…if your kid dies from tainted cough syrup — you just won’t buy that kind any more — and the manufacturer will go out of business. The market works! Problem solved.

That, in a nutshell, is the the Mish (not mentioned in your story but he’s much more honest about it and his support for the Pauls) or Rand Paul position. Governments and regulators are harmful and the only cure is the pure idealism of unconstrained greed.

Ayn Rand Paul strikes again.

Apparently Rand Paul has not read the decision just issued by the Supreme Court in Comstock, much less the 2008 sister decision in Gonzales v. Raich, about the power of Congress to legislate broadly. Perhaps Paul can makes himself a new set of glasses and do some reading. Maybe Weigel could get up to speed on that too so as to be able to do his job without looking like a dope.

Yeah, it’s as if a libertarian is somehow exempt from the accusation of dogwhistling that would be assumed with all other racist conservatives?

Oh come on!

If after watching his performance on Rachel Maddow last night you don’t know that Ran Paul is a racist then you need your head examined!

Is Paul gonna tell us that his country club has African American members but it was only coincidental that none were present for his victory drivel?

Thanks BT.

Prior to 1964, white supremacy in the United States was legal.

It was legal not to hire someone based on their ethnicity, Irish, African-American…..

It was legal to deny someone credit based on their ethnicity.

It was legal to deny them a place to live (home or apartment) based on their ethnicity.

It was legal to deny them access to education based on their ethnicity.

Who the phuck is David Weigal and libertarianism is nothing more than a gimmick to suck in the rubes.

Rand Paul represents those who would return to those days.

Rachel Maddow sometimes gets trashed at FDL by certain commenters, but she really did the world a service last night by holding Rand Paul’s feet to the fire. It was shocking to watch this politician refuse to say that integrating lunch counters was appropriate. Shocking! I hope Kentucky has come out of the dark ages enough to send this jerk packing……but this may have given him cred in his state. Will be interesting to watch.

Off topic, but I’m curious — does anyone know Paul’s height and weight?

But in any case, “Rand Paul isn’t a racist” is a straw man. Paul’s position, that government shouldn’t have the authority to regulate private businesses, is, to put it mildly, fucking crazy.

I like how you attack Weigel for a straw man right before you unveil an enormous straw man of your own. Paul simply defended your right to choose who you do business with. He did not say that government should not have the authority to regulate private businesses. Since you had straw men on your mind, it is odd that you did not notice that you are attacking a huge straw man of your own.

The sorts of things that get left out of analogies can be telling, such as what’s omitted from the Gilded Age’s (ours and the one George Bush returned us to) analogy of comparing unregulated capitalism with natural selection. Survival of the fittest and all that. Often misnamed Social Darwinism, the analogy was neither social nor Darwinian, nor accurate.

What gets left out of such popular apologia for ruthless greed are inconvenient facts. One is that natural selection in biology implies not just the relatively greater survivability and profundity of one variant over another. That much many of us remember from high school (unless you grew up in Texas). What is left out is the flip side of that coin, the sometimes vast number of individuals who die off because they lack preferential traits, which is what leads to changes in the make-up of the surviving population.

Unregulated capitalism is like that. “It will all work out right in the end if we just leave everything alone” is a fine policy for government only if its interest is limited to the few survivors, to the lottery winners, not everyone who bought a ticket. It’s a strange rationalization for ruthless greed for a species that thinks its greatest advantages were its brains and its use of tools.

I lived through the times before the Civil Rights Act and can report there was nothing like what he envisions was going on. Maybe in Lala land but not in the 50s.

Enter the Randroids…

Paul simply defended your right to choose who you do business with.

So, the company I work for should have the right to refuse to rent to members of other than white ethnic groups for whatever reason?

a certain “foul-mouth femblogger” properly labeled him a “fantasist”

Huh. It’s like they use fake outrage to deflect revealing questions about their ideology or something.

What the fuck is this racist moron blathering about?

Or something.

Damn I hate these drive by dumpers.

Divide and Conquer at work.

Peace out sheep.

Ah, it must be recess time at middle school.

The only person who really knows if Rand Paul is a racist is Rand Paul.

Really? There seem to be a lot of FDLers who claim to know who the racists are.

I just wish the government was capable of controling society so we could just all get along and live free.

Ayn Rand Paul sez:

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person,” he said. “I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

That’s Mighty White of Him!

One of the cubs was mixin it up pretty good down stairs on the subject of Mr. Paul.

Thanks BT. The more exposure this radical gets the better IMO.

Yeah, I was one in a previous thread on this same topic :-) I didn’t agree with the methods Rachel used in her interview last night, so I’m a bigot.

Great post BT, and a much better take on this topic than what I’ve been reading. I don’t think the issue here is racism. It’s trying to use logical arguments to gain support for deregulating private business. By spreading information and asking the right questions, hopefully we can reach enough people and make them understand this logic is flawed.

