Rand Paul is a libertarian idealist but the basic premise of the civil rights movement was no less idealistic. The civil rights movement was based on abstractions that didnt magically change anything overnight. Segregation simply took the form of white flight and quite frankly the black community was deeply hurt by this phenomenon which was directly caused by desegregation.
he wants to separate and unequal like we had before. Kentucky doesn't have the brightest voters bu they do have to most lax gun laws in the country. A 50 caliber machine gun and Gattling guns are their concern.
The weird thing is, what we now call "libertarianism" is the total opposite of what it was for a century before the 50s in the US.
Before that, it referred exclusively to the anti-authoritarian/pro-freedom tradition of socialism.
Like modern day US libertarianism, it claimed people should be totally free to do whatever they want. However, it had one caveat: "as long as you don't restrict anyone else's freedom"
Most important to those libertarians was freedom from coercion, not freedom to coerce.
@MsSexySocialist You are confusing Morality and Civility. Being non-coercively uncivil (like joining the Westboro Baptist Church or denying the Holocaust) is not immoral, violating the Non-Coercion Principle is immoral (like promoting State-Socialism, also known as 'Anarchism' or 'Libertarian Socialism').
I'm really through with you at this point if you're going to continue to make ludicrous straw man propositions and continue using George W Bush logic to try to make points.
---State-Socialism, also known as 'Anarchism' or 'Libertarian Socialism'---
Please. Honestly?
The fact you now seem to be stalking me by following my previous comments adds to my case for doing so.
Take Chomsky, he is a State Socialist, he promotes coercive State ownership of Capital (just like Leninism-Stalinism). Instead of being open about this he uses cover-terms such as 'democratic control over production' in his article 'The Soviet Union Versus Socialism', which is exactly the same thing as State ownership of Capital; a State is a coercive monopoly initiated over a geographical area. That includes a coercive mob rule 'democratic' monopoly initiated over a geographical area: a State.
To you, "democracy" itself is the same thing as statism - you've admitted as much yourself. Hence your misunderstanding.
Either that or (more likely) you lack the ability to form arguments against what Libertarian Socialism actually stands for and instead attempt to mischaracterize the principles of the true ideology as some simplistic imagined characature tyranny which literally ANYONE would be opposed to
Additionally, there is no such thing as "Leninism-Stalinism". There is Marxism-Leninism if that is what you actually meant but couldn't be bothered to do the research.
This just got in my subscription box now. I'm not really sure why, but I forgot to mention that you're one of my favorite human beings in existence. That is all.
This technique was actually imitated by a Republican Senator on the Debt Celing Recently on the Lawrence O'Donnell show. I'd say do a sequel to this clip-maybe it's a training point for GOP/Tea Party people?
What is needed now isn't stronger central government and business regulation, but for the people to believe in and understand the words "all men are created equal." Before the Civil Rights Act, our society was already trending towards non-segregation.
The people have the power, without the use of government force, to protest and condemn the actions of businesses in a free market economy that discriminate on the basis of race. Protest, spend your money elsewhere, tell others to do the same.
@VotePaineJefferson "our society was already trending towards non-segregation"???? Where were you living? Where I was living in VA, society was doing everything it could to continue to avoid integration, even AFTER the Civil Rights Act. My home town remained lilly white until well after I graduated from HS in 1979! It did so with quiet intimidation tactics to assure that folks selling houses did NOT sell to those of African heritage.
@FarmSustainably I remember hearing a historian talk about it a while ago, but I can't seem to find the source either. I retract my earlier statement.
However, it SHOULD be noted that before the Civil Rights Act many "whites" did march on DC with Martin Luther King in 1963, that Malcom X regarded the Civil Rights Act as a total failure, and a 1983 survey by the Department of Education could not find integrated schooling to have had any appreciable effect on "black educational achievement."
@VotePaineJefferson You're absolutely right about that. Plenty of whites supported King and the changes, otherwise, many probably never would have happened. On Malcom X, I'm not sure about that one... no time to look it up now, but it would be interesting to see if that opinion was from before or after he went to Meccah. He changed a lot of his opinions after that trip. And on the DOE survey.. no real surprise there. You can make rules, but you can't legislate attitudes.
I knew there was something I didn't like about libertarianism, and you have perfectly hit it on the head! THANK YOU!!! I knew there was a simple answer.
@FarmSustainably Yes. The simple answer is that emotions trump the "abstract" notion of property rights. Property rights like a house, land, buildings, etc. Unfortunately, in reality, physical things aren't abstract, as illdoc1 seems to think.
People own property, they put their resources and life into it. Upholding property rights is the same thing as upholding someone's right to do what they want with their own life.
@blakstar101 ... Property is not abstract, but rights are. If we all behaved civily, we wouldn't need laws, but the reality is, we don't, so we do. One person may think that doing what they want with their life is to refuse to sell a house to blacks, or they may want to put a toxic waste dump in their back yard, or they may want to raise elephants in the suburbs. Hence we need laws to keep those.self-indulgent-screw-society ideas in check.
If you refuse to sell to blacks then "society" will screw your business if the "society" isn't tolerant of racism.
Toxic waste dump in a backyard? If it affects other people's rights or breaks the residential area contract then you can sue them.
When you live in a suburb you sign a contract that allows the homeowner association to control what you do to your house to ensure high property values of all the houses in the suburb.
@blakstar101 I wasn't pretending anything, nor was I saying that you argued for lawlessness... I was just pointing out that there are limits to property rights, and for good reason.
@FarmSustainably Yeah the limit of property rights is infringing on someone else rights. You listed supposed "problems" of property rights that already have solutions that I gave you.
The main issue is about discrimination and property rights. The problem is that people assume they have a right to the goods and services that a particular business is selling, but would never think that a particular business has a right to the money of the customers in exchange of what is sold.
Funny when Austrian economic theories find particular resonance among white males in the world's dominant empire. They believe in total liberty for the most entitled, enfranchised people.
Segregated water fountains? Shit. We got desegregation, also known as "citizenship for all people" — and then the fuckers declared war on water fountains. That's socialism! Buy water in little plastic bottles.
RON PAUL 2012 research more and quit being a partisan hack for communism/socialism.fascism FREEDOM=individual liberties protected by private property rights upheld by voluntary contracts enforced by a small local government The Philosophy of Liberty watch?v=muHg86Mys7I Austrian economics Ludwig Von Mises F.A. Hayek Murray Rothbard Tom Woods Meltdown Harvard/Columbia graduate New York Times best seller watch?v=541bajR4k8g Peter Schiff was right watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
@vietnamflashbacks If another bus company had competed against National City Lines by including everyone on the bus and therefore gained more profit, National City Lines would've had to change the Montgomery bus system policy to keep from failing in business.
@vietnamflashbacks In fact, the boycott of the bus system was entirely done in the style of a free market. All of the obstacles to the boycott were government-caused; when taxis charged their prices no higher than the bus system (in support of the boycott) there were fines mandated to prevent it. People carpooled, biked, walked, or even rode mules, and the montgomery system suffered from it immensely.
@Marlowann Would you call a sit-in capitalist? Or a demonstration or a march? The bus boycott was only one method that was used, the ones I mentioned were much more common.
@dashab All I'm saying was that it wasn't capitalism's fault that the Montgomery Bus System got away with racist policies; beyond that, the boycott was severe enough to cause serious deficits in the city involved and that's what moved the government to make racist bus policies illegal.
@Marlowann capitalism did not cause racist policies like segregation.
But the point here is that capitalism was never going to do anything to stop those racist policies either.
Expecting the free market to do anything for social justice is like expecting your toaster to wash your clothes. It's simply now what it was designed to do.
@booley Capitalism is designed to let people pay for what they want to pay for, letting any business who caters to the whims of the people thrive, while businesses who don't give the people what they want obviously won't make much money. In the case of the Montgomery bus system, the anti-racist boycott was a sign that most people didn't want the bus system to be racist. So that bus system stopped making money.
@Marlowann that may be how it was designed in theory.
But in practice businesses not only could be racist, many felt they had to be because otherwise they risked losing white customers. The boy cott hurt the busline because loss of black and other anti-segregation business was substantial. But it's untrue that they stopped making money. They just didnt' make as much as before. and other businesses could esaily weather a boycott.
