Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: The Huffington PostFollowing his tea-party insurgent Senate primary victory over the establishment Republican candidate in Kentucky, Rand Paul created waves when Rachel Maddow forced him, uncomfortably, to admit his opposition to parts of the Civil Rights Act. To many in the civil rights community, and to the political center, this comes as a shock.
It shouldn't be.
This is from May 2010, but is relevant know with Ron Paul running for President since he has the same misguided views about the Civil Rights Act.
He specifically opposes the provisions that prohibit discrimination in what are known as 'public accommodations,' which are really private businesses such as hotels, movie theaters, or lunch counters.
His view is that, while private racial discrimination is anathema and despicable, it's not something that the government should regulate. His argument, a libertarian argument, is that regulating private discrimination goes beyond the sphere of government authority. In addition, he argues, private discrimination is better regulated by market forces. In his view, and in the view of many libertarians, the private market would regulate and weed out businesses that discriminate, since business with what economists call a 'taste for discrimination' would lose patrons.
They are wrong.
They are wrong, first and foremost, because they miss the point. Discrimination isn't about economic efficiency; it's about morality, fairness, and a basic conception of equality; it's about justice.
#1 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:07 PM ESTThe Civil Rights Acts were targeted at racial discrimination broadly, both at the racist attitudes and private conduct that continues to negatively affect so many in our society, and at the legislation that embodied those racist attitudes. What Rand Paul sees as government overreach and interference in private markets is nothing less than a moral imperative to ensure a fair and just society, to guarantee that no one is denied a job, a promotion or other opportunities to succeed in life because of their race, sex, religion, familial status, or disability. Hiding behind the claim that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act was simply an attempt to redress institutionalized discrimination both misses the point and is entirely wrong. If someone asks Rand Paul specifically about the Fair Housing Act, which targets private housing discrimination, he won't be able to hide for very long.
Not to ignore the exact subject of the seed, (But) I have thought about the ethical and honesty issues around running a Libertarian campaign, from within a republican primary campaign, or a republican campaigning as a libertarian ?
Who's fool-in Who ?
#2 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:45 PM ESTThere is a libertarian faction in the Republican Party. In politics various faction are in competition. Paul is well within the rules of that competition.
I notice two of the flavors overlap directly with a couple of Democrat flavors.
Ed Wood -
What may be legal or illegal may or may not be ethical and honest.
The concepts do not conflict with each other.
This aim of rewinding history or rewriting it is ....getting tiresome....this isn't progress, it's insanity
#3 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:34 PM ESTIt is tedious, isn't it. Hearing over and over again a criticism that is moot anyway.
even more tedious is when the Federal Reserve 'issue' gets brought up then you find out they don't have a clue about global economics and the flow of money. But they have the infallible notion via Ron Paul that the US would be sooo much better off without a Central Bank. Notwithstanding that 195 other nations Have one. geez
Given how consistently ours has been screwing us for the last few years, it is hard to not think that we would be better off starting over.
Another sound bite from the Ron Paul disengenuous information machine that people unfortunately believe because they don't explain the process of how the Federal Reserve Banks (9) of them work.
They also leave out the fact that if the Federal Reserve Banks hadn't acted and stayed on track through this time period, the monetary flow would have shut down. Banks would have had 'runs' on them and chaos would have been the order of the day in the financial markets around the world.
All starting with CountryWide in California, another, WorldWide Great Depression would have been the consequence instead, it was a speed bump.
There is no 'starting over', no one can unwind Nine (9) Federal Banks of a World Power. It would take 10 years at minimum, the length of the loans and Treasury notes and bonds. It would take a Replacement for a Central Bank because to do business with other nations, a Central Bank is essential. Nations do not ship gold to each other. It is that simple. So, all that Would be done is trading the US Central Banks for Private Banks and that won't work either. Because Private Banks have a nasty habit of making Major Errors.
Why no one has noticed that other Nations have Central Banks and why they have them is beyond me. Ignoring the fact that it is Electronic transations, in any given year, are in the Trillions of Dollars, not Tons of Gold, demonstrates a complete lack of world global economic facts.