They’re pretty easy to spot, actually. Maybe not if you’re one of them…

I do cross cultural mediation. I have this wonderful test that I give to my clients. The test determines the level of racism in an individual.

It’s pretty interesting. It would be interesting to have Rand Paul take the test.

Might not always spot a racist but a shit disturber? Every time.

The other thing RPaul said, that Rachel unfortunately did NOT accost, is suggest that letting blacks and females and gays, et al., in to private organizations would perhaps mean letting others carry guns into bars. I was stunned. I don’t think that having black skin or ladyparts is equivalent of carrying a lethal weapon……….tho Rand Paul may think so!

Yeah, that “method” where she actually asked the guy a question and then kept following up when he wouldn’t answer – it’s like the Spanish Inquisition!

Atrios makes a good point:

Government regulates – and, of course, provides the necessary conditions for the existence of – private business in all kinds of ways. So when people have a particular concern about, say, the Civil Rights Act, as opposed to, say, parking requirements, it’s reasonable to wonder why.

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/05/government-regulation-of-private.html

If Rand is not a racist he still plays one on TV, for example in his primary victory speech when he tied Obama to an African, Latino and a Native American leftist leader — all whom by the way Obama is actively working against, for good or bad reasons depending:

We now have a president, though, who apologizes for America’s greatness. We have a president who went to Copenhagen and appeared with Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chávez and others, Evo Morales, to apologize for the Industrial Revolution. They say—these dictators, these petty dictators say—that to stop climate change, it’s about ending capitalism. They are explicit. And the President, by attending Copenhagen, gives credibility and credence to these folks, and he should not go.

I do not know what company you work for, but they probably should. Explain to me how I have the right to force you to do business with someone you do not want to? If I do not have that right, then obviously neither does the government.

Ironically, the definition of a free society is one in which there is no “right” to choose who you do business with, or how you do it, free of all restrictions. A corporation is required, for example, to pay its debts and to pay them ahead of all shareholder claims.

And Mr. Paul did use familiar coded language that substitutes for implied if not overt racism. What would have been a simple question – would you vote today to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act – in the North or for a liberal, is, as Rachel knew, both a loaded and legitimate question for a Southern conservative.

We face today a similar need to protect civil rights. Not to expand them to people of color, but to ensure that they remain available to people of all colors and religions (or no religion). The issue today is not wrenching such rights from privileged neighbors, but keeping them from an overreaching government.

Mr. Paul claims that he prefers small government. But size doesn’t matter, it’s how effective it is in promoting the interests of all, not just those of a favored few. His answers to Rachel weren’t about whether he would vote to pass the Civil Rights Act today; they were code for the favored few to indicate he’ll protect their rights. He didn’t say much about anyone else’s rights, which is as much of a direct answer as most politicians ever give.

But in any case, “Rand Paul isn’t a racist” is a straw man. Paul’s position, that government shouldn’t have the authority to regulate private businesses, is, to put it mildly, fucking crazy.

That’s the essence. Best to not get lost in only the impact on racism.

Pretty much, or could refuse to rent to white people, or child molesters, etc. Just like they can people with bad credit scores. Its not the same thing as saying they should all be in chains, just that personal freedom should be emphasized.

I don’t think it would lead to a harmonious society, buts its a far cry from racism. Just another straw man to demonize a different point of view. She should have asked him how a Libertarian would respond to the BP spill. To do that might call into question free markets and capitalism or even the Administrations response. Couldn’t have that could we.

My biggest concern for the argument Paul made, relying on the first Amendment as explanation for his views, could be used in a defense for murder or any crime for that matter.

So Woolworth was correct in banning blacks from their lunch counter then?

After all, they are a private bidness (or were at the time)

Rand’s case (the market will cause companies with bad policies to suffer and hence change the policies or never institute them in the first place) would be stronger if it were not for a few dozen issues, starting with these:

1. People have to know about the bad policy, or the consequences will never manifest.

2. Deep pockets give corporations a way to avoid paying for bad policies by using SLAPP lawsuits to stifle criticism.

3. “Companies” don’t set policy, employees do, and employees seldom suffer much from their bad decisions.

4. Companies collude to avoid negative consequences.

5. So long as corporations can declare bankruptcy, they can dodge the worst consequences of their policies.

The Free Market of Rand’s happy fairy kingdom is a ratty little corner stall with a great big “Caveat Emptor” sign hanging uselessly around the corner.

I think that’s fascinating. Can you link this test somehow? My wife’s graduating next week with a degree in human services and a counseling cert and would love to look that over.

This is the danger of trying to apply logic to the situation. The only argument that needs to be made here is Constitutional protection afforded to all citizens equally. Businesses, publicly or privately held, do not have the right to discriminate based on race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc. If my Hispanic, gay, quadraplegic neighbor wants a burger, he should fucking get one. End of story.

