Random Black guy defends Rand.....

[BamaFanNKy]

YouTube - Rand Paul's Comments Weren't Racist. Here's Why. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdBN3AuH2to)

[low preference guy]

pretty good video.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

dammit, gettin an error when i try to post a comment complimenting his video and inviting him to come talk natural rights at ronpaulforums.com with people who love talking about natural rights, free markets, and less government.

[sailingaway]

Thank you, Willwhiz!! (This appears to be Random Black Guy's user name.)

[malkusm]

dammit, gettin an error when i try to post a comment complimenting his video and inviting him to come talk natural rights at ronpaulforums.com with people who love talking about natural rights, free markets, and less government.

YouTube prohibits URLs in comments. That only started maybe 7-8 months ago. If you want to tell him to come here, maybe you should just tell him to "Google Ron Paul Forums" or "Google Liberty Forest" and he can get here that way.

P.S. I prefer using "Liberty Forest," on the off chance that the guy has a stigma against Ron Paul for whatever reason.

[roho76]

I still think Rand should have answered Rachel with something along the lines of:

"So Rachel, what your saying is you believe that an African American restaurant owner should be forced to serve a dining room full of Klan members?"

Her head would have exploded instantly.

[teacherone]

I still think Rand should have answered Rachel with something along the lines of:

"So Rachel, what your saying is you believe that an African American restaurant owner should be forced to serve a dining room full of Klan members?"

Her head would have exploded instantly.

wow....i'll have to remember that one!

[someperson]

I wonder if Mr. Will has already been here :)

[jmdrake]

I still think Rand should have answered Rachel with something along the lines of:

"So Rachel, what your saying is you believe that an African American restaurant owner should be forced to serve a dining room full of Klan members?"

Her head would have exploded instantly.

The "John Stossel" ploy? If Maddow had any intelligence at all (which is questionable) she could have come back with "Do you think most black people would be willing to serve Klan members if it meant their kids could go to the local hospital in case of an emergency"? I know I would have been willing to make that trade. And back then many black people did have to serve rooms full of klansmen. That was necessary for economic survival. I still don't know why anybody actually thinks that is a good comeback.

As for the video, while it's a nice defense, it propagates the myth that Rand Paul would have voted against the civil rights act. He NEVER said that. He said he would have tried to reword one section of the act had he been in congress back then. Later he clearly said he would have gone ahead and voted for the civil rights act (assumeably after failing to get the changes he desired). Saying Rand Paul would have voted against the civil rights act at this point is like saying Rand Paul would vote right now to close Guantanamo Bay and release the accursed terrorists right on the street. Whether you agree with that position or not it's not the position he's taken and defending a position you wish Rand had taken when he's actually taken the opposite position is not helpful. I don't blame the guy that made the YouTube. He's not living/breathing Rand Paul 24/7. But everybody else should know better.

[Xenophage]

jmdrake, the essential philosophic issue at stake here IS freedom of association. It is a fundamental freedom.

Whether or not Rand Paul wins his election is quite meaningless if the people who elected him don't believe in freedom of association.

"Random Black Dude" believes in freedom of association. If he can get it, why do you think everyone else can't?

[low preference guy]

i disapprove how people some in this thread are demeaningly (sp?) referring to this person as "random black dude" or "random black guy".

[jmdrake]

jmdrake, the essential philosophic issue at stake here IS freedom of association. It is a fundamental freedom.

Whether or not Rand Paul wins his election is quite meaningless if the people who elected him don't believe in freedom of association.

"Random Black Dude" believes in freedom of association. If he can get it, why do you think everyone else can't?

Freedom of association isn't even in the constitution. And not everyone here is libertarian. And this is an argument that can lose us more votes in the long term than 9/11 truth. Rand's original point on Rachel Maddow was NOT about the "freedom of association". It was about the commerce clause and the fact that the federal government twisted it to claim all sorts of powers it doesn't have. That's the "essential philosophic issue" that's really at stake.

[low preference guy]

Freedom of association isn't even in the constitution.

ninth amendment?

[jmdrake]

ninth amendment?

I'll top you with the 10th amendment. Nothing in the ninth amendment blocks the states from abridging the "freedom of association". Any state that wanted to could pass title 2 of the civil rights act without any problems. And that's true even if you go with the "incorporation doctrine" of the 14th amendment (which I admit some people don't believe in). It's not a "fundamental liberty". One of the most dangerous things the Supreme Court has done is to make up rights out of thin air and then elevate them to being "fundamental rights". That's where the whole abortion mess came from.

[low preference guy]

Wikipedia thinks freedom of association is protected under the first amendment.


Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association has been included in a number of national constitutions and human rights instruments, including the US constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.



While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

[jmdrake]

Wikipedia thinks freedom of association is protected under the first amendment.

From your above quote:

the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association.

If we're going to go along with reading into the constitution things that aren't actually in there then there's nothing wrong with the Supreme Court declaring the interstate commerce clause covers things that aren't really interstate commerce and that people have some fundamental "freedom not to be discriminated against" that isn't in the constitution either.

[BamaFanNKy]

i disapprove how people some in this thread are demeaningly (sp?) referring to this person as "random black dude" or "random black guy".

And? If he was white I would of said Random White guy.

Granted I have been to 10 shows of this guy:
http://www.seatwave.com/filestore/SEASON/IMAGE/don-rickles_011503_1_MainPicture.jpg

YouTube - Don Rickles on Dean Martin Roasts: Frank Sinatra (1978) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MiBVrxbvBg&feature=related)

[low preference guy]

From your above quote:

the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association.

If we're going to go along with reading into the constitution things that aren't actually in there then there's nothing wrong with the Supreme Court declaring the interstate commerce clause covers things that aren't really interstate commerce and that people have some fundamental "freedom not to be discriminated against" that isn't in the constitution either.

I think Freedom of Association is as forceful as Freedom of Speech from the Ninth Amendment. Freedom of association is a "negative right" just like freedom of speech, not a phony right violating newly created "right".

[jmdrake]

I think Freedom of Association is as forceful as Freedom of Speech from the Ninth Amendment. Freedom of association is a "negative right" just like freedom of speech, not a phony right violating newly created "right".

You're entitled to your opinion. But it's just that, an opinion. Like I said, the whole abortion mess comes from Supreme Court making up rights. The "right to privacy" for instance. Sounds great. But the actual rights spelled out in the 4th amendment have been totally abridged. Meanwhile the court holds up a phony right to kill one's baby based on the idea that it's somehow a "private" decision. Total mularky. Either this is going to be a strict constitutionalist movement or it isn't. Constitutionalism and libertarianism are not the same thing. They often overlap and it's great when they do. But this is one case where they don't. Rand could make a strong constitutional argument without making nonsense assumptions like "Blacks would be upset if they had to serve klansmen". Not hardly. That happened all the time, and it's a small price to pay to be able to take your child who's bleeding to death to the closest emergency room. But if you make the argument about whether or not the constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over the issue then its another whole ball of wax.

