Rand Paul

[NotThatCreative]

Well, I absolutely love his father, but Rand seems to be a bit of a head case and more in line with the train of thought of the current fringe Tea Baggers.

The tea party movement draws a lot of inspiration from Ron Paul. His son and him have extraordinarily similar views. Read this to learn about about the positions of the man you absolutely love. Here's one where he argues against the Texas v Lawrence decision. He also opposes network neutrality, legal tender, the fed, FEMA, the IRS, and the departments of education, energy, commerce, health and human services, homeland security.

They are both far more libertarian capitalist than mainstream America.

 

[MystikWizard]

The tea party movement draws a lot of inspiration from Ron Paul. His son and him have extraordinarily similar views. Read this to learn about about the positions of the man you absolutely love. Here's one where he argues against the Texas v Lawrence decision. He also opposes network neutrality, legal tender, the fed, FEMA, the IRS, and the departments of education, energy, commerce, health and human services, homeland security.

They are both far more libertarian capitalist than mainstream America.

I never said a lot of his ideas are practical in this day and age, but Ron makes a Hell of a case for each one, which you have to do some deep-diving in.

But make no mistake about it, the original Tea Partiers came from the Ron Paul movement, because I followed his campaign when it initiated the Boston Tea Party Money Bomb .... which was where that thing started.

The racists and illiterate rednecks were not originally part of that movement. After the Ron Paul movement died down, and much like how the Neoconcs came in and hijacked the Republican Party, those types of individuals then adopted the Tea Party movement and hijacked it. The people who supported Ron were vehemently against racism and today's Tea Party absolutely reeks of people motivated by race, who really don't give much thought to the issues.

His father, whether you agree with his views or not, is an honest man, and that is why he appealed to me on the GOP side. It was a refreshing change from the scumbag, lying politicians that normally emanate from that Party.

But today's Tea Party is not what it was when Ron was campaigning ... I can assure you of that.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I never said a lot of his ideas are practical in this day and age, but Ron makes a Hell of a case for each one, which you have to do some deep-diving in.

But make no mistake about it, the original Tea Partiers came from the Ron Paul movement, because I followed his campaign when it initiated the Boston Tea Party Money Bomb .... which was where that thing started.

The racists and illiterate rednecks were not originally part of that movement. After the Ron Paul movement died down, and much like how the Neoconcs came in and hijacked the Republican Party, those types of individuals then adopted the Tea Party movement and hijacked it. The people who supported Ron were vehemently against racism and today's Tea Party absolutely reeks of people motivated by race, who really don't give much thought to the issues.

His father, whether you agree with his views or not, is an honest man, and that is why he appealed to me on the GOP side. It was a refreshing change from the scumbag, lying politicians that normally emanate from that Party.

But today's Tea Party is not what it was when Ron was campaigning ... I can assure you of that.

That being said, how are Ron and Rand all that different?

 

[MisterMajestic]

Rand is very Stupid..You can tell he's not a seasoned politician...Not even Sarah "Idiot" Palin would suggest back-tracking certain parts of the 60's Civil Rights Act..Rand is all over the place and no matter how many interviews he gives he will never be able to clean up his Shit....

Rand should return to his practice and be of service to the community in that form..

 

[Kulindahr]

Then, where do we set the fulcrum to weigh one right against another? Who's "right" takes precedent? The discriminator, or the discriminated? Somebody has to decide.

That's simple: who's asserting ownership of the other person?

If I tell you you can't come into my store, I'm asserting ownership of myself and my store, not of you. If you insist you can come into my store whether I like it or not, you're asserting ownership of myself and my store.

So the one who wants to go where he isn't wanted is the one in the wrong.

Herein, you propose anarchy. Say, you, as a merchant, decide to discriminate against all Hispanics. An Hispanic man comes into your store and wants to buy something. You say no. You both pull out your guns and start blasting away. THAT'S what you propose.

Leave your fantasies at home.