My sense is that if you didn’t grow up in an area that had water fountains labeled “white” and “colored” — or didn’t grow up where restaurants had signs saying “No Coloreds Served” then you just don’t get it.

Paul made a nice little diversion a couple or more times also to imply that when a government representing the interests of the people imposes rules on a business it is in effect seizing it and making it public property. errrrrrrr Socialism!

I really hope the pundits don’t stop with just the implications to race but tease out how the propaganda is created and more important how the application of his notions of property endowing rights has created this corporatization of the world.

Paul simply defended your right to choose who you do business with. He did not say that government should not have the authority to regulate private businesses.

No.

Weigel:

…he government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses.

So the gubmint can’t tell you who you can do business with, but can tell you what you can sell, how you should make it, and how you can sell it?

Sorry, that doesn’t make sense.

Our current generation, lest we not forget, is fighting a less violent, but somewhat similar fight for gay rights. No one is being attacked by dogs or sprayed with fire hoses, but there are beatings and killings.

I can’t imagine what it would’ve been like to live through the ’50s, but we have our own fights for civil rights. Everyone is still not treated equally in this country.

Paul’s position, that government should’t have the authority to regulate private businesses, is, to put it mildly, fucking crazy

nicely done blue, that’s the way progressives and democratic politicians need to address rand, like he is bat shit (maybe leave out the “fucking” word but use something similar)

as I pointed out downstairs, the man just doesn’t get it or refuses to acknowledge;

EVERY business is government subsidized, using government for roads, electricity, water and their courts, if not for government subsidy nobody would be in business

The bottom 30% reject logic. If they can’t smell, see or taste it, it doesn’t exist.

so I guess that saying that Paul’s extremist ideas about government non-intervention that would allow for a return to segregation is enough to label Paul a racist rather than a person with extremist ideas about the limits of government power despite Paul’s repeatedly saying that he isn’t a racist.
and I guess that if Weigel wants to point out the distinction between direct racial hatred and the motivation Paul offers for his stance, then that’s a “defense”.

Rand knows where his support comes from and speaks to them.

Of course. But if Rand Paul and his ilk gain any political foothold, it will only get worse. I moved from California to Houston as a kid in 1956……and I still can feel the ugly shock of overt racism. Disgusting to see it rearing it’s ugly head again in public.

The racism issue is a distraction from Paul’s loony libertarian absolutism.

No doubt he would be similarly evasive if asked these questions:

Does Paul think Philip Morris should be able to pay children a nickel an hour to make cigarettes twelve hours a day? Does he think BP should be able to drill however and wherever they want? Does he think grocery stores should be able to sell tainted food? Does he think drug companies should be able to sell unsafe medicines? Does he think Wall Street should be able to sell whatever subprime crap they want — and then bet against it?

Because probably the real answer for both Rand and Ron is “Yes. Of course.”

A little off topic but a Ras poll from after the primary shows Sestak already leading Toomey. Remember, this is a RAS poll. I can’t wait to see the polling without their Republican filter.

Socialist.

If I do not have that right, then obviously neither does the government.

Really? Our government has no rights individuals don’t?

Obviously not. Just because you have the right to say or do something does not mean it is not vile, and banning black people is vile. By the way, Woolworth desegregated before the CRA was passed, which illustrates that social pressure in the form of protests, boycotts, picketing, public shaming and opposition, and so on, can be effective means of fighting racism without trampling on the rights of people.

You assume that the government was created first and poeple came after

I moved from California to Austin, Texas in 2004 and had the same experience.

How’s that work out with wheelchairs ?

Just say you don’t like people in wheelchairs and if god really thought you were cool he wouldn’t put you in a wheelchair?? Boy am I cornfused.

After 30 years of Reagan policies the single most important determinant of social mobility isn’t education and intellect but class.

So you’d be fine with businesses not hiring minorities, or women, or non-churchgoing Christians, or hiring them but only for part-time or menial jobs? Or paying them less than a living wage?

Love the Commentary today BT !

Not class – income.

I don’t know why any of you are surprised. How come no one ever asked Ron Paul this question? It’s not like their philosophies are in the least bit different. He inherited that philosophy from his dad.

Sure, it’s important to criticize dumbfuck ideologies but it’s not like he’s talking about bringing up any legislation in regards to this issue. And Rand is at least against behaving like an empire. He’s a solid antiwar vote.

Thanks librty.

Not quite, it’s people and politics that are inseparable. Government is a formalization of that process.

That government subsidizes, sometimes heavily, business is a commonplace. It’s not just the heavy subsidies (taxpayer, citizen paid) allocated to oil companies and banks. The little guys and gals benefit, too. That bulk mail that litters your postbox comes to you courtesy of subsidized postage rates for businesses.

