Could Someone Help Me Defend Rand Paul's Stance?

[libertygrl]

I'm over at another forum where some people believe Rand Paul is a racist based on his remarks on Rachel Maddow.

I stated several times that his stance was not racially motivated as he would support the right of any individual business owner over government interference - which obviously means an individual of any color! So how could that be racism?

Then I said this whole argument is really a moot point because the CRA was passed and settled so why are we discussing "what if scenarios?" The question I have difficulty articulating is the argument that if many business were discriminating against blacks back in the 50's/60's, Rand Paul's stance would have allowed it to continue if he protected individual rights over government interference.

Here is the other person's response to my post:

Paul is not advocating individual rights. What he is advocating is the abolishing of individual rights.

The choice is clear... do you uphold the freedom of private business to discrimiante without legal consequence, and without having to pay for the damage it does to indivisuals or...

do you uphold the right of the freedom of individual to be free from discrimination, and if discriminated against to have a legal remedy.

Paul is advocating the freedom to discriminate.

Paul is advocating abolishing the right of the individual to seek damages and a legal remedy to stop the terrible emotional and economic harm caused by discrimination.

Discrimination is immoral. Just like selling kids for sex is immoral.

Paul thinks individual business should have complete freedom from government to do what they want, even if their actions are immoral.

Therefore, with his philosophy, he would have to endores allowing private business to sell kids for sex.

Paul's views are truly sick, and repulsive.

[Ekrub]

Therefore, with his philosophy, he would have to endores allowing private business to sell kids for sex.

I don't think that you are going to change these peoples minds...

However, I would correct him with this quote if thats what he thinks libertarian philosophy is.

And I would just nail home the PRIVATE property rights arguement. Use the KKK member going into a black business analogy.

[Bruno]

"Therefore, with his philosophy, he would have to endores allowing private business to sell kids for sex."

You can't expect to make headway with anyone stupid enough to say something like that.

[torchbearer]

you can't sell another person for anything since that goes against self-ownership/property rights.

[sratiug]

I'm over at another forum where some people believe Rand Paul is a racist based on his remarks on Rachel Maddow.

I stated several times that his stance was not racially motivated as he would support the right of any individual business owner over government interference - which obviously means an individual of any color! So how could that be racism?

Then I said this whole argument is really a moot point because the CRA was passed and settled so why are we discussing "what if scenarios?" The question I have difficulty articulating is the argument that if many business were discriminating against blacks back in the 50's/60's, Rand Paul's stance would have allowed it to continue if he protected individual rights over government interference.

Here is the other person's response to my post:

Paul is not advocating individual rights. What he is advocating is the abolishing of individual rights.

The choice is clear... do you uphold the freedom of private business to discrimiante without legal consequence, and without having to pay for the damage it does to indivisuals or...

do you uphold the right of the freedom of individual to be free from discrimination, and if discriminated against to have a legal remedy.

Paul is advocating the freedom to discriminate.

Paul is advocating abolishing the right of the individual to seek damages and a legal remedy to stop the terrible emotional and economic harm caused by discrimination.

Discrimination is immoral. Just like selling kids for sex is immoral.

Paul thinks individual business should have complete freedom from government to do what they want, even if their actions are immoral.

Therefore, with his philosophy, he would have to endores allowing private business to sell kids for sex.

Paul's views are truly sick, and repulsive.

The CRA would allow any business to sell kids for sex, as long as they sold them to everyone with equal opportunity.

Is he abolishing an individual's right to service? Do I have a right to service? Because I'd like to have a taco bell within walking distance.

If there were a right to not be discriminated against by private people or businesses in the Constitution, the CRA wouldn't have needed to apply to businesses.

[Old Ducker]

Discrimination is still legal, if you're the customer. A racist can refuse to do business with a minority shop owner. Conversely, if you are a Jewish shop owner, should you be coerced to serve a hitler-worshipping neonazi?

Rand is right.

*gives credit to Tom DiLorenzo for the thoughts*

[Lord Xar]

Bruno,

I partly agree with your assessment. But, lets say perhaps, that person is just ignorant. An ignorant person can be reasoned with if they are shown the value of their ignorance to their own lack of intellectual honesty. You have to play that back on them. Most ignorant people do not truly feel ignorance is bliss.

We have to conclude people who make statements like that are:
1. Forum shill who keeps the other posters in the same mindset by posting such garbage and maintain the status quo on the board.
2. The person is genuinely ignorant. Which case, by making a lesson out of them, you will teach others by proxy.

