Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

DaretothREdux (45.22)

Senate Contender Dr. Rand Paul is a Racist!

Recs

33

May 26, 2010 – Comments (71) | RELATED TICKERS: RA , C , IST

The Statist Media Lies

 

And that’s what the statist media wants you to believe.

 

To be honest this article should’ve come long before now, but I was busy unpacking boxes and only on Monday got the internet installed in my new home! I planned to write a blog about the freedoms we've gain due to the internet, but since thongpatrol suggested I catch up on the “news” on my favorite Senate hopeful Dr. Rand Paul, I discovered it was necessary to write this message after discovering a principled man under attack for being principled, yes I said “principled” (although the statists wish to twist it into racism).

 

An Illustration

 

For the moment let’s completely ignore race (like I’ve done my entire life). Let’s say you own the proverbial “lunch counter,” you are not a racist (you might be but we are gonna pretend for the sake of this story).

 

Alright, so your picturing your little “lunch counter” and everyone is happy. All the patrons (black, white, Mexican, black-whites, white-blacks, Mexican-Indian, Indian Indian, American Indian, Native American, Latino, German, Dutch, French, Swahili…) everyone is getting along beautifully. Until…Daretoth, a notorious trouble maker in town, saunters in through your café swinging doors, spurs clinking, and all goes silent.

 

Now make sure that (in your mind) Daretoth is whatever skin color or race that you are the least prejudice against. If that be your own skin color or race, that’s fine. If it’s another skin color or race (like your wife’s) then that’s fine too.

 

Daretoth has a history in town of coming into places and starting fights. Not physical fights, but political fights! He doesn’t actually beat anyone up or tear up the joint, but he does piss off the majority of your patrons. In fact, every time he shows up about half the people leave the “lunch counter” and you lose a small fortune in that day’s sales.

 

Needless to say, you don’t want to serve Daretoth. You are business man, it’s your property and you have never accepted a single dime of tax payer money. You worked hard, saved and built the place on your own. You created a friendly environment free of political controversy. This is not because you’re an apolitical person yourself, but because running your business in that way has proven to be more profitable. You are after all a private property owner and a business owner and you desire to do what is best for both.

 

So, the question is should you be able to ban Daretoth from your lunch counter?

 

YOU’RE A RACIST!

 

At least, that’s the giant leap of logic that the statist media would have us believe about Dr. Rand Paul. Because someone believes in property rights and believes that a private owner should be allowed to do what he see fit to do with his property, he must be a racist!

 

Now I understand that in 1964 when the civil right legislation was passed the racial tension in this country was far greater than today. I was not alive in 1964, but I watch the old videos of blacks being tear gassed and pressure hosed for protesting in the streets. I, like Dr. Rand Paul, have no issue whatsoever with the first 9 provisions of the bill the media continues to question him about. Anyone who has ever accepted my tax dollars for their school or not-for-profit business or to build a bridge or whatever has no right to discriminate on the basis of anything but merit.

 

But here’s the problem with the 10th provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You can’t ban Daretoth from your proverbial lunch counter if he’s black and you’re not (even if you’re not racist). Your decision might have nothing to do with race. It might purely be a business decision, but we have passed legislation which strips the private business owner of running his business as he chooses.

 

The satirical philosopher Voltaire once said, “I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

 

The great Libertarian doctor Ron Paul once said, “The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

 

My Friends Will Tell You...

 

I am possibly the least racist person you will ever meet. I grew up describing my friends as having “dark hair, dark eyes, and dark skin” because I didn’t understand the concept of “black people” until I was much older, and even then I used it as a convenience of description that I learned from the older kids.

 

I don’t know how many times Dr. Rand Paul will have to tell people that he abhors racism, and would’ve marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. before people will listen to what he is really saying. He is saying the government needs to stay out of private property because it’s a fundamental right laid out in our constitution and that the 10th provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in direct contradiction to the ideas of liberty laid out in the rest of the Constitution.

 

As much as it pains me to say that I support people’s right to be racist, that is precisely the principle on which I stand because if I don’t support your right to make bad decisions or to believe foolish ideas, then neither can I support your right believe in wonderful ideas.

 

This is what Rand Paul is trying to get people to understand. The media just wants a sound bite they can loop over and over again to try to make Rand look like a racist. But the truth is, if Rand or I ever knew of a “lunch counter” owner who refused to serve our black friends, they would never see our white a$$es sitting in one of their stools.

 

Of course, they would never see us using the coercive power of the state to force them to serve our friends either. That’s the price of freedom. People are free to be racist, anti-racist, atheist, Christian, klan members, and book club members. I’ll keep my private ownership rights, and I will boycott and run out of business those stupid enough to be racist.

 

Liberty is not always easy but it’s always right,

Dare

71 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM, carcassgrinder (42.46) wrote:

Totally agree... you know someone is probably the right candidate when all the major media outlets hate him.  And as MSNBC simultaneously jerk themselves off watching the anti-climatic Racheal Maddow interview over and over....they may choose to look around their own workplace.....looks pretty white from my TV screen.