One thing I find sad and funny at the same time is this from "Xenophage".

Whether or not Rand Paul wins his election is quite meaningless if the people who elected him don't believe in freedom of association.

So it's ok if the people voted for Rand love torture, think the Patriot Act is swell, want the government to have endless power in the "war on drugs", think that we should be in Afghanistan and Iraq indefinitely etc, but if the people who vote for Rand think that the local emergency room shouldn't be able to turn away a little black child that's bleeding to death that makes Rand's election "meaningless"? This is the most important principle on the freaking planet? :rolleyes:

[libertybrewcity]

cool. how is the african american vote looking for rand in the election? i assume that group votes the same as most other african americans in the presidential and senate elections. will this time be different?

i remember Ron Paul was getting a larger percentage of the minority vote than all the other republicans because of his message of liberty and unity.

[libertybrewcity]

also, for the thread title controversy (LOL) it probably could have been title "Random guy defends Rand" but given that the demographics of this forum and the republican party as a whole are 99 percent white, an african american defending rand is a feat and not very common.

However, this kind of goes against the message of unity that Ron attempted in his campaign. Dems label groups of people and defines the class and racial divide. If it was not brought up then it would likely close or at least people would feel like brothers instead of separate groups.

[BamaFanNKy]

Meh. If a descriptor makes you racist..... I guess I am racist. Man, I must hate my family.

[low preference guy]

You're entitled to your opinion.

It's not an opinion. The fact that we are endowed with natural rights is a fact. We have the right to both freedom of speech and freedom of association. That's a fact. And according to the Ninth amendment the government should protect Freedom of Association as much as Freedom of Speech.

[0zzy]

I still think Rand should have answered Rachel with something along the lines of:

"So Rachel, what your saying is you believe that an African American restaurant owner should be forced to serve a dining room full of Klan members?"

Her head would have exploded instantly.

Race=/=racist groups.

But apparently in California, racist groups=political groups=religious groups, which is protected.

[jmdrake]

It's not an opinion.

No. It's your opinion. The fact is that the constitution doesn't mention freedom of association. Your opinion is that it should be in there. You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to your own facts. Like I said, it's nonsense like what you're trying to pull that's the reason we have the abortion mess in the first place. Freedom of speech is written in the first amendment. Freedom of association is not. Freedom to discriminate certainly is not. Besides, Rand didn't hang his discussion with Maddow on this. There's no need to burden him with it.

[low preference guy]

No. It's your opinion. The fact is that the constitution doesn't mention freedom of association. Your opinion is that it should be in there. You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to your own facts. Like I said, it's nonsense like what you're trying to pull that's the reason we have the abortion mess in the first place. Freedom of speech is written in the first amendment. Freedom of association is not. Freedom to discriminate certainly is not. Besides, Rand didn't hang his discussion with Maddow on this. There's no need to burden him with it.

I'm not talking about Rand. The purpose of the ninth Amendment was exactly to protect the rights not listed. That's a fact. And Freedom of Association is a right not listed. That's a fact.

[jmdrake]

I'm not talking about Rand. The purpose of the ninth Amendment was exactly to protect the rights not listed. That's a fact. And Freedom of Association is a right not listed. That's a fact.

Protect those rights from the federal government. The purpose of the 9th amendment is to make sure the federal government doesn't go beyond it's proper bounds. You can't (honestly) use the 9th amendment to say that you have some enumerated right that you can assert against the states. That's nonsense.

[low preference guy]

Protect those rights from the federal government.
Exactly.


The purpose of the 9th amendment is to make sure the federal government doesn't go beyond it's proper bounds. You can't (honestly) use the 9th amendment to say that you have some enumerated right that you can assert against the states. That's nonsense.

I don't. I have no idea where you got that idea. I just claim that because of the Ninth Amendment, Freedom of Association should be protected as much as Freedom of Speech, which is protected from laws made by Congress.

[jmdrake]

Exactly.



I don't. I have no idea where you got that idea. I just claim that because of the Ninth Amendment, Freedom of Association should be protected as much as Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of speech, which is actually mentioned in the bill of rights, is applied against the states. Even if you reject the "incorporation doctrine", all states specifically protect freedom of speech in their own constitutions. The same is not true of "freedom of association". So no, the 9th amendment does not make freedom of association as protected as freedom of speech. That's just wishful thinking. The right to let some little black kid die because you don't want to let him in your hospital is not as important as the right to call that kid the "n-word".

[low preference guy]

Freedom of speech, which is actually mentioned in the bill of rights, is applied against the states. Even if you reject the "incorporation doctrine", all states specifically protect freedom of speech in their own constitutions. The same is not true of "freedom of association".

Irrelevant to my point, I'm talking about protections against the Federal Government.

[jmdrake]

Irrelevant to my point, I'm talking about protections against the Federal Government.

No it's not "irrelevant to your point". Not in the least. How you frame the issue is very important. There isn't a "fundamental right" to paint children's toys with lead paint. But the federal government doesn't have a role there if it's not interstate commerce. Let's take the Adam Walsh Act. Is there a fundamental right not to be on a sex offender registry? No. At the same time the federal government has no jurisdiction to force sex offenders to register. But the A.W.A. is constitutional because of how it's implemented. There's no federal law requiring sex offenders to register. But the federal government used the "power of the purse" to induce state government to pass such laws. You might say where they get that power from (income taxes) isn't actually constitutional, but that's a different subject. A federal law that induced states to pass title 2 of the civil rights act would be totally constitutional. A federal law that induced states to pass laws violating freedom of speech would not be.

[teacherone]

:o

i'm not seeing the connection between serving klansmen and being able to send your kids to the emergency room...

but that's probably because i went to public school :eek:

please clarify...


EDIT-- Ok, you're saying the with freedom of association emergency doctors would turn away black children.

hmmm....have to look into this

[Xenophage]

One thing I find sad and funny at the same time is this from "Xenophage".

Whether or not Rand Paul wins his election is quite meaningless if the people who elected him don't believe in freedom of association.

So it's ok if the people voted for Rand love torture, think the Patriot Act is swell, want the government to have endless power in the "war on drugs", think that we should be in Afghanistan and Iraq indefinitely etc, but if the people who vote for Rand think that the local emergency room shouldn't be able to turn away a little black child that's bleeding to death that makes Rand's election "meaningless"? This is the most important principle on the freaking planet? :rolleyes:

Actually, you've missed my point. I should have phrased the sentence by omitting the last two words: "Whether or not Rand Paul wins his election is quite meaningless if the people who elected him don't believe in freedom." It seems obvious to me that if you believe in freedom, you believe in the freedom of association.

