Rand Paul

[LonelyInVenice]

Lonely, Kulindahr and Poolerboy are Libertarians who genuinely think that a completely-free marketplace solves all problems.

I see it quite the opposite: the market economy is a vicious, but necessary beast that needs to be controlled, otherwise innocent people suffer.

I know... I've known Kuli for several years now. . . I was a JUB CE&P regular in a prior incarnation. I'm also a student of human nature, and I know what would happen if the Libertarians had their way; in short, anarchy. We'd be reduced to mankind's basest instincts. . . survival of the fittest. The gap between the filthy rich and the rest of us would see explosive growth. Multitudes (millions more than today) would be homeless and starve. Our infrastructure would collapse. Our economy would go along with it.

They always defend this by saying things like "Well, there'd be exceptions for that" or "corporations will take care of infrastructure." Meanwhile, every exception requires rules and regulation. Hence, more government. And the Libertarians attribute FAR too much altruism to Corporate America. Their goal is PROFIT. If the poor are a burden to almighty profit, then they must be eliminated! We'd see an unprecedented "owner/slave" state. And the very people who call themselves "libertarians" would be among the slaves.

 

[poolerboy]

Lonely, Kulindahr and Poolerboy are Libertarians who genuinely think that a completely-free marketplace solves all problems.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I hold many liberal and conservative view points; I don't have a loyalty to any political ideology but simply adopt a view for a particular issue if it makes sense to me. Many gay liberals, for example, want the government to be out of the marriage business and advocate for marriage privitization. Does that mean that they're not really liberal but libertarian according to your all-or-nothing reasoning? Of course not.

Again, so far I've seen nothing but appeals to emotion or non sequiturs. Can anyone provide a good reason for government interference in this regard?

 

[MercuryJones]

But you don't believe in private property, then, the way you mean this.

I don't believe it's as clear as that. Does the business benefit from city or state infrastructure? Was there small business assistance involved? Funny how often there is public money supporting and enabling private ventures.

I will say I support private property and business ventures. I do not support disenfranchising minorities.

I think he was clumsy in his answers because he knows it's a huge sore spot. I also think he was speaking in the abstract, because that's what this is for him, and she was bringing it back to real people.

I think his follow up has been cringeworthy and laughable at the same time. His victim stance is what I meant by crying like a little girl. I assumed people would understand that, especially given the tone of my OP.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Again, so far I've seen nothing but appeals to emotion or non sequiturs. Can anyone provide a good reason for government interference in this regard?

Yes. Because to eliminate the "interference" there would be a requisite increase in bureaucracy and enforcement to regulate which companies are allowed to discriminate, and which are not (as in the previous example of a pharmacy being vital to everyone).

Discrimination, by its very nature, creates a strata of "classes." The American ideal is that "all men are created equal," and to that end, discrimination must be neutralized in all its forms. Make exceptions, and you add complexity. Add complexity, and you build bureaucracy. Build bureaucracy, and you create more layers of government.

 

[MercuryJones]

Again, so far I've seen nothing but appeals to emotion or non sequiturs. Can anyone provide a good reason for government interference in this regard?

Government has a legitimate interest in preventing the creation of functionally 2nd class citizens. Some would say an obligation. Beyond basic concepts of fairness, it has negative social and financial impact, and is part of a national work-ready infrastructure.

This may not satisfy you, but it does many as a good reason. I guess you could equally argue that there's no good reason to outlaw slavery, or maintain free speech that isn't emotional.

 

[poolerboy]

Yes. Because to eliminate the "interference" there would be a requisite increase in bureaucracy and enforcement to regulate which companies are allowed to discriminate, and which are not (as in the previous example of a pharmacy being vital to everyone).

Discrimination, by its very nature, creates a strata of "classes." The American ideal is that "all men are created equal," and to that end, discrimination must be neutralized in all its forms. Make exceptions, and you add complexity. Add complexity, and you build bureaucracy. Build bureaucracy, and you create more layers of government.

So are you in favor of the government censoring your speech if it deems it discriminatory?

Something about you doesn't pass the smell test.

It's Armani Black Code. Thanks for noticing.

 

[MercuryJones]

So are you in favor of the government censoring your speech if it deems discriminatory?

I'm not, but I do wonder: do you have a good reason for government to not censor as described here that is not an appeal to emotion?

 

[Kulindahr]

We don't, huh? So what are the FDA and USDA for? The NTSA? How about the FAA? EPA?

