zone. A home is in a residential home. Furthermore, seeing as how hotels and restaurants are located in zones where folks from all over travel, the federal government can regulate them under the commerce clause. On the other hand, a person's residence is not designed to make a profit. It is a person's dwelling. Huge difference between the two
@cabalofdemons This isn't an issue of zoning or of perversions of intent in the commerce clause of the constitution. The issue at hand are the rights of the individual. Groups don't have rights - only individuals have rights. People have been intentionally mislead to believe the former although it is a complete fallacy. Governments don't have rights, blacks don't have rights, gays don't have rights, women don't have rights, whites don't have rights - INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS.
@VoteLib3rty and all of those you listed are individuals. You essentially bash your own argument. If I asked if you believe a restaurant should not serve a black person and you said yes, then you are in fact ok with a person's civil rights being violated. And actually groups of people can sue if their interests are similar and single suits would be too much of a burden. Haven't you heard of a class action suit?
If there is a sign [ White will not be served ] it will be bombed into pieces. That is the liberty I understand in this country, right? Let's see how true it can be of our civil rights.
@ashane77 I understand that Rand Paul is probably not a racist, but I think his philosophy on this issue indirectly encourages segregation. Even if you argue that his views are "pro-liberty", I see nothing beneficial resulting from this. It's not fair to say black people have just as much of a right to be discriminatory. Blacks are the minority, white people are definitely at an advantage in that case.
I don't want to outlaw discrimination, I want to prevent segregation and promote equality.
Rand "indirectly encourages segregation"...? How? By saying that he thinks racism is horrible? By saying he believes in the right to freely associate? So what if YOU see "nothing beneficial" from being FREE to associate however you choose...it doesn't give you a right to point guns at people in order to make them do what YOU think is "right".
I just can't understand how hung up people are on "black" VS "white"...in many ways we haven't progressed a bit...
@ashane77 an aggressive infringement on their rights. Therefore I do not consider it to be their "liberty".
And we're not "pointing guns at people to make them do the right thing". We're simply saying, if you want to have a business in America, you have to provide equality of opportunity for your workers and your costumers. And I don't think that's too much to ask.
@pdaniels9000...property isn't an infringement on their person/property. An action you don't like isn't an infringement just because you don't like it.
Any time you set govt rules on a business you are 100% POINTING GUNS at people. They follow the laws (whether reasonable or not) or men w/guns come and shut them down...if they resist they're shot. Period.
I don't think its too much to ask to let people be free to associate w/whoever they choose to.
@ashane77 community regardless of their race, gender, or creed. I don't think of this issue strictly on the basis of property because I think it is of greater importance. It is about integration.
I don't think the government would shoot a businessman for refusing to allow blacks in his business. I think they would just sue him or shut his business down. Besides, it's even worse (in my opinion) for a businessman to use community police to enforce racist policies towards minorities at gunpoint.
Whatever way you want to frame it, the CRA is backed up by the threat of force or outright force if necessary. BOTH of the tools of coercion you mentioned (suing and shuttering a business) necessarily require the use of force. You go to court or men w/guns come to get you...you shut down your business or men w/guns come to get you.
Again, racism has zero to do with the freedom to associate w/whoever you want.
Are you saying you have the right to deny people this freedom?
@ashane77 I don't think people are "free" to deny equal service/opportunity to people based on race. That's just not what freedom is about to me. And you can call it whatever you want (force, aggression, coercion, whatever). I think that these acts are necessary if you want to live in a country where their is equal opportunity.
You should also think about this from the viewpoint of minorities. Should they be denied equal opportunity simply because they were born with a different skin color?
@ashane77 Maybe you're thinking about this issue to simplistically. The question of race-relations is not black and white (no pun intended). It's not fair to say "you're for freedom or you're not". Everybody defines freedom differently than other people. In this situation, you seem to think freedom comes from the right to discriminate, I think freedom means allowing individuals the right to be part of their own community.
You can be racist in your own life, but can't force it on the community.
Contrary to what you think you're saying, YOU'RE the one trying to impose his will "on the community".
You still didn't define "community" and you still didn't say whether you think people have the right to free association or not.
You're saying individuals can be racist, but that they can't be allowed express that racism--which, effectively, means you think you have the right to use force to make other people behave the way you want them to.
@ashane77 No, I'm trying to make sure that everybody in the community has equal treatment before the law, just as the 14th amendment guarantees. If a businessman tries to open a business in a community (a group of people living in a local area) and wants to benefit from the community, he has an obligation to treat each person fairly as long as they are not disrupting his business. I do think people have the right to freely associate with whomever. But I think when you are running a facility...
You need to stop making artificial distinctions between human actions that occur in different situations. You're saying I can be racist w/i the confines of my own home--that's fine and "legal", but somehow, while I'm in my own personal business this SAME action become "illegal"...why? I can boot people out for not wearing a t-shirt or for being obnoxious or otherwise offensive (say a KKK dude w/a white sheet over his head)...but not because I don't like their skin color? Dumb.
@ashane77 Your home and your business are different. When you own a business you benefit from the community greatly. The community gives you money (profits) for your service, they pay taxes so you can have police protection, and they give you the license to open in their area. Why should you benefit so greatly from society when you're going to turn around and prohibit people simply because of something they were born with (you can help wearing a KKK suit, you can't help being black).
I'm not thinking about this too simplistically...YOU'RE over-complicating the matter and losing sight of the underlying principles involved.
Leave race (an artificial distinction between people to begin with) out of this for a change and imagine a business owner and customer either choosing to do business w/each other or not. It happens all the time for a variety of reasons.
@ashane77 that is mutually beneficial with the community, you can't pick and choose who gets to benefit and who doesn't.
I understand that business owners have to make decisions as to who they get to hire. And if a business owner wants to discriminate solely for a legitimate business reason that is fine. But it is illegal to purposefully cut someone off from opportunity simply because you have a problem with their race!
I don't give the slightest shit what the govt says is "legal" or not..."legal" is not the same thing as "right"...it was "legal" for whites to own blacks at one time. Its "legal" for people like George Bush to start wars and kill 10's of thousands of people. We need to think for ourselves, not let aholes in govt impose "legalities" at gunpoint.
Again, dude, it comes down to applying principles consistently and universally: you either believe in free association or not...simple
@ashane77 If a business owner is telling a black guy to get the fuck out of his store or he'll call the police, I'd say that's forceful and aggressive. If you allow this kind of act to go unpunished, it makes minorities uncomfortable because they never know when they might feel unwelcome in their own community. I'm guessing you're white, so you probably don't know how that feels given that you're a majority. It may be forceful, but I think somethings are worth fighting for (racial intolerance).
Telling a trespasser to get off of YOUR property isn't "forceful and aggressive"...remember, you can't label something as "force" just because you don't like it.
No one has a right to not feel "uncomfortable"...sorry...
You, personally, don't fight for anything. You just want the govt to impose your idea of morality on others--just like the Religious Right.
Oh, and I'm of mixed race and have probably dealt w/more racism than you ever will from whites AND non-whites.
@ashane77 Hey man, I just believe in civil rights because I believe in humanity. Now, I have studied the civil rights movement and understand (at least partly) the sacrifice that Rosa Parks, MLK, and others made so that they could truly become Americans (not African-Americans; Americans). And so that they didn't have to sit on the back of the bus, or pick up their dinner from the back of the kitchen.
You cannot compare me to the religious right because they aim to impose an arbitrary doctrine
Yours IS an arbitrary doctrine based on nothing but violence. "Do business w/this person or I'll kill you." "Hire this person or I'll kill you." That's what you're saying.
Why are YOU so adamant about imposing your will on others through violence? Again, I couldn't care less about what arbitrary words written on paper by political elitists says (constitution).
@ashane77 I'm not talking about building reservations or projects. And I agree that there are many frivolous civil rights law suits. But mainly, I want to allow minorities the same political and civil freedoms that all Americans enjoy. This means no discrimination in housing, employment, voting, commercial service, or police protection. I'm not hung up on their skin color, but other people are and I don't think it's fair to minorities.
Where are you getting this "advocating violence" bullshit
No, you want to give so-called 'minorities' rights that no one else has. A white guy walks into a white-owned est. and is told to leave...no problem. A black dude does the same and is told to leave and its a big whoop. What 'conspiracy'? Look up the quote...LBJ was a racist bastard. Its no different than the GOP pandering to religious people. AGAIN: ALL laws are backed up by violence. Being pro-govt intervention IS being pro-violence, for the most part.
I understand there are stores that minorities can go to all the time. I just don't think, anybody has the legal power to divide a community on racial terms.
Keep in mind that I don't think you or Rand Paul is racist or anything. I just think you need to consider the practical implications of this kind of a policy (that's all). Thank you for the conversation.