Report this comment
#2) On May 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

carcassgrinder,

looks pretty white from my TV screen.

LOL. I have a theory that it's really the Liberals who are the racists because while they claim to want to help the poor, downtroden "black people" the policies they continually pass only make people more dependant on the government and unwilling to try and make a better life for themselves.

Dare

Report this comment
#3) On May 26, 2010 at 3:48 PM, kdakota630 (99.92) wrote:

DaretothREdux

When I first read the title of this blog I was thinking to myself, "argh, who's the idiot who wrote this?"  But when I read that it was you, I knew there was more to the blog than the title.

Loved the blog, and it's great to have you back.

Report this comment
#4) On May 26, 2010 at 5:57 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

kdakota630,

Thanks! It's great to be back. And the idiot who wrote the title is MSNBSC and Rand's opponent Jack Conway. I just borrowed it to get attention. lol

Dare

Report this comment
#5) On May 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

Alright time to drink! I will check back for comments and recs later.

Dare

Report this comment
#6) On May 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Option1307 (30.69) wrote:

Well thought out, glad you are back Dare!

Report this comment
#7) On May 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM, GenericInvestor (36.48) wrote:

"I have a theory that it's really the Liberals who are the racists because while they claim to want to help the poor, downtroden "black people" the policies they continually pass only make people more dependant on the government and unwilling to try and make a better life for themselves."

The same liberals who love diversity from their gated White community who flee as soon as the neighborhood or school gets a little 'color.' hypocrits.

 

 

Report this comment
#8) On May 26, 2010 at 9:38 PM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

DAre,

you have several major flaws in your argument.  you assume rand is a libertarian.  false.  he follows the low-IQ party line of the republican party.  he is against gay marriage and civil unions.  against abortion and will propose to limit the rights of women.  laughable.  

in addition, he had verbal diarhea to the nth degree where his republican loyalist told him to shut up.  even told him not to go on conservative talk show meet the press.  palin had the same problem, too.  she isn't ready for big time politics.  rand should just work on patients and leave his father's legacy alone.  

How many blacks, native americans, and latinos in the republican party?  i think i can count on one hand.  rand represents the typical south--large pockets of racists.  

 i really think you should shy away from the republican party and pick a true outsider.  mcconnell loves this by the way.  it justifies his pick.   

dare, you forgot to cover his BP faux paus.  he crapped his mouth bad.  just deal with it and admit he screwed up instead of justifying this garbage.  you are truly blind if think he didn't talk on the both sides of his mouth.  he's a joke.  remember, even a bigger idiot (palin) endorsed him.  that's credibility.   Report this comment
#9) On May 26, 2010 at 10:31 PM, 100ozRound (99.72) wrote:

I was wondering where you were - especially with the Rand Paul win and being from Kentucky and all.  Glad to see you back!

Report this comment
#10) On May 26, 2010 at 10:41 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

thongpatrol,

I was not ignoring the BP thing. To be honest I had not caught up on my news that much to know what he said about BP. If I had to guess though it has something to do with the gov't not being involved and the fact that private business should sue the living daylights out of the company until they either file for bankruptcy or never make the same mistake again.

I will look into it later though. And I am telling you that Rand IS a LIBERTARIAN. He at this point has been forced to keep his mouth shut about certain issues....his father is also opposed to abortion as am I. That is one issue that Libertarians are split on. It's a totally different dicussion of right to life vs. right to choose. Depends on which side you fall on. Either way I have no doubt that Rand's opinion is the same as his father's (it's a State legislation issue and falls to the 10th admendment).

I will look into the BP thing. Maybe he did say something stupid. Maybe not. People are not perfect either way and I dont expect Rand to be flawless. But I do expect him to represent me flawlessly, as his father wouldve.

Dare

Report this comment
#11) On May 26, 2010 at 11:09 PM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

so all libertarians are republicans?  why is he on the republican ticket?  why isn't he on the libertarian ticket?  he's not the mavrick they were expecting.  or did he make a deal with the devil?  libertarians are philosophically different than the crap he has pulling for him.   i think the voters of kentucky have no idea who he is or what he stands for.  you have been in his corner much longer than most and have a clue.    did he go thru an identity crisis or realized he had to join the party that created the mess and war to not come off as a hypocrit?  i've heard snipets on his foreign policy and it's different than most conservatives in ky. most kentuckians have a blow them all to hell attitude towards non-christians.  not his policy.  confused....

Report this comment
#12) On May 26, 2010 at 11:51 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

If your property serves the public, then all anti-discriminatory laws should be in effect. Not only that, but businesses must follow rules and regulations, of which, discrimination is but one of them. So this position that Rand Paul has, is utterly ridiculous. Yes, you own your business, and the real estate it's on, but that doesn't mean you can do absolutely anything you want with it. 

Report this comment
#13) On May 27, 2010 at 1:39 AM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

I think a re-reading or first reading of the constitution would be good for you. Private property trumps freedom of speech as well as every other right, except for the right to life. You can do whatever you want with your property. Otherwise where do you draw the line? If I invite some friends over (like I did tonight) then does that make my property to where it "serves the public?" Where do you draw the line? One invite, two, twelve? 