@booley Given this much, and that the city govt. impoed fines on boycotting taxis that charged less than the bus system's fee, (governmental anti-capitalist measure to support racism) Capitalism has the potential to solve social liberty problems by putting the economic power in the direct hands of the people, letting them decide who deserves money.
So unlike a toaster, which has no potential to wash clothes, capitalism does indeed have the potential to do social justice, if not the guarantee.
@Marlowann it's not that capitalism ha san end ot cause social injustice. But frankly social justice is NOT what it's about. Companies succeed or fail based on how well they do at making money in the short term. IF they can do that by causing pollution & oppressing workers, that's just as good to capitalism as one that's green and supports workers... as long as money is being made. And being a robber baron douche bag bigot can get you a lot of money.
@booley Well every economic system will allow the wrong people to benefit from it in great ways. That's the guarantee of any economic system, since no matter what kind it might be, it'll always be a human system. Whether capitalism's justices are outnumbered by its injustices I think calls for a different discussion and history lesson; but as far as all of these economic systems go, I've found capitalism under a constitutionally consistent govt. to be the least imperfect. Have a nice day broham
@Marlowann "Well every economic system will allow the wrong people to benefit "
true but capitalism is especially prone to this. History has shown capitalism is great at creating wealth.... and that's primarily it. It makes no moral distinction as people as to how that wealth is generated.
Personally I like capitalism. I own my own business. But I also understand it has some severe limitations. Yet anytime we try to deal w/ those, it's called "socialism".
The clip told me nothing about Rand Paul so poor was the context. But I could get the idea that Rachael Maddow is a hard pushing ideologue and an accusing totalitarian. But not in perfect context.
Rand Paul is simply saying the government shouldn't dictate with a private establishment. He clearly said he agreed with 9 outta 10 things in the Civil Rights Act. That doesn't make him racist. The KKK has a RIGHT to March and protest. Just because u agree with them having that right doesnt make your racist. Man think for yourself and stop giving half the story like Fox News. Argue with some LOGIC.
@deicer1962 perhaps ironically such laws do curb racism.
by about 2 thirds.
How do we know this? 1/3 of racist discriminate only as long as they have a legal ability to do so. They're still racist but they follow the law (prejudiced non-discriminators)
And another third aren't racist but discriminate because of other factors unless something ( like a law) counteracts these factors. (non-prejudiced discriminators).
That leaves only the hard core bigots left who get increasingly isolated
Now that's he's been elected, he will be even less likely to answer any questions.
But he will have to vote for stuff occasionally. Though if he takes a cue from his fellow GOP, he probably won't justify most of the votes he takes or will give some lame excuse about procedures.
The kung-fu clips made it great. I just wish he'd answer the question, I hate how politicans these days refuse to answer the questions given to them. It doesn't make you cute (if you're female) or a political maverk who doesn't play by the rules (if male.)
The same thing could be said about the Tea Party as a whole:
Redistribution such a bad thing in every single scenario? "Obamacare" such a disastrous policy? So important to balance the budget now now now?
My response to their questions:
Do you have a secret plan to fight inequality and if so, why are you keeping it secret? How do YOU plan to fix health care costs and cover the uninsured? And what programs do you want to cut, since raising taxes on anybody is out of the question?
Congrats to Rand Paul, who besides his father will fight for real liberty, whether u are a poor white or a rich black. I know many people here dont support the constitution and deem it as an archaic document, it is the true pinnacle of freedom...but when you let government grow to level which it is now, blaming our last 15+ administrations ,,,,liberty will only continue to diminish.....and the CRA pertaining to private business is morally wrong...
Stop with the weasel metaphors! Like wolves, many species of mustelidae are endangered because idiots anthropomorphize them. They evolved to fit an ecological niche that requires them to be stealthy hunters.
Rand Paul evades answering questions because he knows that most people would not accept his ideology. Period.
Libertarianism is religious fundementalism but for atheists.
Same fuzzy logic, magical thinking and demand for ideological purity in the face of reality. But without the need for a God whose "scriptures" may also ask that you do things you don't want to do like feed the hungry or treat others as you would be treated.
And just enough self awareness to understand that others would find the logical extension of those views repugnant.
@booley As an atheist, who spends a lot of time with other atheists, I'd say we are the group of people most willing to say "I don't know." I haven't detected any 'fundamentalism,' dogmatism, or ideological tyranny among us. Mostly, we're pragmatists. The only thing we have a consensus on is the lack of evidence for supernatural beings.
@tanfouk As also someone who has talked to and hung around a lot of atheists, I have noticed that while many atheists will amit they don't know about a subject, they are no less immune from ideological dogmatism or fuzzy logic in the service of their prejudices as anyone else.
In fact, I think some are more vulnerable since they assume that since there's no GOD to be dellusional about that they cant' have any dellusions at all.
@booley.... and Stateism is the just destruction of the rights of the individual for the equal treatment of the minority. Fuzzy logic? If you have these beliefs and so many people have beliefs just like you, I'd think the hungry would be fed at a higher rate in a Libertarian community than that of an unproductive state controlled society. I know I'd much rather send my funds to those in need than to Uncle Sam. Our culture needs to change, don't force it. TALK ABOUT IT.
@jcf005 " I'd think the hungry would be fed at a higher rate in a Libertarian community"
And I think puppies and gold bricks will shoot from the asses in a libertarian community.
Too bad the few times a "libertarian society" has ever been attempted so neither your nor my prediction can be proven. which is the problem I cited. You guys make all of these predictions about what Libertarianism would do. But it never seems to work out that way.
i serioulsy have never been so captivated by some one in less than three minutes, you sir, are amazing. you are the first person i will be susbscribing to and i have been on youtyube since the beginning.
A lot of mainstream conservatives who have semi-libertarian economic views weasel their way out of serious debate by wrapping their ideology in real-world rhetoric and bringing up that supposed Churchill quote about young conservatives having no heart and middle-aged liberals having no brain. The most disgusting thing is that their rhetoric goes largely unchallenged when it should be singled out for ruthless critique!
I agee w/ Rand, racists are allowed to hide behind that 10th part of the CRA. Allow them to deny people and we can boycott them out of existance rather than unknowingly reward them w/ our money.
What bothered me about Rand Paul's interview was his cowardice. If he truly thinks that there was a good reason to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then he should say so (since he was asked in an interview on national television) and then maybe ask to be allowed to clarify his reasoning.
But he was afraid of the reaction of viewers whose logic would have been "CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 = GOOD, THEREFORE RAND PAUL = BAD," but those people are simple. Say what you mean and live with it.
Well, at will you be clear and admit that you mean "I worship government" when you say "I'm a liberal" ? It's easy to misrepresent those who favor freedom over security but that doesn't make for a good substitute for a spine.
I agree with you that libertarians are so stuck in the theory and ideology of their -ism, that they don't consider the real life applications of their beliefs. It's also strange to me that the people most likely to advance the notion that private businesses should be allowed to freely discriminate are the ones least likely to be discriminated against on the basis of their immutable characteristics. The lack of empathy and elevation of ideology is almost pathological.
I stumbled upon this user's channel and found his videos entertaining and intellectually stimulating. So please forgive the tardiness of my reply to your comment, but, it seems to me the ones who don't consider the the real life applications of their beliefs are the ones such as you, advocating in favor of failed policies.
It is only because we are in a time of decay, regression, ugliness, unhealth, hypocrisy and stupidity that an insipid, talentless, agenda-driven, lesbian like Rachel Maddow can operate freely. David Duke's video about Maddow and Paul is revealing. Watch it on youtube.
Those types of questions put forth to libertarians always have an agenda of spin and slant. They don't have a simple yes or no answer. Maddow is a clown the same as Bill O'Reilly or Rush...talking head clowns with a political agenda. The only thing they don't do is inform the public.
@MoparTurbo05 "Those types of questions?" You mean simple, yes or no questions about a politician's stance on a certain issue? The question she was asking did have a simple, yes or no answer.
I always enjoy watching your videos. The way you deliver social and political commentary is a refreshing spin on my usual day-to-day experiences. Thank you and please continue doing exactly what you're doing. :)
He saw through the pansy game Rachel was trying to play and didn't play ball. She was trying to dumb down the issue and turn it into a way of pulling the race card, in the typical liberal fashion. lame...