@ashane77 (just because they were born a certain way). That's not fair.
I know black people would have places to sleep and eat without the CRA. But I just disagree with the notion that black people, or white people, or any certain race of people can be restricted from equal access to the same things.
@pdaniels9000 None other than the popular old-time Leftist George McGovern came to realize that govt regulation of business was bad for everyone--esp. the working poor that so many liberals think they're helping by enacting legislation which few of them stop to consider the ramifications of. Google "george mcgovern bed and breakfast". McGovern opened a B&B and was shocked to see how difficult the regs that people like HIM passed made it to do business. It went bankrupt.
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
Only the VERY naive and uninformed think the CRA was passed out of compassion for the plight of the poor negro...the VERY SAME congress sent 1000's of them--and other 'minorities' and poor whites--to die (along w/a million+ Vietnamese) in Vietnam for nothing.
It, like everything else they do, was to get more power and buy more votes from dumb people.
You come off like a PC, white-guilt having, suburbanite who has probably never even seen a real, live, 'minority'...let go of the guilt...step into the 21st century...stop letting the Maddow's of the world do your thinking for you...
White liberals/Democrats are just about the stupidest people on the face of the Earth...so naive to think 'minorities' give a shit about them!
In California 65% of blacks voted against gay marriage and y'all acted surprised!
@ashane77 on people that is based on the teachings of some 5000-year-old book. I want policies that promote justice and that many brave young men and women fought for in the 1950s and 1960s through civil disobedience.
Oh and by the way, civil rights are constitutional (look at the 14th amendment). I don't know why you are so adamant about allowing the perpetuation of racism in America. Why do you care so much???
Have you seen some of the retarded lawsuits that've come about because of the CRA, and all the waste its caused?
Look at two of the groups the fedgovt has 'helped' the most: blacks and Indians. Ever been to a reservation or a project? I have, and believe me its not a pretty sight.
Why are you libs so hung up on the color of someone's skin? Its nothing more than pandering to 'minorities' to get votes, isn't it?
@ashane77 ? Every time it's something new and made-up with you.
And you can believe what you want about the Democrats. The fact is that Martin Luther King (the father of the civil rights movement) marched on Washington for this very type of legislation. Are you telling me the MLK was in on this conspiracy too?
FYI, I believe all people are entitled to equal freedom too. However, just because a VERY FEW might do things we don't agree with doesn't mean freedom is a bad thing.
You never did answer me why 'minority' businesses don't all fail since whites aren't required to patronize them...
Also, you never did resolve your contradictory position of saying people have the right to freely associate while also saying they can't discriminate in many instances.
@ashane77 I believe in freedom of association to a point. For example, I don't think people should be able to freely associate with gangs, or terrorist organizations because I believe these are institutions which are destructive and dangerous to society. What I'm saying is, one can freely associate as long as their behavior is not unnecessarily oppressive or discriminatory in nature.
You can be as racist as you want in your personal life, but I think that how you run a business is related to the
Sorry, but we're not talking about "terrorists" and "gangs".
We're talking about someone in THEIR store deciding who they want to do business with.
Actually, I don't think YOU understand the practical implications of the CRA of 1964...specifically the freedom-crushing aspects, counterproductive legal ramifications, and economic waste.
All you see is "black people get to shop and work wherever they want!"...
@ashane77 If those store owners are participating in discrimination, they are excluding a race of people from the community. When I say "practical implications" I mean what if a town has a culture of racism? And there are plenty of towns and cities in America with white majorities that have a tendency to be discriminatory. If you let the business owners of those town's prohibit minorities from service, they are essentially excluding certain racial minorities from being part of the community...
IMHO you're letting your fears get in the way of reality. Would some people discriminate w/o the CRA? Probably a few. However, how do we know people discriminate now? No one is putting up signs saying "n*gger stay out", are they? This puts the govt and courts in a position of having to, effectively, read minds. Not a good thing.
@ashane77 Well I think when racist people get fed up with the CRA policies, often times they commit hate crimes. If a bar owner tells a black person to leave for being black and he doesn't, the bar owner can't call the cops to take him away. He would have to resort to violence (that's a hate crime).
And I don't know if you agree with hate crime legislation, but the intent is to keep certain individuals from intimidating another group from assimilating into a community.
So-called hate crimes scare the crap out of me. It punishes people, not for their actions, but for "improper" thinking--which opens a big, old can of worms. Now, you may think thats a good thing when it comes to crimes committed for racist purposes, but its incredibly narrow/short-minded to ignore the very dangerous road this leadsl down. Its great when 'your' side has the political advantage, but not so great when it doesn't. Have you heard of the Missouri MIAC report?
@ashane77 I don't think any political group that advocates hateful violence or destruction of the state should be legal, whether it's right- or left-wing. These groups are anti-democracy because what's the point in democracy if someone can just dismantle the government. And I think we need to stop these groups before they commit violent crimes (we can't wait for something to happen and then start arresting people.)
But if people want to be in an anti-war or anti-government group, fine. But...
@pdaniels9000 The MIAC report comes scarily close to making unapproved political groups illegal. In this instance it was "right-wing", "militia", "anti-govt extremist" groups that were targeted. However, when Republicans/conservatives get back into power it could easily be antiwar and other "leftist" people who're targeted. IMO, this is where "hate" crimes legislation (which I would label "thought" crimes) leads to. And, things like the CRA (govt mind-reading) helped get us to this point.
Yes, only govt can conspire and commit acts of terrorism...no one seems to have a problem with that, do they?
And, there is a BIG difference between a political organization and a terrorist one. I believe that MIAC even targeted people who assert a belief in the CONSTITUTION as potential terrorists.
My main point, however, was to illustrate how dangerous it is to start criminalizing "improper thinking".
@ashane77 at least with the government, the people have some kind of control. If it's a "private" terrorist group then there's no oversight for what they're doing.
It's not criminalizing "improper thinking". It's saying, you can be hateful, but you can't legally act or plan to act on those beliefs with violence.
I believe in civil liberties, and MIAC sounds like an infringement of freedom. But governments have been doing that stuff for centuries, it didn't just start happening after hate crimes.
Ha! What control do you have over govt? Compare what govts do (wars, genocide, etc.) to what "private terrorists" do!
There are ALREADY laws that prohibit things like assault and murder/killing..."hate" crimes make improper THINKING a crime--it is an ADDITIONAL crime tacked onto things like assault.
You may SAY you believe in "civil" liberties (why not just plain LIBERTY?), but you don't, really...you believe in SOME people's "civil" liberties, but not other people's.
Do you ever feel like a sane person locked up in a mental ward...kind of how it feels to be a libertarian in a world dominated by liberals-conservatives, isn't it?
@ashane77 I have control over my government because I can vote and I can join political groups. I agree that the government can be corrupt and make bad decisions, but we need MORE control over government, not less. You libertarians think the solution is to dismantle the government, but that's only going to put more control in the hands of power hungry people and leave you with less choice.
Hate crimes are to prevent racially inspired crimes. If you burn someone's lawn, you go to jail for arson.
No, power-hungry people LOVE govt. Look at DC and State Capitols...swarming w/lobbyists representing the power-hungry.
Its taken me a long time to arrive where I have, and I would've considered myself a socialist or liberal at one time...actually a sort of "liberal neocon".
Voting is the illusion of control. I won't say its IMPOSSIBLE to change things through voting, but the kind of people we'd have to elect to effect actual change are always "too radical" for most to support.
I do kind of consider myself a "libertarian" (I'm not the least bit ashamed of being extremely pro-liberty), but a better term I've heard used is "voluntaryist".
My idea of a "libertarian" is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
These ideas are ones that almost EVERYONE agrees with in principle and on a one-to-one basis, but unfortunately, aren't applied consistently on a universal scale.
I can't be too mad at you because I WAS you once upon a time.
@ashane77 But if you burn a cross on their lawn, you're telling them "get out of our neighborhood, we don't want you here!" How can you not see the difference in the severity of those two crimes?
Throwing around the word "liberty" can be used to justify lots of things which are actually tyrannical in nature. Slave owners in the south thought the Confederates were fighting for their "liberty" to own slaves. Never mind that they were undermining the liberty of the slaves themselves.
The Confederacy and mis-named Civil War (it wasn't a civil war, but a revolutionary one) are a WHOLE OTHER topic that is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more complicated and nuanced than what we're all taught in govt schools.
Suffice to say that the winner always writes history to make himself look like the hero. The War For Southern Independence/War Of Northern Aggression/War Of Federal Consolidation is no different.
@SugarySweet100 Well I think it's unwise to label yourself anything politically. I think anybody who makes up their mind before they hear an issue, or tries to justify a handful of values, isn't thinking clearly.