Private property must remain just that, private. Unless I accept tax payers funds in which case I would completely agree with you. Until then I can do whatever I want with my own property and allow whatever speech I choose on my property as long as I don't interfere with the basic rights to life of others (the only right which trumps property rights).

Dare

Report this comment
#14) On May 27, 2010 at 1:45 AM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

thongpatrol,

I have struggled with the same questions myself. Is Rand going to vote the way his father did? Will Rand be as principled a man? I can't say for certain but I can tell you that I have looked (deeply) into his campaign and that I believe he will. Does this mean that Rand doesn't have to play the "politics" game? Of course not. He certainly does. He needs to come down on the side of most Kentuckians on issues like marriage, gitmo, and others. The good news is that most of these issues he belives should be left to the state gov't and that Senators should never have to vote on (the 10th amendment is a big thing both for Ron and Rand), and regardless of what he personally believes (he may himself be a Christian moralist) it will never matter as a Senator because he will vote based on the consitution. 

I may not be able to convince you, but I guess I can only ask you to trust me and that time will tell.

Dare

Report this comment
#15) On May 27, 2010 at 3:19 AM, 1315623493 wrote:

DaretothREdux,

With all due respect, a simple look at the status quo would be good for you. Is a restaurant a business? Yes. Is a bar a business? Yes. The line is drawn at a place of business that serves the public. No restaurant should be able to deny someone the right to eat there just because of race.

Also, where do you draw the line on this "freedom" bit? So you own a house in a nice neighborhood. That neighborhood probably has a homeowners' association requiring mowed lawns, clean drive ways, etc etc, and reprimand or even fine you for not doing so. Aren't they stomping on your "property rights"?

The point is, there are degrees of property rights, which it helps to understand. If you serve the public (i.e. use the legal definition; not the "my friends coming to my house is me serving the public" argument), then the government should enforce laws that protect the public good, which doesn't include discriminating on the basis of race. The reality is, there is not such thing as total freedom, but only degrees of freedom, and the hard-line Libertarians need to realize it and get a grip.

Report this comment
#16) On May 27, 2010 at 7:19 AM, cthomas1017 (30.44) wrote:

Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help...

Report this comment
#17) On May 27, 2010 at 7:24 AM, cthomas1017 (30.44) wrote:

Beta,

Since you care so much about the precise use of language, please allow me to clarify in simple yet precise language.  A restaurant does not serve the public.  It serves its patrons.

Report this comment
#18) On May 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, KurtEng (32.92) wrote:

I think the main point that this whole argument completely ignores is something you mentioned in the post, 'We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights.'

Your argument is something like, 'murder is illegal in public.'  People still retain their rights, even when they step into a business.  You can't legally invite someone into your home and proceed to assault them.  I learned that on the Simpsons.  Christians deserve to be served in every Chinese restaurant in the country.  If a Christian gets kicked out for throwing food everywhere, it's a different matter.  Some people want to put business into some kind of  God-like state, and it's ridiculous.

Report this comment
#19) On May 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM, kdakota630 (99.92) wrote:

KurtEng

I don't think that's the argument that they're trying to make, since murdering someone certainly would infringe on their rights whether done pubicly or privately.

Report this comment
#20) On May 27, 2010 at 11:29 AM, KurtEng (32.92) wrote:

No, it's not the argument they're trying to make, but it is a ramification of the stance that businesses can do whatever they want.  I believe eating at a restaurant, shopping, and renting a place to live fall under the 'pursuit of happiness' umbrella.  Dr. Rand Paul disagrees and believes that certain people don't have the right to eat in all restaurants and can't necessarily rent an apartment if the owner doesn't like Irish people, and it would be fine if Jews aren't allowed in Wal-Mart.  I disagree.  I can't vote in Kentucky so maybe it doesn't matter so much.

Report this comment
#21) On May 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

With all due respect I purchased a house where there were no HOA fees for the very reasons you are talking about. The question could be turned right around on you as well. Where do you draw the line or what is in the best interest of the "public good." Just because I serve the public doesn't remove my private property rights. Because it's my private property, meaning the fruits of my labor and a product of my right to life.

I draw the line pretty clearly at the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my private property. It's a very clear line actually. The fuzzy line is the one that is currently drawn based on an outdated idea which ignores that fact that the majority of business owners want to make money and not go bankrupt and that means serving people of all colors. It's not the government's job to infringe upon the rights of the business owner to "protect" another man's right to eat in his establishment. For the very reason that no one has a right to be on anyone's property unless allowed by the owner.

Dare

Report this comment
#22) On May 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

KurtEng,

You are allowed to pursue happiness until you start to infringe upon the rights of others, specifically the right to life (I can't kill you just because it makes me happy) or the right to property (I can't steal from you or force by government coercion or any type of coercion just because it makes me happy).

The government forcing a business owner to serve "everyone" regardless is infringing upon the right of the business owner to his property. Again I'm not saying that any business should discriminate, I'm simply saying that it's not the government's place to make them stop.