@MyStrangeMind One of the major controversies over libertarian standpoints is that when the majority is free to behave as they choose, they generally choose to mistreat minorities of various kinds. Addressing that is not dumbing down the issue.
@Lokifan13 Conservatives believe that anything that inhibits freedom is bad. This is, of course, absurd. The freedom to defer the cost of your actions onto society is not good. The freedom to start an unjust, hopeless war and thereby murder thousands of your own soldiers is not good. Freedom is neither good nor bad, it depends on what one is free to do.
Well conservatives seem to believe that anything that denies their freedom is bad.
Including their freedom to impair the freedom of others.
But I guess it's a matters of priorities.
I personally think the freedom of all Americans to be able to play a role in society and be treated equally under the law is more important then the right to keep the "darkies" from eating next to white folk.
If one "freedom" has to be sacrificed, I choose the latter.
@Lokifan13 Isn't that the whole point of the Constitution and the principle behind a democratic republic? The entire purpose of our government's foundation is on protecting the minority from the majority. That's why we have the Bill of Rights.
The Libertarian view points merely starts with the fundamental documents of our government and from there does the best it can to preserve freedom and liberty.
Look at the worst examples in history of minority oppression, it was done by gov. power.
Just fyi - it's not 'our government', I'm British :) The American Constitution and Bill of Rights was clearly not enough to protect minorities, though, that's sort of my point; inalienable rights and civil rights aren't the same thing. The worst examples of oppression were done by government power but I believe in positive rights as well as negative ones: I want my government not only to protect me from its own power but to protect me from those with more social power than me, who would hurt me.
Racism is a form of collectivism. The solution this this is individualism, which is something Rand would promote. Whats the collectivist answer to racism? Oh that's right, to perpetuate it, and somehow use authority to mandate fairness at the same time.
Unbelievable. My rights are not an 'abstract set of principles'. The 'basic rights of human beings' does not include the right for you or anyone who believes what you do to steal from me or anyone else. You are in grave error about what rights are and where they come from. Furthermore, there is nothing weird or alienating about these ideas, in fact, to hear a politician say them is very refreshing and encouraging. That is why Libertarianism is spreading all over the world like never before.
@torpedodeuce Samuel B. Fuller, owner of a very large makeup company, found himself at the receiving end of a boycott in the 1950s. Why? because 'white' people found out the owner of this successful company was 'black'. Are you saying that the government should have stepped in and forced those people to continue to buy his cosmetics? Because the logic of keeping people out of your restaurant is exactly the same as a boycott of any product or company. This is the logic that is missing here.
@irdial You're missing the point entirely. The government can't force anyone to buy anything. That is so not the issue. If Fuller had refused to sell to white people, then yes, the government would have a reason to intervene.
@118Webster Wrong. The government does force people to trade with others, and that is entirely the point; wether or not the state should force people to associate or refrain from associating. We say its all around bad that they do. Go to Lew Rockwell's site and read his article, "The Freedom of Association", and go to Blogdial and read the post titled, "Coerced association: the state mandates it", which details the law banning US people participating in boycotts.
@118Webster You are right about a pattern emerging. There is a large number of people who refuse, on principle, to consider any view of the world other than the one they were taught at government schools and their nursemaids: Television. They cannot be appealed to with logic, evidence or any facts. They are incapable of independent thought, shun it, and are wilfully ignorant. I just pointed you to a post that proves the government forces people to buy things and you say 'no thanks'. QED.
@irdial when humanity is ready to grow up and has reached a new level of love for each other and real freedom and cooperation a libertarian government will actually be exactly what will work best. are we there? I dont know....I don't mind trying though. I understand why the idea scares some people.
@DestroyZOG8 you are correct. however, our country has this habit of on one hand idolizing the constitution like it's god, and on the other hand "interpreting" it differently as years go by to make it fit into modern life. thus, a half-assed declaration of equality gradually becomes truer as time goes by. and don't think i'm insinuating that you're one of them when i say this: anyone who thinks that the election of obama is this huge thing that's finally leveled the playing field is retarded.
rand should have said, "if a private business wants to exclude patrons, no one should go there to prove a point; and that point is that if you discriminate, you will go out of business.
loooove your quote at 1:23. also makes one wonder about how he might feel about other issues, like minimum wage, hiring practices, safety regulations, the fda, etc etc. oh can of worms..
@0bodobod0 As with most things political, nothing is black and white, and most of the time the best path is in the blurry space inbetween two opposing points of view. This goes for "individual rights/laws made to protect those rights, by hindering the rights of others".
Also: I'm the most gorgeous dude on the dot comzzzz.
@0bodobod0 his point is not so much calling him a racist, but saying that the general libertarian philosophy that Rand Paul subscribes to would have allowed the segragation to continue.
Gee, I wonder if Racial Madcow will now get some big Democrat on camera and ask them if they support discrimination against men and against whites through so-called "affirmative action" and "diversity" programs. You haven't seen real squirming and dodging until you've seen a Democrat try to answer that question. And they should answer, because this is the only LEGAL discrimination left.
@HughCrammit I'm sorry you feel that the Civil Rights Act was made to discriminate whites and men (If that wasn't what you meant please correct me) , but this country was built with the most immoral values ever. Have you seen what discriminatory acts that has been displayed toward women and minorities in general. For goodness sakes, Blacks weren't even considered a whole person and women weren't able to own land or vote. If you don't consider that a major issue then i don't know what is.
I find it funny that so many people will say they do not want the government pushing religious beliefs/morallity but are perfectly ok if the government dictates progressive beliefs/morallity.
Rand Paul needs to state his Racist and Corpratist veiws in a manner that makes him appear less like a Racist or Corpratist, if he expects to excel in the GOP.
Rand unfortunately does not equal Ron. This is what happens when a politician isn't ready to defend and debate his beliefs in a manner satisfactory to the media (and the media plans on exploiting it).
Now we all get to watch the world make him out to be a dodgy politician.
Wait.
Nevermind. It walks like a duck...talks like a duck...
Rand unfortunately does not equal Ron. This is what happens when a politician isn't ready to defend and debate his beliefs in a manner satisfactory to the media (and the media plans on exploiting it).
Now we all get to watch the world make him out to be a dodgy politician.
Wait.
Nevermind. It walks like a duck...talks like a duck...
The idea of race is an illusion which creates a false dichotomy. Skin color is a superficial attribute which individuals have no control over. Well said Mr. illdoc1
1. Rand ideals is based on liberty meaning business should be allowed to discriminate and associate with home ever they please. No shoes no shirt no service can be interpreted as being discriminative for the poor but you say nothing on that.
2. Since the government was the one initiating force against those who were integrating it's illogical to say the same entity responsible for forcing that law is the same that ended it. That's like saying I ended arson by not burning houses anymore.
Have you seen the original interview that sparked the controversy? He was pretty damn clear in that interview. It wasn't until everyone in the (allegedly "left-wing") mainstream media started misrepresenting him that he started giving history lessons instead of answering their questions directly.
People who ask loaded questions don't deserve direct answers.
@gunsandbullhorns If you mean the Louisville Courier interview, he was clear only in the sense that he was transparent in his desire to avoid the issue. His initial answer deliberately stopped short of fully addressing it, and then when called on it he rolled his eyes and said "you just had to ask if there was a but" and again failed, in a much longer response, to directly answer the question asked.
Yeah. That's the interview I'm talking about. Except I understood his position loud and clear, and I think he addressed it as adequately as he needed to. What do you think he omitted from his response which would have constituted an adequate answer?
@illdoc1 The question is a non-starter. His point is if the NOI or KKK owns a private business, like a bar or resturant, then the government has no right to tell them what they can or can't do with that private property, without defrauding anyone, of course. This is a free speech/property ownership question, which he did answer in the Maddow interview. He would not operate his business that way, but will defend a racist'ss right to free speech, because he believes in INDIVIDUAL rights.
"This is a free speech/property ownership question"
This is not free speech. That's a straw man. People can and do still make racist comments. As long as one isn't inciting a riot or telling people to go out and murder others, it's even protected
It's when one uses that prejudice to keep people from doing what everyone else takes for granted, to single them out and make them unequal, that's when one has crossed the line.