But to deal with your fairyland: if he pulls a gun on my property after being told to depart, I'm entirely justified in using whatever force I prefer to get him off my property, and since he constitutes a lethal threat, I'm perfectly justified in killing him to end the threat.

You're suffering from a delusion that leads to large amounts of crime, the one where kids are taught in school that the fact that others are supposed to share means they can walk off with whatever they please from anyone they please any time they please. That's the recipe for anarchy, because it means that there's no need to respect others at all.

Continuing the scenario above: Whose rights (the merchant, to discriminate, or the customer, to equal protection under the law) prevail? Law enforcement and a judicial system are required to settle this. And they'll require a legislature to design the statutes. And lawyers to argue the cases. . . Follow? Now, unless you say that "business is always right" there's a need for governmental intervention. Even then, somebody has to execute the rules on the behalf of the business. . . unless they're free to act as enforcement, judge and jury. Now you're talking about a slave state.

The case is open and shut: he came on my property. He was asked to leave. He resorted to lethal force. I responded with lethal force. That's one barbarian who will never trouble civilization again.
It has nothing to do with "business", it has to with people. Because a person chooses business as a use of a piece of property doesn't suddenly make him less of a person with reduced rights. You're trying to turn business people into machines who are supposed to do as society demands (or, more properly, the power-hungry bloated parasites who get funded by corporations to run society).

What you're doing, from another angle here, is inventing a right to trespass -- in other words, a right to commit crime. Calling it "equal protection under the law" is white-washing; it's still crime.

 

[Kulindahr]

The government has an obligation to ensure the rights of all its citizens. There are more freedoms than simply freedom from the government. Kulindahr seems to have an entirely negative view of rights. Do you not believe in positive rights?

Rights flow from self-ownership. Whether you want to call them "positive" or "negative" makes no difference.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem with your statement here is the part where I added emphasis. In this country, we do not have that right. States do not have the right to secede and people do not have the right to overthrow the government. We thought we did, but after the War for Confederate Independence that idea was pretty well stomped on. Secession and revolution aren't rights in the USA.

The government does derive its power from the people through the Constitution though, you were right about that.

The right to insurrection stands. It was upheld on the Amistad case, and I've never seen anything where SCOTUS changed that.

Not that changing it would make any difference: it wasn't on the books at the time of the American Revolution, and they exercised it anyway.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think it quite the opposite. He tried to steer the discussion away from the reality of his positions by bringing up Dr. King. The same man who wrote, "An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere."

Dr. King is right. Paul's argument, I think, would be that to require people to allow on their property they do not want there is an injustice. So the law he objects to would constitute an injustice.

 

[poolerboy]

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

I know that it's designed to do just that. No one is arguing otherwise; that was never in dispute.

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.

Do you disagree that neo-nazis have a right in forming groups, clubs and even marching in parades and organizing protests? The first amendment doesn't simply go to speech, but also expression and association. Why would anyone want to even eat at a restaurant that never wanted them there to begin with?

Yet another case of "judicial activism."

LOL!

The phrase "judicial activism" is now so overused that it's thrown around to simply express that you disagree with the outcome of a case.


___

All this debate about whether private businesses should have the sole right to their property brings up an interesting question.

Since many of you believe that private companies exist as charities for you to mine for your personal wants, that they have a duty to serve you against their will, and that you're entitled to someone else's thought and labor then consider the following:

If someone discovers the cure for all cancer should they have a right to set their own price for their discoveries/intellectual property?

Most likely many of you will answer 'no' because the greater good is more important and we need this cure to be accessible to all and therefore have a reasonable price imposed on it.

Interestingly enough, however, you'd be shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. While there are certainly individuals who are driven by selfless compassion toward finding cures, there is no denying that a profit motive incentives people to find and develop cures for many diseases. Indeed, this is why the U.S. is the leading country in so many medical advancements.


The bigger question here is: Does gov't exist to control our property or to protect it?

 

[MercuryJones]

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.

For the sake of discussion, so what?

