Maddow doesn't understand history or the reality of what she is asking government to do. The U.S. founding documents were not designed to grant any rights, but simply to enumerate. God gives rights.
Slavery of any kind is wrong. When the government became too big, it began to trample the God-given rights of minorities - take for example the FBI killings of Black leaders in the 60s.
An over-reaching government who assumes they have power to give rights will one day try to take them away.
@flipgood89 So.. you saying that when governments kill black leaders, it's NOT racism? I disagree. No government should ever overstep it's bounds to lift one race above the other.
All Senator Paul is saying here is that he follows the Constitution - all men are created equal and are guaranteed the same rights by God. They are not entitled to special priveledges.
Maddow believes she should have equal rights as a homosexual [ she was not born that way (no one is) ], and this warps her view.
@comsunderground ...The constitution is a document that originally established that black people were "3/5ths"...All men were created equal, but they sure as hell havent been treated equally. So what we have is this intellectual slight of hand, that Paul and his supporters attempt: Overlook 400 yrs of institutional discrimination that has limited and disadvantaged people of color, yet scream "special privileges" at any legislation that attempts to address that inequality. How special.
Saying "i believe in property rights" to avoid acknowledging potential racial segregation, is the equivalent of slave owners saying "i believe in state's rights". Both Paul's are living in the past.
@Saebeck32 Racism is wrong and immoral, but forced association is just as wrong. Neither Pauls are racist, both have supporters who aren't white, and many people have come to understand that it's all about government coercion that is the enemy in this.
@cfuller85 I seriously doubt they have many non-white supporters. No one is forcing association, just ensuring that forced exclusion is outlawed in places open to the public.
@cfuller85 I'm latino, and support the Paul views... if there is a rest that says, no whites, blacks, or hispanics, I would not go to any of them...but its their right to do that... what concerns me is that the gov't interfere's and even possible future repercursions ..just like privacy, first Patriot Act, then NDAA, then what...its gonna get worse unless we stop gov't interference now..
He's just too smart for politics. PRIVATE business should be able to do whatever the hell they want! Government should have absolutely no say on who they choose to let in! I trust the majority of American people to not go back into racism and I think a business who chose that wouldn't even survive! BUT Rand Paul did not deliver this in his response very well. I think he needs to consult his old pops :)
@erikiia Who is the current law hurting? I seem to recall less than 50 years ago having to send in federal troops to help end segregation. You don't know how widespread racism still is. Try going to a Fox News Tea Party rally and you'll see that racism is alive and well. So why take a chance? The current law isn't hurting anyone. Rand Paul got EMBARRASSED here.
@erikiia ...Ok mr/ms Private business, dont stop there. Lets go further. Since ur private, dont use the water, roads, or other infrastructure that are paid for by other tax payers. Dont have access to the police forces, firefighters that other races pay for. Dont take advantage of the laws that protect your business, that other races died to protect. I love these "private business" bad asses, who refuse to acknowledge how society has promoted their success and protects it.
@Pdrum2 Churches are and have always been labeled as private property. I thought everybody with basic knowledge of religious institutions knew that. Therefore, obviously, anti-discrimination laws don't apply there - for example, no church is forced to offer marriages for same-sex couples.
@darris321 Public speech is punishable in cases, because it breaks rules that apply to the public. For example, hate speech in a school isn't tolerated. I think private organizations should be free to do whatever they like, but if you're opening up a business to the public, it's no longer a private property and therefore, all the basic government rules apply. Those government rules happen to include protections against discrimination, which *most* of the American public overwhelmingly supports.
@Pdrum2 Apparently you chose to ignore where I said "I think private organizations should be free to do whatever they like".
I don't believe, when you open up a business to the public, it constitutes private property anymore. These public businesses are subject to all government rules, and those include anti-discrimination laws, whether you like it or not.
@SweetSodaChick What about freedom of religious expression, what if a gay couple wants to practice homosexuality in a church and the church discriminates because its against their belief then they sue the church does the church not have a right to express their belief?
@Pdrum2 Churches are and have always been labeled as private property. I thought everybody with basic knowledge of religious institutions knew that. Therefore, obviously, anti-discrimination laws don't apply there - for example, no church is forced to offer marriages for same-sex couples.
@SweetSodaChick Well, we don't like it... That's just it. Not because of racism or anything like that, but we just don't believe in that kind of legislation.
He starts to say "I don't condone violence" and she shakes her head and smiles as if HE'S the idiot
wtf, Rachel?
You ask a question, expect it to be answered.
He doesn't condone violence. If racism causes violence, that sucks, that's between the racist and the victim of the racism- it has nothing to do with government encroachment on private property.
@frivosold Okay. Rand Paul might personally support vote for blacks. But who cares what he personally thinks? He would be against the federal government ENFORCING that right.
I know what libertarianism is. Unlike most American libertarians, i know where the term originates. It was coined by a french communist anarchist. Libertarianism used to be synonymous to leftwing anarchism. But capitalists hijacked the term to include protection of private property from the government.
Good man. NEVER provide a simple "Yes" or "No." Seriously. Any media source--especially MSNBC--will take your response out of context and use it against you via sound bite. Cowardly demagogues.
There of course may remain pockets or individual businesses who discriminate based on irrelevant factors. If I own a dry cleaner and say "no redheads allowed" am I somehow harming or taking away rights of others? No. I may be ugly, but that's all the more reason for redheads to avoid me (ie harm my business). A video on youtube (search for it) asks the question: Should black business owners be legally forced to serve KKK members?
The point that I'm sure Paul would go on to make if he weren't so image conscious is that racism is bad for business and is all but stamped out by the market. Think how much worse your favorite sports team would be if its ownership indulged in whatever racist proclivities it may have. No Kobe/Lebron/CJ/Tiger etc. It may be illegal, but if the law were lifted today you wouldn't see the Lakers cut Kobe, just because it wouldn't be illegal.
The fact is that I don't have a right to eat at a lunch counter if that lunch counter, say, closes its doors. I haven't been deprived of any of my rights or property. Similarly, many private businesses have signs posted: "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Why are they allowed to have such a policy? I have the right to admit or refuse anybody into my home, no matter how arbitrary my criteria are.
Paul should have had the courage to state this clearly, but this is correct.
He was frustrating. I've got to give credit to Maddow here for ably cornering him on what should have been a straightforward answer, but Paul squirmed out of that in fine fashion; he squandered what could have been an educational moment and opted for the more politically comfortable ambiguities.
His point about institutional racism is exactly on point. And to answer her question he should have said that yes, a business owner can make any non-violent choice concerning business policy.
Desegregation legistlation isn't as much about regulating private business as it is about improving civilization. Merely making it illegal for one person to treat another like sumthing less than a fellow human being.
I believe Paul's comments are more in defense of deregulation than in favor of racism, at least it seems like that was what he was going for, so I'll let that slide And poke a whole in his logic. Paul's fellow Republican Romney recently said corps are ppl too. Assuming the same us true for smaller private business, ppl have a right to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm or denegrate other ppl. This is why its illegal to spat racial slurs.
Also, I'm surprised she didn't jump on the fact that he essentially thinks saying "I don't want guns in my restaurant" and "I don't want black people in my restaurant" are the same thing. That's beyond ridiculous.
To be blunt - I think it's always going to be mainly white, straight people who can look at things like legal segregation and wish to allow it because of some skewed idea that freedom of expression will become restricted. Why? Because they care more about how these things affect them (in small ways) than other people (in much more significant ways). It's a shame that so many people generally think, "I don't care that much how others feel, I'm only going to focus on what could affect me".
@SweetSodaChick no. that's not what it is. it's because of a nonskewed idea of freedom. on MY property there are MY rules.
a man's home is his castle.
I also support a business's choice to discriminate people who don't wear shoes and/or shirts.
I don't like that business's don't allow people without shirts, it's weird but can I justify telling them they MUST allow people with no shirt and/or shoes.
By your standards, we could ban hurtful speech because people who oppose the ban just don't care.
Should your home be open to the public? If I slam my door in the face of Jehovahs Witnesses but not Mormons? Should churches be required to hire Atheists? Should atheist organizations be required to higher Christians? Where does it stop. Rand paul is right. Its a hard position because they are trying to turn the view into something its not.
"Should your home be open to the public?" obviously not. we arent talking about homes, we are talking about businesses. are churches businesses?(they are, obviously, but legally they arent)
are atheists organizations businessses?(havent seen them asking for money, so i'll guess they arent)
they are trying to get a straight answer from him, but he keeps dodging(unlike his father who is known for his straight answers)
No they are trying to paint him as a racist. Its like me asking if you if you are ok with the westboro baptists church being able to protest at funerals. Is that ok? Should they be allowed to have free speech?