I know all about the Non-Aggression Principle. Did you happen to read the three different kinds of criticisms of the principle? Consequentialist, inconsistency, and ambiguity.
@SugarySweet100 No. I'm not a liberal, nor a conservative, nor a libertarian. I have my own beliefs about the world regardless of some bullshit political label. You have to define what you mean by "freedom". Would blacks have the "freedom" to live in whatever community they'd like in Rand Paul's world? Absolutely not. So really, Rand Paul actually favors "his freedom and the freedom of those he likes", and not of other people.
I can't answer for SS100, but someone burning a cross on ANYONE'S yard (black OR white) is NOT acceptable because its an encroachment. Just because SOME people choose to exercise freedom irresponsibly doesn't mean FREEDOM is bad, just SOME people.
As far as "blacks" (really, dude, you need to stop focusing so much on race) not being able to live wherever they want...NO ONE can "live wherever they want"! I'd LOVE to live in a mansion in Hollywood...but I'm not mega-rich!
@SugarySweet100 I'm not talking about economic inequality. I'm talking about racial inequality. If a black man (or white guy, or hispanic; just using an example) wants to live in a neighborhood and can afford to buy a house there, what if the neighbors don't want him because of his race? I don't think they should be able to legally intimidate that person away and I think that if they try to, they should be punished for it.
There are retirement communities where people under a certain age can't live. There are places where people w/pets can't live. There are people who won't rent to people w/small children. So, you see, many forms of discrimination exist NOW, and we get by just fine. In a free world any manner of options would exist up to, and including (though I REALLY DOUBT it'd be the case) racial discrimination in housing.
@SugarySweet100 Well, I think there are certain types of discrimination allowed. If it makes sense from a business perspective and isn't clearly aimed at oppressing a certain group then, yes it's fine. It's kind of like when women have to take care of their baby so they make less money for working less hours. You shouldn't be financially compensated just because YOU wanted to have a baby and took the time out of work.
@pdaniels9000To read a brief, fair, and accurate critique of the CRA google"the civil rights laws and the growth of government" by Harry Browne.Much legislation is passed--at least w/the support of non-politicians--w/good intentions. IMHO, ulterior motives usually exist on the part of the politicians and there are almost always special-interests who have a hand in writing is for their own good.We know which road is paved w/good intentions, though, don't we? Few consider unintended consequences.
@pdaniels9000 Ask yourself, who can more easily comply w/the reams of regs and deal w/the steep fines imposed for non-compliance w/laws and regs that are EXTREMELY hard to understand or even know in the first place? A big corp. or a mom-and-pop? Do you think this puts the little guy out of business so that a corp can gain market-share? Who pays the price, ultimately, for outrageous legal awards levied against corps and govt for non-compliance? The consumer/taxpayer--me and you.Who benefits?
If you're worried about "discrimination" why not force EVERY business owner to cater to EVERYONE who goes into his store? Why not force them to hire EVERY applicant who applies for a job?
What if a white store owner refuses to sell to white people? Is THAT ok? How about a black one refusing service to other blacks? Is THAT ok?
What if every grocery store refuses to sell to ANYONE...why, we'll ALL STARVE!!! We need to pass a law, I tell you, that MAKES them serve everyone!
If whites were as racist as you make them out to be, no 'minority' store in a non-minority "community" (whatever that is) would ever make it, since no laws exist that force white CONSUMERS to give them their business.
Kind of blows your little theory to smithereens, doesn't it?
Or, maybe we need another law that FORCES whites to shop at 'minority' shops...?
@ashane77 Yes, PEOPLE should be allowed to discriminate; not communities. Given that blacks are 10% of the population and whites are about 60%, if you allow this policy to go through, there will be more places that blacks are restricted from and less places that whites are. This is textbook segregation.
Freedom means that you can do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. I would say a businessman using police to keep black people from coming to his restaurant to be
What are communities made up of? PEOPLE. If people have the right to discriminate individually, how can they not have the same right collectively?
You're acting as if a real possibility exists that 100% of white people are gonna turn into hardcore racists if the CRA of 1964 disappears.
You have a very strange understanding of "rights" and "infringements" thereof. An infringement is an actual trespass on another's person/property. Telling someone they aren't welcome on your...
@ashane77 Communities DO NOT have a right to discriminate because communities are supposed to represent the people within them. Let's say a community of 90% whites and 10% blacks has an unwritten rule that blacks should not eat in the same restaurants as whites (i.e. it's bad for business). That would mean that the 10% of black people would not have a place or would not feel welcome in the community, which I think is a violation of their civil rights. Everybody deserves to be part of a...
First you say individuals have the right to discriminate then contradict yourself by saying communities (which are, as I said, comprised of INDIVIDUALS). Which is it? Do individuals have this right, or not, or are you saying communities (what IS a "community" in your mind? A neighborhood block, a town, county, state, nation, is it the entire world, what?) AREN'T made up of individuals?
And, you're not living in reality if you think all white people are closet ultra-racists.
@ashane77 Individuals and communities are different: Individual associations/actions do not affect others. However, community associations/actions affect everybody in the community. In my mind a community is a broad collection of people varying in population and geographical size (a town, a state, a country, etc)
I don't think all white people are "closet ultra-racists" but I do think people are prone to being hateful. And when you have a majority, that hate can easily turn into segregation.
Even though I consider myself to be a conservative, I occasionally appreciated the Rachel Maddow Show before she turned into a total corporate whore. She's intelligent enough to understand Rand Paul's adhesion to libertarian principles regarding personal freedom and government-sponsored racism. It makes me laugh to see her attempt to discredit him fail so miserably. Fuck MSNBC!
Yeah, I can't get over these liberal/Dems coming on here and trying to make a serious case that Rand is "racist"...like Maddow's over-simplification of a very complex topic by framing it as a "yes" or "no" question is serious journalism...insane
I used to have a lot more respect for Maddow until she turned into a corporate whore. It's obvious to anyone who isn't a political novice that Paul was speaking from a staunch libertarian / constitutional perspective, and not as a racist. She stated that his initial announcement was "politically pleasant" and then set him up by spinning his comments in attempt to ruin his campaign and give Conway the upper hand.
Well, when he was taking on the Republican Establishment Rand was a good guy to Maddow...once he became part of it, he instantly became her enemy since its her job to promote liberals/Democrats...
God, he weasels like a wimp.
stew3128561 2 days ago
The thing is, Rand actually is racist, but like most conservatives does his damndest to hide it, rationalizing it, "Oh, it's the restaurant's choice." Of course he'll never outright admit, "Yeah I'm a bigot, I hate everyone but the aryan race," but he'll support every piece of legislation that makes life for minorities harder.
Chorlomis 1 week ago
maddow a lesbo zionist trash.
glower125 2 weeks ago
Going for the "Gotcha" is right. Rand has no desire or plan to undo civil rights...BUT... The point is you cannot regulate the hearts and minds of people and a private owner should be able to choose who he does business with. I like my racists flaming and out in the open so I can avoid them. It would bother me to fund such ugliness and I suppose we have all unknowingly done so. On the whole civil rights was a huge plus but should have applied to public sector allowing private to be scum if so.
ericr64 1 month ago
Why does it just have to be about blacks and gays?
I'm black, sure, but the Civil Rights Act is designed to protect EVERYONE that is discriminated against. This is includes African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, etc.
RBG02005 1 month ago
@MrBloodyTampons "Farts in your face"? Hey "Mr bloody tampons"-- Please die. : )
brianbela 2 months ago
agree or disagree with Paul, this isn't extreme in Libertarian circles. Rachel shows pretty poor form... this is demagoguing at its worst
2damico2 2 months ago
Rand Paul is a "tea bagger",and a racist,just like his daddy. And he's pro corporate all the way.
brianbela 2 months ago
@brianbela and you must a zionist gentle hating jew.
glower125 2 weeks ago
If a business doesn't want to serve black people, who cares? Its their business, they can choose to serve whoever they want. If a business refused to serve me, then fine, i'll take my business somewhere else. And I doubt it would be a problem anyway. If one business refused to serve blacks, its not like everyone is going to jump on the bandwagon and do the same thing. I'm sure that even whites would boycot that business being so idiotic and childish about who they serve.
onsaphi 2 months ago 2
@onsaphi What if you live in a small town with only one store? You dumb, naive asshole.
zoeleutheros 2 months ago
@zoeleutheros If there is only one store, then its not a town. And if you have to drive to the next town to get your goods, then why would you live there anyway? Your argument is so stupid and illogical on so many levels its ironic that you're calling me dumb.