Dare

Report this comment
#23) On May 27, 2010 at 11:40 AM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

or force by government

should read "or forcibly take your property by government...."

Dare

Report this comment
#24) On May 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

To sumarize: I'm not infringing upon your right to eat anywhere you want because there is not such right, anymore than there is a right to the best medical care money can buy or the best car money can buy or the best house money can buy when you don't have the money.

Dare

Report this comment
#25) On May 27, 2010 at 11:52 AM, ETFsRule (99.91) wrote:

"And I am telling you that Rand IS a LIBERTARIAN. He at this point has been forced to keep his mouth shut about certain issues"

Who, exactly, is forcing him to keep his mouth shut? Isn't he in charge of his own life?

Report this comment
#26) On May 27, 2010 at 11:59 AM, 4everlost (40.40) wrote:

I have the right to carry a gun, so I should be able to carry it into any business, right?  The constitution says I can!  The business owner has rights - he can say "No guns in my business!"  It is his right to keep guns off of his property.  Is he discriminating against gun owners?  What if the gun owner was an African-American?  Would it be discriminatory then?

I have a right to walk around with no shirt and no shoes.  Can a business owner put up a sign that says "No shirt - no shoes - no service"?  

I have a right to walk around with no shirt and no shoes carrying a gun and looking at a magazine with pictures of naked people.  Does a business owner have the right to ask me to leave his business if I come in like that?

All that Dr. Rand Paul said was that the 10th provision eliminates the business owner's rights.  And he is right and it is unconstitutional.  He never said that he favors discrimination or racism - it's about the constitution.

If you start talking about degrees of rights then everything becomes arbitrary.  Some gov't official now gets to decide what the degrees are and one day they are going to decide that you don;t have the right to something you deem important because of some characteristic about you.  IMO we need to take that decision making out of the govt's hands.

Report this comment
#27) On May 27, 2010 at 12:15 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

DaReToTh (just what does that mean anyway ...)

It seems evident in his interviews and remarks that Dr. Rand Paul is a Libertarian in the Republican party. Like his father before him. I would proudly cast a vote for him ... 

As for the lunch counter, I liked the patron comment from cthomas1017 - it clearly defines who a customer is of a business.

Rights are poorly understood - and in this case the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness extends to both the business owner and the patron. The business owner makes a choice to have an establishment, i.e. a lunch counter, and does so presumably to make money. The patron goes to the lunch counter to have a meal, and perhaps to enjoy the company of others in the establishment, or the decor, or whatever makes this lunch counter appealing. The lunch counter owner welcomes all who come in to patronize the establishment, and the patrons ... well, we hope they enjoy their time eating there. A troublemaker who drives business out of the lunch counter to make a political statement is not a patron - they are an activist - regardless of the cause. If you're not behaving, the business owner should have the option to require you to leave. If you behave you should have the opportunity to eat, enjoy, pay, and leave. But before the owner can even entertain having customers ... just think how he is over burdened by our ever-expanding government.

The lunch counter business owner is regulated: Must serve water even if the patron orders nothing. Must follow food preparation, storage, cleanliness, and endure health inspections (often fraught with kickbacks). In some places the kind of fat in the fryer, the salt on the table, and many other aspects of the prepared food are regulated or outright banned. There are laws on how long employees can work, how much they need to get paid, what the owner must pay for their social security, medicaid, and may even require (in a large business) other benefits due the employees. There's often city ordinances on hours of operation, sizes and types of signs allowed, whether or not they must participate in warming programs (in cold climates) and so on and so on and so on ... and taxes. The business owner is forced to be a tax collector. And there are permits required. And ... well, I'd run out of room.

The business owner does not have to own a lunch counter - they choose to despite the onerous burdens palced on them by the "Nanny State" with laws from do-gooders and elitists who know so much better how to run a lunch counter from their political perches. Don't bother the owner - he's got enough to do.

From the philosopher Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?"

Known as club sandwich order # nzsvz9

Report this comment
#28) On May 27, 2010 at 12:17 PM, dinodelaurentis (21.61) wrote:

Gosh it all seemed so simple and then we had to figure out what all these words really meant.

Rand Paul is free to say anything he wants and I am free to interpet it. Correct? And you are free to explain what the "meaning of 'is' is to me as much as you want. Until I stop listening. My whole life folks have explained to me what seems very plain on it's face, like being a good person, finding my spirituality, and loving other people. 99% of the time they tell me how wrong I've been because I just didn't understand. And I am very open minded on many things. I do not believe that I understand or know the answers but at over 50 I'm starting to get a glimmer of what the questions might be.

I think Rand has put his foot in his mouth and now is backpedaling as fast as he can so he can get elected. Answering questions in public is such a minefield isn't it? Boy, am I glad that I'm not in the public arena. If only he had not put up his hand and shouted"ME!! ME! I'll do it!!"

LOL!

Report this comment
#29) On May 27, 2010 at 12:29 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

ETFsRule,

You are right. Perhaps "forced" was a poor choice of word on my part. He has kept his mouth shut on certain issues because talking about them will not help him get elected. For example he probably would've never talked about his stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if Jack Conway had not made it an issue. He is being quiet about certain issues because that's the politically saavy thing to do.