Just imagine where we'd be, what we'd be eating, what sort of junk our cars and homes would be, how dangerous air travel would be. . .

You love to paint the "big-bad government" as an awful specter of an institution. I cringe at where we'd be without it. I fully believe that it must expand in keeping with our technologies, economy, population and aspirations. Human nature demands it. Anarchy is the only alternative.

Underwriters Laboratories is sufficient evidence to show we don't need government for any of those things.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

So are you in favor of the government censoring your speech if it deems it discriminatory?

Free speech has nothing to do with it. We have no right to discriminate.

It's in the government's best interest to do the thing that provides greatest benefit to the masses without impinging upon the rights of some.

Let's say they grant the right to discriminate: then, they are obliged to enforce that discrimination, to the detriment of the few, creating second, even third, fourth, etc. classes of citizens.

Let's say they deny the right to discriminate, then, the must defend those who would be discriminated against, and nobody's "rights" would be impinged upon (remember, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects your right to discriminate).

Then, saying that some CAN discriminate, yet others (vital to the public welfare, for instance) may not. Then you add degrees of complexity that, again, require more government and bureaucracy.

With no government involvement, the whole scenario collapses into anarchy.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I thought I recognized you, Venice. I, too, had a name change; do you recognize me? You were missed. I won't divulge your previous identity here.

I don't mind. I was previously known as RandomAccess.

 

[poolerboy]

I'm not, but I do wonder: do you have a good reason for government to not censor as described here that is not an appeal to emotion?

It's a violation of the First Amendment. To quote Chief Justice William Rehnquist, "While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government." --Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

 

[Kulindahr]

I know... I've known Kuli for several years now. . . I was a JUB CE&P regular in a prior incarnation. I'm also a student of human nature, and I know what would happen if the Libertarians had their way; in short, anarchy. We'd be reduced to mankind's basest instincts. . . survival of the fittest. The gap between the filthy rich and the rest of us would see explosive growth. Multitudes (millions more than today) would be homeless and starve. Our infrastructure would collapse. Our economy would go along with it.

Many societies in history have been libertarian, and haven't descended into anarchy -- like, the United States of America pre-Lincoln.

The gap between the filthy rich and the rest of us has exploded because of corporate socialism. It's almost always been government that concentrates wealth, not liberty.

They always defend this by saying things like "Well, there'd be exceptions for that" or "corporations will take care of infrastructure." Meanwhile, every exception requires rules and regulation. Hence, more government. And the Libertarians attribute FAR too much altruism to Corporate America. Their goal is PROFIT. If the poor are a burden to almighty profit, then they must be eliminated! We'd see an unprecedented "owner/slave" state. And the very people who call themselves "libertarians" would be among the slaves.

That's your imagination talking. And that's only prejudice.

If it results in slavery, it isn't libertarian.

 

[poolerboy]

We have no right to discriminate.

In a free society you most certainly do.

It's in the government's best interest to do the thing that provides greatest benefit to the masses without impinging upon the rights of some.

Ironic you should say that.

Let's say they grant the right to discriminate: then, they are obliged to enforce that discrimination, to the detriment of the few, creating second, even third, fourth, etc. classes of citizens.

Funny you should bring this up because that's exactly why I brought the example of freedom of speech. You could just as well say, "The government is obligated to enforce people's racist views!!!" The government should definately uphold the freedom of speech, expression and association. That I as an ethnic minority might become offended by a white supremacists comments toward me is irrelevant to the issue. Moreover, the government should promote equality by keeping its public facilities desegregated and anti-discriminatory. Private groups, like Boy Scouts of America, are free to discriminate. So should it be the case with private businesses.

You are not entitled to someone's private business. It is not your "right."

 

[Kulindahr]

Government has a legitimate interest in preventing the creation of functionally 2nd class citizens. Some would say an obligation. Beyond basic concepts of fairness, it has negative social and financial impact, and is part of a national work-ready infrastructure.

This may not satisfy you, but it does many as a good reason. I guess you could equally argue that there's no good reason to outlaw slavery, or maintain free speech that isn't emotional.

Government has no legitimate interests, only citizens do.

Slavery and free speech are obvious wrongs due to the fact of self-ownership. But if ownership extends to property, then regulation against discrimination is wrong, because it trespasses on self-ownership.

The unstated monster in the closet so far in this conversation has been the lack of a rational system of property -- we don't have one. Our system of property is a slap-together job based on the notion that someone with more force can claim property and call it his and that there is always more property someone can go grab and name his own. The first is not rational; the second is no longer true.