The difference is that you think a run on the banks and a depression is a horrible thing to be avoided at all costs, I think it would be good for us.
even more tedious is when the Federal Reserve 'issue' gets brought up then you find out they don't have a clue about global economics and the flow of money. But they have the infallible notion via Ron Paul that the US would be sooo much better off without a Central Bank. Notwithstanding that 195 other nations Have one. geez
You are so right about that. It's frustrating when an "issue" is created where there isn't one.
He seems to keep repeating himself without ever actually addressing the point that he set out to address. I don't think he understands that 'morality, fairness, and a basic conception of equality; it's about justice' are all subjective things.
Justice is a fact when applied by laws. Murder someone, get caught go to jail. Equality is a fact when applied by laws. The right to vote is not limited by race, creed, color or financial assets.
Morality is subjective depending on the community standards which change with regularity.
Fairness is subjective depending on the community standards.
Justice is a fact when applied by laws. Murder someone, get caught go to jail.
What you describe isn't justice it's retribution. It also contains the assumption that laws are always just, which sort of defeats the entirety of the threads argument.
Naw, retribution is the kinfolk taking revenge. Justice is when there's laws, courthouse, lawyers etc.
Better than what happened in US history, vigilante's hanging someone from the nearest tree, KKK (Knight Riders) galloping around burning crosses, barns, houses, stuff like that. Good thing Law and Order came out of That chaos.
There is a serious argument to be made that when one person murders and gets sent to jail for life, it is not just on either side. But again that boils down to a subjective perspective, not an absolute.
If laws were always just then the civil rights act would never have been needed.
Philosophical definitions has it's place in the quest to seek human knowledge. In real societal lives, justice and equality result in laws to ensure the treatment of humans in the society. It is not an abstract or a subjective when applied to reality.
Historically, the number of laws are subject to the population of members of which the society consists: the diversity of the race, creed and gender.
With the advent of slavery and the end of slavery, parts of the society choose to use a less aggressive approach to other members of society yet harmful to those in the minority. Therefore, by necessity the Civil Rights Act was made law. It was an omnibus law to end discrimination.
Your first and third statements conflict with each other...
Your statement;
In real societal lives, justice and equality result in laws to ensure the treatment of humans in the society. It is not an abstract or a subjective when applied to reality.
presumes that all laws are just and equitable, and that as such are a concrete representation of said qualities. Yet then you throw out
Therefore, by necessity the Civil Rights Act was made law. It was an omnibus law to end discrimination.
If the laws are just and equitable, as the first statement presumes, then no change is ever needed unless one is making the system less just and more inequitable. So unless you are saying the advent of the civil rights act created more inequality and injustice the two statements conflict.
No it doesn't Presume anything. Laws are not static if laws Were static, then those in society charged with Making laws wouldn't nullify laws (tying a horse to a post in the middle of town) to tweaking a law (copyright law) and making New laws, Civil Rights Act.
They make New Laws as a society develops and expands which is the main thrust of making laws. A society develops and expands, it is historical with societies.
A presumption that a society is static and laws necessary to govern a society are static, one must ignore actual history.
So are you saying that what is just and equitable shift over time?
Yes, kinda like our bods, gravity gets us too. (joke).. As knowledge is spread, education levels increased, better food supply and better health, societies change, mostly for the better. The opposite is true also, a deterioration of law and order into chaos. Unfortunately, the earth is home to both extremes of societies.
Yet above you claim;
In real societal lives, justice and equality result in laws to ensure the treatment of humans in the society. It is not an abstract or a subjective when applied to reality.
So again I ask how are justice and equality not subjective? Is todays man correct when his fathers were wrong? Or perhaps the children are wrong and fathers correct. Or perhaps both saw justice and equality through the lenses of their lives and saw different things, thus making both subjective concepts.
Because applying the word subjective,
by definition: 1) not impartial: based on somebody's opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence 2).philosophy existing by perception: existing only in the mind and not independently of it 3.medicine observed only by patient: describes a medical condition that is perceived to exist only by the patient and is not recognizable to anyone else
to actual laws which are legislated by Consensus (usually elected representatives of constituents) for the Majority of citizens of a society is mote.
The reality is still that societies either grow in populations, knowledge, health etc, which leads to better laws to govern that society or they don't which leads to chaos.
True enough. The laws are not subjective the justice and equality that they attempt to implement are.