The point liberals make is that government should look beyond business to the interests of individuals, who have more at stake than just making money.

Thank you for making that distinction. It’s a very important distinction and few people actually make it. I may substitute ‘wealth’ for ‘income’ but that’s largely a triviality.

Thank you for noticing. I’ll add that to my resume.

Income and ability to circumvent Laws.

Great Post, BT !

Is anyone going to ask Rand Paul about the Emancipation Proclamation? Didn’t that interfere with private property rights?

Heh.

Citizen SouthernDragon:

“Rand Paul represents those people who would return us to those days.”

You are, as usual, right on the money but more than that, as a “Man of the South” you certainly recognize this friendly face of home grown, American friendly fascism. Remember when freshly scrubbed and smilin’ David Duke scared the shit outta the political bosses when he almost took over the Republican Party in Louisiana? Remember when the “White Citizens Councils” morphed into the “Concerned Citizens” councils or the “Conservative Citizens…” etc,etc? This is the ideology of states rights that was institutionalized in the original Constitution and like all ideologies you can’t legislate it out of existance. And more than that, it is and has been the ideology of the ruling class in America since 1877 and is the prevailing ideology of the political “center” in this country.

This is why I welcome the Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party, because this evil monster that has stalked us since the beginning of the Republic can only be sent back to hell where it came from by standing it up in front of the American people and givin’ ‘em a chance to kill it once and for all in the course of electoral politics…there is no alternative.

So to be clear, it is your contention that Paul believes categorically that government should not have the authority to regulate private business. Therefore if I provide you with even a single example of Paul believing that government should regulate some aspect of private business, you will admit you mischaracterized his views and were in fact attacking a straw man, right?

I have a question for Mr Paul, and his various defenders. If my business is the only place where White men named Rand can buy food, medicine and clothes, but I choose not to allow them to enter my store because, well, I believe they’re too stupid to shop in my store, would they not seek government relief? Because in this instance your life depends on it.

By the way, don’t count on a marketplace correction because all my other customers are Blue Texans and they shop in my store in droves, so I’m not going out of business anytime soon.

Obviously not. The government is made up of individuals, no? I fail to see how a group of individuals can have a right that the individuals themselves do not.

The Rs are steering clear of Mr. Paul this morning saying “no comment” when asked about Mr. Paul’s views. Riding that tiger can be unsafe.

I can go along with that. That is the portion of liberalism that I like. The importance of the individual. How we go about empowering the individual or leaving alone is where the current system, you and me differ.

Anybody wanting a great exposition of the background and ethic out of which this twit arises needs to read today’s Hullabaloo.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Digby does her usual good job of digging into the background and laying out the views which seem to inform Paul’s perspective on this issue.Libertarianism tends to sound great until you do the logical extensions of where their principles lead.
I’m going to tend to reserve judgment on a person who openly panders to the tealibanistas and draws the admiration of Caribou Barbie.

Citizen Bluetoe2:

Untill the 1870′s America did not have an intractible, hereditary aristocracy. With the maturation of industrial capitalism through the engins of the railroads and coal and oil and the reenfranchisment of the old Southern slavocracy by the northern banks with the end of Reconstruction we got the families that we know so well as the oligarchy that is fighting mightily to suck every cent from coal and oil and then disenfranchise the mass of the population with an economy of worthless paper.

How do you define a PRIVATE business?

Is this a chapter S. corporation?

Does this PRIVATE business never accept payment from someone on Social Security; or funds that have the taxpayers as a sole or partial source?

Does a corporation that is publicly traded count as PRIVATE?

Somalia = the libertarian dream in operation

I don’t want to live in your vision of the world.

So, following your line of reasoning, if one person is unable to put out a fire, then a group also is unable to put out a fire?

(Government is a way of leveraging the power of individuals, even when it requires limiting the privileges of some. I notice you haven’t said anything about EEO laws yet.)

Citizen donquijoterocket:

Or you can just read the history of American conservatism…this fascism has been here since the beginning, was institutionalized in the Constitution and is the ideology of capitalism.

Some think government administered social payments to individuals gives them a free ride, but characterize taxpayer funded subsidies, tax breaks and legal immunities to companies as just desserts.

The first is ordinarily about helping people when they are most vulnerable – in youth, old age, sickness, unemployment. The second is about helping companies make more money; the usual gift wrapping – that it builds jobs – is too tattered to keep using, given rampant outsourcing, offshoring, making it easier to see for what it is.

And:
Do they maintain their own fire fighters and medical care?
How about payroll: do they use money or hand out scrip for the company store?
Do their facilities meet the zoning and building code requirements?
Do their employees live on-site? if not, do they provide transportation, or allowances for housing and transportation?

and the right social class is a guarantee that the income will be there.