Is there a good reason to not overturn the first amendment that is not an appeal to emotion?

 

[LonelyInVenice]

That's simple: who's asserting ownership of the other person?

If I tell you you can't come into my store, I'm asserting ownership of myself and my store, not of you. If you insist you can come into my store whether I like it or not, you're asserting ownership of myself and my store.

So the one who wants to go where he isn't wanted is the one in the wrong.

So the right to discriminate trumps all? The fact that I'm an equal citizen and that my money is just as good as the next person's has no weight? How sad for you.

Leave your fantasies at home.

My "fantasies" are simple illustrations to demonstrate how wrong you are.

But to deal with your fairyland: if he pulls a gun on my property after being told to depart, I'm entirely justified in using whatever force I prefer to get him off my property, and since he constitutes a lethal threat, I'm perfectly justified in killing him to end the threat.

And you feel no sense of guilt? Really?

You're suffering from a delusion that leads to large amounts of crime, the one where kids are taught in school that the fact that others are supposed to share means they can walk off with whatever they please from anyone they please any time they please. That's the recipe for anarchy, because it means that there's no need to respect others at all.

Where did I suggest that anyone had the right to steal your products from you? Now who's fantasizing?

The case is open and shut: he came on my property. He was asked to leave. He resorted to lethal force. I responded with lethal force. That's one barbarian who will never trouble civilization again.

"I saw it all happen. . . you pulled the gun to threaten him, and he pulled his to defend himself! He wasn't trying to steal anything, he was trying to buy your product at a fair profit!" (Which IS legal!)

It has nothing to do with "business", it has to with people. Because a person chooses business as a use of a piece of property doesn't suddenly make him less of a person with reduced rights. You're trying to turn business people into machines who are supposed to do as society demands (or, more properly, the power-hungry bloated parasites who get funded by corporations to run society).

Being prevented from discriminating as a business does not prevent the individual owner from their right to be as bigoted as they want (within the law). Your argument here is akin to those who insist that giving gays the right to marry somehow infringes on their right to worship as they please. Your reasoning suggests that the business has the same rights as any individual. Individuals have civil rights. Businesses do not. And an individual who owns a business does not get to extend his civil rights upon that business.

What you're doing, from another angle here, is inventing a right to trespass -- in other words, a right to commit crime. Calling it "equal protection under the law" is white-washing; it's still crime.

I in no way suggested that the business must be subjected to anything illegal. I was not promoting thievery. I was promoting fair trade between two human beings.

It's stunning to me that you seem to hold that opinion without the faintest hint of guilt. That the right to discriminate is more important to you than basic human equality. . . sad.

 

[opinterph]

If someone discovers the cure for all cancer should they have a right to set their own price for their discoveries/intellectual property?

That’s how the system works. If the product were priced so high that most people couldn’t afford it, then sales (and corresponding profits) would be diminished. Even if production of the product is limited to a certain quantity, the “someone” who owns/controls the patent would be wise to determine the optimum price point in order to maximize profit. If for any reason the pricing scheme were grossly disagreeable, the government could impose a special tax on sales revenue from the product and use the funds so generated to offset the effects of its high price.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I know that it's designed to do just that. No one is arguing otherwise; that was never in dispute.


Do you disagree that neo-nazis have a right in forming groups, clubs and even marching in parades and organizing protests? The first amendment doesn't simply go to speech, but also expression and association. Why would anyone want to even eat at a restaurant that never wanted them there to begin with?

Neo-Nazis have every right to express themselves as they see fit. That's the American way, although McCarthey's followers would say otherwise. But what's that got to do with a gay parented family wanting to enjoy a nice meal in your restaurant?

LOL!

The phrase "judicial activism" is now so overused that it's thrown around to simply express that you disagree with the outcome of a case.

Ahah! Something we agree on! However, this is precisely what the expression "judicial activism" was coined to describe. Judges (conservative in this case) who twist laws to fit their political agenda. The goal was to keep "the homos" out of that revered old institution "the Boy Scouts." They couldn't find any legal support for their position, so the subverted years of case law and jurisprudence in order to effect the outcome they desired.