Hooters is completely discriminatory yet I don't see any picketing.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Quit dodging the question. Just answer yes or no.
his message was simple "i want to let business owners be racist about whom they serve if they want to"
and about the westobo i'm not sure i agree with those people even existing.....they are probably some of the worst modern day christianity has to offer(still nothing compared to the crusades,inquisition, witch hunts, etc...)
a perfectly valid answer to that question is "i have never beaten my wife"
and yes he was dodging the question. they asked him about his view on racism.
Should a Christian have to higher a devout atheist. I think the best person for a job should always be highered. I would not feel terrible if I applied for a job at a Mormon business and they did not hire me. What about if I went to work for a conservative business and they did not hire me?
Should my wife have to go to male doctor?
Should hooters hire male servers? They don't by the way. So your point is already invalid. Hooters is a public restaurant too.
higher? i will assume you meant hire....and they dont HAVE to hire you because you're an atheist, or a man, or white or black , or deaf, or mormon. they just cant discriminate against you based on those characteristics. if you apply for a job and you have a little golden cross, barely noticeable but the interviewer notices it and tells you "sorry we dont hire christians here" you can take legal action(and make LOTS of money) and be justified in it
Ok grammar nazi. Its possible in my flurry of typing I put the wrong word.
Hooters does just that. They only higher women I might add. You see no male servers in a hooters. So get your torch, apply for a job and then sue them.
have you been to hooters lately? that place is a mess....i dont see how anyone would want to go there...
anyway back to rand paul. why doesnt he just say it like it is? his father will always be remembered for staying true to what he believes in and not dodging questions. the problem is not that he wants to allow business owners to be racist against their customers, the problem is that he denies it.
"have you been to hooters lately? that place is a mess....i dont see how anyone would want to go there..."
So since you keep dodging the question. You will be remembered as a hypocrite.
You allow one business to be sexist but rand paul simply states small business should be able to hire who they want. He is not encouraging racism. No more than saying freedom of speech promotes nazism.
actually it would be wrong if someone went to hooters and applied for a job and was disqualified on the basis of gender. i hoped that would be obvious but apparently it wasnt. was that answer clear enough?
"He is not encouraging racism." i do not know if he encourages it or not, and that's not the point. the point is he wants it to be legal for a business owner to be racist against their customers. and he keeps beating around the bush, unlike his father
"it would be wrong " let me be clear about how wrong i think it would me. i think the person that applies and gets turned down should sue them. and that person should win.
SO you support the westboro baptist church protesting soldiers funerals? You want it to be legal for them to call people fags? say god loves dead soldiers?
i support the westboro baptist church going to an institution, that's where crazy people need to be, for their sake and the safety of those around them. i believe they could turn from violent words to violent actions at any moment.
that's what happens when people take "holy" books seriously and strive to follow them.
do you think business owners should be legally allowed to be racist against their patrons in their business?(which are open to the public)
@sabin97 You sir did not answer my question. Although you answered it in such a way to prove you are a hypocrite. Either you do support allowing people like the Wesboro baptist church free speech or you don't. You are dodging the question just like you said rand paul did. You know why? Because if you answer one way you don't support free speech. You answer it another way you are a terrible person.
Sure let them. They will be on the 12 o clock news. No one does that. No one is stupid enough to do that. They just make stupid dress codes, or lie about it.
My wife lost a job because they didn't like her voice. They thought it was too high pitched and told her she had to get voice lessons. If only they had fired her for race or disability. She could have sued.
What if the restaurant said no children. His gun analogy was terrible don't get me wrong. What if a restaurant owner said no children in the restaurant? or no children under a certain age? Not every business owner wants to cater to every persons needs. Maybe they shouldn't have to. Maybe I don't want a family restaurant. Maybe I want to have a dress code for my restaurant. You see where this goes? You can't make everyone happy.
the thing is those characteristics you mention are not protected
gender, race, religion, physical discapacity and other characteristics are protected.
should all those protections be dropped for everything? would you be ok if microsoft said "from now on we will not hire latinos" or if texaco said "no more women will be allowed to work here" or if donald trump said "from now on i'm gonna be the only white person in my empire"?
This is not 1950. If trump did such a thing. If Microsoft did such a thing. You think no one would hear or care about it? The difference is society has no such appetite for such things nowadays. People changed. Racists are still racists. Now they don't show it. Innocent people who don't hire someone get accused of racism.
Think about this. If I am racist could I just use a different reason to fire you? What if I just don't like you? The law does not stop this.
\=/ ...........Rand... Rand.......... Mr. Paul.................... RAND!! ]=(
Shut up and state your view plainly! You aren't coming across clearly at all and you're insulting the audience by not answering Maddow's questions.
Your father got his popularity by clearly defining his position and not trying to socratically beat around the bush for 15 mins to answer a single question for fear it'll be made into a sound byte out of context. And for what it's worth I think you were right.
This IS awesome. That guy kept playing the race card (typical liberal tactic)and Rand kept shooting his false allegations down. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are the RockStars of the senate.
I love how Ms. Maddow only suggests that the town pool, etc wouldn't allow blacks. In her mind, there is only white racism against others. Would she not venture to think that perhaps a black owner might not want white, asian or hispanic customers in their establishment? It's always whitey, that evil whitey.
Maddow is with the thought police. There is no issue at hand nor will there be in Congress going forward, but his views on property rights conflict with legislation passed many years ago. This has no bearing to what he will do in the Senate, but since he doesn't have the politically correct view on a bygone issue, Maddow and her ilk try to make it define his candidacy.
She's a hack. She had nothing else. She came into this to target him. She can't understand what he is saying, and she has no other questions prepared.
Maddow is another one marching us toward the path of a Government that intervenes in every aspect of our lives, and tells us how to live, what to buy, and how we can act or say. This is the future of the US. Liberty is dead.
the problem with all off these libertarian arguments is that we live in a country that should be based on mutual support and. cooperation. there is no one on the planet who has gotten to where they are without relying on the people that came before them. we all pay taxes so that those establishments can have the services that allow them to stay in operation.
@coffeefootcarey Libertarians believe in free markets and individual self-interest. They also believe in mutual support and cooperation as long as no one is forced into it.
@mastapho so am i forced to support an establishment that doesn't serve one group or another because of the preference of the owner with the taxes i pay to the city, state or fed gov?
@coffeefootcarey I can't say that's true. but, if there was a system to see or choose where our taxes go, that will add accountability to the politicians. who knows, maybe my taxes went to solyndra.
@mastapho well, don't we all benefit from firemen, police, highways, water etc? and another thing. i believe the 'free market" is a myth. too much manipulation by big money interests. just read wsj on any given day.
@coffeefootcarey you got me there. I agree. free market is a myth because of manipulative bastards. however, I believe firemen, police, water are all local, i'm fine with that. Highways are also managed by states largely. The problem is with overreaching federal and that was my example with solyndra. bailouts etc.
@mastapho I would agree that the feds overreach in terms of civil liberties. But to get clarity on the subject, I am convinced we must ask "cui bono"? who benefits? if we as citizens hold our reps. feet to the fire and get the money out of the election process (public financing of elections) we would get much further towards the goal of a society that serves all of us.
WOW! That Maddow woman is an idiot, does she think anyone would be stupid enough to trap their-self into a yes or a no on that question? I understand that she is liberal and believes the government should tell you how to tie your shoes, but I live in America where if I privately own something it runs by my command and if I don't want to serve someone I won't. Now, I have to also point out that I am not a racist. True Freedom is doing as you c fit until u impede another's rights to do the same.
@RaistMajeres There's a fine line between simply refusing to serve someone and doing it because of their race, ethnicity, religion, etc. When you start doing the latter, then it is morally and legally wrong and action needs to be taken. I would much rather have a nation with government ensuring that people are not discriminated against than leaving private interests to the luck of the draw. That is simply unacceptable.
The Journalist interviewing is a prime example of someone who doesn't understand Libertarianism. This is a big trend in America. Many are not educated enough on the subject.
Yes, she keeps asking him the same question over and over. I've figured out over the last year or two that you have to be pretty smart to understand libertarian arguments. It's difficult to even get into a good discussion of the libertarian party's ideas because ignorant people tend to invade and drown the debate in strawman arguments.
I'm just wondering why she would not answer the question .... where does the government stop then? Are they able to make all decisions on a private business? I by no means want any "redneck" diners but that is not the debate he is trying to convey here.