I don’t understand why libertarians aren’t emigrating to Somalia in mass (the only libertarian “nation” in the world) to live out their utopia. Is it because in their hearts they know it’s all bullshit or they recognize their own sociopathic temperment.

In Paul’s case, he doesn’t sound like a racist to me, at least based on the text of Maddow. I think BT is exactly right. The racist asignation is a straw man. The real issue is do voters really want a libertarian in office, who authentically believes that the Fed. Govt. has no place in regulating what private business does.

Yes, and in this left vs right political system it is impossible to untangle the two. That is why I advocate for the rise of the common person in the political argument under the guise of libertarianism.

Know one thing: the social saftety net will not go away. I think it should not and I am mostly libertarian. There are plenty like me. Corporate welfare needs to end. I think this will end the warfare state. Rand Paul supports these efforts. He will prompt republicans toward that cause.

I am sick of people looking at this as a far right event. This is the meeting of the so called extremes in the middle. Only good can come from this. There will be fun things like this to write about in the process. What a great time to be alive to record history and what a shitty time to try and plan a life.

In Paul’s case, he doesn’t sound like a racist to me

I think what you mean to say is that he is not exclusively a racist, no?

That is the argument in the south. Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. It was about the federal government interfering with “private domestic arrangements.” ( according to southern leaders, then and now)

no, I think that it’s he’s not conclusively a racist.

Oh, its because the UN administers that region. I think that Katanga would have been a better choice but the UN shut that place down. Could’nt have a free nation in that part of the world.

Rand is about as racist as we are free market. That should sum it up and enforce some of my arguements.

I wouldn’t, but I’m getting close to being a card carrying socialist. I just don’t think it helps to distort the Libertarian view. I sympathize with their extreme fear of totalitarianism and they can have valid views on other issues as well. The ideal Libertarian world really only works as a sort of hippie commune. No large institutions, you can smoke, drink do pretty much what you want.

I think we are past that point and well past the point where those simple ideas have been co-opted by neocon fascist to fit their corporate agenda. But there are elements that even Liberals would agree with and its worth bearing in mind when we finally get together to fight off the corporatist.

Whether you defend Rand Paul or condemn him as a nutcase…this is a healthy debate to have.

Any conversation that questions the proper role/boundaries of government in our country is a good one.

I gave up on Rand Paul when he took Fancy Clown’s endorsement, but I commend him for sparking this debate.

Almost no one is. There just aren’t many David Dukes out there. Even if you make a racist comment (who among us hasn’t?) — that doesn’t, in itself, necessarily make you a racist.

That’s why when I see right-wingers say stupid shit like, “X Conservative politician isn’t a racist!” it makes me crazy.

Reason prevails! hallelujah!

Private business is the phrase Blue Texan used, and I am just repeating it. You should ask him if he has something specific in mind.

We both know that is not my line of reasoning. My line of reasoning is about the rights people enjoy as individuals and the rights enjoyed by a group of individuals. I say the group does not have any rights that the individuals do not, but you evidently disagree and believe that might makes right.

The government is made up of individuals, no? I fail to see how a group of individuals can have a right that the individuals themselves do not.

Make laws, make war, levy taxes? You try one of those.

Yeah, I noticed a little bit of crazy at the beginning, but it was otherwise a pretty good post.

Being racist or not is not like being virgin or not. Reasonable folks can differ on what constitutes a “racist.” Paul attempts to duck the label racist by claiming that, while he is against the government forcing an establishment to serve blacks, he wouldn’t frequent that establishment. So, he’s not a racist. And his followers agree.

Others would suggest that, since that establishment accepts all kind of infrastructure subsidies from taxpayers — roads, bridges, police and fire protection, to name only a few — both the establishment and Paul are racists.

The key here is that Paul is content to live in a society in which establishments can discriminate against people on any basis whatsoever, and government can do nothing about it. Unfortunately for him and his ilk, very, very few folks want to live in a society like that when the consequences are explained to them — even racists.

Paul’s problem isn’t that lots of folks think he is a racist. His problem is that no one wnats to live in a world in which his so-called philosophy or manner of governing obtains.

The government has to have rights ceded to it, and often exclusively to it, in order to function as a government. That’s fairly commonly understood.

As of today capitol punishment disproves your argument.

When the debate is tainted by the dogwhistle, the debate is useless and harmful, because it brings up the same “states rights” garbage that turned the Dixiecrats into the Republicans and became the Southern Strategy and Atwater’s favorite.

There is nothing new here in the “Teabagger Libertarian” mind. It’s the same shit they’ve always spewed, they’re just finding a softer, more sympathetic media. I mean, they say they’re a “revolution”, obviously we must take them at their word!

Ah, we have stumbled upon the fundamental difference between the individual and the state. One makes the other legit. Who then has the final authority? The individual.