Legality is a weak ally next to morality. In the long run we only win if we win the philosophic arguments. Freedom of Association is a necessary corollary to Freedom of Speech, and it is therefore implicit in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Those rights would exist, however, even if the Constitution made no mention of them whatsoever.

And I believe I am correct in identifying the underlying philosophic issue, here. You're not arguing philosophy at all. You're arguing legality.

I think I understand your motivation: that we win elections, no matter the cost. I'm saying that our victories will be short lived and ultimately meaningless if the next election AFTER that returns to the control of the statists. That's why it is important to educate the public and alter the mood of the country.

We don't win when Rand Paul is in the Senate. We win when all of your neighbors believe in your rights and theirs.

[jmdrake]

Actually, you've missed my point. I should have phrased the sentence by omitting the last two words: "Whether or not Rand Paul wins his election is quite meaningless if the people who elected him don't believe in freedom." It seems obvious to me that if you believe in freedom, you believe in the freedom of association.

Legality is a weak ally next to morality. In the long run we only win if we win the philosophic arguments. Freedom of Association is a necessary corollary to Freedom of Speech, and it is therefore implicit in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Those rights would exist, however, even if the Constitution made no mention of them whatsoever.

And I believe I am correct in identifying the underlying philosophic issue, here. You're not arguing philosophy at all. You're arguing legality.


:rolleyes: Now your arguing that discrimination is moral? That's just retarded. No. You didn't need to "word your post more carefully". I simply disagree with it. There has never been a time in the history of property rights where there were unrestricted rights to keep someone else off your property under any circumstances. I know this is a "legal" point but it's an important one. Back to the days of the founding fathers (and before) there was something known as a "prescriptive easement". Let's say you owned land between the road and the beech. Let's say for years people walked across that land to the point where they wore down a path and you did nothing to stop them. Eventually you would lose the property right to stop people from doing what they had been doing all along. Crazy? Maybe. But that's the law. And guess what? We live in a republic which means rule of LAW! The campaign slogan of Ron Paul 2008 was restore the republic. It was not create a hypothetical libertarian utopia. That's the free state project.

Last point. It's sad, really sad that you are (apparently) willing to accept people to vote for Rand Paul who support torture, endless war, the "war on drugs" and also sorts of other positions that Rand Paul has "nuanced" to keep people like that on board, but people that don't accept your libertarian utopia view of the world are a problem for you. People who don't think a hospital should be able to turn away a child who's bleeding to death just because that hospital ran out of "black beds" is a problem for you. And folks used to call the 9/11 truthers "selfish".

[low preference guy]

People who don't think a hospital should be able to turn away a child who's bleeding to death just because that hospital ran out of "black beds" is a problem for you.

wow. statist fear-mongering at RPF.

[Xenophage]

:rolleyes: Now your arguing that discrimination is moral? That's just retarded. No. You didn't need to "word your post more carefully". I simply disagree with it. There has never been a time in the history of property rights where there were unrestricted rights to keep someone else off your property under any circumstances. I know this is a "legal" point but it's an important one. Back to the days of the founding fathers (and before) there was something known as a "prescriptive easement". Let's say you owned land between the road and the beech. Let's say for years people walked across that land to the point where they wore down a path and you did nothing to stop them. Eventually you would lose the property right to stop people from doing what they had been doing all along. Crazy? Maybe. But that's the law. And guess what? We live in a republic which means rule of LAW! The campaign slogan of Ron Paul 2008 was restore the republic. It was not create a hypothetical libertarian utopia. That's the free state project.

Last point. It's sad, really sad that you are (apparently) willing to accept people to vote for Rand Paul who support torture, endless war, the "war on drugs" and also sorts of other positions that Rand Paul has "nuanced" to keep people like that on board, but people that don't accept your libertarian utopia view of the world are a problem for you. People who don't think a hospital should be able to turn away a child who's bleeding to death just because that hospital ran out of "black beds" is a problem for you. And folks used to call the 9/11 truthers "selfish".

Your penchant for implying people believe things that they do not is not conducive to meaningful discourse.

First point, I never said that racial discrimination is moral. What I meant, and what I thought you would understand, is that it is immoral to coerce someone into associating or trading with someone else against their will. Holding that kind of power over someone makes you their slave-owner. It is an issue of liberty.

Secondly, I didn't address property rights at all, and I didn't make them any part of my argument. Red-herring.

Thirdly, I believe that a well crafted republic that limits the role of government to the enforcement of contractual and criminal law and the military defense of the citizenry against foreign powers provides the most likely scenario for fostering individual freedom and capitalism. I'm more in line with Ayn Rand than Murray Rothbard, although I appreciate them both (have had lots of arguments on here about it).

Fourthly, your last paragraph makes no sense. I said that Rand's victory is, in the long-term, irrelevant if the people who elect him are exactly the sorts of people you claim I want voting for him. I want people to believe in freedom. If they do, they'll vote for Rand.

Lastly, why are you insinuating that I'm a racist, or that I don't care if black people die? It's not true, and you know it's not fair. I have black friends. I've reiterated several times that I am an individualist. I'm as far away from being racist as it is possible to be.

[jmdrake]

wow. statist fear-mongering at RPF.

No. It's not "statist fear mongering". It's history. This actually happened prior to the passage of the civil rights act. Did it happen often? No. But it's no more far fetched then a bunch of klansmen seeking to do business at a black restaurant. The history of this era isn't so old that you can't actually find people who can relate these stories. It's sad when people choose to be willfully ignorant of history just so that they can push a particular agenda. Even sadder when they choose to accuse people they don't know of being "statist" or of "fear mongering" rather then stepping out from behind their own ignorance.

[low preference guy]

This actually happened prior to the passage of the civil rights act.

doctors are not slaves. they shouldn't be force to attend anyone.

[jmdrake]

Your penchant for implying people believe things that they do not is not conducive to meaningful discourse.


I didn't imply anything. I merely asked you a question. One that you seem incapable of answering.



First point, I never said that racial discrimination is moral. What I meant, and what I thought you would understand, is that it is immoral to coerce someone into associating or trading with someone else against their will. Holding that kind of power over someone makes you their slave-owner. It is an issue of liberty.


"Slavery" would be 1) forcing someone to go into business and 2) making them be in business without being paid. You have a "penchant" for hyperbole.