All this debate about whether private businesses should have the sole right to their property brings up an interesting question.

Since many of you believe that private companies exist as charities for you to mine for your personal wants, that they have a duty to serve you against their will, and that you're entitled to someone else's thought and labor then consider the following:

Who the fuck said they expected anything free??? I'm talking about fair-trade between equal human beings! "Charity" has NOTHING to do with the discussion.

If someone discovers the cure for all cancer should they have a right to set their own price for their discoveries/intellectual property?

Most likely many of you will answer 'no' because the greater good is more important and we need this cure to be accessible to all and therefore have a reasonable price imposed on it.

Interestingly enough, however, you'd be shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. While there are certainly individuals who are driven by selfless compassion toward finding cures, there is no denying that a profit motive incentives people to find and develop cures for many diseases. Indeed, this is why the U.S. is the leading country in so many medical advancements.

The "owner" of this intellectual property and resultant product has the right to seek "fair market value" but not to deny anyone the product if they are willing to pay the established price.

The bigger question here is: Does gov't exist to control our property or to protect it?

How about if government exists to protect us all, which includes preventing you from cheating me, at the same time it prevents me from cheating you. Pretty simple, and we don't have to repeal long-established civil rights laws to get there.

 

[poolerboy]

That’s how the system works. If the product were priced so high that most people couldn’t afford it, then sales (and corresponding profits) would be diminished.

We are also talking about medical cures, which tend to be inelastic.

Is there a good reason to not overturn the first amendment that is not an appeal to emotion?

It is rational to expect a society founded on principles of liberty to follow through with the established rights it has bestowed to its citizenry.

The "owner" of this intellectual property and resultant product has the right to seek "fair market value" but not to deny anyone the product if they are willing to pay the established price.

I can, at any time, change my mind about not selling a product if I so choose to. I do not have an obligation to have to sell anyone anything. That is the way it should be with respect to who it wants as customers. By not providing goods or services, said owner is not committing any aggression against others. Rather, he or she is merely exercising his or her right NOT to associate or NOT to contract. By forcing people to associate with, or contract with, persons whom they would otherwise reject, anti-discrimination laws are an attack on life and property. They are a form of coerced association. They give some people uncompensated claims on others. They amount to a form of slavery mediated by the State. Politically correct authoritarians like to hail each new set of anti-discrimination laws as an extension of human rights. Such laws are in fact VIOLATIONS of the only human rights that mean anything.

This topic is getting rather stale.

 

[NotThatCreative]

The right to insurrection stands. It was upheld on the Amistad case, and I've never seen anything where SCOTUS changed that.

Not that changing it would make any difference: it wasn't on the books at the time of the American Revolution, and they exercised it anyway.

We've never had the right to insurrection for as long as we've had the Constitution. One of the enumerated powers of Congress is:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions

Insurrection Act of 1807 (that was modified slightly in 2007 but the modifications were repealed in 2008) says:

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

So we do not have the right to insurrection. The Amistad case had nothing to do with rebellion against the government. It matters because what I was originally responding to was this idea Droid had that:

[the people] have the right to disband and overthrow it when they feel it has overstepped its bounds

and that that's a "basic premise of out nation". We don't have that right, and it's not a basic premise of the country.

 

[MercuryJones]

Government has no legitimate interests, only citizens do.

Permit me to expand: Government has legitimate interests in its service to the people.

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.

Of course slavery is only wrong from that perspective if you consider your slave class equal citizens. As we know, the US didn't, for rather a long time, enjoy that concept. To the contrary, those slaves were property, and to argue that they should be liberated was to argue against private property.

But for the moment, we can table that. What argument do you have for a right to self-ownership that is not an appeal to emotion?

 

[MercuryJones]

The bigger question here is: Does gov't exist to control our property or to protect it?

Neither. It may be said to exist to protect and ensure our rights. The right to property may be one, but it is not the only one.