onsaphi 2 months ago
@onsaphi Funny thing about poor people is they don't have cars. And yes there are bumfuck places with only one grocery store and a gas station and a couple traffic lights. You know redneck places that tend to be redneck...And you're black and all of a sudden, you can't shop there...Think about situations like this and realize you're being narrow minded and naive.
zoeleutheros 2 months ago
@zoeleutheros Then where do they get their food from if they can't shop in the town they live in? Why would they be dumb enough to move to a town that won't serve them? And if they lived there before the business opened, then it makes no difference anyway. Think about what you're actually saying and realize that you make no sense.
onsaphi 2 months ago
@onsaphi You're very naive and your defense of this version of libertarian thought is just unwise and hilarious. You're being general and you're not willing to recognize that there are circumstances where this can seriously affect someone. Also you don't consider the historical and social context of this conversation, you know displacing and forcing people into a certain lifestyle, making them poor and with zero to little social mobility.
zoeleutheros 2 months ago
Comment removed
onsaphi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zoeleutheros You try too hard to sound intelligent and your shit smells worse than mine.
onsaphi 2 months ago
@zoeleutheros Your hypothetical situation:
a). is entirely your own and too specific to be meaningful
b). ignores the opportunity cost associated with discrimination in economic exchange
c). fails to address the central libertarian argument concerning the freedom of association
jsgoodfella 1 month ago
@jsgoodfella Specific things aren't meaningful? So, therefore, only vague things are meaningful? This doesn't logically follow. You are an idiot.
zoeleutheros 1 month ago
@zoeleutheros Let me clarify, and thanks for the ad hominem. By meaningful, I was referring to the nature of anti-"private" discrimination laws, which are applied at the federal level. Your situation applies to an exceptionally small (and continually shrinking) proportion of the American population (rural areas). To justify a national policy on the basis of what may happen in a highly specific setting is absurd. That is what I meant by "specific."
jsgoodfella 1 month ago
@jsgoodfella Okay, so wait, it's okay not to care about the rights of minorities or people of a numerical minority? We should only care about the majority? I could have sworn that Thomas Jefferson said something about the tyranny of the majority over minorities. But, hey, what do facts matter when you're talking to someone with his or her head up their ass. I will continue to attack both your character, your intelligence, and your dumb arguments.
zoeleutheros 1 month ago
wow tell me (maddouw) that wasnt ridiculous
neallrussell1 2 months ago
maddow. wow. get a life.
neallrussell1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rachel Maddow = "Perverted mistake of nature"!
This Zionist twat loves to put people against each other. White and blacks don't need laws that force integration upon them. If there's a bar/restaurant that denies black people to enter, blacks might as well avoid spending their money there. These are the same scare tactics that the biased media always resorts to. This is the year 2011, with mixed interracial couples everywhere, the racist card is getting old.
Ron Paul 2012 legalize liberty!
davdmaher 7 months ago 2
"Gotcha" journalism at his finest. Her lame attempts to push him into a corner fell flat.
damonstube 8 months ago
@damonstube
She was trying to get him to state plainly whether he would support the side of the private business or the minority in a clear case of business owner racism. He dodged the question through the entire interview, which can only mean he knows that his side would be politically disadvantaged to reveal it (gee, I wonder why?). A reasonable ideology knows when to drop certain agendas, but libertarianism just keeps on blazing through with pro-segregation ideas for the sake of purity.
kDest 8 months ago
Liberals are just retarded. Imagine what a huge business opportunity it would be for black or gay entrepreneurs, if mainstream businesses discriminated against them and they could respond by offering their products to niche, minority-only markets. Of course this would never happen anyway, because very few businesses above the mom and pop level would discriminate without very good reason.
damonstube 8 months ago
@damonstube
>>Liberals are just retarded
Not being able to drop a sacred cow for the sake of ideological purity is retarded. Supporting segregation just to prove how much you believe in unfettered capitalism has no benefit to society, and it has no benefit to your ideology.
So in Capitalist Utopia, it's Rich Gay Men, Rich White Men and Rich Black men, all in neatly bordered parts of the city, because no one cares about the other 250 million Americans who just want equal treatment.
kDest 8 months ago
@damonstube
>>because very few businesses above the mom and pop level would discriminate without very good reason
It was the cultural standard for the last century. Where have you been? Businesses have and do discriminate. Big businesses have and do discriminate. It was accepted decades ago that a black man would NEVER be a CEO of a company. It took laws and cultural changes to make this end. We have improved, but it is stupid to say that segregation can never come back.
kDest 8 months ago
This dyke really tried hard to make him look bad ,but the fact is a private business is a private propriety.Much like your in your house,you decide who let in, and who to kick out.
KladionicaCity 8 months ago
@KladionicaCity
>>but the fact is a private business is a private propriety.Much like your in your house
A private business is nothing like your house. They are both private properties, but that is where the comparison ends. A private business exists in the public domain to serve its interests. If it behaves in a way which is detrimental to society, that behavior must be stopped. Segregation is an excellent example of this and it amazes me that people forget it.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest Of course.But it have to infringe on other people's rights,much like an individual person.Deciding who to let in and who to kick out from your business is not detrimental to society.
KladionicaCity 8 months ago
@KladionicaCity
>>Deciding who to let in and who to kick out from your business is not detrimental to society.
What happens when people are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, nationality and sexuality? They act according to their irrational prejudices in a concerted effort to terrorize the numerically or politically weak members of society.
Giving business this power means that you will bring back segregation. It is detrimental to society.
kDest 8 months ago
Well, he is really unable at answering a simple question with yes or no.
giliellthesecond 8 months ago
There is no point in the Rands. Only sheep keep bawling the same message video comment after video comment...
restlesspride666 8 months ago
Rand is for personal freedoms/CHOICES for everyone. You can try to say he is racist, but that's ignorant. He is basically saying "Go ahead and let a bussiness be racist, but it's thier fault when they go out of bussiness for being stupid" What's wrong with that? I'm sorry that I don't need the government to hold my hand and tell me what is right or wrong. It's not like the guy is saying he wants seperate water fountains, he is saying let private bussinesses make thier own choices.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>What's wrong with that?
"Give a knife to a psychotic killer and release him onto the streets. It's his fault if he kills, and we have police standing by to catch him."
"Put a Methamphetamine drug stand right next to a high school. It's their fault if they take a hit and start acting disruptive to the other students. The offenders will be expelled."
If you put any thought to it, it's clear that giving businesses the power to discriminate can only harm society, with no benefits.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
What did I say about legalizing meth or giving knives to psychotic killers? Don't strawman me. I'm talking about a private corporation being able to pick who they want to give thier business to. You are fearmongering right now, you're saying that because of those RIDICULOUS scenarios a private business shouldn't have that right. It's up to the people to boycott the racist jerks, not the government. As soon as you let the government make your moral decisions you fail as an American.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>Don't strawman me.
Those were not straw-men. They were parodies of your reasoning, which is essentially, "Give unchecked power to businesses to affect society nationwide at the whims of their bigotry. What could possibly go wrong? If something does, we'll clean it up AFTER THE FACT."
>>It's up to the people to boycott the racist jerks, not the government
It is government's duty to police business for requirements of fairness, safety and well-being to the rest of society.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
You just strawmanned me again. I never said "Give unchecked power to businesses to affect society nationwide at the whims of thier bigotry...we can clean it up after the fact". I am stating that a PRIVATE business has the right to accept certain people and decline certain people. If you don't like it, go to another one and they will miss out on money. The Government is here to make and enforce laws, not regulate personal choices (unless the people demand it, like the 1960s).
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>I never said
Yes you did. You said that businesses should have the power to discriminate. That is power which is unregulated, in other words, unchecked.
>>I am stating that a PRIVATE business has the right to accept certain people and decline certain people
They do NOT have the right to segregate society. Segregation is not a matter of merely choosing customers. It is about shaping society in fear-based ways.
>>they will miss out on money
It doesn't work that way.
kDest 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>As soon as you let the government make your moral decisions you fail as an American
So should we decriminalize child slavery and prostitution now? What makes these values reprehensible enough to you that you support government's duty in protecting society from them, but you are willing to subject society to the horrors of segregation all over again?
Don't give me "freedom," because besides ignoring the "freedom" of men to be treated equal, raping society is not a freedom.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
The People demanded it and the Government gave it just like it should be. What the hell is up with you pegging me as some monster? Legalize child slavery? What the fuck, when did I say this? I'm about done with this man. I can't debate you if you're going to piss on my character like that everytime I try to retort.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
Business discrimination is decentralized, because it isn't ONE business that does it, but hundreds of them. Minorities are numerically and usually economically disadvantaged to affect change directly. It is segregation all over again.
