Rand Paul: I don’t think there’s anyone in Congress who has a stronger belief in minority

[radiofriendly]

Rand Paul: ‘I don’t think there’s anyone in Congress who has a stronger belief in minority rights than I do’

The left will lose it w/ that title, but...

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-on-race-and-republican-minority-outreach-173957413.html

I think it's actually a good article for Sen Paul.

[phill4paul]

That is because those on the left equate "rights" with "special privilege."

[JCDenton0451]

There are millions and millions of African Americans who go to church and who are, in many ways, religiously conservative. We need to ask them what would it take to get people in your congregation to consider voting for a Republican?

Going to church and being overly religious does not make you a conservative, Rand. One can go to church and still love progressive policies like affirmative action, because they benefit your people. Why is it so hard to understand?

[cajuncocoa]

Nitpicking: I wish he hadn't stressed "minority rights" as though that differs from the rights of all people.

[Federico]

Going to church and being overly religious does not make you a conservative, Rand. One can go to church and still love progressive policies like affirmative action, because they benefit your people. Why is it so hard to understand?

Going to church and being "overly" religious strongly correlates with conservatism, JCDenton0451. Being in favor of affirmative action does not automatically mean that you must support the Democrats, because you might agree with the (R)s on other, more important issues. Why is it so hard to understand?

[Federico]

Nitpicking: I wish he hadn't stressed "minority rights" as though that differs from the rights of all people.

Minority rights do differ from the rights of all people.

[Dr.3D]

Minority rights do differ from the rights of all people.

How is that? Rights are rights and nobody has different rights than others.

[LibertyEagle]

We are all a minority. A minority of one; an individual. The whole concept of having a republic is to protect the rights of the minority, or the one, against the force of the majority.

[Federico]

How is that? Rights are rights and nobody has different rights than others.

This is clearly wrong. Minorities have the right to jobs and schools they are otherwise unqualified for, based on the color of their skin.

[Federico]

We are all a minority. A minority of one; an individual. The whole concept of having a republic is to protect the rights of the minority, or the one, against the force of the majority.

I agree, but most people don't see things this way. The group(s) that you belong to define who you are as an individual.

[LibertyEagle]

This is clearly wrong. Minorities have the right to jobs and schools they are otherwise unqualified for, based on the color of their skin.

No they don't. What you are describing are privileges granted by the state.

[Dr.3D]

This is clearly wrong. Minorities have the right to jobs and schools they are otherwise unqualified for, based on the color of their skin.

I believe you are confusing privileges with rights. We have had some politicians who would exhibit racism in some lame attempt to correct what they feel was an old wrong. These politicians would grant special privileges to those who they felt had been wronged. The worse part of this is that they did these things based on the color of the skin of those who they felt had been wronged. That sir is racist.

[cajuncocoa]

We are all a minority. A minority of one; an individual. The whole concept of having a republic is to protect the rights of the minority, or the one, against the force of the majority.
Yeah, I agree...but we both know that's not what is meant when "minority rights" are discussed in political context.

[Federico]

No they don't. What you are describing are privileges granted by the state.

What's the difference between a right and a privilege granted by the state?

[Federico]

I believe you are confusing privileges with rights.

What's the difference?


We have had some politicians who would exhibit racism in some lame attempt to correct what they feel was an old wrong. These politicians would grant special privileges to those who they felt had been wronged. The worse part of this is that they did these things based on the color of the skin of those who they felt had been wronged. That sir is racist.

For the record, I agree with this.

[Dr.3D]

What's the difference?

You are born with rights and they cannot be taken away. Rights can only be violated. Privileges are granted by someone and can be taken away.

[Federico]

You are born with rights and they cannot be taken away. Rights can only be violated. Privileges are granted by someone and can be taken away.

What's the difference between a right being taken away and being violated?

[Dr.3D]

What's the difference between a right being taken away and being violated?

A right is not granted and thus cannot be taken away. Those who would attempt to trample on someones rights are violating those rights. They can't take them away because they didn't grant them in the first place.