Dare

Report this comment
#30) On May 27, 2010 at 12:39 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

dinodelaurentis,

Although your prose above was beautifully written I'm not sure it has much meaning. Are you mocking a man for running for office when his only goal is to actually help people by cutting back on gov't interference in our lives? Yes, how funny that the media machine looks to spin a yarn of lies around an honest man. So funny in fact that it brings me to tears.

Rand is not backpedaling at all. He is going to be elected because he will represent the people of KY both honorably and faithfully by voting the constitution. You are of course free to "interpret it" anyway you see fit. But as the greatest English teacher I ever had once told me "you can't make The Wasteland about a party just because you prefer it that way."

Words do have meanings. Black is not white and Rand is not racist no matter how much you twist what he is saying.

Dare

Report this comment
#31) On May 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, vriguy (70.12) wrote:

I don't know if Rand is a racist or not. I rather doubt that he is.  But both he and you are clearly confusing the issue by talking about property rights when we are dealing with a public accommodation. The restaurant owner is free to bar anyone he likes from his personal property. He is not free to do so from a licensed business he owns that serves the public. That is true whether his business is as a restauranteur, shopkeeper, lawyer, accountant or physician. And, yes, he can bar an individual that is boisterous and has created a nuisance before.

Report this comment
#32) On May 27, 2010 at 12:50 PM, ETFsRule (99.91) wrote:

That's one way to look at it. Or, maybe he's being slowly assimilated into the Republican, Fox News, Tea Party, Sarah Palin machine (they're all the same).

Report this comment
#33) On May 27, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bman409 (< 20) wrote:

Vriguy hit it right on the head in post #31.

 

 You can't operate a publically licensed facility and discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

Don't forget, the law applies to those "all male" country clubs, etc.. I guess Rand Paul thinks the government has no right to enforce gender equality law, either


I think that is the most important and most basic role of government. He's not a racist. He's just wrong about the role of government, in my opinion.

Report this comment
#34) On May 27, 2010 at 1:26 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

Actually, Bman409 I think James Madison hit the nail on the head years ago when he wrote:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

So the question I pose to you is how are you not depriving a business owner of his property rights by forcing him to allow people he doesn't want on his property?

 

Dare

 

Report this comment
#35) On May 27, 2010 at 1:31 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

And in case anyone tries to claim I am "interpreting" James wrongly here is a quote from Federalist Paper #10 (emphasis mine both here and above):

"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties"

Quoter of James Madison,

Dare

 

Report this comment
#36) On May 27, 2010 at 2:19 PM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

DaretothREdux

I think more and more people are raised to feel that the Gov't job is to enfore equality on everyone.  Often these people are eager to claim that nobody should be racist, but when choices are left up to them race is involved in their choosing significant others or where to live. 

I would rather live in a society where racism was out in the open.  I certainly would not visit a white only establishment, but I sure would like to know who goes in and out. 

Report this comment
#37) On May 27, 2010 at 3:07 PM, dinodelaurentis (21.61) wrote:

Dare,

    I did not say he is a racist.

    Mock him? No, others are doing that. Laugh at his discomfort that he created for himself? Well... yes. if i can't get a laugh out of the process what a sad life that is!

    :-D

    He's a big boy and wants to play grownup games. Welcome to the major leagues Mr. Rand.

    Now as to words. Ideas trump words... right? What are his ideas? How will he apply them? I believe that these are legitimate questions that should be asked of anyone running for public office... correct? If not, why not?

     I remember when I considered myself a free citizen in the United States, not a potential felon at any given moment. I have in the past used drugs and alcohol, sometimes in excess. But like many of the words that you have laid to cathode ray tube today, I feel as though the Goverment, My Goverment does not respond or care about me or anyone important to me. And I have felt this way for a long time, maybe 30 years or so. I did not become disaffected overnight, it took lots of lies, broken promises, and hard experience to bring me to that point. When I feel that I have a choice, a proper, real life choice, I vote. Registered till this very day, all proper 'n such. I can vote all the do dah day.

     For all the good it will do me.

    Unless I am one of tens of thousands of votes that get thrown away or discarded.

     I voted for John McCain in South Carolina in the republican primary in 2000. The one where George bush's team spread the rumour (in print) that McCain had sired an illegitimate black child, you know his adopted daughter? McCain told W. to "Stay away from me you son of a b!+@#." What a maverick he was back then, all term limity and stuff. And then came the 2008 elections and he sold his soul for a chance at the Presidency. How sad. BUT... life goes on... right?

     My words to you sir are to not pin your hopes on politicians. Any of them. Obama, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, or Paul. All of them are human and the nature of American politics today is to put up front pieces for a machine. If they were not a bastard before they went into politics, by the time they get elected, they will have made so many deals and comprimises that they become bastards. And so it goes...  

     :-D

    Full Disclosure: I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. No knee pads, kool aid free. I am but a simple Fool, kind sir, feeble of wit and without an lord, blowing this way and that on the winds of Fate...

    Whose Fool are you?