If there is any basis for the assertion that one specific kind of living creature can have sufficient ownership of things external to itself as to call a portion of the earth property, it has to rest on the species as a whole, not on individuals, and further has to involve the idea of stewardship, not just domination.

From those bases, the problem could actually be resolved.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not, but I do wonder: do you have a good reason for government to not censor as described here that is not an appeal to emotion?

Your question is wrong.

It assumes that government exists as a legitimate entity in its own right, with inherent authority of its own to do whatever it might so long as no argument against that can be proposed. Every proposition in that is wrong: government is not a legitimate entity in its own right, it has no inherent authority, it cannot do whatever it might so long as no argument against can be proposed.

Government authority derives from the rights of individuals. If I as an individual cannot tell someone what he may do with his property, that authority does not magically appear because I take a group of people and call them "government".

 

[palemale]

BTW, I've never been anywhere the city picks up the trash. It's usually a government-established monopoly, though, which is unconstitutional.

New York City picks up residential trash. Actually, private carters, regulated by the City, pick up commercial trash. The City has had to regulate private carters because, for decades, the private carters were controlled by the mafia, which imposed enormous burdens on businesses. Of course, doesn't the mafia have the right, if they control all the private carting companies, to charge extortionate rates to businesses?

However, the NYC Sanitation Department garbage trucks do plow the streets when it snows.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

It's a violation of the First Amendment. To quote Chief Justice William Rehnquist, "While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government." --Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

I more readliy concur with the dissenting opinion:
"...every state law prohibiting discrimination is designed to replace prejudice with principle." ~ Justice Stevens
Admirable, IMHO.

Rehnquist's view completely overlooks the fact that discrimination supports a strata of class-hood. And it equates discrimination with "free speech" which it is not. A bigot is free to speak however he wants (short of advocating violence) but to PRACTICE bigotry is another matter. . . not speech.

Yet another case of "judicial activism."

 

[Kulindahr]

As for point 2: that's correct. Absolutely correct. I have always believed that righties (including Libertarians) have a very poor understanding of human nature. They seem to hold the notion that everybody's basically good.

Libertarianism begins with the assumption that everyone will act for himself. There's no assumption that everyone is good -- that's liberalism's game...

The truth is, minimal government interference in the arena of business is directly analogous to anarchy in the sector of law enforcement. In both arenas, you get a few sociopaths who will want to victimize people. I contend that it's the government's responsibility to protect us against those kinds of people, whether in the business realm, or in the realm of street crime...

... except that liberals prefer to punish everyone ahead of time, rather than punish the criminals once they act.

BTW, if it's the government's responsibility to protect everyone against street crime, how do you plan to support half the population as bodyguards?

 

[JB3]

I more readliy concur with the dissenting opinion:
"...every state law prohibiting discrimination is designed to replace prejudice with principle." ~ Justice Stevens
Admirable, IMHO.

Rehnquist's view completely overlooks the fact that discrimination supports a strata of class-hood. And it equates discrimination with "free speech" which it is not. A bigot is free to speak however he wants (short of advocating violence) but to PRACTICE bigotry is another matter. . . not speech.

Yet another case of "judicial activism."

If you think that's judicial activism, you clearly have no idea what the term means.

 

[Kulindahr]

Free speech has nothing to do with it. We have no right to discriminate.

It's in the government's best interest to do the thing that provides greatest benefit to the masses without impinging upon the rights of some.

Let's say they grant the right to discriminate: then, they are obliged to enforce that discrimination, to the detriment of the few, creating second, even third, fourth, etc. classes of citizens.

Let's say they deny the right to discriminate, then, the must defend those who would be discriminated against, and nobody's "rights" would be impinged upon (remember, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects your right to discriminate).

Then, saying that some CAN discriminate, yet others (vital to the public welfare, for instance) may not. Then you add degrees of complexity that, again, require more government and bureaucracy.

With no government involvement, the whole scenario collapses into anarchy.

Government can't grant rights; rights either exist, or they don't.

If there's a "right to discriminate", it doesn't have to be enforced; you just let people do as they please. And if there is a right to discriminate, it is protected in the Constitution: the Constitution protects all rights, not just those enumerated.

And again the emotional appeal against anarchy -- which does not follow, any more than the cries of some in Europe's aristocracy that without a class of nobles America would collapse into anarchy, or of liberals that if any law-abiding citizen who wished could carry a concealed weapon, things would collapse into anarchy.