I find base examples and keeping things simple are the best way.

[Bruno]

Bruno,

I partly agree with your assessment. But, lets say perhaps, that person is just ignorant. An ignorant person can be reasoned with if they are shown the value of their ignorance to their own lack of intellectual honesty. You have to play that back on them. Most ignorant people do not truly feel ignorance is bliss.

We have to conclude people who make statements like that are:
1. Forum shill who keeps the other posters in the same mindset by posting such garbage and maintain the status quo on the board.
2. The person is genuinely ignorant. Which case, by making a lesson out of them, you will teach others by proxy.

I find base examples and keeping things simple are the best way.

I can see your point. Thanks for providing hope.

[jmdrake]

It's easy if you'll defend the stance that Rand actually took. Rand never said he'd repeal the civil rights act. All he said was he'd have tried to reword 1 title out of 10. Most people missed where Rand attempted to bring up the interstate commerce clause, by that is the issue this battle should be fought over. It should not be about the "right to discriminate" (nowhere in the constitution that I see) or even "property rights". (The constitution allows property rights to be breached by "due process of law"). Instead the fight should be about overreach by the federal government through the interstate commerce clause. The abuse of the ICC is what allows the fed to tell California it can't allow medical marijuana. It allows the federal government to ban certain weapons. It allows the government to tell farmers how much wheat, corn and peanuts they can grow. Read up on the ICC, learn all of the ways it's been applied, learn how bogus it's current application is and you can debate the issue. But most of all point out that Rand never said he'd repeal the CRA!

[dean.engelhardt]

I'm over at another forum where some people believe Rand Paul is a racist based on his remarks on Rachel Maddow.

I stated several times that his stance was not racially motivated as he would support the right of any individual business owner over government interference - which obviously means an individual of any color! So how could that be racism?

Then I said this whole argument is really a moot point because the CRA was passed and settled so why are we discussing "what if scenarios?" The question I have difficulty articulating is the argument that if many business were discriminating against blacks back in the 50's/60's, Rand Paul's stance would have allowed it to continue if he protected individual rights over government interference.

Here is the other person's response to my post:

Paul is not advocating individual rights. What he is advocating is the abolishing of individual rights.

The choice is clear... do you uphold the freedom of private business to discrimiante without legal consequence, and without having to pay for the damage it does to indivisuals or...

do you uphold the right of the freedom of individual to be free from discrimination, and if discriminated against to have a legal remedy.

Paul is advocating the freedom to discriminate.

Paul is advocating abolishing the right of the individual to seek damages and a legal remedy to stop the terrible emotional and economic harm caused by discrimination.

Discrimination is immoral. Just like selling kids for sex is immoral.

Paul thinks individual business should have complete freedom from government to do what they want, even if their actions are immoral.

Therefore, with his philosophy, he would have to endores allowing private business to sell kids for sex.

Paul's views are truly sick, and repulsive.

Although I hate to agree with Dick Armey:

1) Rand Paul stated he suppports the CRA and is against racism.
2) Rand has said he would not support a repeal of the CRA.
3) Rand likes the 9 out of 10 parts of it.
4) Rand said if he was a Senator in 1964 we would have discussed the language in the section he doesn't like. That is the job he would have been paid to do.

If folk want to call this a rasict position, they are just ignorant.

[Brian4Liberty]

Paul is advocating abolishing the right of the individual to seek damages and a legal remedy to stop the terrible emotional and economic harm caused by discrimination.

Discrimination is immoral. Just like selling kids for sex is immoral.


Rand Paul agrees that discrimination is immoral and repulsive. He is completely against it. This must be clear before any other discussion can take place.

The rest of the discussion is more detailed, and revolves around rule of law and constitutional process.

There were many issues involved in the Civil Rights discussion (including State/local governments that had Jim Crow laws to force segregation), but let's isolate and focus on the most obvious and relevant problem: how do you remedy discrimination by a business?

First choice: Remedy at the local level. Boycott the business. Protest the business. Pressure the business through community disapproval. No government or new laws necessary. How many businesses could stand up to that kind of pressure? (This is the most desirable option).

Second choice: Pass a local law that prohibits business discrimination based on race, gender, orientation, etc. Business rules and criminal acts are often legislated at this level.

Third choice: Pass a State law that prohibits business discrimination based on race, gender, orientation, etc. Most law is legislated at this level.

Fourth choice: Pass a Constitutional Amendment at the Federal level that prohibits business discrimination based on race, gender, orientation, etc.