                       Respectfully,

                        Dino D.

Report this comment
#38) On May 27, 2010 at 3:22 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Have you ever considered that countering a baseless insult term meant to demean one's opponents ("racist") with another baseless insult term meant to demean one's opponents ("statist") is a bit ironic? 

Extremists all think alike. Radical Communists. Radical Libertarians. Radical Puritans.  They are all, pretty much, the same people.

 

My views are probably closer to Libertarianism than any other political philosophy, but it's the mob-type idiocy like this that turns me off.  Free markets should be a means to an end.   The most extreme Libertarians (such as yourself) view it as an end in and of itself. There's no real logic behind your thinking.

The reason people should support free markets is because they are more likely to promote meritocracy, innovation, economic efficient, and empower people to pursue their own visions.  When the "free markets" subjugate an entire race of people to secondardy status, they are not "free" in any meaningful sense. 

Rand Paul is not a racist, but his position on the Civil Rights Act of '64 would certainly empower racists. 

Report this comment
#39) On May 27, 2010 at 3:26 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

 cthomas1017,

"Since you care so much about the precise use of language, please allow me to clarify in simple yet precise language.  A restaurant does not serve the public.  It serves its patrons."

God, is it really that hard to understand? A restaurant is a public place. Can you walk around naked in your own home? Yes. Can you walk around naked in a restaurant? No. Why? Because YOU'RE IN A PUBLIC PLACE!! Therefore, public laws and ordinances, apply. I'm sure you don't even appreciate the public health inspector that ensures the places you eat are at the very least sanitary. Those evil communist public health inspectors!

Report this comment
#40) On May 27, 2010 at 3:36 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

DaretothREdux,

With all due respect I purchased a house where there were no HOA fees for the very reasons you are talking about. The question could be turned right around on you as well. Where do you draw the line or what is in the best interest of the "public good." Just because I serve the public doesn't remove my private property rights. Because it's my private property, meaning the fruits of my labor and a product of my right to life.

I already told you where I draw the line. I also told you there are degrees of property rights. Did you understand these points when I made them? If you own a restaurant, then yes, you do get most of the profit for yourself. But does that mean you can harm the public good by discriminating based on race, or, serving spoiled food, or, allowing poisonous cigarette smoking? No. You serve the public as a restaurant, so therefore, you should abide by justified laws protecting the public against you. Just because you own something doesn't mean you can trample on other people's rights (i.e. deny a black man from ordering a sandwich).

I draw the line pretty clearly at the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my private property. It's a very clear line actually. The fuzzy line is the one that is currently drawn based on an outdated idea which ignores that fact that the majority of business owners want to make money and not go bankrupt and that means serving people of all colors. It's not the government's job to infringe upon the rights of the business owner to "protect" another man's right to eat in his establishment. For the very reason that no one has a right to be on anyone's property unless allowed by the owner. 

The line is already drawn, don't you see? There are health codes, anti-discriminatory laws, etc. You and Rand Paul have absolutely nothing to complain about. Free enterprise is still the dominant force even with all the rules and regulations. 

Just because you own property doesn't mean you can do absolutely whatever you want with it. 

Report this comment
#41) On May 27, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Bludgeoner (98.38) wrote:

This post sorta became like a sh*t slinging contest at the monkey exhibit at the zoo....no one really wins....

Report this comment
#42) On May 28, 2010 at 8:00 AM, dinodelaurentis (21.61) wrote:

Hmmmm... ran Dare off of his own post eh? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Not answering does save him the awkward trouble of parsing all these arguments he wanted to start.

Words. So troublesome.

Personally I think debate and discussion are great. It's not that the media asks too many questions, it's that they don't ask enough!

Report this comment
#43) On May 28, 2010 at 8:26 AM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

people crack me up when they quote something from 200+ years ago and still thinks it applies to today.  and those same folks take a certain passage and misintrepet it to the nth degree.  many folks do that to the bible, too.  creates wars, justifies murder, and certain unholy acts.  

rand is a republican, not a libertarian.  he made a deal with the devil.  tell what his differences are with the republican party that makes his unique?  be interesting to see how he runs an entitlement state versus his father's rich oil state.  hmmm, i wonder which one has the advantage?   why didn't rand run as a libertarian?  did he compromise his politics to get elected?   if so, look for another fool to vote for.  he is just like every other carbon blob.  

Report this comment
#44) On May 28, 2010 at 9:57 AM, ETFsRule (99.91) wrote:

"God, is it really that hard to understand? A restaurant is a public place. Can you walk around naked in your own home? Yes. Can you walk around naked in a restaurant? No. Why? Because YOU'RE IN A PUBLIC PLACE!! Therefore, public laws and ordinances, apply."

I'm on your side but I don't think this is the greatest example, because the nudity thing is really up to the owner of the business. There are some restaurants when you CAN walk around naked.

But, things like anti-discrimination laws, health inspections, etc, obviously should be in the hands of the state.

And regarding the BP oil spill, it is a perfect example of how the Libertarian idea of justice simply does not work. They think tort law is a perfect solution to everything: when a corporation does something wrong, people can sue for damages, problem solved, case closed.