5:00 - she's wrong, because she didn't listen. Yes there would be something wrong with towns or the country re-segregating in Paul's 'world view'. It would not happen because of economics. Only laws, like Jim Crow, would make it feasible to segregate without going bankrupt. Why else did the south have these laws? It's because it's unnatural and defies economic law to segregate or discriminate.
This lady sucks so much. Some day people like her will shut down free speech on the internet...
5:00 - she's wrong, because she didn't listen. Yes there would be something wrong with towns or the country re-segregating in Paul's 'world view'. It would not happen because of economics. Only laws, like Jim Crow, would make it feasible to segregate without going bankrupt. Why else did the south have these laws? It's because it's unnatural and defies economic law to segregate or discriminate.
Maddow is annoying. How many ways can a person ask the same question? He is for Civil rights for public places, private businesses can do what they want..It's private..Eventually the racist places would've been found out and people would not give their money and the business would've gone out of business..C'mon, it's not rocket science.
What a ridiculous comparison he raises: If businesses cannot discriminate based on ethnicity or lifestyle choice, then they wouldn't be able to restrict weapons brought into their businesses.
Are you fucking kidding me?
This is dumber than the slippery slope from gay marriage to man-dog marriages.
You will always be able to discriminate based on whether your customers can bring weapons into your businesses or not. The law only says you can't discriminate based on race.
@shamgar001 because you don't need a business license to have a home, you REQUIRE a business license from the government to run a restaurant, when you ACCEPT that license, you accept the government's rules no one is forcing you to start a restaurant, if you want to be a racist, then serve meals out of your home for free to only white people, then no one would bother, you can't have it both ways though
@shamgar001 Um...you need a license to start a business, that's the law of the land, if you dont like it go to another land, and its not morality, it's enforcement of equal rights, if some racist hillbilly in alabama for example wants to say, well ill only serve catholics, or ill only serve whites, or whatever, well he can find himself out of business because its against the law, like i said if he wants to be a backward racist, he can serve people free food out of his own house
@nappyweed111 You're missing the point of my question.
Yes, the law requires me to have a license. That does not mean the law *should* require me to have a license.
The sole purpose of the law is to defend individual rights, which includes the rights of association. By forcing me to serve customers that I don't want to, the government is doing exactly what it's supposed to be protecting me from, like a bodyguard killing his client.
@shamgar001 Because your restaurant is a business. There is a clear distinction that is reflected even in tax laws. There is a significant difference between "private" property and personal property.
Just stand up for your beliefs Rand! Damnit, why can't a defender of individual rights just state forthright what they really mean. A private business owner can decide who they are willing to do business with, even if it is highly racist. I would never do business with that person, but he has that right.
@therealdatingmaster No the person doesn't. When you get a license from the government to start a business, that means you must obey that government's laws. If the person doesn't like it, then don't start a business.
rand paul is a lousy orator. yes or no? but he is entirely right. It's up to the consumers to decide whether they want to financially support the bigoted owner of a restaurant. Maddow is very wrong.
@drvowel To that extent. The idea of segregating, or better put, denying service, of a business, to a certain individual, based on any qualifications, is a ken to saying that the individual's money is not green enough.
It's not good business to deny service, based on anything, other than that person being a horrible customer.
@asleeperj I agree with the practical side but it is the ideology behind it that is of question here. Of course it is dumb to deny customers but bigoted people are by default dumb so no surprise there.
@drvowel so government can't prevent liquor stores from selling to kids? government can't enforce building codes? government shouldn't ensure that our food is safe, but rather we should wait until enough people get poisoned to the point that consumers choose other products?.....
@bedrosyan11 the interesting thing is hat you alternated between "can't" and "shouldn't". A government should do all that but in a capitalistic market, the lobbies do not allow this to happen in an efficient way. But protecting public health is one thing and protecting the right of the people to dine wherever they want is another.
@shamgar001 Unfortunately not many people are socially conscious or if they are. they haven't been sufficiently motivated. Here in Canada we actually had the system Rand Paul encourages, where private business owners had the decision but there was no actual legislation. The government essentially turned a blind eye to it. Black people were still disproportionately discriminated against and there was nothing stopping it. Rand cares more about his code of ethics than about actual people.
@Tprimeable Rand Paul holds firm to his code of ethics, even when they have inconvenient consequences. That's called "integrity", and there is far too little of that in Washington.
@shamgar001 "inconvenient consequences" that Rand Paul conveniently doesn't have to endure. And actually, he doesn't hold firm to his code of ethics. He backpedaled after this interview, and later stated that conditions in the south required government intervention. He's tolerant of intolerance, which is really just as bad as being intolerant himself.
@Tprimeable If he backtracked, that's unfortunate. It's not about being tolerant of intolerance; it's not right to use violence to infringe on the freedom of anyone. Freedom of association means that people might associate in ways you don't like.
@shamgar001 Your rights only go so far as to not infringe upon the rights of others. If you have a public business or institution, you have an obligation to serve the public, not only the public you see fit to serve.
@drvowel I can't believe you've been thumbs'd up. You do realize that before the 60s, those owners would have been making as a ton of money being racist? You act as though consumers have always chosen to be racist, but we were a NATION of racists. How dare you allow a restaurant to continue when those practices are taking place. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@KingOfShadows92 1. easy, pal. getting thump'd up isn't that big of a deal. I didn't get elected for office or anything.2. you should learn how to take your personal feelings out of an equation when having an ideological debate. Noone's saying racism is good, we're arguing whether one has the right to be racist.
@drvowel i dont think so bro. you dont get to choose costumers if you provide a service to the public, you cant deny them service on race and ect . thats just jim crow, straight up. its the land of the free. business on the land of the free =equality for all. private property does not mean its own buy and individual, its still the governments. Just like health standers, you dont get to make your own you follow the rules or you get shut down.
@drvowel 1. well you have to admit it's not easy, considering the audience, to awnser to these questions with just yes or no, as he said 2:06 - 2:23 would happen and 2. i understand his/your point. but what if most of the people decided to financially support them? what then? you can say that that's unlikely bt it certainly wouldn't have been in the 60s. wouldn't it be the gov enabling racism?
First of all, this was in response to woostocapalypse's question on my opinion on property rights- take a look at that for some context. By 'government should intervene' I don't necessarily mean legislation- sanctions or being required to pay damages relating to a lawsuit qualify as intervention in my book.
About sweatshops, I'm not advocating govt intervention, just responding to the question.
Ya know I like maddow most of the time although I disagree with her.This is typical leftist shit.The thing is blacks wouldnt mind having thier own places to go without whites there.Maddow supports all black fraternity houses.Blacks studies departments and so on.That is segregation.So in maddows eyes segregation is wrong unless blacks want to segregate themselves,right rachel?
@eazysteazye I have quite a few friends of various races. I agree with Rand, here because a private business uses its own money. A business that uses public money (i.e. taxes which are taken from everybody) would have not right to discriminate since part of the money it uses for its operation could have come from those it might have discriminated against. There is a LOT of difference between using your own money and using taxpayer money. Plus it gives me an opportunity to go into business.
@ysgeye1 i think that private business has to abide by the same rules of public business when it comes to discrimation overwise we are back to the days of the lunch counters banning blacks in places like Woolworth's
How is this? If a private business discriminates against some people, then that makes an opportunity for me to patronize those discriminated against. I will have so much business, that quite possibly, that discriminating business will shut down because of its bad business decisions.
Maddow is clearly a racist.Ask yourself why she couldn't ask Paul if a black man who has a restaurant in a black community should have the right to tell a white supremacist who is dressed in a nazi uniform to get out of his restaurant as he does want to trade with that person.Does the owner have the right to that freedom ?
We need get off race only individuals exist racism is a collectivistic notion that is it is left wing ideology.NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUALS PROPERTY
My favorite quote from former Pres. Ronald Reagan:
When are we going to start talking about the real issues?
I think to bring up something from the 1960's is pointless because those are the issues of the past, and we've learned how to resolve those issues. We need to worry about debt reduction, domestic and international spending, the industrial military complex, bipartisanship, corporate tax, the unemployment rate and jobs, social security, and medicare/medicaid.
@scooped13 No, you are not understanding. Which is understandable because he is not explaining himself as well as I could hope. He is against racism. He believes we are all equal. He also believes that private organisations should run themselves. The idea is that if a restaurant wants to open and only allow whites, then that restaurant should have that right. However, I would suspect that he would urge people to not go to said restaurant and it would ultimately shut down.
