• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul wins, and libertarians rejoice

Oh, and since its talked about in another thread I won't go into it in a long way here.

I agree and disagree with Paul.

I agree with him that for the most part those laws are no longer needed and do more damage to the philosophy and theory of personal property rights than they do good in regards to racism in todays society.

I disagree with him because I do think, at the time, it was a necessary evil. However, I do not know if I'd disagree with his seeming belief that he wouldn't have voted for it then, in large part because I would figure it'd do as it is now, never seem to go away even after its no longer really useful and is just more bad than good.
 
Instead of kicking them out because of their color, they would do so for other, non race reasons.
Pretty easy to see.

Of course by that time, a lot of businesses weren't doing this as widespread as it is played out to be.

Oh well since ending racial discrimination is hard we shouldn't even try, is that what you're saying? Those dang bankers are going to find shady ways to make money no matter what rules we put in place, best not have any rules at all!

Seriously? That's your stance? That because there will always be some closeted bigots we should just not try and curtail the problem?
 
What a liberal says: "I think racial discrimination is wrong and that it harms people. It should be attacked at every level, government and personal. I think the federal government was right to ban it the way they did. People have a right to their opinion, even if that opinion is "I hate black people." They do not, however, have the right to act on that opinion by banning black people from their business. I think Ron Paul is wrong in his stance, this is a case where property rights do not trump civil rights."

What a conservative hears: "I think the federal government should do everything for me because only the federal government can do anything right. People are helpless and need to be protected. They can't do anything without the government's help and expect to succeed! Also Rand Paul is basically Hitler."

This thread makes Zyphlin's accusation of exaggerations about Rand Paul pretty hilarious.
 
What a liberal says: "I think racial discrimination is wrong and that it harms people. It should be attacked at every level, government and personal. I think the federal government was right to ban it the way they did. People have a right to their opinion, even if that opinion is "I hate black people." They do not, however, have the right to act on that opinion by banning black people from their business. I think Ron Paul is wrong in his stance, this is a case where property rights do not trump civil rights."

What a conservative hears: "I think the federal government should do everything for me because only the federal government can do anything right. People are helpless and need to be protected. They can't do anything without the government's help and expect to succeed! Also Rand Paul is basically Hitler."

Thank you! Well said! Human rights should always come first.

Edit: Reinserted deleted text. You are right, from this thread, that is exactly what they hear.
 
Last edited:
I don't have the problem with living in an absolute world where we (whomever that is; me, you, whatever) decide to "stop discrimination," and we do stop discrimination. Yet we don't; we never will. Ironically, this realization of a fluid world is associated with Conservatives while the accusation of "absolutism" is thrown about. Truthfully, I'm fairly certain absolutism, of any sort, is missing the point. It is why I agree with Conservatives (or Randians) because they understand that we do not live in an absolute world. Even if the government bans discrimination, even in the private sector, you are not actually banning it in any absolute sense. The world is infinitely ambiguous and no government law, nor great awakening of social activism, will ever absolutely do, well, anything to institutionalized racism. The only thing that can purge racism from the body politik is the body politik.

Until it is purged by cooperation instead of coercion, racism will be around today, tomorrow, and forever--in some ambiguous form or another. Not exactly a, shall we say, afraid of absolute solutions. Rand Paul understands this, and obviously feels that since we cannot "absolutely" do anything, we should at least mitigate it through more unique paths. Instead of looking at discrimination in absolutes (you're a "racist" or you are "progressive) we need to stop repressing our racist tendencies (because we all know they're there) and let people express themselves. In that way, American can finally defeat--not just repress--racial tension.
 
Last edited:
Thank you! Well said! Human rights should always come first.

correct. property rights being the basis of human rights.
 
that's not necessarily a bad thing as far as Americans are concerned.


j-mac

It may not be one to you but it sure as heck is a great deal of concern for me. What if the tea party folks favor her so much til the point where she ends up winning the Republican primaries and becoming President in 2012? I think that's a big problem. Nothing against her personally, Just where she stands on domestic and foreign policy is my problem with her.
 
No, I don't want anything out of the good Doctor other that what he thinks is the truth. But let's look at this realistically shall we? Paul did change how he was running and who he was in his own campaign when he played to all those truthers on American campuses in the campaign. Now you supporters want to deny that part of things but history doesn't lie.