@gunsandbullhorns He was anything BUT clear in that interview. The question was straightforward: Should private busineses be able to discriminate even if it violates federal anti-discrimination laws? There was nothing "loaded" about it. He could have said either "yes they should and here's why" or "no they shouldnt and here's why." As a candidate for public office he should openly and clearly state his views and be ready to defend those views even if some might find them unpopular.
@gunsandbullhorns "Are you or are you not in favor of the Civil Rights Act?" it's a simple question and he begged it too hard.
He's the gift that keeps on giving the GOP. Thanks a lot, Kentucky Republicans! You're stuck with him now. David Plouffe couldn't have asked for you to make a better choice for the Democratic Party.
@totheman By me not serving you (or other like you) based simply on your race, would deny your race the same freedom of access to goods and services that are directly or indirectly the result of contributions of ALL Americans, regardless of race.
Or do you somehow feel that ALL races should pay for the infrastructure that allows your business to exist, while access and benefits of that business is relegated to the race of your choosing?
@tubeinaredcircle You are operating on the presupposition that you have the right to freedom of access of goods and services rather than the right to pursue said access of goods and services. To claim that you are entitled to the work of other men without compensation is to damn us all to slavery.
"ALL races should pay for the infrastructure that allows your business to exist"
You think because you pay taxes that you are entitled to someone else's work?
Hmm, remember that freedom of speech is a principle that allows for racism and hatred. Is that principle still a good principle even though it allows for neo-nazi groups to march in the streets? I think so.
You criticize Rand's beliefs by calling them "weird". I thought that sort of argument stopped being valid after 2nd grade.
As a Rand supporter, I do agree with you that he did put on a major weasel act in that interview. The reasons for doing so are understandable, but not excusable.
The Problem i have with Rand Paul is inconsistency when it comes to some things the founders believed in he is on point but with others he is pretty much with Sarah Palin. the 14 amendment of the Constitution and the Commerce clause protects against discrimination in the Public domain which includes a lot of private property.some private property you can still discriminate against people based on race .not to mention his view on Religion
More....He did an interview with Pat Robertson's CBN basically claiming Christianity is the bedrock on which society operates which Thomas Jefferson and even John Adams disagreed with @tynitty516
@wildcatste If you actually watched it, he explicitly disagrees with the Government writing legislation telling private property owners what to do with their property.
He's a BAD, inconsistent Libertarian. He doesn't think women should be allowed to have abortions, he thinks the government should discriminate against sam-sex marraige, he supports increasing Medicare funding to doctors (btw he's a doctor himself), and he supports the indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial.
Suddenly, though, when it comes to whites-only lunch counters, he thinks the government should just keep its nose out of other people's business. That's really weird.
It doesn't mean any of those things, ill. What it means is that there were other ways to take care of the issue than by mandating hiring practices etc. I know you're not naive enough to think that forcing someone to hire an asian person or a white person means that that person won't be treated harshly though they draw a paycheck. There are other ways to handle things like that: boycotting, for instance. A libertarian government doesn't foster any sort of prejudice. That's just a silly kneejerk..
You see, this illdoc, and I guess Racial Madcow too, seem to think that white people would never do business with blacks unless they were forced by law. That's the unspoken assumption of their comments. We need a law to force white people to associate with blacks, or else they'd never do it. Never. Not even ever. Never. See? That's what the commies think - or what they want you to think.
Rand Paul is a libertarian idealist but the basic premise of the civil rights movement was no less idealistic. The civil rights movement was based on abstractions that didnt magically change anything overnight. Segregation simply took the form of white flight and quite frankly the black community was deeply hurt by this phenomenon which was directly caused by desegregation.
Seaworldexists 2 weeks ago
greg meah
tekvest 3 weeks ago
OK. Nevermind. It is Rand Paul.
MissNayNay 3 weeks ago
Don't you mean RON Paul?
MissNayNay 3 weeks ago
Stop weaseling!
Aaronedits 2 months ago
can you be president?
dudiusmaximus 4 months ago
he wants to separate and unequal like we had before. Kentucky doesn't have the brightest voters bu they do have to most lax gun laws in the country. A 50 caliber machine gun and Gattling guns are their concern.
goldengyrl2010 4 months ago in playlist More videos from illdoc1
The weird thing is, what we now call "libertarianism" is the total opposite of what it was for a century before the 50s in the US.
Before that, it referred exclusively to the anti-authoritarian/pro-freedom tradition of socialism.
Like modern day US libertarianism, it claimed people should be totally free to do whatever they want. However, it had one caveat: "as long as you don't restrict anyone else's freedom"
Most important to those libertarians was freedom from coercion, not freedom to coerce.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist You are confusing Morality and Civility. Being non-coercively uncivil (like joining the Westboro Baptist Church or denying the Holocaust) is not immoral, violating the Non-Coercion Principle is immoral (like promoting State-Socialism, also known as 'Anarchism' or 'Libertarian Socialism').
qwertypoiu4321 6 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
I'm really through with you at this point if you're going to continue to make ludicrous straw man propositions and continue using George W Bush logic to try to make points.
---State-Socialism, also known as 'Anarchism' or 'Libertarian Socialism'---
Please. Honestly?
The fact you now seem to be stalking me by following my previous comments adds to my case for doing so.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
Take Chomsky, he is a State Socialist, he promotes coercive State ownership of Capital (just like Leninism-Stalinism). Instead of being open about this he uses cover-terms such as 'democratic control over production' in his article 'The Soviet Union Versus Socialism', which is exactly the same thing as State ownership of Capital; a State is a coercive monopoly initiated over a geographical area. That includes a coercive mob rule 'democratic' monopoly initiated over a geographical area: a State.
qwertypoiu4321 6 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
To you, "democracy" itself is the same thing as statism - you've admitted as much yourself. Hence your misunderstanding.
Either that or (more likely) you lack the ability to form arguments against what Libertarian Socialism actually stands for and instead attempt to mischaracterize the principles of the true ideology as some simplistic imagined characature tyranny which literally ANYONE would be opposed to
A straw man argument defined
And further evidence against your own stance
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 (2)
(continued)
Additionally, there is no such thing as "Leninism-Stalinism". There is Marxism-Leninism if that is what you actually meant but couldn't be bothered to do the research.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
This just got in my subscription box now. I'm not really sure why, but I forgot to mention that you're one of my favorite human beings in existence. That is all.
PieMunchies 6 months ago
@illdoc1
This technique was actually imitated by a Republican Senator on the Debt Celing Recently on the Lawrence O'Donnell show. I'd say do a sequel to this clip-maybe it's a training point for GOP/Tea Party people?
d0tax2 7 months ago
What is needed now isn't stronger central government and business regulation, but for the people to believe in and understand the words "all men are created equal." Before the Civil Rights Act, our society was already trending towards non-segregation.
The people have the power, without the use of government force, to protest and condemn the actions of businesses in a free market economy that discriminate on the basis of race. Protest, spend your money elsewhere, tell others to do the same.
VotePaineJefferson 7 months ago
@VotePaineJefferson "our society was already trending towards non-segregation"???? Where were you living? Where I was living in VA, society was doing everything it could to continue to avoid integration, even AFTER the Civil Rights Act. My home town remained lilly white until well after I graduated from HS in 1979! It did so with quiet intimidation tactics to assure that folks selling houses did NOT sell to those of African heritage.
FarmSustainably 7 months ago
@FarmSustainably I remember hearing a historian talk about it a while ago, but I can't seem to find the source either. I retract my earlier statement.
However, it SHOULD be noted that before the Civil Rights Act many "whites" did march on DC with Martin Luther King in 1963, that Malcom X regarded the Civil Rights Act as a total failure, and a 1983 survey by the Department of Education could not find integrated schooling to have had any appreciable effect on "black educational achievement."
VotePaineJefferson 7 months ago
@VotePaineJefferson You're absolutely right about that. Plenty of whites supported King and the changes, otherwise, many probably never would have happened. On Malcom X, I'm not sure about that one... no time to look it up now, but it would be interesting to see if that opinion was from before or after he went to Meccah. He changed a lot of his opinions after that trip. And on the DOE survey.. no real surprise there. You can make rules, but you can't legislate attitudes.