@scooped13 The comment he had about the gun laws are very much the same. If a restaurant does not have the right to cater to "whites only", then it may be the beginning of a more serious issue. The government may step in and say that the restaurant must allow guns in the public space if the person has a conceal carry license. Then you could also say that a high end hotel would be forced to allow homeless people in their lobby because they have no right to refuse anybody even due to smell.
@Aesoe Thats absurd. This is no slippery involved here. We don't have to take all laws to their logical extreme. Its hard to imagine that in todays age i am having to refute comparing someones race to a person carrying a weapon. If you cant see the huge difference there, then this response was wasted to begin with.
@edsweb7 No, he believes in freedom, equality, and our constitution. Our private businesses should not be driven by our government. Calling him racist is being ignorant. I believe that KKK members have a right to speak and march. I don't like the KKK, I am Jewish. I don't like the idea of Neo-Nazi rallies, but I understand that it is a small price to pay for the freedoms we enjoy on a regular basis. As soon as you let the government tell you what you can and can't do, you lose freedom.
Private business "free speech" things: putting up signs / rules about 'whites only' sure is free speech. It is also their business protocol. Their private business motto becomes public when they call in the town sheriff to remove the "offender" as they most likely would. Or they would just have their 'security' beat the crap out of them. But only then should they go to jail... The black 'instigator' would have a successful prosecution of these white business owners? In a racist community? no
(Cont) In many of the areas this would happen, where patrons would most likely be the majority of racial makeup, it doesn't seem like it would work based on theory.
PURE RACISTS are a very small segment of the country. It's hard to imagine someone ACTIVELY going back to segregation days and re-starting the process.
But I could be wrong...and it's something I would hate to be wrong on.
Say if, whole cities decide to put "blacks no welcome" or "whites not welcome" signs on doors. Weird.
looking at this from a purely Geographic and Sociological view.
Most people (races) live and dwell in neighborhoods where their own kind are living.
A back woods restaurant in Alabama, in a KNOWN racist neighborhood, probably doesn't see black people anyways...what would they lose or gain by discrimination?
Most white people don't dwell in black neighborhoods, so vice versa.
If a Korean shop owner in a black neighborhood decides to not serve black people, most likely the business would fail.
So 18 minutes worth of discussion and he cannot say a simple Yes or No as to whether or not private businesses have the right to discriminate. Poor Rachel...
Sure, for example, a woman with natal complications, or severed arm should boycott a local and private hospital, and just go ahead and die. Really, if certain groups of people are not wanted, they should grab their stuff and move along, just like the Jews did before world War II; and they were just fine.
Liberals have difficulty comprehending free will and liberty. If a business is stupid enough to discriminate, then let them suffer and go out of business. That is better than the government stepping in and defiling the Constitution and telling private owners what to do. It's not rocket science, kids.
@meshlife88 And the question everybody would be asking would be... are they out of business yet? no? ...10...20...50...100 years later... are they out of business yet? no? America can and has functioned with institutionalized racism for a long time, and could survive in the future just as before. Some people honestly are made uncomfortable by being around "minorities", and would prefer not to be in their presence.
I agree with Rand Paul..........however, what a horrendous political decision to bring this up. The race issue can never end good in the political arena
If you're black, why would you want to go to a restaurant and support it when you know the owner is racist? If you're homosexual, why would you want so much to go a bar where the owner hates homosexuals?
to maddows point that "there would be no laws stopping bowling allys and lunch counters from resegragating" is fallacious ,as a free market would regulate that issue;meaning white and blacks would not spend cash there and would take their biz to th more tolerant establishment. market forces are just not undewrstood by libs
He should have just told her that he belives in the free market and if a busiessnes did not want to deal with a certain people, that it is their choice that they did not want to sell or buy to that group of people. The market will decide if that busiessnes fails or succeds.
Politics is stupid. This is why there is no intelligent discussion or real change when it comes to regaining liberty. Rand Paul could not give a yes or no answer, because if he did the left would have run an abreviated clip of him saying yes I think private business should have the right to discriminate against blacks over and over again, without any of the context he framed it in, and it would likely have cost him the election. There is no intellectual honesty in politics.
goodness this man is dense.
tamarexxe 2 months ago
Maddow doesn't understand history or the reality of what she is asking government to do. The U.S. founding documents were not designed to grant any rights, but simply to enumerate. God gives rights.
Slavery of any kind is wrong. When the government became too big, it began to trample the God-given rights of minorities - take for example the FBI killings of Black leaders in the 60s.
An over-reaching government who assumes they have power to give rights will one day try to take them away.
comsunderground 2 months ago
@comsunderground ...thats a lot of mental gymnastics you did right there to defend racism.
flipgood89 1 month ago
@flipgood89 So.. you saying that when governments kill black leaders, it's NOT racism? I disagree. No government should ever overstep it's bounds to lift one race above the other.
All Senator Paul is saying here is that he follows the Constitution - all men are created equal and are guaranteed the same rights by God. They are not entitled to special priveledges.
Maddow believes she should have equal rights as a homosexual [ she was not born that way (no one is) ], and this warps her view.
comsunderground 1 month ago
@comsunderground ...The constitution is a document that originally established that black people were "3/5ths"...All men were created equal, but they sure as hell havent been treated equally. So what we have is this intellectual slight of hand, that Paul and his supporters attempt: Overlook 400 yrs of institutional discrimination that has limited and disadvantaged people of color, yet scream "special privileges" at any legislation that attempts to address that inequality. How special.
flipgood89 1 month ago
Saying "i believe in property rights" to avoid acknowledging potential racial segregation, is the equivalent of slave owners saying "i believe in state's rights". Both Paul's are living in the past.
Saebeck32 2 months ago
@Saebeck32 Racism is wrong and immoral, but forced association is just as wrong. Neither Pauls are racist, both have supporters who aren't white, and many people have come to understand that it's all about government coercion that is the enemy in this.
cfuller85 2 months ago 2
@cfuller85 I seriously doubt they have many non-white supporters. No one is forcing association, just ensuring that forced exclusion is outlawed in places open to the public.
Saebeck32 2 months ago
@cfuller85 I'm latino, and support the Paul views... if there is a rest that says, no whites, blacks, or hispanics, I would not go to any of them...but its their right to do that... what concerns me is that the gov't interfere's and even possible future repercursions ..just like privacy, first Patriot Act, then NDAA, then what...its gonna get worse unless we stop gov't interference now..
papitosabe 1 week ago
He's just too smart for politics. PRIVATE business should be able to do whatever the hell they want! Government should have absolutely no say on who they choose to let in! I trust the majority of American people to not go back into racism and I think a business who chose that wouldn't even survive! BUT Rand Paul did not deliver this in his response very well. I think he needs to consult his old pops :)
erikiia 3 months ago
@erikiia Who is the current law hurting? I seem to recall less than 50 years ago having to send in federal troops to help end segregation. You don't know how widespread racism still is. Try going to a Fox News Tea Party rally and you'll see that racism is alive and well. So why take a chance? The current law isn't hurting anyone. Rand Paul got EMBARRASSED here.
Saebeck32 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erikiia ...Ok mr/ms Private business, dont stop there. Lets go further. Since ur private, dont use the water, roads, or other infrastructure that are paid for by other tax payers. Dont have access to the police forces, firefighters that other races pay for. Dont take advantage of the laws that protect your business, that other races died to protect. I love these "private business" bad asses, who refuse to acknowledge how society has promoted their success and protects it.
flipgood89 1 month ago
@Pdrum2 Churches are and have always been labeled as private property. I thought everybody with basic knowledge of religious institutions knew that. Therefore, obviously, anti-discrimination laws don't apply there - for example, no church is forced to offer marriages for same-sex couples.
SweetSodaChick 4 months ago
The man doesn't answer any questions directly.
iAnnouska 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lke I said you don't believe in private property
Pdrum2 4 months ago
Comment removed
Pdrum2 4 months ago
"Private Property is a extreme view"? What is she saying?
Pdrum2 4 months ago
@darris321 Public speech is punishable in cases, because it breaks rules that apply to the public. For example, hate speech in a school isn't tolerated. I think private organizations should be free to do whatever they like, but if you're opening up a business to the public, it's no longer a private property and therefore, all the basic government rules apply. Those government rules happen to include protections against discrimination, which *most* of the American public overwhelmingly supports.
SweetSodaChick 4 months ago
@SweetSodaChick So you don't believe in private property
Pdrum2 4 months ago
@Pdrum2 Apparently you chose to ignore where I said "I think private organizations should be free to do whatever they like".
I don't believe, when you open up a business to the public, it constitutes private property anymore. These public businesses are subject to all government rules, and those include anti-discrimination laws, whether you like it or not.