Fifth choice: Pass a Federal law that prohibits business discrimination based on race, gender, orientation, etc., (even though the Federal government is not granted that duty by the Constitution without a Constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court will then legislate from the bench if they uphold the law. This is the least desirable option, as it opens the door for all types of Federal government abuse of power, and that will be painfully obvious when you disagree with the actions of an administration. This is the option that was used).

As you can see, there is a detailed process debate they takes place with the implementation of laws. Most people don't care about or want to know the details. Confusion and misunderstandings can be caused by mixing detailed legal debates with the actual problem itself. Rachel Maddow was asking a specific morality issue. Rand Paul is in agreement on that. Discrimination is wrong. Rand is also someone who is very interested in the details and proper implementation of the law. He was not able to clearly make that distinction. But who can really do that with the pressure of a live interview, and essentially under attack? A super-slick salesperson can dodge and weave on the fly, but haven't we had enough of that from politicians?

[tremendoustie]

No person has a right to sell another person, because they don't own that person.

Similarly, you don't own anyone else's life, money, property, etc -- nor do you have the right to threaten aggressive violence against them in order to control them.

The only appropriate use of violence is in self defense, or defense of innocents.

If a person is acting inappropriately, but is not attacking/harming other people or their property, bad publicity, boycotts, pickets, etc, can all be appropriate responses. Violence, however, is not an appropriate solution.

[tremendoustie]

What site are you discussing this on?

[tremendoustie]

Oh, and here's a parody of this person's post, to show the logical fallacy:



Gossip is immoral. Just like murder is immoral.

Paul thinks individuals should have complete freedom from government to do what they want, even if their actions are immoral.

Therefore, with his philosophy, he would have to endorse murder.

Paul's views are truly sick, and repulsive.It is appropriate to respond to some immorality with force/violence: murder, theft, rape, etc. Yet, to respond to other kinds of immorality, like gossip, gluttony, ill temper, etc, with force/violence, would be outrageous.

The difference is this: The former actions constitute force/violence on persons or their property. The latter do not.

[dean.engelhardt]

Here is the other person's response to my post:

Paul is not advocating individual rights. What he is advocating is the abolishing of individual rights.

Response: Citation needed.

The choice is clear... do you uphold the freedom of private business to discrimiante without legal consequence, and without having to pay for the damage it does to indivisuals or...

Response: First part, yes. second part no.

do you uphold the right of the freedom of individual to be free from discrimination, and if discriminated against to have a legal remedy.

Response: Freedom from discrimination is not a right. The freedom to discrimination is a right. That right is limited if discrimination is racial and is by the government or a business with public accodations.

Paul is advocating the freedom to discriminate.

Response: And that's a bad thing? Explain please.

Paul is advocating abolishing the right of the individual to seek damages and a legal remedy to stop the terrible emotional and economic harm caused by discrimination.

Response: Citation needed

Discrimination is immoral. Just like selling kids for sex is immoral.

Response: What plant are you living on? Discrimination is indiviual free will and free speech.

Paul thinks individual business should have complete freedom from government to do what they want, even if their actions are immoral.

Response: Citation needed.

Therefore, with his philosophy, he would have to endores allowing private business to sell kids for sex.

Response: Citation needed

Paul's views are truly sick, and repulsive.

Then the writer is truly sick and repulsive for discriminating against Rand Paul. Should the writer have the right to discriminate against Rand when it is time to vote, or should the government force him to vote for Rand? See the irony?




Comment Above

[RM918]

It's a First Amendment issue, Freedom of Assembly. If Rand is a racist for saying private businesses should be able to serve who they please, regardless of the reason, how is the ACLU not immoral for defending Nazis and racists?

[Odin]

I'm over at another forum where some people believe Rand Paul is a racist based on his remarks on Rachel Maddow.

I stated several times that his stance was not racially motivated as he would support the right of any individual business owner over government interference - which obviously means an individual of any color! So how could that be racism?

Then I said this whole argument is really a moot point because the CRA was passed and settled so why are we discussing "what if scenarios?" The question I have difficulty articulating is the argument that if many business were discriminating against blacks back in the 50's/60's, Rand Paul's stance would have allowed it to continue if he protected individual rights over government interference.

Here is the other person's response to my post:

Paul is not advocating individual rights. What he is advocating is the abolishing of individual rights.

The choice is clear... do you uphold the freedom of private business to discrimiante without legal consequence, and without having to pay for the damage it does to indivisuals or...

do you uphold the right of the freedom of individual to be free from discrimination, and if discriminated against to have a legal remedy.