Obviously that isn't the case. No matter how much money you sue BP for, it won't fix the environmental damage, nor will it bring back the lives of the workers killed in the accident. That's why government regulation is the only possible solution to these types of problems.

Report this comment
#45) On May 28, 2010 at 10:45 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

"But, things like anti-discrimination laws, health inspections, etc, obviously should be in the hands of the state."

It's not so obvious to me :-)

I look to AAA for hotel ratings as well as online ratings from people who've stayed there before. Not some government hotel rating agency.

I look to Consumer Reports, JD Power, Polk, Kelly Blue Book when deciding which vehicle to buy. Not some government agency.

Do you trust a product certified by Underwriter's Laboratory?

Serious lapses in regulation oversight and enforcement, as well as allegations of being asleep at the wheel, taking bribes and generally just watching porn on the government dime really make me think that the government does a terrible job of this and other tasks, like inspecting oil rigs.

Not so obvious.

Known as regulator serial number nzsvz9

Report this comment
#46) On May 28, 2010 at 12:01 PM, ETFsRule (99.91) wrote:

"Serious lapses in regulation oversight and enforcement..."

Overall do you think we would be better or worse off, if there were no government regulators at all? Oh, I know, we should just depend on private regulators... because they are obviously immune to bribery or incompetence. Riiiiiight.

"I look to AAA for hotel ratings as well as online ratings from people who've stayed there before. Not some government hotel rating agency.

I look to Consumer Reports, JD Power, Polk, Kelly Blue Book when deciding which vehicle to buy. Not some government agency."

That's interesting, because each of those reviewers depends on government studies to evaluate the safety of those cars, or those hotels :-)

By the way, which private company do you trust to evaluate the safety of an oil rig?

Report this comment
#47) On May 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

No government study evaluates hotels or cars (unless the stimulus plan included some - what no money for oil drilling inspections?) - they regulate (i.e. dictate) what must be accomplished and reviews the testing of the "private" businesses (i.e. government does not do rollover tests - the manufacturers do, as do insurance agencies, and dateline NBC - although they add rocket engines to make them blow up spectacularly). The government regulates gas mileage, emissions, vehicle classifications, and lots more. But there is no governmnet lab rolling vehicle over - or smashing them. They do not test, rather they pontificate and excoriate, and wash their hands of the whole oil-soaked mess - like Pontius Pilate.

I know of no self-regulation body for the oil and gas industry, partially I suspect since they are so regulated already. There could be place for a self-regulating industry watchdog but a lot of reform would be needed. Government entanglements would need to be removed. Insurance coverage would need to be in place for disasters and subsequent clean up, reparations, and damages. The regulation would directly affect the long-term viability of the company since errors would lead to losses - which can kill a business - so self-regulation would not only protect the affected population but the business as well.

As we've heard from Toyota in their recent problem with the iconic Prius (where they were able to hide problems from the government) to the government (even the Obama) have admitted that BP and its partners have the equipment, assets, and knowledge to deal with this disaster best - and all this political talk from Washington is a lot of hot air - as usual. Here's enough hot air to heat your home next winter:

http://www.youtube.com/v/2rT7IANtSjo&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true">http://www.youtube.com/v/2rT7IANtSjo&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360">

So ... sorry, I'd rather trust a businessman than a Socialist. At least the businessman is trying to wrest my money through trade than at the end of a gun. Obama deployed ships and booms huh? What a load. And you want sheepish bureaucrats to run this stuff?

Known as laughing at regulators nzsvz9

Report this comment
#48) On May 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

you crack me up.  you just justified the need for government intervention and socialism.  cudos.  big business has never been a friend to the average joey bag of donuts.  obama didn't take control of the mess because he wants bp to be the fall guy.  besides, we (USA) does not have the capability to control an environmental disaster.  they have deeper pockets than us at the moment.  it's all about liability.  any average lawyer will tell you that.  good politics IMO.  

Report this comment
#49) On May 28, 2010 at 10:42 PM, ETFsRule (99.91) wrote:

Let me see if I understand this...

1. You admit that Toyota intentionally hid their problems from the government to avoid liability...

2. And your solution is to get rid of the government inspectors...

3. Because (here comes the punch line)... we can trust private businesses to "self-regulate"

Yeah that makes perfect sense.

I wonder, have you ever worked in industry? Do you know anything at all about the industrial revolution?

Or, how about when companies, including GE, dumped PCB's and heavy metals into the Hudson River for decades, until the government stopped them?

How about when Dow Chemical tried to deny responsibility for exposing their workers to carcinogenic dioxins, until the government got involved?

I love it when people can't take the time to get their facts straight, and instead they allow their rabid anti-government attitudes to come up with solutions as asinine as "self-regulation". Good job, sir.

Report this comment
#50) On May 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

i'm sure you are aware by now rand's rant about repealing the 14th amendment.  nice.  i think rand is definitely the wrong guy for a progressive and diverse society.  i thought he was a constitution lover?  he and sarah palin have so much in common (low political IQ's).  jack conway and mitch mcconnell are licking their chops at this political nightmare. 