SweetSodaChick 4 months ago
@SweetSodaChick What institutions would tha be?
Pdrum2 4 months ago
@SweetSodaChick I don't choose to ignore anything you haven't even got me started
Pdrum2 4 months ago
@SweetSodaChick What about freedom of religious expression, what if a gay couple wants to practice homosexuality in a church and the church discriminates because its against their belief then they sue the church does the church not have a right to express their belief?
Pdrum2 4 months ago
@Pdrum2 Churches are and have always been labeled as private property. I thought everybody with basic knowledge of religious institutions knew that. Therefore, obviously, anti-discrimination laws don't apply there - for example, no church is forced to offer marriages for same-sex couples.
SweetSodaChick 4 months ago
@SweetSodaChick Well, we don't like it... That's just it. Not because of racism or anything like that, but we just don't believe in that kind of legislation.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
God I hate Rachel Maddow sometimes.
He starts to say "I don't condone violence" and she shakes her head and smiles as if HE'S the idiot
wtf, Rachel?
You ask a question, expect it to be answered.
He doesn't condone violence. If racism causes violence, that sucks, that's between the racist and the victim of the racism- it has nothing to do with government encroachment on private property.
darris321 4 months ago
"and the owner of business x, y, and z decide we aren't going to allow black patrons"
that seems like a fantastic business opportunity.
I would look for towns like that and open up x, y, z that allow black people and get better and more consistent business than them lol
darris321 4 months ago
What a bitch.
obtree 4 months ago
Damn, this man just won't answer the question. Just say yes or no. what is so hard about that. Stand by whatever opinion you have dude !!
justjulie37 5 months ago
@frivosold Okay. Rand Paul might personally support vote for blacks. But who cares what he personally thinks? He would be against the federal government ENFORCING that right.
I know what libertarianism is. Unlike most American libertarians, i know where the term originates. It was coined by a french communist anarchist. Libertarianism used to be synonymous to leftwing anarchism. But capitalists hijacked the term to include protection of private property from the government.
woostopalypse 5 months ago
Good man. NEVER provide a simple "Yes" or "No." Seriously. Any media source--especially MSNBC--will take your response out of context and use it against you via sound bite. Cowardly demagogues.
BrotherAtticus 5 months ago
One final point:
There of course may remain pockets or individual businesses who discriminate based on irrelevant factors. If I own a dry cleaner and say "no redheads allowed" am I somehow harming or taking away rights of others? No. I may be ugly, but that's all the more reason for redheads to avoid me (ie harm my business). A video on youtube (search for it) asks the question: Should black business owners be legally forced to serve KKK members?
Think about it.
sadkins1 5 months ago
The point that I'm sure Paul would go on to make if he weren't so image conscious is that racism is bad for business and is all but stamped out by the market. Think how much worse your favorite sports team would be if its ownership indulged in whatever racist proclivities it may have. No Kobe/Lebron/CJ/Tiger etc. It may be illegal, but if the law were lifted today you wouldn't see the Lakers cut Kobe, just because it wouldn't be illegal.
sadkins1 5 months ago
The fact is that I don't have a right to eat at a lunch counter if that lunch counter, say, closes its doors. I haven't been deprived of any of my rights or property. Similarly, many private businesses have signs posted: "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Why are they allowed to have such a policy? I have the right to admit or refuse anybody into my home, no matter how arbitrary my criteria are.
Paul should have had the courage to state this clearly, but this is correct.
sadkins1 5 months ago
He was frustrating. I've got to give credit to Maddow here for ably cornering him on what should have been a straightforward answer, but Paul squirmed out of that in fine fashion; he squandered what could have been an educational moment and opted for the more politically comfortable ambiguities.
His point about institutional racism is exactly on point. And to answer her question he should have said that yes, a business owner can make any non-violent choice concerning business policy.
sadkins1 5 months ago
Desegregation legistlation isn't as much about regulating private business as it is about improving civilization. Merely making it illegal for one person to treat another like sumthing less than a fellow human being.
laparis27th 5 months ago
I believe Paul's comments are more in defense of deregulation than in favor of racism, at least it seems like that was what he was going for, so I'll let that slide And poke a whole in his logic. Paul's fellow Republican Romney recently said corps are ppl too. Assuming the same us true for smaller private business, ppl have a right to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm or denegrate other ppl. This is why its illegal to spat racial slurs.
laparis27th 5 months ago
Also, I'm surprised she didn't jump on the fact that he essentially thinks saying "I don't want guns in my restaurant" and "I don't want black people in my restaurant" are the same thing. That's beyond ridiculous.
SweetSodaChick 5 months ago
To be blunt - I think it's always going to be mainly white, straight people who can look at things like legal segregation and wish to allow it because of some skewed idea that freedom of expression will become restricted. Why? Because they care more about how these things affect them (in small ways) than other people (in much more significant ways). It's a shame that so many people generally think, "I don't care that much how others feel, I'm only going to focus on what could affect me".
SweetSodaChick 5 months ago
@SweetSodaChick no. that's not what it is. it's because of a nonskewed idea of freedom. on MY property there are MY rules.
a man's home is his castle.
I also support a business's choice to discriminate people who don't wear shoes and/or shirts.
I don't like that business's don't allow people without shirts, it's weird but can I justify telling them they MUST allow people with no shirt and/or shoes.
By your standards, we could ban hurtful speech because people who oppose the ban just don't care.
darris321 4 months ago
"i dont condone racism but i want to allow people to be racist in their businesses"
is that too hard to say? of course racist positions would cost him politically(except in very racist areas)
so sad to see the legacy of ron paul will not continue with his deuchebag son....
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
Should your home be open to the public? If I slam my door in the face of Jehovahs Witnesses but not Mormons? Should churches be required to hire Atheists? Should atheist organizations be required to higher Christians? Where does it stop. Rand paul is right. Its a hard position because they are trying to turn the view into something its not.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
"Should your home be open to the public?" obviously not. we arent talking about homes, we are talking about businesses. are churches businesses?(they are, obviously, but legally they arent)
are atheists organizations businessses?(havent seen them asking for money, so i'll guess they arent)
they are trying to get a straight answer from him, but he keeps dodging(unlike his father who is known for his straight answers)
he should just say it and be done with it....
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
No they are trying to paint him as a racist. Its like me asking if you if you are ok with the westboro baptists church being able to protest at funerals. Is that ok? Should they be allowed to have free speech?
Hooters is completely discriminatory yet I don't see any picketing.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Quit dodging the question. Just answer yes or no.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
his message was simple "i want to let business owners be racist about whom they serve if they want to"
and about the westobo i'm not sure i agree with those people even existing.....they are probably some of the worst modern day christianity has to offer(still nothing compared to the crusades,inquisition, witch hunts, etc...)
a perfectly valid answer to that question is "i have never beaten my wife"
and yes he was dodging the question. they asked him about his view on racism.
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
"they asked him about his view on racism."
And he said he was not a racist. Is that not an answer? How is that dodging the question?
SO when are you going to protest for equality outside of a hooters?
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
people have the right to be racist in their home, but not in their business....
should a business be allowed to discriminate on who they hire on the basis of age, gender, political views, religion?how about skin color?
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
Should a Christian have to higher a devout atheist. I think the best person for a job should always be highered. I would not feel terrible if I applied for a job at a Mormon business and they did not hire me. What about if I went to work for a conservative business and they did not hire me?
Should my wife have to go to male doctor?
Should hooters hire male servers? They don't by the way. So your point is already invalid. Hooters is a public restaurant too.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
higher? i will assume you meant hire....and they dont HAVE to hire you because you're an atheist, or a man, or white or black , or deaf, or mormon. they just cant discriminate against you based on those characteristics. if you apply for a job and you have a little golden cross, barely noticeable but the interviewer notices it and tells you "sorry we dont hire christians here" you can take legal action(and make LOTS of money) and be justified in it
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
Ok grammar nazi. Its possible in my flurry of typing I put the wrong word.
Hooters does just that. They only higher women I might add. You see no male servers in a hooters. So get your torch, apply for a job and then sue them.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
i already have a job, why would i take a lower-paying one?
also if my employers would have discriminated against me, for any legally-protected thing, i would have sued.
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
So when will you demand social justice at hooters? What about other people who would want to work there?
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
have you been to hooters lately? that place is a mess....i dont see how anyone would want to go there...
anyway back to rand paul. why doesnt he just say it like it is? his father will always be remembered for staying true to what he believes in and not dodging questions. the problem is not that he wants to allow business owners to be racist against their customers, the problem is that he denies it.
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
"have you been to hooters lately? that place is a mess....i dont see how anyone would want to go there..."