No, Paul goes further than that. He insists that all areas that are properly within the realm of government regulation be free of racial bias.

People who loathe his ideas of government can still come away from the interview thinking that his notions of the limited reach of government lead him to a position that wouldn’t ban racism rather than ascribing to Paul an enthusiasm for segregation.

In the gay and lesbian community, there are some bed and breakfasts/hotels that segregate by gender. There are women owned B&Bs that rent only to women and there are men owned B&Bs that rent only to men. As a lesbian, I’m fine with that. Sometimes, I prefer only the company of women. Sometimes, I want my money going to a woman owned business. But if somebody puts up a “whites only” or “blacks only” sign, we all freak out. Why is it OK in the gay community to segregate but nowhere else?

Can you cede rights that you do not have? If I do not have the right to force you to do a thing, can I cede this right that I do not have to the government and have the government force you do it? I do not think so.

Who then has the final authority? The individual.

And the means of exercising your authority over our government is by voting. There’s also civil disobedience, for which a price may be paid. What else?

I’ve got to head out in a minute.

what rights does an ungoverned individual not have?

your understanding is incorrect.

under our government, you may not have a right to force me to do something, but that’s not the derivation of the government’s authority over me.

I’ve (and every other citizen as well has) ceded some of my rights to the government.

Should there be a dispute as to whether the government is abusing me and acting against me without proper authority, I’ve ceded to the government the right to hear my argument and to decide the validity of it.

Your name reminds me of that awesome graphic novel…anyway.

Agree with most of paragraph 1.

From Paragraph 2: There is nothing new here in the “Teabagger Libertarian” mind. It’s the same shit they’ve always spewed, they’re just finding a softer, more sympathetic media.

I think that they are finding a softer, more sympathetic audience. People of all political stripes are dissatisfied with Status Quo politics and the neutering of real change via Triangulation. I doubt that Rand Paul is any kind of transformative leader, but if he asks questions that ruffle feathers then that is fine by me.

No, Paul goes further than that. He insists that all areas that are properly within the realm of government regulation be free of racial bias.

Properly? Is that the operative libertarian word (cop-out) here. ALL businesses are properly within the realm of government regulation. All of them. That’s the freakin’ point.

Name a business that is not “properly” within the realm of government regulation.

Maybe because a hetero couple has not sued the owner(s) of said B&B(s) for not accommodating them and allowing them to stay.

Seems that by discriminating against heteros and opposite sex or opposite gender couples, they have left themselves wide open for a law suit – just that no one has actually complained about it yet

Rand’s crazy.

Does that moron drive on a road?

Does he drink from the tap?

Did he ever hold a rally in a park?

Has his local fire dept ever kept his house from burning down?

Did he ever call the police on someone who committed a crime against him?

Has he used medicine approved by the FDA?

Eaten inspected meat?

If so then he’s a ****ing hypocrite.

I think modern americans have it so good nowadays that we’ve forgotten how terrible things were in the 1800′s and early 1900′s. We can’t remember what damage the free market caused most of america because our america keeps us from being preyed upon by 90% of private companies. When those 10% do something to eff us over it’s big news, but that stuff would have been much more commonplace in the 1800s with no recourse to the general public.

The randroids and TeALIBAN read american history fanfiction and believe their disgusting distorted world view won’t end in total failure like it did back then.

Hopefully either we change, or we go back to the 1800′s model, have it collapse, then take a straight left turn and anyone who wants to turn right can look at the disasters in 2010′s and 2020′s as the perfect reasons why the rightists ideas should be laughed out of this country.

no, in all honesty I’m saying I don’t know whether he is or not. His text on Maddow doesn’t appear racist. The concern is his libertarian orientation–well, that, and all his verbal gymnastics to avoid answering Maddow. I didn’t realize that libertarian politicians were such pussies.

I think he knew how bad his position of, we can drink from the same water fountain in public, but I don’t want you colored people to follow me into that store and drink from my race’s fountain, that’s for members of my race only.

I’m not racist, I just don’t want you to be able to drink from the whites only fountains, what’s so racist about that?

He knows he can’t say that without sane non randroids following it to the logical conclusion that his policies would enshrine racism in private institutions and he would screw women, disable people, gays and non whites.

jeepers, buzz. I know what your freakin point is. What you freakin might hear is that his lunacy makes him a loon, not necessarily a racist loon.

you got that point?

whether government regulation extends to all businesses, and to what extent, is arguable.

public accommodations is in reach.

other businesses less so, for various reasons.

Split personality.