Anyway, let's look at the word "moral" and how it's been applied in the law recently. The last time a case of "morality" went before the supreme court it was Lawrence v. Texas. Those arguing "morality" wanted to allow the law banning same-sex sodomy. Those arguing to strike down the law argued that morality shouldn't be a deciding factor for modern law in a secular society.

You've basically turned the way the term is used in the law on it's head. But I forgot. Law isn't important to you. When the law is on your side argue facts. When the facts are on your side argue law. When neither is on your side argue policy. And I guess if all else fails argue "morality".




Secondly, I didn't address property rights at all, and I didn't make them any part of my argument. Red-herring.


Right. You're arguing from the "libertarian moral majority". :rolleyes: That didn't work for Jerry Farwell and it certainly won't work for you. That's even worse.

Besides, you are missing the point. I brought that up to point out that the "unrestricted right to selectively exclude people from your property once you opened it up to the public" never existed in this country! So if we succeed in "restoring the republic" we will still end up in a state (no pun intended) that is unacceptable to you.




Thirdly, I believe that a well crafted republic that limits the role of government to the enforcement of contractual and criminal law and the military defense of the citizenry against foreign powers provides the most likely scenario for fostering individual freedom and capitalism. I'm more in line with Ayn Rand than Murray Rothbard, although I appreciate them both (have had lots of arguments on here about it).


And the argument on the CRA should be about limiting the role of the federal government. "Rights" not mentioned in the constitution are not relevant to it and are counter productive.



Fourthly, your last paragraph makes no sense. I said that Rand's victory is, in the long-term, irrelevant if the people who elect him are exactly the sorts of people you claim I want voting for him. I want people to believe in freedom. If they do, they'll vote for Rand.


Ummm....your above paragraph makes no sense. And it's self contradictory. What kind of you people do you think I think you want voting for him? :confused: Maybe you were really sleepy when you wrote that because it's senseless.




Lastly, why are you insinuating that I'm a racist, or that I don't care if black people die? It's not true, and you know it's not fair. I have black friends. I've reiterated several times that I am an individualist. I'm as far away from being racist as it is possible to be.

I never said or implied that you were racist and wanted black people to die. But what you and others seem to not understand is before the civil rights movement came along the scenario I described was a reality. I'm not talking about some stupid hypothetical of klansmen going into a black restaurant that John Stossel and others keep hyping. There really were people in dire need of emergency care that were turned away from medical facilities for no other reason than the color of their skin. I personally know one man who told me how as a child a spike had gone completely through his arm. His mom took him to the closest hospital. This was during segregation. She had to raise holy hell to get the doctor to go against the rules and treat him! Now, I'm not at all suggesting you are racist or insinuating that you would want such a situation to exist, but that doesn't change the fact that it did exist. Had a white person gone into that same hospital and the doctor had attempted not to treat him he would have been in trouble under the law. I don't consider that "slavery". Maybe you do.

[jmdrake]

doctors are not slaves. they shouldn't be force to attend anyone.

A slave is someone who doesn't get paid to do a job and cannot quit his job. Still, it's laughable how you jumped from "That's just fear mongering" to "its slavery to do anything else." Make up your mind. Either you're ok with people being allowed to die because of their race or you're not.

[low preference guy]

A slave is someone who doesn't get paid to do a job and cannot quit his job. Still, it's laughable how you jumped from "That's just fear mongering" to "its slavery to do anything else." Make up your mind. Either you're ok with people being allowed to die because of their race or you're not.

it's still fear mongering. i'm against forcing anyone to do something against their will if they haven't violated anyone's rights. that's what libertarianism is.

all your race-based whining makes you look like a great poster for the democratic underground.

[jmdrake]

it's still fear mongering. i'm against forcing anyone to be forced to do something against their will if they haven't violated anyone's rights. that's what libertarianism is.

Fear mongering is bringing up a scenario that never could possibly happen. That's not what I did. Now maybe you care more about your personal political views than you do about the life of some child bleeding from a car accident, and that's your right. (It's not your right to attempt to force your view on everybody else like you and a couple of others seem intent on doing). But to call that "fearmongering" is just dishonest.

Back to the reason I brought this up. John Stossel and others have been "fearmongering" with the "blacks being forced to serve KKK members" scenario. I brought up the hospital scenario simply to rebut this nonsense. Look at it from a standpoint of contracts, since maybe you can understand that (though I'm not sure). Let's say if you owned a restaurant and someone from a group that you couldn't stand owned all of the hospitals in the area. Let's say they said to you "The only way you'll be able to use our hospital is if we can use your restaurant" would you do it? Would you sign that contract? I certainly would. I think any sensible parent would. (Assume that other choices like building your own hospital or moving simply aren't viable). Once you understand that you can see how stupid that Stossel hypothetical is. That doesn't mean the libertarian position is "wrong". But stupid, emotional appeals to people's dislike of the KKK really wouldn't go anywhere with anybody on the other side who was even halfway intelligent.

There are decent libertarian arguments that could be made about real solutions to the problem I presented, but you are so hung up on being "right" (when you clearly are not) that you can't think outside the box enough to figure them out. Sad. Real sad.

[jmdrake]

it's still fear mongering. i'm against forcing anyone to do something against their will if they haven't violated anyone's rights. that's what libertarianism is.

all your race-based whining makes you look like a great poster for the democratic underground.

Ah. When someone is losing an argument they fall play the race card as you are doing now. How typical. Just because I'm intelligent enough to blow a hole through the silly John Stossel "KKK restaurant" idea doesn't mean I support the democratic underground. I already gave a constitutional argument that fits what Rand was actually saying. Maybe you belong at StormFront? :rolleyes:

[low preference guy]

But stupid, emotional appeals to people's dislike of the KKK really wouldn't go anywhere with anybody on the other side who was even halfway intelligent.

there is a black guy (oteilburbridge.blogspot.com/) who experienced discrimination first hand and made the same argument as stossel's. and i couldn't call him "halfway intelligent". i think he is very smart.

[jmdrake]

there is a black guy (oteilburbridge.blogspot.com/) who experienced discrimination first hand and made the same argument as stossel's. and i couldn't call him "halfway intelligent". i think he is very smart.

Key word here. "on the other side". As in someone debating against you.

Edit: He doesn't make the same argument as stossel. There's no mention of Rand Paul or Stossel or the CRA at all on the blog. At least not that I can see.

[low preference guy]

just because i'm intelligent...

lol!

[jmdrake]

lol!

I just read the blog you sent me to. There's no mention of Rand Paul or John Stossel or the civil rights act or anything else like that. I did see this though.