So since you keep dodging the question. You will be remembered as a hypocrite.
You allow one business to be sexist but rand paul simply states small business should be able to hire who they want. He is not encouraging racism. No more than saying freedom of speech promotes nazism.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
actually it would be wrong if someone went to hooters and applied for a job and was disqualified on the basis of gender. i hoped that would be obvious but apparently it wasnt. was that answer clear enough?
"He is not encouraging racism." i do not know if he encourages it or not, and that's not the point. the point is he wants it to be legal for a business owner to be racist against their customers. and he keeps beating around the bush, unlike his father
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
"it would be wrong " let me be clear about how wrong i think it would me. i think the person that applies and gets turned down should sue them. and that person should win.
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
SO you support the westboro baptist church protesting soldiers funerals? You want it to be legal for them to call people fags? say god loves dead soldiers?
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
i support the westboro baptist church going to an institution, that's where crazy people need to be, for their sake and the safety of those around them. i believe they could turn from violent words to violent actions at any moment.
that's what happens when people take "holy" books seriously and strive to follow them.
do you think business owners should be legally allowed to be racist against their patrons in their business?(which are open to the public)
"no blacks allowed"?
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97 You sir did not answer my question. Although you answered it in such a way to prove you are a hypocrite. Either you do support allowing people like the Wesboro baptist church free speech or you don't. You are dodging the question just like you said rand paul did. You know why? Because if you answer one way you don't support free speech. You answer it another way you are a terrible person.
So clearly judge not let ye be judged.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
do you think business owners should be legally allowed to be racist against their patrons in their business?(which are open to the public)
"no blacks allowed"?
no?yes?
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
Sure let them. They will be on the 12 o clock news. No one does that. No one is stupid enough to do that. They just make stupid dress codes, or lie about it.
My wife lost a job because they didn't like her voice. They thought it was too high pitched and told her she had to get voice lessons. If only they had fired her for race or disability. She could have sued.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
yeah, she could have and she should have.
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
What if the restaurant said no children. His gun analogy was terrible don't get me wrong. What if a restaurant owner said no children in the restaurant? or no children under a certain age? Not every business owner wants to cater to every persons needs. Maybe they shouldn't have to. Maybe I don't want a family restaurant. Maybe I want to have a dress code for my restaurant. You see where this goes? You can't make everyone happy.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
@zoulkyud
the thing is those characteristics you mention are not protected
gender, race, religion, physical discapacity and other characteristics are protected.
should all those protections be dropped for everything? would you be ok if microsoft said "from now on we will not hire latinos" or if texaco said "no more women will be allowed to work here" or if donald trump said "from now on i'm gonna be the only white person in my empire"?
sabin97 5 months ago
@sabin97
This is not 1950. If trump did such a thing. If Microsoft did such a thing. You think no one would hear or care about it? The difference is society has no such appetite for such things nowadays. People changed. Racists are still racists. Now they don't show it. Innocent people who don't hire someone get accused of racism.
Think about this. If I am racist could I just use a different reason to fire you? What if I just don't like you? The law does not stop this.
zoulkyud 5 months ago
Maddow is sooooo clueless.
AaronTheBaron18 5 months ago
Maddow is so clueless. Fuck. Its almost overwhelming.
Vansit84 5 months ago
\=/ ...........Rand... Rand.......... Mr. Paul.................... RAND!! ]=(
Shut up and state your view plainly! You aren't coming across clearly at all and you're insulting the audience by not answering Maddow's questions.
Your father got his popularity by clearly defining his position and not trying to socratically beat around the bush for 15 mins to answer a single question for fear it'll be made into a sound byte out of context. And for what it's worth I think you were right.
NAdducci09 5 months ago
This IS awesome. That guy kept playing the race card (typical liberal tactic)and Rand kept shooting his false allegations down. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are the RockStars of the senate.
blakendecker 5 months ago
I love how Ms. Maddow only suggests that the town pool, etc wouldn't allow blacks. In her mind, there is only white racism against others. Would she not venture to think that perhaps a black owner might not want white, asian or hispanic customers in their establishment? It's always whitey, that evil whitey.
kidyubyub 6 months ago
Maddow is with the thought police. There is no issue at hand nor will there be in Congress going forward, but his views on property rights conflict with legislation passed many years ago. This has no bearing to what he will do in the Senate, but since he doesn't have the politically correct view on a bygone issue, Maddow and her ilk try to make it define his candidacy.
Joe100100Blow 6 months ago
She's a hack. She had nothing else. She came into this to target him. She can't understand what he is saying, and she has no other questions prepared.
Stalin84X 6 months ago
How many times does he have to say "I'm not in favor of any type of racism or discrimination" before Rachel gets that he's answered her question?
docj09 6 months ago
@docj09 Except that's not what she asked. She asked if he would have supported the act.
Tprimeable 6 months ago
Maddow is another one marching us toward the path of a Government that intervenes in every aspect of our lives, and tells us how to live, what to buy, and how we can act or say. This is the future of the US. Liberty is dead.
Joehutchings1983 6 months ago
Let private business be racist if they want, but if they chose to do so they should expect to be penalized point blank
jamel11234 6 months ago
Its official freedom is RACIST. Freedom is EVIL!!! :p
gazz12345a 6 months ago
Comment removed
mastapho 6 months ago
Comment removed
mastapho 6 months ago
the problem with all off these libertarian arguments is that we live in a country that should be based on mutual support and. cooperation. there is no one on the planet who has gotten to where they are without relying on the people that came before them. we all pay taxes so that those establishments can have the services that allow them to stay in operation.
coffeefootcarey 6 months ago
@coffeefootcarey Libertarians believe in free markets and individual self-interest. They also believe in mutual support and cooperation as long as no one is forced into it.
mastapho 6 months ago
@mastapho so am i forced to support an establishment that doesn't serve one group or another because of the preference of the owner with the taxes i pay to the city, state or fed gov?
coffeefootcarey 6 months ago
@coffeefootcarey your not supporting any private owner with any preference with your taxes. government in is public and your taxes go to them
mastapho 6 months ago
@mastapho yes but the taxes that we pay to the government go to services that we all benefit from, no?
coffeefootcarey 3 months ago
@coffeefootcarey I can't say that's true. but, if there was a system to see or choose where our taxes go, that will add accountability to the politicians. who knows, maybe my taxes went to solyndra.
mastapho 3 months ago
@mastapho well, don't we all benefit from firemen, police, highways, water etc? and another thing. i believe the 'free market" is a myth. too much manipulation by big money interests. just read wsj on any given day.
coffeefootcarey 3 months ago
@coffeefootcarey you got me there. I agree. free market is a myth because of manipulative bastards. however, I believe firemen, police, water are all local, i'm fine with that. Highways are also managed by states largely. The problem is with overreaching federal and that was my example with solyndra. bailouts etc.
mastapho 3 months ago
@mastapho I would agree that the feds overreach in terms of civil liberties. But to get clarity on the subject, I am convinced we must ask "cui bono"? who benefits? if we as citizens hold our reps. feet to the fire and get the money out of the election process (public financing of elections) we would get much further towards the goal of a society that serves all of us.
coffeefootcarey 3 months ago
WOW! That Maddow woman is an idiot, does she think anyone would be stupid enough to trap their-self into a yes or a no on that question? I understand that she is liberal and believes the government should tell you how to tie your shoes, but I live in America where if I privately own something it runs by my command and if I don't want to serve someone I won't. Now, I have to also point out that I am not a racist. True Freedom is doing as you c fit until u impede another's rights to do the same.
RaistMajeres 6 months ago
@RaistMajeres There's a fine line between simply refusing to serve someone and doing it because of their race, ethnicity, religion, etc. When you start doing the latter, then it is morally and legally wrong and action needs to be taken. I would much rather have a nation with government ensuring that people are not discriminated against than leaving private interests to the luck of the draw. That is simply unacceptable.
BryantFinlay 5 months ago
The Journalist interviewing is a prime example of someone who doesn't understand Libertarianism. This is a big trend in America. Many are not educated enough on the subject.
Reido2828 6 months ago 2
@Reido2828
Yes, she keeps asking him the same question over and over. I've figured out over the last year or two that you have to be pretty smart to understand libertarian arguments. It's difficult to even get into a good discussion of the libertarian party's ideas because ignorant people tend to invade and drown the debate in strawman arguments.
EGarrett01 6 months ago
@EGarrett01
Its a problem that needs addressing. Your country is falling apart from within.