[Federico]

A right is not granted and thus cannot be taken away. Those who would attempt to trample on someones rights are violating those rights. They can't take them away because they didn't grant them in the first place.

That doesn't answer my question. You say a right cannot be taken away, but in order to make that claim, you must have some conception of what it would mean for a right to be taken away, otherwise the statement is nonsense. So I'll ask again - what is the difference between a right being taken away and being violated?

[Dr.3D]

That doesn't answer my question. You say a right cannot be taken away, but in order to make that claim, you must have some conception of what it would mean for a right to be taken away, otherwise the statement is nonsense. So I'll ask again - what is the difference between a right being taken away and being violated?

A persons rights can be violated but that doesn't mean they don't have their rights anymore. You will always have your rights no matter they be violated or not.

[torchbearer]

What's the difference between a right and a privilege granted by the state?

you can't grant a right, if you are granting something- its a privilege.
here: quick video to inform. (skip to 6:50 to get to rights and privileges)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iEl4YTZtcc


this is the meat of your question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NctAkeOE7WI#

[Federico]

A persons rights can be violated but that doesn't mean they don't have their rights anymore. You will always have your rights no matter they be violated or not.

What is a right?

[Occam's Banana]

Rand Paul: ‘I don’t think there’s anyone in Congress who has a stronger belief in minority rights than I do’


We are all a minority. A minority of one; an individual. The whole concept of having a republic is to protect the rights of the minority, or the one, against the force of the majority.

You beat me to it! I was going to say the same thing.

And in that all-important sense, Rand's statement is almost certainly correct - whether he meant it that way or not.
(I say "almost" to allow for the possibility that Amash or Massie might edge him out ...)

[AlexAmore]

What is a right?

Basically a moral principal based on a philosophy of freedom.

[Federico]

Basically a moral principal based on a philosophy of freedom.

What does "a moral principal [sic]" mean, in this context?

Does this imply that people who don't subscribe to a philosophy of freedom don't have rights?

[AlexAmore]

What does "a moral principal [sic]" mean, in this context?

Does this imply that people who don't subscribe to a philosophy of freedom don't have rights?

Under the philosophy of freedom, it's their right to not subscribe to it. Oops, looks like they still have rights.

[torchbearer]

What is a right?

I get a sense, you don't really want to be educated, just troll.
but if you'd like to prove me wrong-
this video lecture will inform you completely on what is a right. what is a privilege. and so much more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-a_yR1jzHY

[cajuncocoa]

I get a sense, you don't really want to be educated, just troll

Yes. He has a history of doing just that.

[Federico]

you can't grant a right, if you are granting something- its a privilege.
here: quick video to inform. (skip to 6:50 to get to rights and privileges)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iEl4YTZtcc


this is the meat of your question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NctAkeOE7WI#

From the second video: "A right is something you can do without asking. A privilege is something that someone or some entity of higher authority allows you to do. For example, I can walk out of my house onto my land. I can walk back and forth, back and forth on my land all day long, and there's no reason for me to ask anybody for permission. I have a right to walk on my land."

But this is strange, because he indicated earlier in the first video that he was familiar with eminent domain. At any time, and for virtually any reason, the government can strip him of his land and deny him the privilege of continuing to walk back and forth on it. The only reason he can still do so is that the government allows him to; it does not take what is his and re-purpose it. In what sense, then, can these so-called "rights" be said to have any effect on the universe? Shouldn't Occam's Razor cause us to conclude that rights (as they have been described here) do not exist, and it is simpler to speak as such?

[Federico]

Under the philosophy of freedom, it's their right to not subscribe to it. Oops, looks like they still have rights.

Okay, that doesn't answer my first question though. What did you mean when you said that rights were "a moral principal [sic]"?

[Federico]

I get a sense, you don't really want to be educated, just troll.
but if you'd like to prove me wrong-
this video lecture will inform you completely on what is a right. what is a privilege. and so much more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-a_yR1jzHY

I get a sense that you don't really want to be educated, just proselytize.
but if you'd like to prove me wrong-
Explain, in your own words, what is a right. what is a privilege. and so much more.