FarmSustainably 7 months ago
Comment removed
VotePaineJefferson 7 months ago
stop weaseling tshirts? good idea :D
crazeeladie 7 months ago
I knew there was something I didn't like about libertarianism, and you have perfectly hit it on the head! THANK YOU!!! I knew there was a simple answer.
FarmSustainably 8 months ago
@FarmSustainably Yes. The simple answer is that emotions trump the "abstract" notion of property rights. Property rights like a house, land, buildings, etc. Unfortunately, in reality, physical things aren't abstract, as illdoc1 seems to think.
People own property, they put their resources and life into it. Upholding property rights is the same thing as upholding someone's right to do what they want with their own life.
blakstar101 7 months ago
@blakstar101 ... Property is not abstract, but rights are. If we all behaved civily, we wouldn't need laws, but the reality is, we don't, so we do. One person may think that doing what they want with their life is to refuse to sell a house to blacks, or they may want to put a toxic waste dump in their back yard, or they may want to raise elephants in the suburbs. Hence we need laws to keep those.self-indulgent-screw-society ideas in check.
FarmSustainably 7 months ago
@FarmSustainably Stop pretending like I argued for lawlessness.
If you refuse to sell to blacks then "society" will screw your business if the "society" isn't tolerant of racism.
Toxic waste dump in a backyard? If it affects other people's rights or breaks the residential area contract then you can sue them.
When you live in a suburb you sign a contract that allows the homeowner association to control what you do to your house to ensure high property values of all the houses in the suburb.
blakstar101 7 months ago
@blakstar101 I wasn't pretending anything, nor was I saying that you argued for lawlessness... I was just pointing out that there are limits to property rights, and for good reason.
FarmSustainably 7 months ago
@FarmSustainably Yeah the limit of property rights is infringing on someone else rights. You listed supposed "problems" of property rights that already have solutions that I gave you.
The main issue is about discrimination and property rights. The problem is that people assume they have a right to the goods and services that a particular business is selling, but would never think that a particular business has a right to the money of the customers in exchange of what is sold.
blakstar101 7 months ago
Funny when Austrian economic theories find particular resonance among white males in the world's dominant empire. They believe in total liberty for the most entitled, enfranchised people.
Segregated water fountains? Shit. We got desegregation, also known as "citizenship for all people" — and then the fuckers declared war on water fountains. That's socialism! Buy water in little plastic bottles.
JayBroquet 8 months ago
europa 9 months ago
When was the last time the free-market brought about any sort of civil rights?
Even the Montgomery bus system preferred to lose money on barring and mistreating blacks than to gain greater profits through inclusion.
It took a Supreme Court ruling to get them to include the passengers they discriminated against, not the free-market.
vietnamflashbacks 9 months ago 19
Comment removed
Marlowann 2 months ago
@vietnamflashbacks If another bus company had competed against National City Lines by including everyone on the bus and therefore gained more profit, National City Lines would've had to change the Montgomery bus system policy to keep from failing in business.
Marlowann 2 months ago
@vietnamflashbacks In fact, the boycott of the bus system was entirely done in the style of a free market. All of the obstacles to the boycott were government-caused; when taxis charged their prices no higher than the bus system (in support of the boycott) there were fines mandated to prevent it. People carpooled, biked, walked, or even rode mules, and the montgomery system suffered from it immensely.
That sounds pretty capitalist to me.
Marlowann 2 months ago
@Marlowann Would you call a sit-in capitalist? Or a demonstration or a march? The bus boycott was only one method that was used, the ones I mentioned were much more common.
dashab 2 months ago
@dashab All I'm saying was that it wasn't capitalism's fault that the Montgomery Bus System got away with racist policies; beyond that, the boycott was severe enough to cause serious deficits in the city involved and that's what moved the government to make racist bus policies illegal.
Marlowann 2 months ago
@Marlowann capitalism did not cause racist policies like segregation.
But the point here is that capitalism was never going to do anything to stop those racist policies either.
Expecting the free market to do anything for social justice is like expecting your toaster to wash your clothes. It's simply now what it was designed to do.
booley 2 weeks ago
@booley Capitalism is designed to let people pay for what they want to pay for, letting any business who caters to the whims of the people thrive, while businesses who don't give the people what they want obviously won't make much money. In the case of the Montgomery bus system, the anti-racist boycott was a sign that most people didn't want the bus system to be racist. So that bus system stopped making money.
Marlowann 2 weeks ago
@Marlowann that may be how it was designed in theory.
But in practice businesses not only could be racist, many felt they had to be because otherwise they risked losing white customers. The boy cott hurt the busline because loss of black and other anti-segregation business was substantial. But it's untrue that they stopped making money. They just didnt' make as much as before. and other businesses could esaily weather a boycott.
booley 2 weeks ago
@booley Given this much, and that the city govt. impoed fines on boycotting taxis that charged less than the bus system's fee, (governmental anti-capitalist measure to support racism) Capitalism has the potential to solve social liberty problems by putting the economic power in the direct hands of the people, letting them decide who deserves money.
So unlike a toaster, which has no potential to wash clothes, capitalism does indeed have the potential to do social justice, if not the guarantee.
Marlowann 2 weeks ago
@Marlowann and so disregarding how you misconstrued the taxi situation the problem with your claim becomes obvious...
"Capitalism has the potential to solve social liberty problems by putting the economic power in the direct hands of the people"
In theory maybe but in practice it does the exact opposite if given a chance. and capitalism is just fine with concentration of wealth.
Which means capitalism can cause more problems then it creates
booley 2 weeks ago
@Marlowann it's not that capitalism ha san end ot cause social injustice. But frankly social justice is NOT what it's about. Companies succeed or fail based on how well they do at making money in the short term. IF they can do that by causing pollution & oppressing workers, that's just as good to capitalism as one that's green and supports workers... as long as money is being made. And being a robber baron douche bag bigot can get you a lot of money.
booley 2 weeks ago
@Marlowann In short, any social justice from capitalism is incidental and typically outnumbered by the social injustices it contributes too.
booley 2 weeks ago
@booley Well every economic system will allow the wrong people to benefit from it in great ways. That's the guarantee of any economic system, since no matter what kind it might be, it'll always be a human system. Whether capitalism's justices are outnumbered by its injustices I think calls for a different discussion and history lesson; but as far as all of these economic systems go, I've found capitalism under a constitutionally consistent govt. to be the least imperfect. Have a nice day broham
Marlowann 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Marlowann "Well every economic system will allow the wrong people to benefit "
true but capitalism is especially prone to this. History has shown capitalism is great at creating wealth.... and that's primarily it. It makes no moral distinction as people as to how that wealth is generated.
Personally I like capitalism. I own my own business. But I also understand it has some severe limitations. Yet anytime we try to deal w/ those, it's called "socialism".
booley 2 weeks ago
a) great info and response
b) anyone ever say you sound like Mr. Bill Cosby when on a rant?
TheSingingL 9 months ago
The clip told me nothing about Rand Paul so poor was the context. But I could get the idea that Rachael Maddow is a hard pushing ideologue and an accusing totalitarian. But not in perfect context.
prrolg 11 months ago
I support private businesses doing what they want, the government shouldnt be able to dictate what i do in my own business.
phallictractor 11 months ago
@phallictractor Let me guess, you're a straight white male?
vietnamflashbacks 9 months ago
Wow, I just found this vlogger, and he says so many things I have been thinking for so long, and does it in such a clever & entertaining way!
sphinooccipital 1 year ago
If anyone saw my last comment, please ignore. I feel very foolish.
Thanks for the video J Smooth! learn something new every day.
Peace. Dr Koul
huntedrasta 1 year ago
Comment removed
huntedrasta 1 year ago
Rand Paul is simply saying the government shouldn't dictate with a private establishment. He clearly said he agreed with 9 outta 10 things in the Civil Rights Act. That doesn't make him racist. The KKK has a RIGHT to March and protest. Just because u agree with them having that right doesnt make your racist. Man think for yourself and stop giving half the story like Fox News. Argue with some LOGIC.
urbanflavorz 1 year ago
hahahah this is true when i watched this I was cracking up because he absolutely refused to answer the question
Jpain720 1 year ago
great thoughts a law that says i cant be racist will indeed prevent racism--- nice logic
deicer1962 1 year ago
@deicer1962 perhaps ironically such laws do curb racism.
by about 2 thirds.