>>I can't debate you if you're going to piss on my character like that everytime I try to retort
What, are you used to callous indifference? You just said that you want businesses to be able to segregate us. You deserve every bit of scorn.
kDest 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
Listen, I'll put this this simply:
If you disapprove of child slavery (I assume you do because just about no one does), and approve of government's efforts to stop it, then you acknowledge that there are problems with society which require state intervention and protesting is insufficient for because protests happen AFTER the problem has occurred. Why would you consider segregation to be a lesser evil to society than slavery (for example)? Is that clear enough for you?
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
No, because we aren't talking about fucking civil rights. We are simply talking about WHO a PRIVATE business can accept. I wasn't saying they can enforce child slavery, or any inhumane shit...I am stating that if they don't want to give someone business...they don't have to.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>No, because we aren't talking about fucking civil rights.
Are you telling me that there is a disconnect in your mind where, if businesses were suddenly allowed to be as bigoted as they wanted, you cannot associate this with the obvious consequence being a society flooded with privately enforced racial segregation? Does it not register in your mind that the definition of a minority is inferior population? That this combined with associated poverty means little bargaining power.
kDest 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
Do you also not understand that there is a latent bias in perception of prejudice in favored groups? Because they are not discriminated against, they cannot empathize to a degree, and are oblivious to its presence, or severely underestimate its incidence.
I assume you are of an ethnic majority. Try going somewhere where you are completely alien and experience how intimidating that is. Then remember you are protected by laws. Imagine being alien all the time without those laws.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
I'm white, yes. Do you know that the 14th Amendment forbids discrimination of color or race. I don't empathy, I assume you are Korean since your profile says so, but I grew up in California and now live in Indiana. While I know this isn't switching countries, I have been hounded for being a liberal, even threatend and beaten up a couple times to be honest. I still stand buy that a private business has the right to who they give business to, this is why we also have public businesses.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>Do you know that the 14th Amendment forbids discrimination of color or race
Yes. It was a landmark. Why should the state be prohibited from discrimination on basis of color and race if private business shouldn't?
>>I assume you are Korean
Actually, I was trying to see what Youtube looked like from the North Korean location settings years ago. Since Youtube self-censors based on country, I thought it would show nothing. Since then I forget how I changed it. I am mixed.
kDest 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>I have been hounded for being a liberal, even threatend and beaten up a couple times to be honest
For anyone to know that though, you need to open your mouth and espouse ideas. Imagine if everyone always knew, irrespective of this. Your potential employers, people you meet, businesses, etc. Then imagine that those latent hostile attitudes existed still, and your only allies are a small circle in society. Everything you work for requires double or triple the effort.
kDest 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
Because when people see you, they don't know you. They know only their preconceptions based on others who LOOK like you, and they are afraid of you. Now you struggle hard every day and happen to live in a generation that will usher in civil rights. Your struggle seems nearly over, but you hear people on national radio talk about the freedom of people to treat you unfairly. They never once talk about YOUR concerns. What about YOUR freedom to be treated equally? Doesn't that matter?
kDest 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>I still stand buy that a private business has the right to who they give business to
No one ever denied them that right. What was denied was their ability to act irrationally to the detriment of society. Because when you are a minority, you are often invisible and fear surrounds your image. It is not a classical liberal ideal to defend property over human or social welfare. That is why libertarianism is not liberal. Egalitarianism is a core classical liberal ideal.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
You think because I believe people have a right to thier own property (funny you say how that is a right wing stance, seeing as that's the basic ideal of communism) I am somehow advocating hurdles for minorities? It's not a detriment to society in the least, it's letting people do what they want to do. I know for a fact if a store opened up right now and said "No special needs people allowed" that store would be closed within the month, because the people won't give it business.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>I am somehow advocating hurdles for minorities?
It isn't happenstance. One makes the other possible. Like if you defend the definition of property which includes people, then you make slavery possible, even if you never intended it. If you give property owners complete power over their domain, abuses will happen. The art of society is balancing the needs of the individual with the welfare of the group. Society cannot exist as disassociated individuals. It requires cooperation.
kDest 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>It's not a detriment to society in the least,
It was the foundation of segregation pre-1964. Property owners were given full permission to act within their conscience, and they did so: ruthlessly enforcing their prejudices by keeping coloreds in a separate class of society. The laws of segregation simply reflected the prejudices of the people. Even without those laws, segregation would have existed, just without the "separate but equal" quality.
kDest 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>I know for a fact if a store opened up right now and said "No special needs people allowed" that store would be closed within the month, because the people won't give it business
You're naive. You don't understand the deep currents of prejudice in our society because you are the majority race and culture. It still exists everywhere, just look at the Obama Muslim myths. They want to call him a nigger but Muslim is the safe word. We need these laws to keep these people restrained.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
Your profile says you live in Korea, if that is true than you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not naive, everybody in the world isn't racist like you think.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>Your profile says you live in Korea
Read further down the comments. I already explained about that. Besides, it doesn't matter what I know from experience. The Obama example I gave is more than sufficient as an example.
>>I'm not naive.
You cannot help but experience a distorted view of racism because you are in the majority and thus do not experience the actions of your race towards outsiders. Your intuition on the matter is born from a privileged experience of life.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
Oh fuck you, my mother used to hit me with alcohol bottles as a kid, she would beat the shit out of me until she finally died from her liver going out. I don't have a "pivileged" experience, It seems to me that you are being the racist one assuming that just because I am white I live in a three story house with a dog named Sparky and was handed all of my accomplishments in life. America isn't divided by race, they are divided by class. You are either poor, rich, or richer here.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
>>I don't have a "pivileged" experience
You clearly misunderstand the difference between family experience and societal experience.
>>It seems to me that you are being the racist one assuming that just because I am white I live in a three story house with a dog named Sparky and was handed all of my accomplishments in life
You understood nothing of what I said the last several replies. Nevermind it. I'm done replying to you, the gulf between us is too great for you.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
Societal experience? Please, tell me where i've had it easier than others because of my race. Apparently i'm just a freaking winner because i'm white. Again, America is divided by class, not race. If anything, affirmative action (a law specifically forbidding a person to hire someone based on skin color, it also means businesses have to have a "quota" of other races) makes it harder for a white male to get a job. I think your gulf is too wide, this isn't a nation of bigots.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
@TheKenTerry
You're wasting words. I'm done having this exchange with you. I made my position and its justifications abundantly clear but you seem unable to understand them. It is a waste of my time to repeat myself.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest
Whatever man, the only thing you have eluded to is people being inherently racist, and me not able to tell you otherwise because i'm white.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
It is only a dark skinned guy can speak this truth.That was the mistake Rand Paul made a lot of these people have not learned to look besides skin colour.So as a strong independent black man if any man wheter white or black chooses with his own property not to trade with me then fine I am not a weak dependent wimp.The Truth is clear to all those who wish to put race aside annd see a man as a man.No man no matter what shade he is has a right to another man's property that is common sense
TheTruthgeneral 10 months ago
Voltaire a great enlightenment thinker said " I may dissaproveof what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it "
I am dark skinned I hate the idea that somebody is going to discriminate when it comes to anything when dealing with trading their property.But it is still their property and their rights.I mean I do not know one strong black man who is going to force peo[;e to provide a service of their own property that they do not want to only dependent wimps do that
TheTruthgeneral 10 months ago
Liberal do-gooders think that laws will end all that is bad in the country. It is so inconvenient when the reality is that laws are not effective and sometimes have the reverse effect and many unintended consequences. Rachel has major issues talking with people smarter than her. Rand Paul owned her even after the ridiculous ambush and setup she led him with.
DavidRTarrant 11 months ago
@UBSCARED: The point you are missing is that there is a difference between what rights are and what is legislated or done by government. During World War II the government rounded up Japanese CITIZENS and put them in internment camps. Rights? Nah. The government isn't the creator of your rights so naming this act or that act is pointless. Neither is the government in the business of protecting your rights. If it was, it wouldn't have enslaved you with a fraudulent monetary system.
VoteLib3rty 11 months ago
A private business is no different than a person's private home. It is the individual owner's right to invite in or exclude anyone they wish for any reason. The media wants to make this about race so they can create president for more intrusion into our personal lives. Racism is largely a creation of the media as a divisionary tactic. We are all one people. The days of these deceptions are nearing an end. Soon, everything once hidden shall be revealed.
VoteLib3rty 1 year ago
@VoteLib3rty No it's not. A business is located in a commercial zone. A home is in a residential home. Furthermore, seeing as how hotels and restaurants are located in zones where folks from all over travel, the federal government can regulate them under the commerce clause. On the other hand, a person's residence is not designed to make a profit. It is a person's dwelling. Huge difference between the two
cabalofdemons 11 months ago
@cabalofdemons This isn't an issue of zoning or of perversions of intent in the commerce clause of the constitution. The issue at hand are the rights of the individual. Groups don't have rights - only individuals have rights. People have been intentionally mislead to believe the former although it is a complete fallacy. Governments don't have rights, blacks don't have rights, gays don't have rights, women don't have rights, whites don't have rights - INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS.