And that's the Why of the Supreme Court. To verify if the law is someone's opinion or in fact Law :)
So we come full circle to; 'morality, fairness, and a basic conception of equality; it's about justice' are all subjective things.
Not with Equality and Justice, they are implemented in Real Time. Though I will agree that morality and fairness are still in flux and therefore dependant on individuals more so than society.
I understand the latitude with which you are alluding too. As in this flour will make bread. Yet Flour does not make bread alone. There has to be other ingrediants and baked. Your use of subjective leaves out the reality factor After subjective consideration by a society.
I walked you through the entire logic chain, and you still think laws are intrinsically just and equitable merely because they are laws. I disagree entirely with that premise as nothing is learned through circular logic.
Logic as in philosophical, there is a separation between philosophical and reality though. It is where too many get lost in the thinking instead of the actual and that is the fallacy. Not breaking away from the philosophical and attaining real application.
We see that in action in Congress right now and for the past year. Differing Philosophies that are clashing while the reality is the economy is tanking thus harming millions of people in the process. It is the Why philosophies have to evolve into an Action that has to be done in reality to sustain a society.
See the thing is, I am discussing the reality while you are discussing philosophy. In reality, 'just' is a subjective concept as is 'equality'. In other words, just and equal mean different things to different people.
Really, I thought I was discussing the reality ..ie Law in societies. Law is only perceived to be subjective when someone challenges the law. When the law is upheld, then the subjective becomes mote and the Law stays real and effective in a lot of cases. Though lawyers will attempt to make parts of the whole subjective, constantly, consistently and it is costly too.
They are wrong, first and foremost, because they miss the point. Discrimination isn't about economic efficiency; it's about morality, fairness, and a basic conception of equality; it's about justice.
Government creating laws to infringe on the rights of the people has nothing to do with morality, fairness, or justice. It is about lust for power.
The government has passed many laws to protect our rights, like the Civil Rights Act... a VERY BENEFICIAL LAW to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS.
like the Civil Rights Act... a VERY BENEFICIAL LAW to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS.
Yes, part of it....and then they tacked on another part to trample rights. Which brings us back around to the recommendation: keeping the parts protecting people from government abuse, and get rid of the parts that create government abuse.
No rights are trampled. That is simply someone's pipe dream.
No rights are trampled.
They certainly are trampled. When government comes and says 'if you exercise your rights, then we will punish you', that is trampling of rights.
When someone is discriminated against at a business because of their race, creed, color, etc., their rights are violated. So then you are going AGAINST your goal of not violating rights.
We've been over that before. There is no such thing as a right to force someone else to engage in a business transaction with you. There is also no such thing as a right to force yourself onto someone else's property.
I'm willing to sacrifice your desires for the rights of all people, while you're willing to sacrifice the rights of all people to fulfill your desires.
What happens when you and I, while independently exercising our individual rights, find that those independent actions conflict ?
The Gov. ? or who ever the arbitrator is, would at least need to "infringe" on one or both of our rights; to some degree, wouldn't they ?
Would you consider that a "violation of rights ?
What happens when you and I, while independently exercising our individual rights, find that those independent actions conflict ?
While not really having anything to do with the subject, I'll indulge
What kind of conflict do you picture?
I like to put it this way. If you have your hand in a fist and swing at me, your rights end where my face begins. No matter where you are, or whether or not you own the business where this takes place. Just because you're standing on property you own doesn't give to the right to harm another person for no reason. When you are practicing racism on your property, you are violating other peoples rights.
I'm Ringo - My question (#5.9) came from your #5.6 post.
'no violation of rights' is the goal
Just curious, at what point dose a (regulating) action turn in to a "violation" ? How do we tell ?
Spocky -
I suppose it could be stated that, no one has the (right) to harm another with out specific justification, self defence, etc.
I like to put it this way. If you have your hand in a fist and swing at me, your rights end where my face begins. No matter where you are, or whether or not you own the business where this takes place. Just because you're standing on property you own doesn't give to the right to harm another person for no reason.
You still seem obsessed with violence, in a topic that has nothing to do with violence. This has nothing to do with harming another human being.
When you are practicing racism on your property, you are violating other peoples rights.