Ron Paul has been saying the same thing for 30 years and was opposed by the neo-cons when they were in power. Now that they have lost that power they are starting to support him. Does that mean I'm gonna be standing next to Sarah Palin at the next Ron Paul speech I'm able to attend? I feel dizzy. Politics truly do make strange bedfellows. As far as I can tell, the neo-cons backed themselves into the far right corner and are realizing that without coalition they will have no influence. They were always for big spending, big government and interventionism to feed the war machine throughout both Bush (father and son) stints. Reagan too for that matter. They were never for returning to the gold or some other commodity based standard, eliminating federal taxes and free markets. Now they're starting to back someone who not only opposes those things but would also abolish the federal government having the power to regulate gay marriage, marijuana, abortion or prostitution.

From what I see of the Tea Parties on TV, I think I would be very uncomfortable at one of their rallies. They are certainly painted as far right fanatics with strong homophobic and racist strains. I guess I need to go to one to see for myself. As a person of color I have lived through eras where I have certainly seen more negative images than positive of people that look like me on the news. Hell, the news media is addicted to the negative in general. Its hard to imagine myself having much in common with these people based on the news alone but there you have it. I guess if these far right neo-cons can embrace the common sense ideas of Libertarian thinkers then maybe there's hope. I'm sure the far left can agree with less war through non-intervention and the federal government staying out of regulating marijuana, abortion and gay marriage.


Now I've gone further then this person. I've actually attended a couple of "tea party" rallies. I saw some stuff I liked and some stuff that was utter crap. But anyway, I'm digressing. Where is this defense of the Stossel position you were talking about? :confused:

[low preference guy]

Where is this defense of the Stossel position you were talking about?

posts 1 and 31 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=245508&page=4).

[jmdrake]

posts 1 and 31 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=245508&page=4).

:confused: You mean this?

What a perfect day to actually quit procrastinating and finally start my blog. Yesterday at about 10:30 p.m. I wrote to Rachel Maddow on her blog. I thought that she had been unfair to Rand Paul and tried to imply that he was racist simply because he is in the Tea Party. I don't think the man is a racist. I could be wrong, but I think we should be very sure before we characterize someone that way. By this morning FOX NEWS of all people had called me (via my agent) and extended an invitation to come to New York and be on the Judge Napolitano Freedom Watch show. Wow! The tongue is truly mightier than the sword!
.
.
.
I like the Democratic, Republican, and Tea parties according to how much Centrist/Moderate and Libertarian thinking they exhibit. Some may consider Libertarians radicals. I consider it common sense. Common sense and moderate go together in my mind.


I think that income tax needs to go. Let me keep all that money and I'll have more of it to give to the homeless shelters and soup kitchens.


I believe that homelessness and hunger are the sacred responsibility of religious people, and Humanists everywhere. (Unless your religion is based on the opposite.) It is mandated in our sacred writings and in our consciences.


I believe that we should be able to have basic health care. These insurance companies, drug companies and for profit hospitals are raping this country. Call me a socialist but Section 8 of the Constitution says the congress shall collect taxes to, among other things, "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States". I take general welfare to mean schools, roads, police, etc, and hospitals. Obviously that's a matter of opinion and clearly up for debate.



So you're using someone who thinks the "general welfare" clause applies to government healthcare as somebody that agrees with John Stossel? :rolleyes: Did you even read past the part where he said he liked libertarians? And I still see nothing about black restaurants and the KKK. In fact he doesn't even address the civil rights act in this post at all. Just that Rachel shouldn't say Rand is racist because he "is part of the tea parties".

Oh, and could you do me a favor and post the links to the blog posts themselves, or at least the titles? Thanks!

[low preference guy]

click on "31 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=245508&page=4)".

[low preference guy]

:confused: You mean this?

I like the Democratic, Republican, and Tea parties according to how much Centrist/Moderate and Libertarian thinking they exhibit. Some may consider Libertarians radicals. I consider it common sense. Common sense and moderate go together in my mind.


I think that income tax needs to go. Let me keep all that money and I'll have more of it to give to the homeless shelters and soup kitchens.


I believe that homelessness and hunger are the sacred responsibility of religious people, and Humanists everywhere. (Unless your religion is based on the opposite.) It is mandated in our sacred writings and in our consciences.


I believe that we should be able to have basic health care. These insurance companies, drug companies and for profit hospitals are raping this country. Call me a socialist but Section 8 of the Constitution says the congress shall collect taxes to, among other things, "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States". I take general welfare to mean schools, roads, police, etc, and hospitals. Obviously that's a matter of opinion and clearly up for debate.



So you're using someone who things the "general welfare" clause applies to government healthcare agrees with John Stossel? :rolleyes: Did you even read past the part where he said he liked libertarians? And I still see nothing about black restaurants and the KKK.

you have a large amount of energy to type such a long post after a misunderstanding. i didn't even read all that. i'm talking about posts 1 and 31 of this link:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=245508&page=4

i don't even care about defending stossel, it wasn't my point. my point was that libertarians support leaving people alone, when they haven't had violated anyone's rights, thus in no circumstance you can force doctors to attend anyone, unless he has agreed to that in a contract.

[Matt Collins]

From your above quote:

the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association.
No but it's implied because the freedom to assemble is in tandem to the freedom to associate; when you assemble with others you are associating with them. However whether or not it's enumerated in the Constitution has no relevant to whether or not it's a right that individuals posses.




You're entitled to your opinion. But it's just that, an opinion. Like I said, the whole abortion mess comes from Supreme Court making up rights. The "right to privacy" for instance. Sounds great. But the actual rights spelled out in the 4th amendment have been totally abridged. Except that's implied as well in the bill of rights. So is the "right to be left alone".

But again, whether or not it's enumerated in the document has no relevance to whether or not it exists.





Constitutionalism and libertarianism are not the same thing. They often overlap and it's great when they do. But this is one case where they don't. Very true.

[jmdrake]

you have a large amount of energy to type such a long post after a misunderstanding. i didn't even read all that. i'm talking about posts 1 and 31 of this link:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=245508&page=4

i don't even care about defending stossel, it wasn't my point. my point was that libertarians support leaving people alone, when they haven't had violated anyone's rights, thus in no circumstance you can force doctors to attend anyone, unless he has agreed to that in a contract.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and read and respond to the link you originally gave me (the blog post). Anyway I'm not sure how someone can reconcile liking libertarianism with thinking the "general welfare" clause of the constitution gives the government the power to tax one person to give healthcare to another. You've basically pointed me to a person who's taken the John Stossel position on the civil rights act and the Nancy Pelosi position on healthcare. :eek: Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the constitution. The problem with title 2 of the civil rights act is that it goes outside the original meaning of the interstate commerce clause. And the healthcare bill goes outside the original meaning of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses. Nice try though.