VoteLib3rty 11 months ago
@VoteLib3rty and all of those you listed are individuals. You essentially bash your own argument. If I asked if you believe a restaurant should not serve a black person and you said yes, then you are in fact ok with a person's civil rights being violated. And actually groups of people can sue if their interests are similar and single suits would be too much of a burden. Haven't you heard of a class action suit?
cabalofdemons 11 months ago
If there is a sign [ White will not be served ] it will be bombed into pieces. That is the liberty I understand in this country, right? Let's see how true it can be of our civil rights.
beancube2010 1 year ago
who gave this freak bitch a show?
sycamoreok 1 year ago
If you can't see the difference with what Rand is saying and what all these IDIOTS are trying to imply then your are DUMB... PERIOD.... GO RAND!!!
jimivaughan420 1 year ago
@PG1990SAH
And Rachel is a good propagandist for the Democrat Party.
ashane77 1 year ago
@Weinz546474 How creative and thoughtful of you.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@PG1990SAH I totally agree. He keeps re-explaining what his philosophy is on the topic and refuses to consider that it might be indirectly racist.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
And YOU refuse to consider that racism has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It is NOT racist to assert that each and every individual should have the freedom to associate or not w/whoever they choose to.
It goes BOTH WAYS too...if a black person wants to only serve or hire blacks based solely on skin color the same rules apply...
You people want to, effectively, outlaw discrimination which is retarded, since we all discriminate in various ways all the time.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 I understand that Rand Paul is probably not a racist, but I think his philosophy on this issue indirectly encourages segregation. Even if you argue that his views are "pro-liberty", I see nothing beneficial resulting from this. It's not fair to say black people have just as much of a right to be discriminatory. Blacks are the minority, white people are definitely at an advantage in that case.
I don't want to outlaw discrimination, I want to prevent segregation and promote equality.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Rand "indirectly encourages segregation"...? How? By saying that he thinks racism is horrible? By saying he believes in the right to freely associate? So what if YOU see "nothing beneficial" from being FREE to associate however you choose...it doesn't give you a right to point guns at people in order to make them do what YOU think is "right".
I just can't understand how hung up people are on "black" VS "white"...in many ways we haven't progressed a bit...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 an aggressive infringement on their rights. Therefore I do not consider it to be their "liberty".
And we're not "pointing guns at people to make them do the right thing". We're simply saying, if you want to have a business in America, you have to provide equality of opportunity for your workers and your costumers. And I don't think that's too much to ask.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000...property isn't an infringement on their person/property. An action you don't like isn't an infringement just because you don't like it.
Any time you set govt rules on a business you are 100% POINTING GUNS at people. They follow the laws (whether reasonable or not) or men w/guns come and shut them down...if they resist they're shot. Period.
I don't think its too much to ask to let people be free to associate w/whoever they choose to.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 community regardless of their race, gender, or creed. I don't think of this issue strictly on the basis of property because I think it is of greater importance. It is about integration.
I don't think the government would shoot a businessman for refusing to allow blacks in his business. I think they would just sue him or shut his business down. Besides, it's even worse (in my opinion) for a businessman to use community police to enforce racist policies towards minorities at gunpoint.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Whatever way you want to frame it, the CRA is backed up by the threat of force or outright force if necessary. BOTH of the tools of coercion you mentioned (suing and shuttering a business) necessarily require the use of force. You go to court or men w/guns come to get you...you shut down your business or men w/guns come to get you.
Again, racism has zero to do with the freedom to associate w/whoever you want.
Are you saying you have the right to deny people this freedom?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 I don't think people are "free" to deny equal service/opportunity to people based on race. That's just not what freedom is about to me. And you can call it whatever you want (force, aggression, coercion, whatever). I think that these acts are necessary if you want to live in a country where their is equal opportunity.
You should also think about this from the viewpoint of minorities. Should they be denied equal opportunity simply because they were born with a different skin color?
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@ashane77
You're turning very simple questions into far more complicated ones than they have to be.
Should individuals be free to associate, or not, with whoever they choose to?
Do some individuals have the legitimate right to compel others to associate w/people they'd rather not?
You're either for the freedom of voluntary association or you're not. It really is that simple.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Maybe you're thinking about this issue to simplistically. The question of race-relations is not black and white (no pun intended). It's not fair to say "you're for freedom or you're not". Everybody defines freedom differently than other people. In this situation, you seem to think freedom comes from the right to discriminate, I think freedom means allowing individuals the right to be part of their own community.
You can be racist in your own life, but can't force it on the community.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Contrary to what you think you're saying, YOU'RE the one trying to impose his will "on the community".
You still didn't define "community" and you still didn't say whether you think people have the right to free association or not.
You're saying individuals can be racist, but that they can't be allowed express that racism--which, effectively, means you think you have the right to use force to make other people behave the way you want them to.
It REALLY DOES come down to freedom.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 No, I'm trying to make sure that everybody in the community has equal treatment before the law, just as the 14th amendment guarantees. If a businessman tries to open a business in a community (a group of people living in a local area) and wants to benefit from the community, he has an obligation to treat each person fairly as long as they are not disrupting his business. I do think people have the right to freely associate with whomever. But I think when you are running a facility...
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
You need to stop making artificial distinctions between human actions that occur in different situations. You're saying I can be racist w/i the confines of my own home--that's fine and "legal", but somehow, while I'm in my own personal business this SAME action become "illegal"...why? I can boot people out for not wearing a t-shirt or for being obnoxious or otherwise offensive (say a KKK dude w/a white sheet over his head)...but not because I don't like their skin color? Dumb.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Your home and your business are different. When you own a business you benefit from the community greatly. The community gives you money (profits) for your service, they pay taxes so you can have police protection, and they give you the license to open in their area. Why should you benefit so greatly from society when you're going to turn around and prohibit people simply because of something they were born with (you can help wearing a KKK suit, you can't help being black).
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
I'm not thinking about this too simplistically...YOU'RE over-complicating the matter and losing sight of the underlying principles involved.
Leave race (an artificial distinction between people to begin with) out of this for a change and imagine a business owner and customer either choosing to do business w/each other or not. It happens all the time for a variety of reasons.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 that is mutually beneficial with the community, you can't pick and choose who gets to benefit and who doesn't.
I understand that business owners have to make decisions as to who they get to hire. And if a business owner wants to discriminate solely for a legitimate business reason that is fine. But it is illegal to purposefully cut someone off from opportunity simply because you have a problem with their race!
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
I don't give the slightest shit what the govt says is "legal" or not..."legal" is not the same thing as "right"...it was "legal" for whites to own blacks at one time. Its "legal" for people like George Bush to start wars and kill 10's of thousands of people. We need to think for ourselves, not let aholes in govt impose "legalities" at gunpoint.
Again, dude, it comes down to applying principles consistently and universally: you either believe in free association or not...simple
ashane77 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
The question is very simple:
WHO is using force in this situation? No business owner forces people to come to his shop...you're free to go somewhere else.
Those who support the 1964 CRA, on the other hand, ARE the ones using force to make businesses serve people they'd rather not.
Simple.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 If a business owner is telling a black guy to get the fuck out of his store or he'll call the police, I'd say that's forceful and aggressive. If you allow this kind of act to go unpunished, it makes minorities uncomfortable because they never know when they might feel unwelcome in their own community. I'm guessing you're white, so you probably don't know how that feels given that you're a majority. It may be forceful, but I think somethings are worth fighting for (racial intolerance).
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Telling a trespasser to get off of YOUR property isn't "forceful and aggressive"...remember, you can't label something as "force" just because you don't like it.
No one has a right to not feel "uncomfortable"...sorry...
You, personally, don't fight for anything. You just want the govt to impose your idea of morality on others--just like the Religious Right.
Oh, and I'm of mixed race and have probably dealt w/more racism than you ever will from whites AND non-whites.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Hey man, I just believe in civil rights because I believe in humanity. Now, I have studied the civil rights movement and understand (at least partly) the sacrifice that Rosa Parks, MLK, and others made so that they could truly become Americans (not African-Americans; Americans). And so that they didn't have to sit on the back of the bus, or pick up their dinner from the back of the kitchen.
You cannot compare me to the religious right because they aim to impose an arbitrary doctrine
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Yours IS an arbitrary doctrine based on nothing but violence. "Do business w/this person or I'll kill you." "Hire this person or I'll kill you." That's what you're saying.