Im not denying anything, just because truthers are working on his campaign doesnt mean he is a truther. Thats what Im saying.


If you are trying to say that Dr. Paul didn't espouse the theory that we were attacked because of our own policies abroad, and he believes that the investigation into 9/11 was a cover-up....Here he is at a 9/11 truther House party talking about getting with Kusinisch about a new investigation into 9/11, and for what purpose do you suppose? I'll tell ya, to blame America in one fashion or another.

The term blowback was coined by the CIA its not a made up term. Even with my extreme distrust of government, I believe another inquiry into the attacks is a waste of time.

So what? We aren't talking about Napolitano, or Dobbs here, we are talking about Paul. And Alex Jones. Do you consider Jones to be a credible source? I don't. Some things I hear him talk about are interesting to listen to for the entertainment value, but then as usual he just carries it too far.

Your the one who brought up Alex Jones. Whenever I hear someone try to use Jones as an attack on Paul is because they try to paint him as a truther. When it comes to civil liberties, Jones is ok guy but other than that he is noise. For the record I dont listen to him the only radio I listen to is WFAN sports radio.


But If I read you correctly here, and through all the name calling, you are saying that if we don't buy the supposed fact that America is the root cause of all the consternation in the world then we are just 'neocons', or 'enemies', or somehow 'liberals' and not true conservatives.

I never said that, all Im saying is the era of messing with other nations in order to prevent our enemy from influencing them is over.

Let's me ask you libertarians something. Who died and left you in charge of assigning affiliation to anyone?

Oh please pot meet kettle how many times is communist, socialist and totalitarian is thrown around here.

TNDG: He's your hero; that's proof enough for me. :mrgreen:

Meh I hate everyone.

So what? Why the obsession with our currency devaluing? It's not like we have hyperinflation. If it happens over the scale of decades, it's barely noticeable.

Or do you think that a weak dollar in general is a bad thing? If so, why?

Yes we havent hit hyperinflation.....yet. Do you honestly have to ask that question? Yes a weak dollar is bad for the country. It diminishes our purchasing power both domestically and abroad.

Is Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand?

My guess its short for Randolph
 
Yes we havent hit hyperinflation.....yet. Do you honestly have to ask that question? Yes a weak dollar is bad for the country. It diminishes our purchasing power both domestically and abroad.

No. A weak dollar doesn't affect our purchasing power domestically at all. It does diminish our purchasing power abroad, but the upside of that is more domestic employment.
 
Is Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand?

His name is Randall, I believe.

correct. property rights being the basis of human rights.

Err, ok that's an interesting philosophical topic but the practical question that we have here is does your right as a business owner trump my civil rights as related to race, gender, or religion? Should you have the right to kick me out because I'm (insert undesirable characteristic)
 
Oh well since ending racial discrimination is hard we shouldn't even try, is that what you're saying? Those dang bankers are going to find shady ways to make money no matter what rules we put in place, best not have any rules at all!

Seriously? That's your stance? That because there will always be some closeted bigots we should just not try and curtail the problem?

That's not what I said at all.

I said that the legislation had practically no effect because 1. people were already coming around to the idea that discriminating based on race is bad for business and 2. people who want to do that will find ways, no matter what egalitarian legislation you dream up.

It's pointless, unproductive and gives credit to people who didn't do anything.
 
Man after reading the newspapers and web, this guy makes his father look almost sane... another wackjob from the right.
 
Err, ok that's an interesting philosophical topic

it's hardly just a philosophical topic. it's a basic point of origin of our rights that has profound implications on how they are enacted. it is your basic property right - your ownership of yourself; that you cannot be a slave, that you have the right to do with your property as you see fit (so long as you do not infringe on others) that is the basis for your freedom of speech (you are free to do with your voice as you wish, it is yours), your freedom of faith (you may take your body where you please when you please and use it to worship as you please), and so forth.

but the practical question that we have here is does your right as a business owner trump my civil rights as related to race, gender, or religion?

you have no civil rights related to race, gender, or religion. all your rights are based on your status as a person. gender faith and race are irrelevant.

Should you have the right to kick me out because I'm (insert undesirable characteristic)

yup. it's my property; and you have the right to kick anyone you wish off your property.
 
yup. it's my property; and you have the right to kick anyone you wish off your property.

Not when that property is a business open to the public. You can't put up a "whites only" sign. Sorry.
 
Back
Top Bottom