[low preference guy]

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and read and respond to the link you originally gave me (the blog post). Anyway I'm not sure how someone can reconcile liking libertarianism with thinking the "general welfare" clause of the constitution gives the government the power to tax one person to give healthcare to another. You've basically pointed me to a person who's taken the John Stossel position on the civil rights act and the Nancy Pelosi position on healthcare. :eek: Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with the constitution. The problem with title 2 of the civil rights act is that it goes outside the original meaning of the interstate commerce clause. And the healthcare bill goes outside the original meaning of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses. Nice try though.

Nice try with what? your post is so long and rambling i don't even know what you are referring to.

[Matt Collins]

your post is so long and rambling i don't even know what you are referring to.John is a law school student ;):p

[jmdrake]

No but it's implied because the freedom to assemble is in tandem to the freedom to associate; when you assemble with others you are associating with them. However whether or not it's enumerated in the Constitution has no relevant to whether or not it's a right that individuals posses.


The freedom enumerated in the constitution clearly does not imply a right to discriminate. Anybody who wants to can show up anybody else's rally. So if you're basing the "right to associate" on the "right to peaceably assemble" then you have cut out the "right to discriminate".



Except that's implied as well in the bill of rights. So is the "right to be left alone".

But again, whether or not it's enumerated in the document has no relevance to whether or not it exists.


The words "no relevance" are a bit of a stretch. We know rights that are enumerated exist. We can speculate that rights that are not enumerate might exist. It's the "flying spaghetti monster" applied to rights. As I've pointed out before, people reading "rights" into the constitution that were not enumerated is part of how we got where we are. Abortion is the classic example. Making up a right led to a massive expansion of federal power. I know you don't agree with the 14th amendment and the "incorporation doctrine", but that's the framework we're currently operating under in this country.



Very true.

Glad we agree on something. ;) What some libertarian purists seem to miss is that the constitutional argument can sell in the black community a lot better than the "right to discriminate" argument. I know because I've been forced to sell it. Finding a couple of black people that support the Stossel position (one who apparently also agrees with federal government healthcare :eek:) doesn't mean the argument sells in general.

[jmdrake]

Nice try with what? your post is so long and rambling i don't even know what you are referring to.

I'm referring to the fact that your "champion of libertarianism" supports universal healthcare! You seem to only read what you want to see! You said earlier that you thought this guy is intelligent. Do you think the Nancy Pelosi position that the general welfare clause supports the idea of the federal government providing everybody with "basic healthcare" is intelligent? :confused:

[low preference guy]

I'm referring to the fact that your "champion of libertarianism" supports universal healthcare! You seem to only read what you want to see!

where did i claim that he is a "champion of libertarianism". you seem delusional. are you high on crack right now?

[low preference guy]

Do you think the Nancy Pelosi position that the general welfare clause supports the idea of the federal government providing everybody with "basic healthcare" is intelligent?

where has OB claimed that


the general welfare clause supports the idea of the federal government providing everybody with "basic healthcare"


????????????????????????????????????????????

[jmdrake]

where did i claim that he is a "champion of libertarianism". you seem delusional. are you high on crack right now?

No. I don't do drugs. And maybe you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. I don't know.

Anyway, you're dodging the point. You presented this person as a black man who you would call "intelligent" that supported the Stossel position. But he also supports the Pelosi position on healthcare. Please reconcile those two positions.

[jmdrake]

where has OB claimed that




????????????????????????????????????????????

Do you have a reading disability? Seriously do you? I already posted this from his blog.


I believe that we should be able to have basic health care. These insurance companies, drug companies and for profit hospitals are raping this country. Call me a socialist but Section 8 of the Constitution says the congress shall collect taxes to, among other things, "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States". I take general welfare to mean schools, roads, police, etc, and hospitals. Obviously that's a matter of opinion and clearly up for debate.

[Matt Collins]

The freedom enumerated in the constitution clearly does not imply a right to discriminate. Doesn't have to, it's an inherent right. Our freedoms and rights do not originate in the Constitution. Although I think it's an abhorrent behavior, I also think that gay sex is abhorrent, but yet I recognize the rights of other individuals to engage in an act that I consider abhorrent (so long as no one's rights are being violated).


Anybody who wants to can show up anybody else's rally. Only if it's on government owned property, and then only if the government hasn't granted an exclusive privilege to the existing rally organizers. If I rent out a room at the local courthouse for a meeting of my organization no one else has the right to come in and interrupt that meeting if the government has granted me use of that space. However if I am simply holding a rally on the courthouse lawn then anyone can come and counter protest on the same property, so long as no one's rights are being violated in the process.




So if you're basing the "right to associate" on the "right to peaceably assemble" then you have cut out the "right to discriminate".:confused::confused::confused: huh? Can you elaborate on this point just a bit?




We can speculate that rights that are not enumerate might exist. It's not speculation. Individual rights don't have to be written down or enumerated in order to exist. Our rights do not come from the government or from the community.



As I've pointed out before, people reading "rights" into the constitution that were not enumerated is part of how we got where we are. I completely agree, but the same can be said for "powers". People who read powers into the Constitution that don't exist are also part of the problem, and I would even possibly argue a bigger part of the problem than those who read in rights that are not enumerated.




What some libertarian purists seem to miss is that the constitutional argument can sell in the black community a lot better than the "right to discriminate" argument. I know because I've been forced to sell it. Finding a couple of black people that support the Stossel position (one who apparently also agrees with federal government healthcare :eek:) doesn't mean the argument sells in general.As modern day American politics demonstrate it's more about framing and packaging than it is the message or issue itself :(

[low preference guy]

No. I don't do drugs. And maybe you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. I don't know.

Anyway, you're dodging the point. You presented this person as a black man who you would call "intelligent" that supported the Stossel position. But he also supports the Pelosi position on healthcare. Please reconcile those two positions.

he wrote a great defense of rand, especially for someone who isn't a pundit, but a skilled musician. he thinks for himself, even when his ideas contradict widely held beliefs. that makes him more intelligent than 90% of the people in my book.

if he is wrong in another issue doesn't make him unintelligent, as it's just something he thinks about occasionally. but where did he say that he supports the "Pelosi position". believing that some form of universal health care is desirable doesn't mean he supports pelosi's position on the commerce clause.

[low preference guy]

Do you have a reading disability? Seriously do you? I already posted this from his blog.


I believe that we should be able to have basic health care. These insurance companies, drug companies and for profit hospitals are raping this country. Call me a socialist but Section 8 of the Constitution says the congress shall collect taxes to, among other things, "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States". I take general welfare to mean schools, roads, police, etc, and hospitals. Obviously that's a matter of opinion and clearly up for debate.

that's not pelosi's position. he is using the general welfare clause, while pelosi is arguing using the commerce clause. so no, i don't have a reading disability. but now let me ask you something. do you make an effort to be this dumb?