Not true, since there is no such thing as the right to force someone else to engage in a business transaction with you.
Correct. EVEN IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS OWNER! LOL
Which STILL has nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic.
No it doesn't. The topic has nothing to do with harming anyone else, whether on your property or not. I would have thought you'd know that since you seeded the article, but just scroll on up and click on the "Read Article" box if you're not sure.
You are trying to promote the idea that it is okay to be racist at your own business. That IS harming other people. Did you forget what you were arguing about?
Have a nice day... I'm done.
You are trying to promote the idea that it is okay to be racist at your own business.
So you've stooped to creating your own bull@!$%# and attributing it to others? Respecting the rights of others has nothing to do with your personal feelings about the accecptability of their choices. I would never discriminate against someone based on their race or ethinicity, and I wouldn't give any of my business to any else that chooses to do so.
That IS harming other people.
No, not engaging in a business transaction with someone else does not harm them, and is not a violation of their rights. It is something that you do every day.
#5.20 - That's not an accurate statement.
not engaging in a business transaction with someone else dose not harm them,
It not only may harm, but also may help, or be completely neutral in effect.
For example - I'm cruising down the street and fly right past your donut shop with no thought of, or desire for a donut = Neutral
But if the smell gets me and I really crave one, but am turned away by a sign posted prominently, saying NO OLD WHITE GUYS SERVED, and if in this instance the sign bolsters my self control and helps avoid a laps, and there for, a heart attack, = Benefit
In the above scenario, if I were a diabetic, experiencing a bout of hypoglycemia, the lack of that donut could cost me my life. = Harm
It not only may harm, but also may help, or be completely neutral in effect.
No, it cannot harm someone.
Eating a donut may be rather neutral, beneficial, or harmful depending on exact circumstances. That has nothing to do with getting it from one specific person.
It certainly dose if there are none other available.
Amazing thing, though....if someone else refuses to cook food for you, then you can always do it.
The question comes down to whether to force people to engage in business transactions with others or not. Is being forced to participate in a business transaction something that YOU are okay with?
Under some circumstances, yes I am.
If a contractor, in a competitive biding situation, is denied access to material sources that are open to his competitors, the "client" is denied the benefit of the competitive proses, and the contractor is denied the opportunity to fairly compete, and the opportunity for monopoly is enhanced.
So the supplier's right to limit access ends when it limits anyone else's right to participate in the economy.
Or do you believe that, not every one should have equal access to a public economy/market ?
In post #5.11 Mc Spocky used the the generally accepted analogy of the "fist and the face" to define where a right ends.
The right to freely swing, ends just before it violates the right to not be hit.
But why ? Why doesn't the right to not be hit end just before it violates the right to "freely swing" ?
The concept of the grater harm is the defining principal, not the grater good, but harm.
The potential harm to the individual who is prohibited from participating freely in the public market place is far grater than the potential harm to a business would be if we require, equal service to the general public as a condition of participation in the public market place.
You have to draw the line some where.
Under some circumstances, yes I am
Under some circumstances? I don't remember that being part of the question. What if you were forced to buy some neo-Nazi t-shirts and get an SS tattoo?
The potential harm to the individual who is prohibited from participating freely in the public market
That's exactly the problem with that part of the CRA, it prevents people from being able to freely participate.
If you really think that someone being less well off because you didn't enter into a business transaction with them is a violation of their rights, then you grossly violated the rights of Circuit City, Borders, and Kodak.
It's a pleasure to read some common sense comments, Foy. :)
Well how cute, when you run out of anything to say, you turn into a cheerleader, McSpocky
I didn't run out of anything to say, I just get tired talking to brick walls sometimes. It's useless and a waste of time so why bother...
I didn't run out of anything to say
Well, since earlier you were so creative that you were even making things up and claiming they were from other people, and now you're reduced to cheerleading, it certainly appears that you've run out.
I didn't make anything up. As for some of your comments though...
Come on McSpocky, dishonesty isn't very becoming and anyone interested can just scroll up and see it anyway
Subscribing a condition with a label is disingenuous. The statement Government control is a lust for power is just such a label made by a lot of people and is like saying a car uses gas. A car does use gas but only when driven and by where the driver wishes to drive the car.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