How do we know this? 1/3 of racist discriminate only as long as they have a legal ability to do so. They're still racist but they follow the law (prejudiced non-discriminators)
And another third aren't racist but discriminate because of other factors unless something ( like a law) counteracts these factors. (non-prejudiced discriminators).
That leaves only the hard core bigots left who get increasingly isolated
booley 1 year ago
Now that's he's been elected, he will be even less likely to answer any questions.
But he will have to vote for stuff occasionally. Though if he takes a cue from his fellow GOP, he probably won't justify most of the votes he takes or will give some lame excuse about procedures.
booley 1 year ago
The kung-fu clips made it great. I just wish he'd answer the question, I hate how politicans these days refuse to answer the questions given to them. It doesn't make you cute (if you're female) or a political maverk who doesn't play by the rules (if male.)
YaoiHuntressEarth 1 year ago
Human rights are also an abstract idea.
rade1809 1 year ago
The same thing could be said about the Tea Party as a whole:
Redistribution such a bad thing in every single scenario? "Obamacare" such a disastrous policy? So important to balance the budget now now now?
My response to their questions:
Do you have a secret plan to fight inequality and if so, why are you keeping it secret? How do YOU plan to fix health care costs and cover the uninsured? And what programs do you want to cut, since raising taxes on anybody is out of the question?
KarlBonner1982 1 year ago
Congrats to Rand Paul, who besides his father will fight for real liberty, whether u are a poor white or a rich black. I know many people here dont support the constitution and deem it as an archaic document, it is the true pinnacle of freedom...but when you let government grow to level which it is now, blaming our last 15+ administrations ,,,,liberty will only continue to diminish.....and the CRA pertaining to private business is morally wrong...
gsrxx420xx 1 year ago
Comment removed
enermaster123 1 year ago
Comment removed
enermaster123 1 year ago
Comment removed
enermaster123 1 year ago
Comment removed
enermaster123 1 year ago
Stop with the weasel metaphors! Like wolves, many species of mustelidae are endangered because idiots anthropomorphize them. They evolved to fit an ecological niche that requires them to be stealthy hunters.
Rand Paul evades answering questions because he knows that most people would not accept his ideology. Period.
tanfouk 1 year ago
You know....this guy is worth listening to. He has a good take on things, and articulates it well.
DavidsVirtualSelf 1 year ago
Libertarianism is religious fundementalism but for atheists.
Same fuzzy logic, magical thinking and demand for ideological purity in the face of reality. But without the need for a God whose "scriptures" may also ask that you do things you don't want to do like feed the hungry or treat others as you would be treated.
And just enough self awareness to understand that others would find the logical extension of those views repugnant.
booley 1 year ago 8
@booley As an atheist, who spends a lot of time with other atheists, I'd say we are the group of people most willing to say "I don't know." I haven't detected any 'fundamentalism,' dogmatism, or ideological tyranny among us. Mostly, we're pragmatists. The only thing we have a consensus on is the lack of evidence for supernatural beings.
tanfouk 1 year ago
@tanfouk As also someone who has talked to and hung around a lot of atheists, I have noticed that while many atheists will amit they don't know about a subject, they are no less immune from ideological dogmatism or fuzzy logic in the service of their prejudices as anyone else.
In fact, I think some are more vulnerable since they assume that since there's no GOD to be dellusional about that they cant' have any dellusions at all.
But religious dogma is just one type.
booley 1 year ago
@booley.... and Stateism is the just destruction of the rights of the individual for the equal treatment of the minority. Fuzzy logic? If you have these beliefs and so many people have beliefs just like you, I'd think the hungry would be fed at a higher rate in a Libertarian community than that of an unproductive state controlled society. I know I'd much rather send my funds to those in need than to Uncle Sam. Our culture needs to change, don't force it. TALK ABOUT IT.
jcf005 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from illdoc1
@jcf005 " I'd think the hungry would be fed at a higher rate in a Libertarian community"
And I think puppies and gold bricks will shoot from the asses in a libertarian community.
Too bad the few times a "libertarian society" has ever been attempted so neither your nor my prediction can be proven. which is the problem I cited. You guys make all of these predictions about what Libertarianism would do. But it never seems to work out that way.
booley 2 weeks ago
i serioulsy have never been so captivated by some one in less than three minutes, you sir, are amazing. you are the first person i will be susbscribing to and i have been on youtyube since the beginning.
ricque18 1 year ago
A lot of mainstream conservatives who have semi-libertarian economic views weasel their way out of serious debate by wrapping their ideology in real-world rhetoric and bringing up that supposed Churchill quote about young conservatives having no heart and middle-aged liberals having no brain. The most disgusting thing is that their rhetoric goes largely unchallenged when it should be singled out for ruthless critique!
KarlBonner1982 1 year ago
I agee w/ Rand, racists are allowed to hide behind that 10th part of the CRA. Allow them to deny people and we can boycott them out of existance rather than unknowingly reward them w/ our money.
KingJorel5 1 year ago
Brand Pol: "I'm not racist; I have a colored TV!"
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
I'd hangout with you
jaytonbye 1 year ago
That was beautiful... *wipes eyes*
shadetreader 1 year ago
Dude it only took you a minute to floor me haha
Sabohaque 1 year ago
What bothered me about Rand Paul's interview was his cowardice. If he truly thinks that there was a good reason to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then he should say so (since he was asked in an interview on national television) and then maybe ask to be allowed to clarify his reasoning.
But he was afraid of the reaction of viewers whose logic would have been "CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 = GOOD, THEREFORE RAND PAUL = BAD," but those people are simple. Say what you mean and live with it.
HelterMcSkelter 1 year ago
@HelterMcSkelter Right. Dodging the question makes me feel like you're hiding something and not up to facing challenges politics throws at you.
YaoiHuntressEarth 1 year ago
Comment removed
VehementBehemoth 1 year ago
Comment removed
VehementBehemoth 1 year ago
Illdoctrine has some paranormal activity shit going on with that door. Interesting thing about that is, ghost or demon?
ptoutant 1 year ago
He's not a Racist just a "Libertarian"*. They think freedom is very important but only for rich White guys.
*Proper Libertarians are Libertarian-Socialists. The Ayn Rand worshiping Capitalists that call themselves Libertarians are a pretty recent trend.
WhimsicalQuandary 1 year ago
@WhimsicalQuandary Sadly, I've only met one Libertarian that didn't fit that recent sterotype.
YaoiHuntressEarth 1 year ago
Well, at will you be clear and admit that you mean "I worship government" when you say "I'm a liberal" ? It's easy to misrepresent those who favor freedom over security but that doesn't make for a good substitute for a spine.
tmbtdjag 1 year ago
Brilliant video.
MisterTorgo 1 year ago
I agree with you that libertarians are so stuck in the theory and ideology of their -ism, that they don't consider the real life applications of their beliefs. It's also strange to me that the people most likely to advance the notion that private businesses should be allowed to freely discriminate are the ones least likely to be discriminated against on the basis of their immutable characteristics. The lack of empathy and elevation of ideology is almost pathological.
marduk131 1 year ago 66
@marduk131
You could say the same about Communists, Anarchists, Relativists or a million other -ists.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
@marduk131
I stumbled upon this user's channel and found his videos entertaining and intellectually stimulating. So please forgive the tardiness of my reply to your comment, but, it seems to me the ones who don't consider the the real life applications of their beliefs are the ones such as you, advocating in favor of failed policies.
VotePaineJefferson 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is only because we are in a time of decay, regression, ugliness, unhealth, hypocrisy and stupidity that an insipid, talentless, agenda-driven, lesbian like Rachel Maddow can operate freely. David Duke's video about Maddow and Paul is revealing. Watch it on youtube.
Gravelandart 1 year ago
This guy has a voice that would be perfect for radio!
MrYoubrian 1 year ago
dude you're awesome. you should be on TV.
poxod 1 year ago
there is nothing spectacular about Maddow or any other talking head clown.