 

[MercuryJones]

In response to my question "Is there a good reason to not overturn the first amendment that is not an appeal to emotion?":

It is rational to expect a society founded on principles of liberty to follow through with the established rights it has bestowed to its citizenry.

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

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

 

[Kulindahr]

So the right to discriminate trumps all? The fact that I'm an equal citizen and that my money is just as good as the next person's has no weight? How sad for you.

What right to discriminate?
There's a right to do as one wishes with one's property, a right to freedom of association, a right to privacy. There is no right to violate any of those -- but that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do.

My "fantasies" are simple illustrations to demonstrate how wrong you are.

No, they're fantasies born out of a belief that all people are so irrational and evil they'll resort to violence merely because they object to someone exercising his rights. The fact that roughly half of all Americans own firearms and many of them go about armed as a habit shows that to be a fantasy.

And you feel no sense of guilt? Really?

If someone threatens my life and I prevent that, why should I feel guilty?
And if someone threatened the lives of my customers and I prevented that, shouldn't I feel proud?

Anyone who draws a gun on me has declared that he doesn't believe in the right to life, or liberty. That makes him, literally, an outlaw, outside the law, not deserving the protection of the law. He has, in fact, invited me to play by his rules, so if I shoot and kill him, all I've done is accepted his invitation. So by his terms, I played fair, and for society, I've done everyone a favor.

Where did I suggest that anyone had the right to steal your products from you? Now who's fantasizing?

That's the principle you're maintaining, that it's legitimate to make someone else do as you wish with what is his.

"I saw it all happen. . . you pulled the gun to threaten him, and he pulled his to defend himself! He wasn't trying to steal anything, he was trying to buy your product at a fair profit!" (Which IS legal!)

You're confusing legality with rights.
If he's on my property, and I don't want him there, he's stealing just as much as the guy who gets a free bus ride. If you want a different definition of property, we can talk about that -- but if it's private property, it's private property, regardless of whether it's a business, a home, a church, a bath house, a cemetery....

Being prevented from discriminating as a business does not prevent the individual owner from their right to be as bigoted as they want (within the law). Your argument here is akin to those who insist that giving gays the right to marry somehow infringes on their right to worship as they please. Your reasoning suggests that the business has the same rights as any individual. Individuals have civil rights. Businesses do not. And an individual who owns a business does not get to extend his civil rights upon that business.

So by owning a business, someone becomes a second-class citizen. The operation of a business is an extension of the person, if it's a private business. Though your argument could have merit applied to publicly-held corporations, since they have invited all the public to become their owners.

By your argument here, it would be legitimate to have a government censor for media -- the people at the media can hold their opinions, but they don't have to be allowed to print them. And you could license churches -- the people at the church can believe what they want, but they don't have to be allowed to exercise those beliefs.

I in no way suggested that the business must be subjected to anything illegal. I was not promoting thievery. I was promoting fair trade between two human beings.

It's stunning to me that you seem to hold that opinion without the faintest hint of guilt. That the right to discriminate is more important to you than basic human equality. . . sad.

But you aren't talking about "basic human equality" -- you're saying that by virtue of owning a business, some people are second-class citizens.

As I noted before, this is really rooted in the concept of property -- I started a new thread about that.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I can, at any time, change my mind about not selling a product if I so choose to. I do not have an obligation to have to sell anyone anything. That is the way it should be with respect to who it wants as customers. By not providing goods or services, said owner is not committing any aggression against others. Rather, he or she is merely exercising his or her right NOT to associate or NOT to contract. By forcing people to associate with, or contract with, persons whom they would otherwise reject, anti-discrimination laws are an attack on life and property. They are a form of coerced association. They give some people uncompensated claims on others. They amount to a form of slavery mediated by the State. Politically correct authoritarians like to hail each new set of anti-discrimination laws as an extension of human rights. Such laws are in fact VIOLATIONS of the only human rights that mean anything.

This topic is getting rather stale.

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

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?