Rand Paul

[poolerboy]

Then it is equally rational to expect a society to follow through with the rights established through the Civil Rights Act.

That is not the Supreme Law of the Land nor is it the basis for the country on which it was founded. That is why Kulindar says, "Until that society starts inventing "rights" that violate self-ownership." The First Amendment illustrates what a free society stands for.

Humans control their actions purposefully and are the owners of their own bodies and, by extention, their labor.

And in conclusion: You have no argument in support of Free Speech that is not an appeal to emotion.

What appeal to emotion have I employed? That we should value property rights? That because I use the word "should" to imply a normative claim this couldn't possibly be rational?

Only because you're refusing to see the other side's point of view.

I'm not refusing to see the opposing POV. I understand it, but I also disagree with it.

Tell me, if you're selling your product happily at, say, $100 per, and I walk up, $100 in hand. You've got a goodly supply right there in front of you, all of it marked "$100." What justification would you use in denying the product to me, while I watch the previous $100 customer walk away, product in hand?

I never said discrimination is rational. It is not. It is also odious and contemptible but that is beside the point now isn't it!

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I never said discrimination is rational. It is not. It is also odious and contemptible but that is beside the point now isn't it!

Then why do you, like Kuli, continue to defend it. I know, I know. . . you were using it to demonstrate how you would reinvent the entire geopolitical system to forever abolish discrimination.

I prefer to keep the conversation within the realm of the possible.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then why do you, like Kuli, continue to defend it. I know, I know. . . you were using it to demonstrate how you would reinvent the entire geopolitical system to forever abolish discrimination.

I prefer to keep the conversation within the realm of the possible.

I venture to guess that pooler is defending it as I would defend standing on a street corner and reciting obscenities: reprehensible, but within a person's rights.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I venture to guess that pooler is defending it as I would defend standing on a street corner and reciting obscenities: reprehensible, but within a person's rights.

I'd prefer intellectual honesty and civility.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'd prefer intellectual honesty and civility.

 

[Kulindahr]

PoolerBoy (and Kulindahr), if you guys got your way, this is what we'd eventually see:

I think maybe you'd better reread the thread.

 

[NickCole]

And what is your use of terms like "ObamaNation"?

The term "ObamaNation" has lots of legitimate uses but seems self-evident in the context I used it: "And of course the BushRepublican ObamaNation favorite, ridicule, as found in the OP of this thread: "He likes to act tough but cries like a little girl when his answers to questions get him in trouble."

That's about using ridicule as a weapon. And you managed a two-fer: ridiculed Paul and girls at the same time. Get extra points for that?

Republicans in the era of Bush (beginning long before with Rove's mentor Lee Atwater, but enjoying popular use among rank and file BushRepublicans), used ridicule to silence opposition rather than deal with it honestly. ObamaNation does the same.

 

[MercuryJones]

The term "ObamaNation" has lots of legitimate uses but seems self-evident in the context I used it

So you complain about ridicule and in doing so ridicule and turn a person's name into a pejorative?

Both hypocritical AND cunty at the same time. Do go on.

That's about using ridicule as a weapon. And you managed a two-fer: ridiculed Paul and girls at the same time. Get extra points for that?

Except it's not ridiculing little girls who are supposed to act like little girls.

Republicans in the era of Bush (beginning long before with Rove's mentor Lee Atwater, but enjoying popular use among rank and file BushRepublicans), used ridicule to silence opposition rather than deal with it honestly. ObamaNation does the same.

Like calling people ObamaNation.

 

[MercuryJones]

What appeal to emotion have I employed? That we should value property rights? That because I use the word "should" to imply a normative claim this couldn't possibly be rational?

You simply haven't made any rational answer to my question at all. I asked: is there a good reason to not overturn the first amendment that is not an appeal to emotion?

You simply didn't provide a good reason to not overturn it.

 

[MercuryJones]

Trying to get back on the actual subject of the thread, Rand Paul, does anyone care to address his opposition to same sex marriage and how it squares with his support for the right to ownership of self?

(I don't think he used the actual term ownership of self, but it appears to be some sort of foundational principle.)

 

[NotThatCreative]

Enumerated powers are irrelevant to basic rights. An amendment limiting free speech could be passed; it would be invalid. An amendment establishing a religion could be passed; it would be invalid.

In this country enumerated powers are relevant to rights. Perhaps not in your ideal state, but in the reality we live in, they are.

It had to do with insurrection, period. Adams did not argue from a right of insurrection against tyrannical private acts, but against all such acts. In fact, given the references to a certain foreign government, it may be maintained that the case had specifically to do with insurrection against government.

No. The Amistad case had much to do with the slave trade, but it was not about insurrection. The slaves on board the Amistad that rebelled were not legally allowed to be slaves, according to both Spanish and American laws. That was the issue at play. America claimed a right to the property on the ship. Which it was given. But whether or not they were legally slaves was up for question. It was claimed they were from Cuba, therefore did not fall under the prohibition of the international slave trade in place in both countries. They were not from Cuba, and therefore could not legally be slaves. It had nothing whatsoever to do with overthrowing governments.

Of course it's a basic premise of the country -- it's why there's a country at all. Recognize this?

Well we seem to have some problems then, if we aren't allowed a right that is a basic premise of our country. The Declaration, while important and useful for determining founders' intent, has no legal power. The Constitution, on the other hand, is the highest legal power in this country. Yet again, perhaps in your ideal state what I've said would not be true. But that is a different discussion than the debate over whether it is true.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Trying to get back on the actual subject of the thread, Rand Paul, does anyone care to address his opposition to same sex marriage and how it squares with his support for the right to ownership of self?