MoparTurbo05 1 year ago
Those types of questions put forth to libertarians always have an agenda of spin and slant. They don't have a simple yes or no answer. Maddow is a clown the same as Bill O'Reilly or Rush...talking head clowns with a political agenda. The only thing they don't do is inform the public.
MoparTurbo05 1 year ago
Yet as libertarians is it still not our job to answer those questions honestly?
Plato86 1 year ago
@MoparTurbo05 "Those types of questions?" You mean simple, yes or no questions about a politician's stance on a certain issue? The question she was asking did have a simple, yes or no answer.
yerk3 1 year ago
I always enjoy watching your videos. The way you deliver social and political commentary is a refreshing spin on my usual day-to-day experiences. Thank you and please continue doing exactly what you're doing. :)
krazykraut 1 year ago
Always done well, you're the man!
ReachMyNetwork 1 year ago
He saw through the pansy game Rachel was trying to play and didn't play ball. She was trying to dumb down the issue and turn it into a way of pulling the race card, in the typical liberal fashion. lame...
MyStrangeMind 1 year ago
@MyStrangeMind One of the major controversies over libertarian standpoints is that when the majority is free to behave as they choose, they generally choose to mistreat minorities of various kinds. Addressing that is not dumbing down the issue.
Lokifan13 1 year ago 53
@Lokifan13 Conservatives believe that anything that inhibits freedom is bad. This is, of course, absurd. The freedom to defer the cost of your actions onto society is not good. The freedom to start an unjust, hopeless war and thereby murder thousands of your own soldiers is not good. Freedom is neither good nor bad, it depends on what one is free to do.
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
@amazingyou1uber
Well conservatives seem to believe that anything that denies their freedom is bad.
Including their freedom to impair the freedom of others.
But I guess it's a matters of priorities.
I personally think the freedom of all Americans to be able to play a role in society and be treated equally under the law is more important then the right to keep the "darkies" from eating next to white folk.
If one "freedom" has to be sacrificed, I choose the latter.
Some feel differently.
booley 1 year ago 3
@Lokifan13 Isn't that the whole point of the Constitution and the principle behind a democratic republic? The entire purpose of our government's foundation is on protecting the minority from the majority. That's why we have the Bill of Rights.
The Libertarian view points merely starts with the fundamental documents of our government and from there does the best it can to preserve freedom and liberty.
Look at the worst examples in history of minority oppression, it was done by gov. power.
matt81874 9 months ago
Just fyi - it's not 'our government', I'm British :) The American Constitution and Bill of Rights was clearly not enough to protect minorities, though, that's sort of my point; inalienable rights and civil rights aren't the same thing. The worst examples of oppression were done by government power but I believe in positive rights as well as negative ones: I want my government not only to protect me from its own power but to protect me from those with more social power than me, who would hurt me.
Lokifan13 9 months ago 3
@MyStrangeMind Actually, it was a direct question. The only "pansy game" is in your head.
yerk3 1 year ago
Racism is a form of collectivism. The solution this this is individualism, which is something Rand would promote. Whats the collectivist answer to racism? Oh that's right, to perpetuate it, and somehow use authority to mandate fairness at the same time.
MyPasswordIsAlpha 1 year ago
Unbelievable. My rights are not an 'abstract set of principles'. The 'basic rights of human beings' does not include the right for you or anyone who believes what you do to steal from me or anyone else. You are in grave error about what rights are and where they come from. Furthermore, there is nothing weird or alienating about these ideas, in fact, to hear a politician say them is very refreshing and encouraging. That is why Libertarianism is spreading all over the world like never before.
irdial 1 year ago
@irdial Preventing you from kicking black people out of your restaurant FOR BEING BLACK is stealing from you?
torpedodeuce 1 year ago 2
@torpedodeuce Samuel B. Fuller, owner of a very large makeup company, found himself at the receiving end of a boycott in the 1950s. Why? because 'white' people found out the owner of this successful company was 'black'. Are you saying that the government should have stepped in and forced those people to continue to buy his cosmetics? Because the logic of keeping people out of your restaurant is exactly the same as a boycott of any product or company. This is the logic that is missing here.
irdial 1 year ago
@irdial You're missing the point entirely. The government can't force anyone to buy anything. That is so not the issue. If Fuller had refused to sell to white people, then yes, the government would have a reason to intervene.
118Webster 1 year ago
@118Webster Wrong. The government does force people to trade with others, and that is entirely the point; wether or not the state should force people to associate or refrain from associating. We say its all around bad that they do. Go to Lew Rockwell's site and read his article, "The Freedom of Association", and go to Blogdial and read the post titled, "Coerced association: the state mandates it", which details the law banning US people participating in boycotts.
irdial 1 year ago
@irdial You mean the guy who penned those racist articles in Ron Paul's newsletters? No thanks. But I'm seeing a pattern here.
118Webster 1 year ago
@118Webster You are right about a pattern emerging. There is a large number of people who refuse, on principle, to consider any view of the world other than the one they were taught at government schools and their nursemaids: Television. They cannot be appealed to with logic, evidence or any facts. They are incapable of independent thought, shun it, and are wilfully ignorant. I just pointed you to a post that proves the government forces people to buy things and you say 'no thanks'. QED.
irdial 1 year ago
@irdial when humanity is ready to grow up and has reached a new level of love for each other and real freedom and cooperation a libertarian government will actually be exactly what will work best. are we there? I dont know....I don't mind trying though. I understand why the idea scares some people.
MoparTurbo05 1 year ago
@DestroyZOG8 you are correct. however, our country has this habit of on one hand idolizing the constitution like it's god, and on the other hand "interpreting" it differently as years go by to make it fit into modern life. thus, a half-assed declaration of equality gradually becomes truer as time goes by. and don't think i'm insinuating that you're one of them when i say this: anyone who thinks that the election of obama is this huge thing that's finally leveled the playing field is retarded.
yourtunesfuckinsuck 1 year ago
silly video...you used up 2:34 of your 15 minutes of fame
JoeyPencils 1 year ago
rand should have said, "if a private business wants to exclude patrons, no one should go there to prove a point; and that point is that if you discriminate, you will go out of business.
amindbody 1 year ago
every time i watch one of your videos, my crush on you doubles
you should stop vlogging before my boyfriend finds out
(nah, i'm just playin. keep vlogging, your shit is awesome)
omoisdeath 1 year ago
loooove your quote at 1:23. also makes one wonder about how he might feel about other issues, like minimum wage, hiring practices, safety regulations, the fda, etc etc. oh can of worms..
sisforshayla 1 year ago
@0bodobod0 As with most things political, nothing is black and white, and most of the time the best path is in the blurry space inbetween two opposing points of view. This goes for "individual rights/laws made to protect those rights, by hindering the rights of others".
Also: I'm the most gorgeous dude on the dot comzzzz.
teddyfaley 1 year ago
@0bodobod0 his point is not so much calling him a racist, but saying that the general libertarian philosophy that Rand Paul subscribes to would have allowed the segragation to continue.
teddyfaley 1 year ago
Interesting.
mhirtes12 1 year ago
Gee, I wonder if Racial Madcow will now get some big Democrat on camera and ask them if they support discrimination against men and against whites through so-called "affirmative action" and "diversity" programs. You haven't seen real squirming and dodging until you've seen a Democrat try to answer that question. And they should answer, because this is the only LEGAL discrimination left.
HughCrammit 1 year ago
@HughCrammit I'm sorry you feel that the Civil Rights Act was made to discriminate whites and men (If that wasn't what you meant please correct me) , but this country was built with the most immoral values ever. Have you seen what discriminatory acts that has been displayed toward women and minorities in general. For goodness sakes, Blacks weren't even considered a whole person and women weren't able to own land or vote. If you don't consider that a major issue then i don't know what is.
animalcrossingfan1 1 year ago
this guy sucks donkey asshole
bidiploid 1 year ago
I find it funny that so many people will say they do not want the government pushing religious beliefs/morallity but are perfectly ok if the government dictates progressive beliefs/morallity.
davix000 1 year ago
100% right on mr smooth
ap2152002 1 year ago
Rand Paul needs to state his Racist and Corpratist veiws in a manner that makes him appear less like a Racist or Corpratist, if he expects to excel in the GOP.
tubeinaredcircle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rand unfortunately does not equal Ron. This is what happens when a politician isn't ready to defend and debate his beliefs in a manner satisfactory to the media (and the media plans on exploiting it).