[Federico]

Yes. He has a history of doing just that.

cajuncocoa is mistaken, I have never trolled. She simply has a low IQ (relatively speaking) and mistakes Socratic dialogue for trolling.

[cajuncocoa]

cajuncocoa is mistaken, I have never trolled. She simply has a low IQ (relatively speaking) and mistakes Socratic dialogue for trolling.

how long are you going to get away with insulting people, spladle...oops, I mean Federico?

[Dr.3D]

Socratic dialogue LOL... okay, I was duped into believing you were looking for answers.

[Occam's Banana]

cajuncocoa is mistaken, I have never trolled. She simply has a low IQ (relatively speaking) and mistakes Socratic dialogue for trolling.

They say Socrates was tried and executed for impiety and "corrupting the youth of Athens."

I rather fancy that Socrates was given the hemlock cup because he was such an insufferable gadfly.

His final and most epic troll was drinking it. (So if one truly wishes to emulate Socrates ...)

[Federico]

how long are you going to get away with insulting people, spladle...oops, I mean Federico?

For my entire life. Insulting (most) people is not (yet) against the law.

[Federico]

Socratic dialogue LOL... okay, I was duped into believing you were looking for answers.

You say that as if Socratic dialogues did not involve a search for answers. I think you may be a bit confused.

[Federico]

They say Socrates was tried and executed for impiety and "corrupting the youth of Athens."

I rather fancy that Socrates was given the hemlock cup because he was such an insufferable gadfly.

His final and most epic troll was drinking it. (So if one truly wishes to emulate Socrates ...)

To be clear - do you believe that "corrupting the youth" by asking questions that confront deeply-rooted but likely mistaken assumptions should be punishable by death?

[cajuncocoa]

For my entire life. Insulting (most) people is not (yet) against the law.

But it is against the guidelines of this board.


2) Treat other people with respect.
• No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
• No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
• Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.
• Be respectful of others religion.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989-Usage-Guidelines

[Dr.3D]

You say that as if Socratic dialogues did not involve a search for answers. I think you may be a bit confused.

As if you were testing me to see if I knew the answers. Piss off kid. I'm way too old to be taken by some young punk.

[JCDenton0451]

Attention, fellow posters:

Federico http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=5142901#post5142901) is spladle, a troll who was banned last week. I suggest you ignore him.

[AlexAmore]

From the second video: "A right is something you can do without asking. A privilege is something that someone or some entity of higher authority allows you to do. For example, I can walk out of my house onto my land. I can walk back and forth, back and forth on my land all day long, and there's no reason for me to ask anybody for permission. I have a right to walk on my land."

But this is strange, because he indicated earlier in the first video that he was familiar with eminent domain. At any time, and for virtually any reason, the government can strip him of his land and deny him the privilege of continuing to walk back and forth on it. The only reason he can still do so is that the government allows him to; it does not take what is his and re-purpose it. In what sense, then, can these so-called "rights" be said to have any effect on the universe? Shouldn't Occam's Razor cause us to conclude that rights (as they have been described here) do not exist, and it is simpler to speak as such?

If what you're saying is human rights is just a human idea, I agree. All we have are concepts originating from signals interpreted by our mere human brains while living within the Matrix, if you will. Our human brains are evolved from trying to survive the Sahara, not explain the inner workings of the universe and whether we are afforded rights within it.

That's why I used the pretext of "Under the philosophy of freedom."

This doesn't mean I agree with the idea of abandoning the idea of rights. Philosophy is HUGELY important in society...it's all we have. Without it, we're no more civilized than animals. We should definitely adopt the idea of rights, run with it, and brainwash every statist bastard into believing it (half joking). If it's not our philosophy to reign supreme, it'll be someone else's.

[Federico]

But it is against the guidelines of this board.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989-Usage-Guidelines

Fair enough. I'll try to bite my tongue when I encounter people behaving badly here in the future.