(I don't think he used the actual term ownership of self, but it appears to be some sort of foundational principle.)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but is he actually against same sex marriage? I know his father simply thinks the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, same sex or otherwise. So he's against legislating marriage equality, because he believes it's not the purview of government, and especially not the federal government. Does his son Rand hold that position, or is he genuinely against same sex marriage?

If he is genuinely against same-sex marriage, then my answer to your question is that it's a contradiction that can't be made consistent.

 

[MercuryJones]

^^

Everything I've seen says he opposes same sex marriage, though I have not seen a direct statement from Paul himself. Of course I hope I'm not misrepresenting him. I do know he is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape.

 

[poolerboy]

Then why do you, like Kuli, continue to defend it.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. —Voltaire​

Just like Voltaire, I do not agree with the racism, but the freedom to express it -- be it in words or associations.

You simply didn't provide a good reason to not overturn it.

I provided a rational reason for upholding normative rights:

Humans control their actions purposefully and are the owners of their own bodies and, by extention, their labor.

That you felt it wasn't "good" is beside the point.

By the way, in case you are of the belief that you cannot derive an ought from an is, this may be of interest to you.

Trying to get back on the actual subject of the thread, Rand Paul, does anyone care to address his opposition to same sex marriage and how it squares with his support for the right to ownership of self?

(I don't think he used the actual term ownership of self, but it appears to be some sort of foundational principle.)

Since he's a libertarian, most likely he's in support of something known as Marriage Privatization.

Kulindahr, the sign reads "No Jews Allowed". Those kinds of signs will appear in our windows.

The Zeitgeist has changed so dramatically that it's too unlikely to even assume that would occur. Yes you might get some people that will do that (just like we still have neo-nazis), but it's doubtful that this will occur en masse.

I'm done talking about this.

Cheers

 

[NotThatCreative]

Everything I've seen says he opposes same sex marriage, though I have not seen a direct statement from Paul himself. Of course I hope I'm not misrepresenting him.

I'm reading that he personally opposes it but also opposes government "interference" on the issue. He seems to moralize on the issue but oppose government involvement. Which makes his politics on the issue the same as his father's, but Ron Paul doesn't really moralize on the issue. Rand Paul does. I'm making no claims of correctness, but that is my understanding.

I do know he is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape.

I don't discuss my stance on abortion, so I'm making no judgment on him. But pro-choicers should be aware that opposing abortion in cases of rape is not the "worst" of it for Rand Paul. He also opposes it in cases of incest and, most significantly, even if the mother's health is in danger. I suppose I'll discuss my abortion stance enough to say that if the mother's health is in danger, she should be allowed to abort the fetus/baby. One life for one life. So I am judging him on that particular part of his abortion stance.

 

[NotThatCreative]

People would profit off the suffering of others. I don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror at night.

Welcome to reality. We all profit off the suffering of others. Do you buy Nestle chocolate? Chiquita bananas? Coca-cola products? Wal-mart? Nike? The list goes on. We all profit off being able to have the goods those companies, and others, provide. And we profit off how cheaply we can have them. These companies have all been involved in the suffering of others though. I wish just as much as you it weren't so, but let's not get all high and mighty about our moral superiority when we do the same thing. We profit off the suffering of others and seem to have no problem facing ourselves in the mirrors on account of it.

 

[MercuryJones]

I provided a rational reason for upholding normative rights

No, you provided an assertion. Not a case.

I'm done talking about this.

Some cause happiness where ever they go. And some, like you, when ever.

 

[MercuryJones]

But pro-choicers should be aware that opposing abortion in cases of rape is not the "worst" of it for Rand Paul. He also opposes it in cases of incest and, most significantly, even if the mother's health is in danger.

Well, that is quite bad.

Between that and his purported anti-same-sex-marriage stance, it seems his notion of private property doesn't extend to one's own body and personal choices.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Since he's a libertarian, most likely he's in support of something known as Marriage Privatization.
​

"Most likely?" Is that the standard you set for your voting decisions, too?

You, my friend, are enamored of elegantly woven words and intellect. You hold yourself above the emotional. So many libertarians are the same. They lose sight of the fact that there is great emotional attachment to both sides of most issues. They don't want to dirty themselves getting down in the trenches and wrestling over the emotional side of politics, they want to float above it, look down upon it, and "tsk-tsk" it away with flowery explanations of their personal understanding (or, what Ron Paul has taught them) of what "should be." Never mind that their ideas are all "pie-in-the-sky" idealism. It's oh-so-easy in their view to rip out existing paradigms and practices and replace them with Utopian views of "how the world SHOULD work."

We live in a real world where incremental is the only change that is allowed, if allowed at all. People began over a hundred years ago looking for ways to establish universal health care in this country. . . it was within our grasp in the past few years, and it was frittered-away trying to assuage the profit motives of corporate America.

We live in a world where idealism is used as a lever to gather votes, and then is cast aside in the political fervor of a moment. Our ideals and dreams mean nothing to the political powers of America, my friends. And to think a couple of lunatic fringe nuts (like the Pauls) can change the world is folly. They're so outnumbered that they are nothing more than a minor annoyance to the corporatists.

Rather than joining the masses and adding to the strength of those who are fighting to effect change within our current structure, libertarians dilute the potential for change by tilting at windmills to find their own idea of Utopia. Rand Paul, should he win the general election (which I doubt) will be a political outcast in Washington, just like his father.​

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Well, that is quite bad.

Between that and his purported anti-same-sex-marriage stance, it seems his notion of private property doesn't extend to one's own body and personal choices.