Reido2828 6 months ago
Comment removed
randikajamai 6 months ago
I'm just wondering why she would not answer the question .... where does the government stop then? Are they able to make all decisions on a private business? I by no means want any "redneck" diners but that is not the debate he is trying to convey here.
lehighmark 6 months ago
5:00 - she's wrong, because she didn't listen. Yes there would be something wrong with towns or the country re-segregating in Paul's 'world view'. It would not happen because of economics. Only laws, like Jim Crow, would make it feasible to segregate without going bankrupt. Why else did the south have these laws? It's because it's unnatural and defies economic law to segregate or discriminate.
This lady sucks so much. Some day people like her will shut down free speech on the internet...
stevemcgee99 7 months ago
5:00 - she's wrong, because she didn't listen. Yes there would be something wrong with towns or the country re-segregating in Paul's 'world view'. It would not happen because of economics. Only laws, like Jim Crow, would make it feasible to segregate without going bankrupt. Why else did the south have these laws? It's because it's unnatural and defies economic law to segregate or discriminate.
Paul knows this.
stevemcgee99 7 months ago
Comment removed
tfurrh1 7 months ago
Maddow is annoying. How many ways can a person ask the same question? He is for Civil rights for public places, private businesses can do what they want..It's private..Eventually the racist places would've been found out and people would not give their money and the business would've gone out of business..C'mon, it's not rocket science.
toria555 7 months ago
What a ridiculous comparison he raises: If businesses cannot discriminate based on ethnicity or lifestyle choice, then they wouldn't be able to restrict weapons brought into their businesses.
Are you fucking kidding me?
This is dumber than the slippery slope from gay marriage to man-dog marriages.
You will always be able to discriminate based on whether your customers can bring weapons into your businesses or not. The law only says you can't discriminate based on race.
Icculus716 7 months ago
Businesses do not have 1st amendment right. Or at least they shouldn't!
You can feed whomever you choose in your private life but a manager of a restaurant that trades in society has to follow some rules.
rarrmonkey 7 months ago
@rarrmonkey Why should my restaurant and my home be held to different rules? Private property is private property.
shamgar001 7 months ago 13
@shamgar001 because you don't need a business license to have a home, you REQUIRE a business license from the government to run a restaurant, when you ACCEPT that license, you accept the government's rules no one is forcing you to start a restaurant, if you want to be a racist, then serve meals out of your home for free to only white people, then no one would bother, you can't have it both ways though
nappyweed111 6 months ago
@nappyweed111 Why should I need permission from the government to start a business?
The purpose of government is to protect individual rights, not dictate morality.
shamgar001 6 months ago
@shamgar001 Um...you need a license to start a business, that's the law of the land, if you dont like it go to another land, and its not morality, it's enforcement of equal rights, if some racist hillbilly in alabama for example wants to say, well ill only serve catholics, or ill only serve whites, or whatever, well he can find himself out of business because its against the law, like i said if he wants to be a backward racist, he can serve people free food out of his own house
nappyweed111 6 months ago
@nappyweed111 You're missing the point of my question.
Yes, the law requires me to have a license. That does not mean the law *should* require me to have a license.
The sole purpose of the law is to defend individual rights, which includes the rights of association. By forcing me to serve customers that I don't want to, the government is doing exactly what it's supposed to be protecting me from, like a bodyguard killing his client.
shamgar001 6 months ago
@nappyweed111 So you like to give money to racist assholes as long as you don't know that they are racist assholes? Ok then.
Nate2203 6 months ago
@shamgar001 Because your restaurant is a business. There is a clear distinction that is reflected even in tax laws. There is a significant difference between "private" property and personal property.
Tprimeable 6 months ago
@Tprimeable The law makes the distinction, but that doesn't make it a valid distinction.
shamgar001 6 months ago
What a fucking psycho
devourerofbabies 7 months ago
Just stand up for your beliefs Rand! Damnit, why can't a defender of individual rights just state forthright what they really mean. A private business owner can decide who they are willing to do business with, even if it is highly racist. I would never do business with that person, but he has that right.
therealdatingmaster 7 months ago 2
@therealdatingmaster No the person doesn't. When you get a license from the government to start a business, that means you must obey that government's laws. If the person doesn't like it, then don't start a business.
BryantFinlay 5 months ago
rand paul is a lousy orator. yes or no? but he is entirely right. It's up to the consumers to decide whether they want to financially support the bigoted owner of a restaurant. Maddow is very wrong.
drvowel 7 months ago 11
@drvowel To that extent. The idea of segregating, or better put, denying service, of a business, to a certain individual, based on any qualifications, is a ken to saying that the individual's money is not green enough.
It's not good business to deny service, based on anything, other than that person being a horrible customer.
asleeperj 6 months ago
@asleeperj I agree with the practical side but it is the ideology behind it that is of question here. Of course it is dumb to deny customers but bigoted people are by default dumb so no surprise there.
drvowel 6 months ago
@drvowel so government can't prevent liquor stores from selling to kids? government can't enforce building codes? government shouldn't ensure that our food is safe, but rather we should wait until enough people get poisoned to the point that consumers choose other products?.....
bedrosyan11 6 months ago
@bedrosyan11 the interesting thing is hat you alternated between "can't" and "shouldn't". A government should do all that but in a capitalistic market, the lobbies do not allow this to happen in an efficient way. But protecting public health is one thing and protecting the right of the people to dine wherever they want is another.
drvowel 6 months ago
@drvowel What if consumers do decide to support that restaurant? Does that mean racism is okay?
Tprimeable 6 months ago
@Tprimeable I simply said that boycotting is the only way customers can defend themselves from a bigot, that's all.
drvowel 6 months ago
@drvowel Except a boycott doesn't work if the customers who need defending aren't allowed to be there anyway.
Tprimeable 6 months ago
@Tprimeable Socially conscious people who aren't being discriminated against would join the boycott too.
shamgar001 6 months ago
@shamgar001 Unfortunately not many people are socially conscious or if they are. they haven't been sufficiently motivated. Here in Canada we actually had the system Rand Paul encourages, where private business owners had the decision but there was no actual legislation. The government essentially turned a blind eye to it. Black people were still disproportionately discriminated against and there was nothing stopping it. Rand cares more about his code of ethics than about actual people.
Tprimeable 6 months ago
@Tprimeable Rand Paul holds firm to his code of ethics, even when they have inconvenient consequences. That's called "integrity", and there is far too little of that in Washington.
shamgar001 6 months ago
@shamgar001 "inconvenient consequences" that Rand Paul conveniently doesn't have to endure. And actually, he doesn't hold firm to his code of ethics. He backpedaled after this interview, and later stated that conditions in the south required government intervention. He's tolerant of intolerance, which is really just as bad as being intolerant himself.
Tprimeable 6 months ago
@Tprimeable If he backtracked, that's unfortunate. It's not about being tolerant of intolerance; it's not right to use violence to infringe on the freedom of anyone. Freedom of association means that people might associate in ways you don't like.
shamgar001 6 months ago
@shamgar001 Your rights only go so far as to not infringe upon the rights of others. If you have a public business or institution, you have an obligation to serve the public, not only the public you see fit to serve.
Tprimeable 6 months ago
@drvowel I can't believe you've been thumbs'd up. You do realize that before the 60s, those owners would have been making as a ton of money being racist? You act as though consumers have always chosen to be racist, but we were a NATION of racists. How dare you allow a restaurant to continue when those practices are taking place. You should be ashamed of yourself.
KingOfShadows92 5 months ago
@KingOfShadows92 1. easy, pal. getting thump'd up isn't that big of a deal. I didn't get elected for office or anything.2. you should learn how to take your personal feelings out of an equation when having an ideological debate. Noone's saying racism is good, we're arguing whether one has the right to be racist.
drvowel 5 months ago
@drvowel i dont think so bro. you dont get to choose costumers if you provide a service to the public, you cant deny them service on race and ect . thats just jim crow, straight up. its the land of the free. business on the land of the free =equality for all. private property does not mean its own buy and individual, its still the governments. Just like health standers, you dont get to make your own you follow the rules or you get shut down.
mateohellabay78 5 months ago
@drvowel 1. well you have to admit it's not easy, considering the audience, to awnser to these questions with just yes or no, as he said 2:06 - 2:23 would happen and 2. i understand his/your point. but what if most of the people decided to financially support them? what then? you can say that that's unlikely bt it certainly wouldn't have been in the 60s. wouldn't it be the gov enabling racism?
leguminoso 5 months ago
@frivosold
First of all, this was in response to woostocapalypse's question on my opinion on property rights- take a look at that for some context. By 'government should intervene' I don't necessarily mean legislation- sanctions or being required to pay damages relating to a lawsuit qualify as intervention in my book.