[jmdrake]

he wrote a great defense of rand, especially for someone who isn't a pundit, but a skilled musician. he thinks for himself, even when his ideas contradict widely held beliefs. that makes him more intelligent than 90% of the people in my book.

if he is wrong in another issue doesn't make him unintelligent, as it's just something he thinks about occasionally. but where did he say that he supports the "Pelosi position". believing that some form of universal health care is desirable doesn't mean he supports pelosi's position on the commerce clause.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Pelosi position on healthcare is that it's justified by the general welfare clause. This person apparently agree with that. I don't. Anyway, he clearly hasn't thought the general welfare clause through all the way and I doubt he's thought his civil rights act position all the way through either. It makes no sense to be socialist on one issue and libertarian on the other. At least not in my book. I think a better position is to stick with keeping the federal government within its proper constitutional bounds. That solves both issues quite nicely.

[jmdrake]

that's not pelosi's position. he is using the general welfare clause, while pelosi is arguing using the commerce clause. so no, i don't have a reading disability. but now let me ask you something. do you make an effort to be this dumb?

:rolleyes: Actually Pelosi simply dismissed questions about constitutionality by saying "Are you serious?" But in the same meeting Steney Hoyer, a fellow democrat, brought up the general welfare clause as opposed to the commerce clause. Regardless, neither clause gives the federal government the power to create universal healthcare. Also if you actually understand the commerce clause and it's initial purpose in RESTRICTING the power of the federal government, you'd know that even if the democratic reading of the general welfare clause was correct, the government still wouldn't have the power to do universal healthcare.

[low preference guy]

John is a law school student ;):p

probably a very crappy law school...

[Matt Collins]

probably a very crappy law school...
Actually one of the best in the nation.

[low preference guy]

Actually one of the best in the nation.

...time to weep for this country

[jmdrake]

Doesn't have to, it's an inherent right. Our freedoms and rights do not originate in the Constitution. Although I think it's an abhorrent behavior, I also think that gay sex is abhorrent, but yet I recognize the rights of other individuals to engage in an act that I consider abhorrent (so long as no one's rights are being violated).


Now you're making a totally different argument. It's one thing to say "Right A is derived from Right B". It's a totally different thing to say "Right A just exists anyway."

As for the "gay sex" argument, considering there's no reason other than religion (that I can think of) to ban gay sex, such laws run afoul of the non establishment clause IMO.



Only if it's on government owned property, and then only if the government hasn't granted an exclusive privilege to the existing rally organizers. If I rent out a room at the local courthouse for a meeting of my organization no one else has the right to come in and interrupt that meeting if the government has granted me use of that space. However if I am simply holding a rally on the courthouse lawn then anyone can come and counter protest on the same property, so long as no one's rights are being violated in the process.


Right. And the right to peaceably assemble applies to government owned property. It's not needed for privately owned property. The right against the government for unlawful search and seizure would block most attempts to end a peaceable assembly on private property. (Consequently it also would block the government from stopping people from engaging in gay sex. An alternative ruling in Lawrence v. Texas would be that if the police are called in on false pretenses they shouldn't be allowed to enforce any violation of the law where there is no danger of life and limb. If you are aware of that case, one jilted gay lover called the police on he ex lover and new boyfriend and claimed he heard gun shots. That turned out to be false.)




:confused::confused::confused: huh? Can you elaborate on this point just a bit?


If one right is derived from another it cannot create rights greater than the right it was derived from. Look at it this way. Freedom of expression on the internet derives from freedom of speech and freedom of the press correct? But those two freedoms never applied to child pornography. So you can't say child pornography on the internet is justified based on freedom of speech. So if freedom of association is derived freedom of assembly then it can't grant greater rights than you already had under freedom of assembly. And again this is a different argument from "Well the right just exists anyway."



It's not speculation. Individual rights don't have to be written down or enumerated in order to exist. Our rights do not come from the government or from the community.


I didn't say it was speculation. Individual rights certainly can exist without being written down. But the act of writing them down means this is something that we all at least agree on already exists. You think a "right to discriminate" exists. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. (I know that's got to be hard to fathom, but it happens to the best of us. ;) )



I completely agree, but the same can be said for "powers". People who read powers into the Constitution that don't exist are also part of the problem, and I would even possibly argue a bigger part of the problem than those who read in rights that are not enumerated.


Uh-huh. And my point throughout this thread is that the civil rights act should be argued from the point of "the federal government does not have that power" as opposed to "this right to discriminate is a fundamental right that should be protected". The position I take limits the power of the federal government. But some people just don't get it.




As modern day American politics demonstrate it's more about framing and packaging than it is the message or issue itself :(

That's been true since the days of William Shakespear (http://www.presentationmagazine.com/friends-romans-countrymen.htm).

[jmdrake]

probably a very crappy law school...

Right. I should go to one that teaches me to take your view on civil rights and at the same time teaches me to go with the democrat line on universal healthcare and somehow believe that's consistent. That would meet your approval. :rolleyes:

[low preference guy]

Right. I should go to one that teaches me to take your view on civil rights and at the same time teaches me to go with the democrat line on universal healthcare and somehow believe that's consistent. That would meet your approval. :rolleyes:

Jesus Christ. Your statements are so non-sensical that I guess I won't bother to answer them.

[Matt Collins]

Now you're making a totally different argument. It's one thing to say "Right A is derived from Right B". It's a totally different thing to say "Right A just exists anyway."The Constitution doesn't grant a single right, it merely recongizes some and prohibits the (federal?) government from infringing on them. Many are spelled out, some are implied.



As for the "gay sex" argument, considering there's no reason other than religion (that I can think of) to ban gay sex, such laws run afoul of the non establishment clause IMO.They run afoul of the natural law and ideal of liberty. This has nothing to do with faith or religion at all.The purpose of government is to secure individual rights, uphold contracts, and provide justice. Mandating morality is none of the above.

(remember the "conversation" of a certain gubernatorial candidate here in TN? heh heh heh :p;) )


If one right is derived from another it cannot create rights greater than the right it was derived from. Look at it this way. Freedom of expression on the internet derives from freedom of speech and freedom of the press correct? But those two freedoms never applied to child pornography. So you can't say child pornography on the internet is justified based on freedom of speech. So if freedom of association is derived freedom of assembly then it can't grant greater rights than you already had under freedom of assembly. And again this is a different argument from "Well the right just exists anyway."Let's talk in person about this specific point sometime.