[Federico]

As if you were testing me to see if I knew the answers. Piss off kid. I'm way too old to be taken by some young punk.

If I was testing you, then apparently you failed. It seems you're also way too old to learn anything new.

[Federico]

If what you're saying is human rights is just a human idea, I agree. All we have are concepts originating from signals interpreted by our mere human brains while living within the Matrix, if you will. Our human brains are evolved from trying to survive the Sahara, not explain the inner workings of the universe and whether we are afforded rights within it.

That's why I used the pretext of "Under the philosophy of freedom."

This doesn't mean I agree with the idea of abandoning the idea of rights. Philosophy is HUGELY important in society...it's all we have. Without it, we're no more civilized than animals. We should definitely adopt the idea of rights, run with it, and brainwash every statist bastard into believing it (half joking). If it's not our philosophy to reign supreme, it'll be someone else's.

+rep, strongly agree. I just don't think we should be buying our own bullshit, so to speak. The notion that "rights" exist is an interesting fiction, but no more.

[Occam's Banana]

To be clear - do you believe that "corrupting the youth" by asking questions that confront deeply-rooted but likely mistaken assumptions should be punishable by death?

Given that I suggested that Socrates was not punished for "corrupting the youth" - but rather "because he was such an insufferable gadfly" - how could my answer to such a misfocused question produce clarity?

And if it could, what purpose would any such clarifying answer serve - other than to wander even further afield (as my previous comments involved the motivations of the Athenians - and not my own beliefs or normative assessments)?

[Federico]

Given that I suggested that Socrates was not punished for "corrupting the youth" - but rather "because he was such an insufferable gadfly" - how could my answer to such a misfocused question produce clarity?

Because your suggestion, whatever else it may have been, was certainly not the official position of the Athenian people. The official position is that he was executed for corrupting the youth.

I suppose another question might have been more appropriate, though - do you believe that "being an insufferable gadfly" should be a crime punishable by death?


And if it could, what purpose would any such clarifying answer serve - other than to wander even further afield (as my previous comments involved the motivations of the Athenians - and not my own beliefs or normative assessments)?

I don't mind wandering afield. Conversations go where they will.

[Occam's Banana]

Because your suggestion, whatever else it may have been, was certainly not the official position of the Athenian people.

Did I claim that it was? What is the relevance of the fact that my suggestion is not the same as the official position of the Athenian people?


The official position is that he was executed for corrupting the youth.

Did I indicate otherwise? And of what importance is the official position of the Athenian people?


I suppose another question might have been more appropriate, though - do you believe that "being an insufferable gadfly" should be a crime punishable by death?

Did Socrates? It was he who was condemned to death (for whatever reason).
And it was he who willingly complied with the sentence - despite the opportunity of escape offered by his acolytes.

Why would he do that? Isn't this a more significant factor than any other? If not, why not?


I don't mind wandering afield. Conversations go where they will.

On the contrary - they go exactly where they are taken and nowhere else.
Especially when they are led by the nose on the hooks of question marks ...

[thoughtomator]

Hello, folks - this is Rand Paul we're talking about. A man who was weaned on the phrase "the smallest minority is the individual".

Of course that's what he's talking about. The mainstreamers who don't think in these terms won't get it, but anyone sharp enough to be here should know that one by heart already!

[torchbearer]

I get a sense that you don't really want to be educated, just proselytize.
but if you'd like to prove me wrong-
Explain, in your own words, what is a right. what is a privilege. and so much more.

badnarik explains accurately rights and privileges.
eminent domain is theft.

[Federico]

badnarik explains accurately rights and privileges.
eminent domain is theft.

Property is theft.

[juleswin]

That is because those on the left equate "rights" with "special privilege."

Nail meets head. spot on. But people on the left would wonder why then was he against forcing white owned private lunch counters to serve black people. Sad thing is that they will read this and will still continue to call him a racist. I hope Rand is a blue to wake black people up and get them to realized that they are being played by the liberals.

[eduardo89]

Property is theft.

Not sure if serious...