Paul is advocating the freedom to discriminate.

Paul is advocating abolishing the right of the individual to seek damages and a legal remedy to stop the terrible emotional and economic harm caused by discrimination.

Discrimination is immoral. Just like selling kids for sex is immoral.

Paul thinks individual business should have complete freedom from government to do what they want, even if their actions are immoral.

Therefore, with his philosophy, he would have to endores allowing private business to sell kids for sex.

Paul's views are truly sick, and repulsive.



haha we can get into very deep philosophical issues with this post.

First though, lets talk the practical. Preventing businesses from discriminating doesn't eliminate racism, it only sweeps it under the rug. But instead of allowing racist businessmen to expose themselves and be boycotted out of business, we force them to hide in the shadows and become rich. Is that what we want? Do these liberals think that in today's society, a business owner wanting to make profit would dare to put up a "Whites Only" sign in his restaurant? The only question is, do we want someone who would put up a "Whites Only" sign making money through our free market system, or would we rather they expose themselves so that we may deal with them?

Now to jump into the philosophical matters. First, his analogy between discrimination in private businesses and selling kids for sex actually works the opposite way as he may want it to. A child cannot consent to sell his body for sex, legally or even psychologically, so in this case we would be depriving him of his liberty (his property over his own body). Personally, I believe there is much more to it morally than this, it's a bit hard to get into in one forum post, but suffice it to say that our moral feelings are the result of evolution, which aims toward perpetuating the species. Seeing a child being sexually taken advantage of is disgusting to us, because our nature says that children ought to be cared for, as they are the future of the human species and thus relevant to us from an evolutionary standpoint.

Really, invoking morality though demands a lot of proof. Unless there is a God, morality is just the subjective projection of our own attitude over "right and wrong." Subjective notions like that play no part in politics, unless they are consistent with a free society. In cases of law, freedom ought to trump what someone claims to be "morality" unless they can show that the morality they espouse is somehow objective (no one has yet succeeded in doing so).

[AuH2O]

Stop talking about why being against the CRA is okay. Rand said he's for it. Stop drawing out these discussions!

[libertygrl]

Thanks guys. Great responses. Some of the points this person is making is really out there and doesn't make sense. I pointed out several times that Rand NEVER said he would repeal the CRA and that he's against all forms of racism, but they just continue to ignore that part. :rolleyes: Many people are just reacting emotionally without even hearing all the details. Even then, they continue to hold onto their misguided beliefs.

One thing I would like to be able to respond to, is the situation before the CRA was passed. If a majority of white businesses were discriminating against people of color, wouldn't that be a special circumstance where the government would have to get involved? If that was the mindset of some people back then, that would certainly be a lot of businesses and there's not much of an option for people of color.

I think that's a legitimate question to ask but I'm not sure how I would answer that (or how Rand would for that matter) Do you continue to support the freedom of the individual business owners in an area where a large number of black people get shut out from shops, restrooms, service stations, restaurants, movie theaters, etc? I don't think blacks boycotting these places would get anything remedied if discrimination was
the accepted norm of the majority of the population.

Would that be the proper time for the government to get involved? I personally don't like it getting involved in anything private, but I do wonder about a scenario I just described. I gave another argument about boycotting a place that discriminates and that this discussion was really a distraction from current issues we're facing because nothing the CRA will never be repealed. This is another response I got from someone different:


I'm not really interested in citizen action and good intentions to keep that situation from occuring ... i like things THE WAY THEY ARE NOW ... where i don't have to bother dealing with someone else's issues when i get off that red eye .. i'm for the status quo ..

i do NOT respect an indviduals right to privacy when it interfears with me living my life in a public setting ( resturants , shopping etc )...

i see your going the same route that rand paul did in the interview . .. back in 1960 all those bussienss that didn't allow blacks , those were private bussiness ..so , if we followed your logic we would have that kind of situation once again ..

sometimes the indvidual comes second to society ....

pirvacy is nice , but a functioning society is more important ... sometimes we americans tend to get too caught up in our "ME" mentality ... :eek:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think these people are probably unreachable but for my own sake, I'd like to articulate my position better.

[Carole]

Read this:

Rand Paul's principled stumble
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37703.html
By: Robert A. Levy

[libertygrl]

What site are you discussing this on?

It's Americans For Legal Immigration: http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-200181-days0-orderasc-0.html

[libertygrl]

Read this:

Rand Paul's principled stumble
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37703.html
By: Robert A. Levy


Thanks Carol. Perfect article!