Ayn Rand Paul may believe that he is not a racist himself, but he is definitely a racist enabler (or racism enabler) who believes that America should return to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act Era, that public-accommodating privately-owned businesses should always have the last say while government should be shoved into the background, no government regulations, no government oversight, no government input from our elected representatives and our judiciary…literally making public-accommodating privately-owned businesses a law unto themselves…kind of like what we’re seeing in the BP/Transocean/Halliburton oil disaster down in the Gulf of Mexico, both prior to and still happening today, businesses know best, leave businesses alone, let them do what they want to do, don’t mess with and try to impede their profit-making mania and obsession…and if some people have to die, or be discriminated against, or be sickened by tainted products, so be it, according to the Ayn Rand Paul-type of Tea Party/conservative/Republican/libertarian thinking. Would you trust the health and safety of your children to these type of people???? The health and safety of your friends???? The health and safety of other members of your family???? The health and safety of other members of your church???? The health and safety of other members of your community????

The way to deal with these “Libertarian” clowns is through concrete examples, as Rachel did.

Does Paul want to frequent a lunch counter where the water may not be clean, the food may not be safe, and the building may be likely to burn down — with his ass in it? Is it good enough for him that, if any of those things happen, he just won’t go back? Then by all means, tell voters that, Paul. You’re history.

But if he wants government to ensure that the water is clean, the food is safe, and his ass is unlikely to get burned, don’t claim that that same government doesn’t have the right — no, the responsibility — to ensure that anyone can eat there.

These guys want to make off that they’re “philosophers.” They’re just hypocritical idiots.

True. But I thought a dour libertarian would just speak his principles, and damn the torpedoes. Turns out not so much.

I guess he’s got to be thinking that now is not a good time to let his lazziez-faire flag fly. Not with ten bazzillion tons of crude oil floating on, in and under the gulf, all fixing to wash up any hour now.

Haha yea.

He’s that rare one percent of the Randroids that can see the logical extension of their governing philosophy and just how bad it sounds to people who weren’t born into the randroid bubble.

The other 99% could have the logical conclusion of their worst policies explained to them until the sun nova’s and they’d still be ok with it because they uphold their ideological purity…and know that they’ll never be affected by the most racist or discriminatory extensions.

The safety of knowing that THEY won’t be discriminated against, that THEY won’t go hungry, and that THEIR families won’t suffer is a good enough reason to try to force laissez faire capitalism on people who stand to lose a lot of what they have to that asshattery.

Won’t the free market clean up the oil in the Gulf?

The focus on ethnocentrism is all yours. He’s trying to paint him as a unamerican marxist-socialist-terrorist-dictator lover. The statement is ugly but you are being dishonest. If one of those people were gay does that also mean that Rand is trying to paint Obama as homophobic?

I guess you are probably too stupid to figure it out, but Somalia seeing as it lacks law and order and protection of private property isn’t any kind of libertarian a paradise. The problem with most people is that they think by advocating for limited govt, that libertarians are compromising their anarchist position for a more acceptable one. Somalia = No govt = anarchism /= libertarianism

And about the topic at hand, this African American supports Rands position, why the hell do i want to patronize a business run by a redneck racist who hates my guts, any African american who gave a cent to the Woolworth cafe even after the desegregated should be ashamed of themselves. And if any of my white friend patronize such stores, then they are the racist and were never my friends in the first place. Segregation lasted as long as it did because it was also the govt policy which we all agree was wrong. The govt has no right to tell me what to do with my property and body as long as am not harming anybody else in the process which includes my right to be a racist, loudmouth, imbecile.

I know most people would doubt that i am in fact american american and still hold this views. Send me a message to ucheacn@yahoo.com and i will direct to my facebook. Freedom doesn’t always look or sound pretty, you have to take the good (citizen criticizing the govt) and the bad (someone broadcasting their message of hate in front of my house every cinco de mayo).

I have always loved reading this blog even when i disagreed (hutaree smear or celebration of the watered down audit the fed) but I still support the majoring of the goals and policies advocated on this site. Its seems like when it comes to libertarians the focus is always on the negative and the points where we disagree. Come over to dailypaul sometimes and you will see we r not all conspiracy theorist and racist. I think i have said enough.

peace out

To Blue Texan, how about an update on the govt case against the hutaree militia? am sure a lot the reactionary posters here owes them an apology

pass the pipe. you’ve had more than enough.

which reactionaries here owe apologies to which militia members for what possible reason?

Mac, it’s time to back off. Need I say more?

I was here reading the comments about the hutaree militia and 99% of the posters already convicted them on all the accusations levied by the govt. It was the Salem witch trial all over again, they were all guilty because they were right wing, militia and had ideas and beliefs which were different from the ruling administration and ofc living in the so called land of the free, that was unacceptable.

It shouldn’t surprise most people but just like in all the fake terror plot bust during the Bush administartion, this one was also a fake plot, with the govt agent being the main instigator and planner. Do some research and maybe then you would understand what am saying.