About sweatshops, I'm not advocating govt intervention, just responding to the question.
martyvonx 7 months ago
Ya know I like maddow most of the time although I disagree with her.This is typical leftist shit.The thing is blacks wouldnt mind having thier own places to go without whites there.Maddow supports all black fraternity houses.Blacks studies departments and so on.That is segregation.So in maddows eyes segregation is wrong unless blacks want to segregate themselves,right rachel?
jays2474 8 months ago
@eazysteazye I have quite a few friends of various races. I agree with Rand, here because a private business uses its own money. A business that uses public money (i.e. taxes which are taken from everybody) would have not right to discriminate since part of the money it uses for its operation could have come from those it might have discriminated against. There is a LOT of difference between using your own money and using taxpayer money. Plus it gives me an opportunity to go into business.
ysgeye1 8 months ago
@ysgeye1 i think that private business has to abide by the same rules of public business when it comes to discrimation overwise we are back to the days of the lunch counters banning blacks in places like Woolworth's
curtisjones400 7 months ago
How is this? If a private business discriminates against some people, then that makes an opportunity for me to patronize those discriminated against. I will have so much business, that quite possibly, that discriminating business will shut down because of its bad business decisions.
ysgeye1 8 months ago
Maddow is clearly a racist.Ask yourself why she couldn't ask Paul if a black man who has a restaurant in a black community should have the right to tell a white supremacist who is dressed in a nazi uniform to get out of his restaurant as he does want to trade with that person.Does the owner have the right to that freedom ?
We need get off race only individuals exist racism is a collectivistic notion that is it is left wing ideology.NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUALS PROPERTY
TheTruthgeneral 8 months ago
My favorite quote from former Pres. Ronald Reagan:
When are we going to start talking about the real issues?
I think to bring up something from the 1960's is pointless because those are the issues of the past, and we've learned how to resolve those issues. We need to worry about debt reduction, domestic and international spending, the industrial military complex, bipartisanship, corporate tax, the unemployment rate and jobs, social security, and medicare/medicaid.
koolkamel322 8 months ago
stupid cunt doesn't get it.
EdMan2012 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WATCH the VIDEO on You Tube titled...
" Zionist Racist Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul "
Achilles1389 8 months ago
This guy is ridiculous. "I'm not for racism, but I don't want to infringe on other racists."
scooped13 8 months ago
@scooped13 No, you are not understanding. Which is understandable because he is not explaining himself as well as I could hope. He is against racism. He believes we are all equal. He also believes that private organisations should run themselves. The idea is that if a restaurant wants to open and only allow whites, then that restaurant should have that right. However, I would suspect that he would urge people to not go to said restaurant and it would ultimately shut down.
Aesoe 8 months ago
@scooped13 The comment he had about the gun laws are very much the same. If a restaurant does not have the right to cater to "whites only", then it may be the beginning of a more serious issue. The government may step in and say that the restaurant must allow guns in the public space if the person has a conceal carry license. Then you could also say that a high end hotel would be forced to allow homeless people in their lobby because they have no right to refuse anybody even due to smell.
Aesoe 8 months ago
@Aesoe Thats absurd. This is no slippery involved here. We don't have to take all laws to their logical extreme. Its hard to imagine that in todays age i am having to refute comparing someones race to a person carrying a weapon. If you cant see the huge difference there, then this response was wasted to begin with.
scooped13 8 months ago
Rand Paul is as "Double Speak Racist" Pure and simple. This guy just can not recognize "Real Life" and has been programed by the Libertarian Cause.
edsweb7 8 months ago
Rand Paul is as "Double Speak Racist" Pure and simple.
edsweb7 8 months ago
@edsweb7 No, he believes in freedom, equality, and our constitution. Our private businesses should not be driven by our government. Calling him racist is being ignorant. I believe that KKK members have a right to speak and march. I don't like the KKK, I am Jewish. I don't like the idea of Neo-Nazi rallies, but I understand that it is a small price to pay for the freedoms we enjoy on a regular basis. As soon as you let the government tell you what you can and can't do, you lose freedom.
Aesoe 8 months ago 3
@Aesoe l'chaim to that.
chinchoweed 8 months ago
Private business "free speech" things: putting up signs / rules about 'whites only' sure is free speech. It is also their business protocol. Their private business motto becomes public when they call in the town sheriff to remove the "offender" as they most likely would. Or they would just have their 'security' beat the crap out of them. But only then should they go to jail... The black 'instigator' would have a successful prosecution of these white business owners? In a racist community? no
srqtrashcan 8 months ago
What a shame that so many people, on the left and right, can't handle those few politicians, on the left and right, whose views have nuance.
dcolby5 8 months ago
(Cont) In many of the areas this would happen, where patrons would most likely be the majority of racial makeup, it doesn't seem like it would work based on theory.
PURE RACISTS are a very small segment of the country. It's hard to imagine someone ACTIVELY going back to segregation days and re-starting the process.
But I could be wrong...and it's something I would hate to be wrong on.
Say if, whole cities decide to put "blacks no welcome" or "whites not welcome" signs on doors. Weird.
RandomShellAccount 8 months ago
looking at this from a purely Geographic and Sociological view.
Most people (races) live and dwell in neighborhoods where their own kind are living.
A back woods restaurant in Alabama, in a KNOWN racist neighborhood, probably doesn't see black people anyways...what would they lose or gain by discrimination?
Most white people don't dwell in black neighborhoods, so vice versa.
If a Korean shop owner in a black neighborhood decides to not serve black people, most likely the business would fail.
RandomShellAccount 8 months ago
So 18 minutes worth of discussion and he cannot say a simple Yes or No as to whether or not private businesses have the right to discriminate. Poor Rachel...
magilojoh 8 months ago
Can he not give a straight answer?
What a slimy git.
Nilguiri 8 months ago
Sure, for example, a woman with natal complications, or severed arm should boycott a local and private hospital, and just go ahead and die. Really, if certain groups of people are not wanted, they should grab their stuff and move along, just like the Jews did before world War II; and they were just fine.
mgevirtz 8 months ago
Liberals have difficulty comprehending free will and liberty. If a business is stupid enough to discriminate, then let them suffer and go out of business. That is better than the government stepping in and defiling the Constitution and telling private owners what to do. It's not rocket science, kids.
meshlife88 8 months ago
@meshlife88 And the question everybody would be asking would be... are they out of business yet? no? ...10...20...50...100 years later... are they out of business yet? no? America can and has functioned with institutionalized racism for a long time, and could survive in the future just as before. Some people honestly are made uncomfortable by being around "minorities", and would prefer not to be in their presence.
srqtrashcan 8 months ago
Comment removed
srqtrashcan 8 months ago
@meshlife88 The Supreme Court tends to think otherwise
BryantFinlay 5 months ago
Maddow = drone of the state.
IfhBiff 8 months ago
well the interesting thing is shut the fuck up.
wholesofparodox 8 months ago
@wholesofparodox XD
aixelsydyslexia 8 months ago
Why can't he just answer the damned question?!...stupid politicians and their circular non-answers...
jrm21386 9 months ago 3
He's a senator now, so suck on that bitch
BorgKing001 9 months ago
I agree with Rand Paul..........however, what a horrendous political decision to bring this up. The race issue can never end good in the political arena
glessnerdawg12 9 months ago
If you're black, why would you want to go to a restaurant and support it when you know the owner is racist? If you're homosexual, why would you want so much to go a bar where the owner hates homosexuals?
nathan9384 9 months ago
to maddows point that "there would be no laws stopping bowling allys and lunch counters from resegragating" is fallacious ,as a free market would regulate that issue;meaning white and blacks would not spend cash there and would take their biz to th more tolerant establishment. market forces are just not undewrstood by libs
crabtrap 9 months ago
He should have just told her that he belives in the free market and if a busiessnes did not want to deal with a certain people, that it is their choice that they did not want to sell or buy to that group of people. The market will decide if that busiessnes fails or succeds.
JustinHale707 9 months ago
Wow Rand Paul handled her traps with stunning professionalism
Norie92 9 months ago
Politics is stupid. This is why there is no intelligent discussion or real change when it comes to regaining liberty. Rand Paul could not give a yes or no answer, because if he did the left would have run an abreviated clip of him saying yes I think private business should have the right to discriminate against blacks over and over again, without any of the context he framed it in, and it would likely have cost him the election. There is no intellectual honesty in politics.
catagoryv 9 months ago
Rand Paul is above Maddows pay grade .. because she's immoral she doesn't have a leg to stand on,
ZoneTelevision 9 months ago