I didn't say it was speculation. Individual rights certainly can exist without being written down. But the act of writing them down means this is something that we all at least agree on already exists. You think a "right to discriminate" exists. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. (I know that's got to be hard to fathom, but it happens to the best of us. ;) ) Again, hit this point to me in person again.




Uh-huh. And my point throughout this thread is that the civil rights act should be argued from the point of "the federal government does not have that power" as opposed to "this right to discriminate is a fundamental right that should be protected". And both are not mutually exclusive of each other :)

[jmdrake]

Jesus Christ. Your statements are so non-sensical that I guess I won't bother to answer them.

:rolleyes: Yeah. The Obamacare guy that takes the Stossel view on the civil rights act is the one that makes sense in your world. Whatever man.

[jmdrake]

The Constitution doesn't grant a single right, it merely recongizes some and prohibits the (federal?) government from infringing on them. Many are spelled out, some are implied.


Ummmm.....you were the one that said the freedom of association derived from the freedom of assembly. It's fine if you instead want to that the position that they are totally independent of each other. Anyway, I think we can all agree that some rights were considered so important that they needed to be spelled out. And they needed to be spelled out because these are the type of freedoms needed to stand up against a tyrannically government. The right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right against unreasonable search and seizure unless there is a warrant based on probable cause, and freedom of assembly are essential tools in fighting against tyranny. The right to have sodomy or the right to discriminate on the basis of race are not. Maybe those are rights people should have, but revolutions aren't won from exercising those particular rights. (And if they are then that's not the type of revolution I'd want to be a part of. :p )



They run afoul of the natural law and ideal of liberty. This has nothing to do with faith or religion at all.The purpose of government is to secure individual rights, uphold contracts, and provide justice. Mandating morality is none of the above.


Mmmmm....Xenophage would hold up the right to discriminate in the name of morality. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. ;) So is natural law for that matter. Theocrat's "natural law" view would be that gay sex shouldn't be allowed. I don't agree, but he's entitled to his opinion. That's the problem with natural law. Everybody claims their interpretation is "right" or "moral" and that the other side is "wrong" or "immoral". As I said in another conversation, libertarian dogma is still dogma. The best we can hope for is to limit the jurisdiction of the federal government, protect the true fundamental rights (those needed for the purpose of standing up against the government) and let the rest of this play out in the free marketplace of ideas.

Something else to consider. I've seen some libertarians here argue against statutory rape laws based on the idea that some minors are mature enough to make such a decision. (Whatever your position is on that do not state it here since the forum is monitored and you do have to maintain some kind of political viability). I would say that there seems to be a split among libertarians on that one. So who's right? Hard to tell. Both sides make good arguments about whether or not that's a "fundamental right". I can say that 1) the federal government has no jurisdiction (indeed age of consent laws vary from state to state) and 2) there are reasons outside of religion to have some kind of age limit on sex even when it is considered consensual. (You have to draw the line somewhere. Pregnancy is almost always a risk, even if it's only a small one. People under a certain age probably haven't graduated high school yet and are not in a position to accept the responsibility of having a family. The issues of peer pressure. etc). You can legally draw the line between sex between consenting adults and sex between kids (or sex between adults and kids) using the "non establishment clause bars laws supported only by religion" argument. It works even if you reject the 14th amendment because most states have some variation of the non establishment clause in their own constitutions. The "natural rights" view doesn't work as well because different libertarians have a different view of the age when sex becomes a "natural right".



(remember the "conversation" of a certain gubernatorial candidate here in TN? heh heh heh :p;) )

Let's talk in person about this specific point sometime.


Again, hit this point to me in person again.


LOL @ the gubernatorial candidate. And I think you and I both agree that while he had some interesting ideas and was "right" on a lot of things, the way he framed them would mean he wouldn't have a snowballs chance on a sidewalk in an Alabama July of winning dogcatcher.



And both are not mutually exclusive of each other :)

Of course not. But one plays better than the other. And one is consistent with what Rand actually said (this is the Rand Paul forum after all) and one isn't. From the beginning of this "crisis" Rand merely said he would have tried to "re-word" one section of the civil rights act. Well that's not at all consistent with the position of a "right to discriminate". If he was trying to defend a "right to discriminate" than the only thing left to do to title 2 of the civil rights act would be to repeal it. If, on the other hand, he was trying to make the law constitutional (or at least violate the constitution less) he could have done so while still infringing on this right. For example, a law barring any active duty soldiers from spending money at any segregated businesses. Totally constitutional. But also a violation of the right to discriminate. Now how would such a change be helpful from a constitutional point of view? Well it wouldn't endorse the power the federal government granted itself in 1942 to have absolute control over private business.

I have two tasks I'd like you to try when you have time. (I know you really don't have time, but humor me). One is to try to see how you would have "rewrote" title two of the civil rights act in a way that's not the same as repealing it, but makes it significantly different. If you get a chance ask Rand the same question and compare notes. The second is try talking to some of your friends you are African American and are not libertarian, attempt different arguments (mine, John Stossel's, whatever else you might come up with) and see what flies. (Ok. Technically that's three tasks, but who's counting. :p)

[Matt Collins]

Ummmm.....you were the one that said the freedom of association derived from the freedom of assembly.Actually what I said was that "it's implied because the freedom to assemble is in tandem to the freedom to associate; when you assemble with others you are associating with them. However whether or not it's enumerated in the Constitution has no relevant to whether or not it's a right that individuals posses."



It's fine if you instead want to that the position that they are totally independent of each other. Anyway, I think we can all agree that some rights were considered so important that they needed to be spelled out. Absolutely. But unfortunately that doesn't prevent the government from infringing on them anyway :(



The right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right against unreasonable search and seizure unless there is a warrant based on probable cause, and freedom of assembly are essential tools in fighting against tyranny. The right to have sodomy or the right to discriminate on the basis of race are not. Maybe those are rights people should have, but revolutions aren't won from exercising those particular rights. (And if they are then that's not the type of revolution I'd want to be a part of. :p )EWW! Visions of JK leading an electoral victory just popped up in my head! :( ;):p



Morality is in the eye of the beholder. ;) So is natural law for that matter. Theocrat's "natural law" view would be that gay sex shouldn't be allowed. I don't agree, but he's entitled to his opinion. That's the problem with natural law. Everybody claims their interpretation is "right" or "moral" and that the other side is "wrong" or "immoral". As I said in another conversation, libertarian dogma is still dogma. Natural law is simply the law of nature, or people having as many rights as possible until they infringe upon the rights of others. The natural law is liberty.


If you get a chance ask Rand the same question and compare notes. Rand and I rarely discuss policy / philosophy believe it or not. We actually usually talk politics and strategy, what's happening within the movement, etc. His time is really sparse these days not surprisingly.