Why are YOU so adamant about imposing your will on others through violence? Again, I couldn't care less about what arbitrary words written on paper by political elitists says (constitution).
You just can't address the core issue can you?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 I'm not talking about building reservations or projects. And I agree that there are many frivolous civil rights law suits. But mainly, I want to allow minorities the same political and civil freedoms that all Americans enjoy. This means no discrimination in housing, employment, voting, commercial service, or police protection. I'm not hung up on their skin color, but other people are and I don't think it's fair to minorities.
Where are you getting this "advocating violence" bullshit
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
No, you want to give so-called 'minorities' rights that no one else has. A white guy walks into a white-owned est. and is told to leave...no problem. A black dude does the same and is told to leave and its a big whoop. What 'conspiracy'? Look up the quote...LBJ was a racist bastard. Its no different than the GOP pandering to religious people. AGAIN: ALL laws are backed up by violence. Being pro-govt intervention IS being pro-violence, for the most part.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
You seem like a decent enough fellow, but you need to dig a little deeper and think a little more about things.
Cheers, and thanks for the discussion.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 public interest.
I understand there are stores that minorities can go to all the time. I just don't think, anybody has the legal power to divide a community on racial terms.
Keep in mind that I don't think you or Rand Paul is racist or anything. I just think you need to consider the practical implications of this kind of a policy (that's all). Thank you for the conversation.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
The answer is always more govt, isn't it?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 (just because they were born a certain way). That's not fair.
I know black people would have places to sleep and eat without the CRA. But I just disagree with the notion that black people, or white people, or any certain race of people can be restricted from equal access to the same things.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000 None other than the popular old-time Leftist George McGovern came to realize that govt regulation of business was bad for everyone--esp. the working poor that so many liberals think they're helping by enacting legislation which few of them stop to consider the ramifications of. Google "george mcgovern bed and breakfast". McGovern opened a B&B and was shocked to see how difficult the regs that people like HIM passed made it to do business. It went bankrupt.
ashane77 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
LBJ was right!
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
Only the VERY naive and uninformed think the CRA was passed out of compassion for the plight of the poor negro...the VERY SAME congress sent 1000's of them--and other 'minorities' and poor whites--to die (along w/a million+ Vietnamese) in Vietnam for nothing.
It, like everything else they do, was to get more power and buy more votes from dumb people.
Sad...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 *racial tolerance
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
You come off like a PC, white-guilt having, suburbanite who has probably never even seen a real, live, 'minority'...let go of the guilt...step into the 21st century...stop letting the Maddow's of the world do your thinking for you...
White liberals/Democrats are just about the stupidest people on the face of the Earth...so naive to think 'minorities' give a shit about them!
In California 65% of blacks voted against gay marriage and y'all acted surprised!
Wake up dude!
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 on people that is based on the teachings of some 5000-year-old book. I want policies that promote justice and that many brave young men and women fought for in the 1950s and 1960s through civil disobedience.
Oh and by the way, civil rights are constitutional (look at the 14th amendment). I don't know why you are so adamant about allowing the perpetuation of racism in America. Why do you care so much???
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Have you seen some of the retarded lawsuits that've come about because of the CRA, and all the waste its caused?
Look at two of the groups the fedgovt has 'helped' the most: blacks and Indians. Ever been to a reservation or a project? I have, and believe me its not a pretty sight.
Why are you libs so hung up on the color of someone's skin? Its nothing more than pandering to 'minorities' to get votes, isn't it?
Let go of the White Guilt...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 ? Every time it's something new and made-up with you.
And you can believe what you want about the Democrats. The fact is that Martin Luther King (the father of the civil rights movement) marched on Washington for this very type of legislation. Are you telling me the MLK was in on this conspiracy too?
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
FYI, I believe all people are entitled to equal freedom too. However, just because a VERY FEW might do things we don't agree with doesn't mean freedom is a bad thing.
You never did answer me why 'minority' businesses don't all fail since whites aren't required to patronize them...
Also, you never did resolve your contradictory position of saying people have the right to freely associate while also saying they can't discriminate in many instances.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 I believe in freedom of association to a point. For example, I don't think people should be able to freely associate with gangs, or terrorist organizations because I believe these are institutions which are destructive and dangerous to society. What I'm saying is, one can freely associate as long as their behavior is not unnecessarily oppressive or discriminatory in nature.
You can be as racist as you want in your personal life, but I think that how you run a business is related to the
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
"...to a point..." Indeed.
Sorry, but we're not talking about "terrorists" and "gangs".
We're talking about someone in THEIR store deciding who they want to do business with.
Actually, I don't think YOU understand the practical implications of the CRA of 1964...specifically the freedom-crushing aspects, counterproductive legal ramifications, and economic waste.
All you see is "black people get to shop and work wherever they want!"...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 If those store owners are participating in discrimination, they are excluding a race of people from the community. When I say "practical implications" I mean what if a town has a culture of racism? And there are plenty of towns and cities in America with white majorities that have a tendency to be discriminatory. If you let the business owners of those town's prohibit minorities from service, they are essentially excluding certain racial minorities from being part of the community...
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
IMHO you're letting your fears get in the way of reality. Would some people discriminate w/o the CRA? Probably a few. However, how do we know people discriminate now? No one is putting up signs saying "n*gger stay out", are they? This puts the govt and courts in a position of having to, effectively, read minds. Not a good thing.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Well I think when racist people get fed up with the CRA policies, often times they commit hate crimes. If a bar owner tells a black person to leave for being black and he doesn't, the bar owner can't call the cops to take him away. He would have to resort to violence (that's a hate crime).
And I don't know if you agree with hate crime legislation, but the intent is to keep certain individuals from intimidating another group from assimilating into a community.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
So-called hate crimes scare the crap out of me. It punishes people, not for their actions, but for "improper" thinking--which opens a big, old can of worms. Now, you may think thats a good thing when it comes to crimes committed for racist purposes, but its incredibly narrow/short-minded to ignore the very dangerous road this leadsl down. Its great when 'your' side has the political advantage, but not so great when it doesn't. Have you heard of the Missouri MIAC report?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 I don't think any political group that advocates hateful violence or destruction of the state should be legal, whether it's right- or left-wing. These groups are anti-democracy because what's the point in democracy if someone can just dismantle the government. And I think we need to stop these groups before they commit violent crimes (we can't wait for something to happen and then start arresting people.)
But if people want to be in an anti-war or anti-government group, fine. But...
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000 The MIAC report comes scarily close to making unapproved political groups illegal. In this instance it was "right-wing", "militia", "anti-govt extremist" groups that were targeted. However, when Republicans/conservatives get back into power it could easily be antiwar and other "leftist" people who're targeted. IMO, this is where "hate" crimes legislation (which I would label "thought" crimes) leads to. And, things like the CRA (govt mind-reading) helped get us to this point.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 they cannot personally or conspire to commit or attempt an act of terrorism or forceful discrimination.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Yes, only govt can conspire and commit acts of terrorism...no one seems to have a problem with that, do they?
And, there is a BIG difference between a political organization and a terrorist one. I believe that MIAC even targeted people who assert a belief in the CONSTITUTION as potential terrorists.
My main point, however, was to illustrate how dangerous it is to start criminalizing "improper thinking".
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 at least with the government, the people have some kind of control. If it's a "private" terrorist group then there's no oversight for what they're doing.
It's not criminalizing "improper thinking". It's saying, you can be hateful, but you can't legally act or plan to act on those beliefs with violence.
I believe in civil liberties, and MIAC sounds like an infringement of freedom. But governments have been doing that stuff for centuries, it didn't just start happening after hate crimes.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Ha! What control do you have over govt? Compare what govts do (wars, genocide, etc.) to what "private terrorists" do!
There are ALREADY laws that prohibit things like assault and murder/killing..."hate" crimes make improper THINKING a crime--it is an ADDITIONAL crime tacked onto things like assault.
You may SAY you believe in "civil" liberties (why not just plain LIBERTY?), but you don't, really...you believe in SOME people's "civil" liberties, but not other people's.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Still at it w/this libtard, eh?
Do you ever feel like a sane person locked up in a mental ward...kind of how it feels to be a libertarian in a world dominated by liberals-conservatives, isn't it?
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@ashane77 I have control over my government because I can vote and I can join political groups. I agree that the government can be corrupt and make bad decisions, but we need MORE control over government, not less. You libertarians think the solution is to dismantle the government, but that's only going to put more control in the hands of power hungry people and leave you with less choice.
Hate crimes are to prevent racially inspired crimes. If you burn someone's lawn, you go to jail for arson.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
No, power-hungry people LOVE govt. Look at DC and State Capitols...swarming w/lobbyists representing the power-hungry.