Now we all get to watch the world make him out to be a dodgy politician.
Wait.
Nevermind. It walks like a duck...talks like a duck...
t0nyt0wn 1 year ago
Rand unfortunately does not equal Ron. This is what happens when a politician isn't ready to defend and debate his beliefs in a manner satisfactory to the media (and the media plans on exploiting it).
Now we all get to watch the world make him out to be a dodgy politician.
Wait.
Nevermind. It walks like a duck...talks like a duck...
t0nyt0wn 1 year ago
The idea of race is an illusion which creates a false dichotomy. Skin color is a superficial attribute which individuals have no control over. Well said Mr. illdoc1
kiknit1 1 year ago
I would dodge questions too if i had people twisting my words at every turn...
Jamusse 1 year ago
I think Rand Paul did a good job of not getting caught in the trap of answering loaded questions, he explained this quite clearly.
totheman 1 year ago
No War for Israel in Iran - Keep Americans Safe watch?v=_qxzZY4JycY
The3rdBrokenBottle 1 year ago
1. Rand ideals is based on liberty meaning business should be allowed to discriminate and associate with home ever they please. No shoes no shirt no service can be interpreted as being discriminative for the poor but you say nothing on that.
2. Since the government was the one initiating force against those who were integrating it's illogical to say the same entity responsible for forcing that law is the same that ended it. That's like saying I ended arson by not burning houses anymore.
lukewarmstormed 1 year ago
@lukewarmstormed lol the arson part
mana2432 1 year ago
Have you seen the original interview that sparked the controversy? He was pretty damn clear in that interview. It wasn't until everyone in the (allegedly "left-wing") mainstream media started misrepresenting him that he started giving history lessons instead of answering their questions directly.
People who ask loaded questions don't deserve direct answers.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns If you mean the Louisville Courier interview, he was clear only in the sense that he was transparent in his desire to avoid the issue. His initial answer deliberately stopped short of fully addressing it, and then when called on it he rolled his eyes and said "you just had to ask if there was a but" and again failed, in a much longer response, to directly answer the question asked.
illdoc1 1 year ago 17
@illdoc1
Yeah. That's the interview I'm talking about. Except I understood his position loud and clear, and I think he addressed it as adequately as he needed to. What do you think he omitted from his response which would have constituted an adequate answer?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@illdoc1 The question is a non-starter. His point is if the NOI or KKK owns a private business, like a bar or resturant, then the government has no right to tell them what they can or can't do with that private property, without defrauding anyone, of course. This is a free speech/property ownership question, which he did answer in the Maddow interview. He would not operate his business that way, but will defend a racist'ss right to free speech, because he believes in INDIVIDUAL rights.
djzacmaniac 1 year ago
@djzacmaniac
"This is a free speech/property ownership question"
This is not free speech. That's a straw man. People can and do still make racist comments. As long as one isn't inciting a riot or telling people to go out and murder others, it's even protected
It's when one uses that prejudice to keep people from doing what everyone else takes for granted, to single them out and make them unequal, that's when one has crossed the line.
booley 1 year ago
@booley How can anyone take my private property for granted? I don't think you are fully understanding the issue.
djzacmaniac 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns He was anything BUT clear in that interview. The question was straightforward: Should private busineses be able to discriminate even if it violates federal anti-discrimination laws? There was nothing "loaded" about it. He could have said either "yes they should and here's why" or "no they shouldnt and here's why." As a candidate for public office he should openly and clearly state his views and be ready to defend those views even if some might find them unpopular.
elkadir70 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns "Are you or are you not in favor of the Civil Rights Act?" it's a simple question and he begged it too hard.
He's the gift that keeps on giving the GOP. Thanks a lot, Kentucky Republicans! You're stuck with him now. David Plouffe couldn't have asked for you to make a better choice for the Democratic Party.
rumisouth 1 year ago
Anyone that would allow personal property rights to displace human rights has the morality of a snake.
That Mr rand IS Un-American.
tubeinaredcircle 1 year ago
@tubeinaredcircle Hmm, Surely Human rights would cover freedom no?
totheman 1 year ago
@totheman Not the freedom to displace another's Rights as a Human.
tubeinaredcircle 1 year ago
@tubeinaredcircle By me refusing to serve you I am not displacing your rights to freedom.
You are displacing my rights by forcing me to serve you, thus taking my right to volition.
totheman 1 year ago
@totheman By me not serving you (or other like you) based simply on your race, would deny your race the same freedom of access to goods and services that are directly or indirectly the result of contributions of ALL Americans, regardless of race.
Or do you somehow feel that ALL races should pay for the infrastructure that allows your business to exist, while access and benefits of that business is relegated to the race of your choosing?
tubeinaredcircle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubeinaredcircle You are operating on the presupposition that you have the right to freedom of access of goods and services rather than the right to pursue said access of goods and services. To claim that you are entitled to the work of other men without compensation is to damn us all to slavery.
"ALL races should pay for the infrastructure that allows your business to exist"
You think because you pay taxes that you are entitled to someone else's work?
totheman 1 year ago
Hmm, remember that freedom of speech is a principle that allows for racism and hatred. Is that principle still a good principle even though it allows for neo-nazi groups to march in the streets? I think so.
You criticize Rand's beliefs by calling them "weird". I thought that sort of argument stopped being valid after 2nd grade.
As a Rand supporter, I do agree with you that he did put on a major weasel act in that interview. The reasons for doing so are understandable, but not excusable.
schulwitz 1 year ago
The Problem i have with Rand Paul is inconsistency when it comes to some things the founders believed in he is on point but with others he is pretty much with Sarah Palin. the 14 amendment of the Constitution and the Commerce clause protects against discrimination in the Public domain which includes a lot of private property.some private property you can still discriminate against people based on race .not to mention his view on Religion
tynitty516 1 year ago
More....He did an interview with Pat Robertson's CBN basically claiming Christianity is the bedrock on which society operates which Thomas Jefferson and even John Adams disagreed with @tynitty516
tynitty516 1 year ago
Property rights are not "Abstract" principles.
totheman 1 year ago
@totheman funny Rand Paul didn't speak about property rights. He spoke in circles.
wildcatste 1 year ago
@wildcatste If you actually watched it, he explicitly disagrees with the Government writing legislation telling private property owners what to do with their property.
totheman 1 year ago
preach!!
whittlesjh 1 year ago
his belief is freedom...
put it like this..... HE MIGHT NOT LIKE WHAT YOU SAY>>> BUT HE'LL DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT...
WAKE UP... (tool)
Donninator1 1 year ago
He's a BAD, inconsistent Libertarian. He doesn't think women should be allowed to have abortions, he thinks the government should discriminate against sam-sex marraige, he supports increasing Medicare funding to doctors (btw he's a doctor himself), and he supports the indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial.
Suddenly, though, when it comes to whites-only lunch counters, he thinks the government should just keep its nose out of other people's business. That's really weird.
shawnstruck 1 year ago 3
It doesn't mean any of those things, ill. What it means is that there were other ways to take care of the issue than by mandating hiring practices etc. I know you're not naive enough to think that forcing someone to hire an asian person or a white person means that that person won't be treated harshly though they draw a paycheck. There are other ways to handle things like that: boycotting, for instance. A libertarian government doesn't foster any sort of prejudice. That's just a silly kneejerk..
AnimusBehemoth 1 year ago
Wait, what happened to Ron Paul? Is this a family affair?
resaf 1 year ago
I'll dumb it down for you
He said he is against racial discrimination
He is for regulating it in a PUBLIC institution
He is against regulating Private institutions today
He would have supported civil rights during THAT time because intervention was necessary
The race card is a cheap tool the left uses to fool people who don't follow politics regularly.
Mostdef 1 year ago
You see, this illdoc, and I guess Racial Madcow too, seem to think that white people would never do business with blacks unless they were forced by law. That's the unspoken assumption of their comments. We need a law to force white people to associate with blacks, or else they'd never do it. Never. Not even ever. Never. See? That's what the commies think - or what they want you to think.
ClovisMerovech 1 year ago
@ClovisMerovech awesome strawman
<