ON a different note. The most frustrating thing about this whole dust up is that every single time libertarian and progressives(larger group) start to form a coalition(albeit a weak one) something comes up. If its not the rodeo clown Glenn Beck warning about the evils of progressism, its is the media digging up some only irrelevant newsletter written years ago by someone other than Ron Paul or Rachel Maddow bring up a divisive issue that is no being debated. Libertarians would want nothing more than to have a working relationship with true progressive like firebaggers(jk) to end such policies like

Drug war
Audit the fed
End the perpetual war
Cut defense budget
Repeal the Patriot act
Reinstate Glass Steagal for banks insured by FDIC.
True Healthcare reform
End to corporate welfare
etc etc am sure that are many many more.

Signing off for the night. take care FLDers

if you start out your communication here with…

I guess you are probably too stupid to figure it out

you’ll surely forge a great partnership and a swell working relationship.

I’m a tattooer and have been one for almost 10 years. I’ve been accused of running a racist business I don’t know how many times. I’ve had many incidences where an African American will come in with a great tattoo design that requires a lot of detail and an assortment of pigments. Then I have to explain to them that some of the pigments won’t work and I’m sorry. The worst incident that happened with about 10 people in the shop that still really bothers me. A black gentlemen came in and wanted a gigeresque piece. I explained I could do it but it wouldn’t work so well because to give it any detail to recognize it from the piece it would require a lot of greys. Only the darkest of the black and grey ink would show up. The guy called me a racist and threw his soda at one of the shop windows before storming out.

The point I’m trying to make is I think on both sides of the fence people get so far carried away that any objectivity is lost. During all those moments of being called a racist and that one severe incident it didn’t stop me from doing tattoos on black people. I just try to explain what can work and what can’t. It’s sad, but the tattoo industry is racist, but it’s not done purposely.

We need to simmer down a little bit. To call people names for having a different political philosophy than you doesn’t stand for any civil rights. We shouldn’t live in fear from the mind police. In the end Conway will win anyways, not that it mattered to Rand to begin with. Conway is more in tune with the majority of Kentucky. He doesn’t believe in medical marijuana and Kentucky is a very poor state that needs as much federal help as it can get.

Sorry, being a racist doesn’t mean you personally don’t like or discriminate against Blacks (or others). If you think it is acceptable to do so, and shouldn’t be illegal, then you are also a racist, whether you have Black friends or serve them at your own restaurant or not.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I respect anybody and their opinion. See I can afford you that right. I just wish you could afford me that same right without labeling me something that I’m not.

Most of my friends are white. It wasn’t like a crazy conspiracy it just happened that way. Should I look in the mirror and resent myself for that? Should I hate Obama because he went to a church that preached hate towards the Jews? No I don’t. Sorry, I just can’t get on your level left, I’m too goofy and happy go lucky to analyze stuff like this.

what if you think that it is totally unacceptable and indecent to discriminate but that there are some places that are private and in those places it is not proper for the government to intervene?

that seems to be Paul’s argument. it’s built on silly ground, but how can you call him a racist for it without throwing away the dictionary definition of “racist”?

Damn – I’m doing it again (responding before having read all the comments).

I’m beginning to appreciate Paul’s comment about the ‘looney left’ more than I did when I first heard it. The degree of knee-jerking here is not what I’d have expected at all. I’ll address your specific comment first, then include a couple of other observations, then perhaps go back and see what more deserves mention.

1. There’s nothing whatsoever in the Constitution protecting people from discrimination from private businesses or citizens: its only protections relate to equality in the eyes of the government (to vote, to due process, etc.).

2. Libertarianism is not about greed: it’s about individual liberty. A good capitalist would not discriminate because it would reduce his customer base, but a good libertarian would defend his RIGHT to discriminate if he were stupid enough to want to. Note that Paul fully acknowledges that this ‘right’ is not a legal one and indeed has been explicitly contradicted by legislation – legislation that he mostly approves of and which has passed Constitutional muster: he just questions whether there might have been a better way to accomplish the goals of the legislation without that particular compromise to individual liberty.

3. Libertarians aren’t all extremists. Many recognize that business regulation is often absolutely required – e.g., to protect the health and safety of consumers, where they’d argue at a minimum for clear labeling highlighting any risks and in some cases for stronger measures that would not allow consumers to assume such risk even if they wanted to (i.e., prohibiting certain dangerous products rather than simply requiring them to be clearly labeled as such – though deprivation of such choice is not always obviously good, e.g., in the case of access to unapproved but legitimately promising drugs). However, anti-discrimination laws are qualitatively different from consumer protection laws: they attempt to regulate not just the quality of the transaction but its character, in a way that makes libertarians uneasy (much as the coming mandated insurance purchases make some people here uneasy). It is this qualitatively different extension of government control that bothers them in this case, not necessarily government control per se (though they tend to request justification for ANY control, as I suspect the founders would have wanted them to).