Its taken me a long time to arrive where I have, and I would've considered myself a socialist or liberal at one time...actually a sort of "liberal neocon".
Voting is the illusion of control. I won't say its IMPOSSIBLE to change things through voting, but the kind of people we'd have to elect to effect actual change are always "too radical" for most to support.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
I do kind of consider myself a "libertarian" (I'm not the least bit ashamed of being extremely pro-liberty), but a better term I've heard used is "voluntaryist".
My idea of a "libertarian" is someone who adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
These ideas are ones that almost EVERYONE agrees with in principle and on a one-to-one basis, but unfortunately, aren't applied consistently on a universal scale.
I can't be too mad at you because I WAS you once upon a time.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@ashane77 But if you burn a cross on their lawn, you're telling them "get out of our neighborhood, we don't want you here!" How can you not see the difference in the severity of those two crimes?
Throwing around the word "liberty" can be used to justify lots of things which are actually tyrannical in nature. Slave owners in the south thought the Confederates were fighting for their "liberty" to own slaves. Never mind that they were undermining the liberty of the slaves themselves.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
The Confederacy and mis-named Civil War (it wasn't a civil war, but a revolutionary one) are a WHOLE OTHER topic that is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more complicated and nuanced than what we're all taught in govt schools.
Suffice to say that the winner always writes history to make himself look like the hero. The War For Southern Independence/War Of Northern Aggression/War Of Federal Consolidation is no different.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100 Well I think it's unwise to label yourself anything politically. I think anybody who makes up their mind before they hear an issue, or tries to justify a handful of values, isn't thinking clearly.
I know all about the Non-Aggression Principle. Did you happen to read the three different kinds of criticisms of the principle? Consequentialist, inconsistency, and ambiguity.
By the way, the South fired on the North.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
You, like most libtards, are for YOUR freedom and the freedom of those you like...not so much for everyone else.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100 No. I'm not a liberal, nor a conservative, nor a libertarian. I have my own beliefs about the world regardless of some bullshit political label. You have to define what you mean by "freedom". Would blacks have the "freedom" to live in whatever community they'd like in Rand Paul's world? Absolutely not. So really, Rand Paul actually favors "his freedom and the freedom of those he likes", and not of other people.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
I can't answer for SS100, but someone burning a cross on ANYONE'S yard (black OR white) is NOT acceptable because its an encroachment. Just because SOME people choose to exercise freedom irresponsibly doesn't mean FREEDOM is bad, just SOME people.
As far as "blacks" (really, dude, you need to stop focusing so much on race) not being able to live wherever they want...NO ONE can "live wherever they want"! I'd LOVE to live in a mansion in Hollywood...but I'm not mega-rich!
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100 I'm not talking about economic inequality. I'm talking about racial inequality. If a black man (or white guy, or hispanic; just using an example) wants to live in a neighborhood and can afford to buy a house there, what if the neighbors don't want him because of his race? I don't think they should be able to legally intimidate that person away and I think that if they try to, they should be punished for it.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000 CONT'D
There are retirement communities where people under a certain age can't live. There are places where people w/pets can't live. There are people who won't rent to people w/small children. So, you see, many forms of discrimination exist NOW, and we get by just fine. In a free world any manner of options would exist up to, and including (though I REALLY DOUBT it'd be the case) racial discrimination in housing.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100 Well, I think there are certain types of discrimination allowed. If it makes sense from a business perspective and isn't clearly aimed at oppressing a certain group then, yes it's fine. It's kind of like when women have to take care of their baby so they make less money for working less hours. You shouldn't be financially compensated just because YOU wanted to have a baby and took the time out of work.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000To read a brief, fair, and accurate critique of the CRA google"the civil rights laws and the growth of government" by Harry Browne.Much legislation is passed--at least w/the support of non-politicians--w/good intentions. IMHO, ulterior motives usually exist on the part of the politicians and there are almost always special-interests who have a hand in writing is for their own good.We know which road is paved w/good intentions, though, don't we? Few consider unintended consequences.
ashane77 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000 Ask yourself, who can more easily comply w/the reams of regs and deal w/the steep fines imposed for non-compliance w/laws and regs that are EXTREMELY hard to understand or even know in the first place? A big corp. or a mom-and-pop? Do you think this puts the little guy out of business so that a corp can gain market-share? Who pays the price, ultimately, for outrageous legal awards levied against corps and govt for non-compliance? The consumer/taxpayer--me and you.Who benefits?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
Good stuff shane!
Don't waste too much time on these liberal zombies...
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@SugarySweet100
I'm a glutton for punishment sometimes...LOL
ashane77 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
If you're worried about "discrimination" why not force EVERY business owner to cater to EVERYONE who goes into his store? Why not force them to hire EVERY applicant who applies for a job?
What if a white store owner refuses to sell to white people? Is THAT ok? How about a black one refusing service to other blacks? Is THAT ok?
What if every grocery store refuses to sell to ANYONE...why, we'll ALL STARVE!!! We need to pass a law, I tell you, that MAKES them serve everyone!
ashane77 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
If whites were as racist as you make them out to be, no 'minority' store in a non-minority "community" (whatever that is) would ever make it, since no laws exist that force white CONSUMERS to give them their business.
Kind of blows your little theory to smithereens, doesn't it?
Or, maybe we need another law that FORCES whites to shop at 'minority' shops...?
ashane77 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
I've got news for you--people of all races SELF-SEGREGATE now!
Maybe we should force EVERYONE to have friends of different races, eh?
You are failing to address the CORE ISSUE: Should individuals be allowed to freely associate or not?
Now, THIS is a pretty clear "yes" or "no" question based on a pretty simple principle, isn't it?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Yes, PEOPLE should be allowed to discriminate; not communities. Given that blacks are 10% of the population and whites are about 60%, if you allow this policy to go through, there will be more places that blacks are restricted from and less places that whites are. This is textbook segregation.
Freedom means that you can do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. I would say a businessman using police to keep black people from coming to his restaurant to be
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
What are communities made up of? PEOPLE. If people have the right to discriminate individually, how can they not have the same right collectively?
You're acting as if a real possibility exists that 100% of white people are gonna turn into hardcore racists if the CRA of 1964 disappears.
You have a very strange understanding of "rights" and "infringements" thereof. An infringement is an actual trespass on another's person/property. Telling someone they aren't welcome on your...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Communities DO NOT have a right to discriminate because communities are supposed to represent the people within them. Let's say a community of 90% whites and 10% blacks has an unwritten rule that blacks should not eat in the same restaurants as whites (i.e. it's bad for business). That would mean that the 10% of black people would not have a place or would not feel welcome in the community, which I think is a violation of their civil rights. Everybody deserves to be part of a...
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
First you say individuals have the right to discriminate then contradict yourself by saying communities (which are, as I said, comprised of INDIVIDUALS). Which is it? Do individuals have this right, or not, or are you saying communities (what IS a "community" in your mind? A neighborhood block, a town, county, state, nation, is it the entire world, what?) AREN'T made up of individuals?
And, you're not living in reality if you think all white people are closet ultra-racists.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Individuals and communities are different: Individual associations/actions do not affect others. However, community associations/actions affect everybody in the community. In my mind a community is a broad collection of people varying in population and geographical size (a town, a state, a country, etc)
I don't think all white people are "closet ultra-racists" but I do think people are prone to being hateful. And when you have a majority, that hate can easily turn into segregation.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@Eldermooth Perfectly said.
BostonxKing 1 year ago
What a mainstream-mouthpiece she is. You know what he's saying. Enjoy your "bonus" you dumb bitch, he won anyways.
BostonxKing 1 year ago
Even though I consider myself to be a conservative, I occasionally appreciated the Rachel Maddow Show before she turned into a total corporate whore. She's intelligent enough to understand Rand Paul's adhesion to libertarian principles regarding personal freedom and government-sponsored racism. It makes me laugh to see her attempt to discredit him fail so miserably. Fuck MSNBC!
milkman52879 1 year ago
@milkman52879
Yeah, I can't get over these liberal/Dems coming on here and trying to make a serious case that Rand is "racist"...like Maddow's over-simplification of a very complex topic by framing it as a "yes" or "no" question is serious journalism...insane
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77
I used to have a lot more respect for Maddow until she turned into a corporate whore. It's obvious to anyone who isn't a political novice that Paul was speaking from a staunch libertarian / constitutional perspective, and not as a racist. She stated that his initial announcement was "politically pleasant" and then set him up by spinning his comments in attempt to ruin his campaign and give Conway the upper hand.
milkman52879 1 year ago
@milkman52879
Well, when he was taking on the Republican Establishment Rand was a good guy to Maddow...once he became part of it, he instantly became her enemy since its her job to promote liberals/Democrats...
ashane77 1 year ago