Report this comment
#51) On May 29, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Cubbob (< 20) wrote:

Rand Paul is not a racist.  This is the card all Liberals play when trying to get a strong non-Democrat candidates beat.  The recent elections in Mass, N.J., Ken, and other places are very clearly showing that the majority of Americans are fed up with the liberal politics of tax and give away.  This redistributin of wealth is wrong and the majority of Americans will vote out current elected officials that support these socialist policies.  What is your opinion on that?  Are you for more taxation or not?  Do you agree that when you invest your already heavily taxed income that you should pay more taxes because you invest it wisely versus spending it?  As far as abortion goes, i am pro-life and I can tell you my two adopted children are being raised to appreciate hier birth mothers who gave them the opportunity to live.  In your opinion this makes me a an uneducated conservative because i believe all lives have value.

Report this comment
#52) On May 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM, whereaminow (91.11) wrote:

Interesting read. I am amused. Few people here seem to get it.

1. The ACLU, a premier Liberal organization, has repeatedly extended protection to racists, whether it is Nazi marches or someone banning people from their homes on the basis of color.  The ACLU, a top donor to Liberal causes and the Democratic party, is a supporter of your right to discriminate on your property.  Just like Rand Paul.

2. The difference occurs when that right is extended to private businesses, which Liberals do not believe belong to the owners of those businesses, but rather to the public-at-large.

As you can see, this is not an issue about race at all. It's an issue about property, particularly business property.

3.  The original intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to check government, not private business.  You see, Liberals of those days were not as brainwashed as most young Liberals today.  They knew that it was government laws that were doing the discriminating and not private citizens en masse.  Anyone with half a brain knows that few people vote, few people concern themselves with the law, and there are very few laws that have majority support from the start.  Laws come first.  Support comes later, if ever at all.  Anyone wishing to contest this assertion should pick up a book by Chomsky, Vidal, or Zinn - all Liberals - from whom I learned this concept.

4. Most Liberals today (well, most everyone) believes that private businesses can survive just fine being racist and discriminatory.  Let me ask you, if that is the case, why did the South need to pass any discrimination laws?  Seems like a big old waste of time doesn't it?  If anything, since discrimination was so rampant among businesses in the South, as we are told, there should have been no need whatsoever to protect these thriving and prosperous businesses.  Of course, that's silly.  The truth is that a company or business that intentionally limits its customer base can never compete with a company that does not.  And that is why these savvy businessmen and politicians got together and passed discrimination laws.  

Pretty sad that I have to teach Liberals about Liberalism.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#53) On May 29, 2010 at 11:53 AM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

thongpatrol,

I am not even a little shocked at his suggestion of repealing the 14th. Perhaps before you continue to throw someone in with the likes of Palin and insult his ability to learn (which is what IQ measures by the way...), you should do a little learning yourself:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html

You might find a little history that your didn't know when you read that article. Just because something is a part of the constitution doesn't mean it should be. In fact it could be in direct conflict with another amendment (like the 10th for example...) and at that point should be re-examined and determined if it should be there at all.

Perhaps any amendment ratified without the consent all the southern states should be voted on again, no?

Dare

Report this comment
#54) On May 29, 2010 at 12:03 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

Cubbob,

I am a little confused on who your comment is for? If it is for the writer of the original post, know well that he agrees with you wholeheartedly. You did read the post and not just the title, right?

Dare

Report this comment
#55) On May 29, 2010 at 12:03 PM, whereaminow (91.11) wrote:

This article here is fantastic. Not only does it refute the Establishment worshipping nonsense of the modern Liberal, but it teaches you the difference between a real Liberal and an Establishment Liberal. 

Now, you might be asking the obvious question: Why don't liberals apply the freedom to discriminate that they support for private homeowners to private business owners, as libertarians do? After all, on the face of it this inconsistency doesn't make much sense.

Liberals would respond by saying that businesses are different because they're open to "the public." But isn't that really a distinction without a difference? After all, what's the difference, in principle, between a homeowner inviting the public (minus blacks and Jews) to his Friday night parties and a businessman who invites the public (minus blacks and Jews) to purchase his goods?

Why were liberals so intent on forced integration of private businesses? What was the real reason they refused to extend their principle of freedom of association and freedom of speech with respect to homeowners and Nazi demonstrators to private business owners?

After all, hardly anyone today questions whether segregation laws and laws that impeded voting rights for blacks were morally wrong. All that needed to be done was to repeal those laws, prohibiting government from discriminating and leaving homeowners, business owners, and other private people (e.g., Nazi sympathizers) free to discriminate on any basis they chose.

Here's Greenwald's excellent defense of the Pauls. (Glenn Greenwald, btw, is a Liberal... a real Liberal... a thoughtful one.)

Who are the real "Crazies" in our political culture?

This behavior is partially driven by the adolescent/high-school version of authoritarianism (anyone who deviates from the popular cliques -- standard Democrats and Republicans -- is a fringe loser who must be castigated by all those who wish to be perceived as normal), and is partially driven by the desire to preserve the power of the two political parties to monopolize all political debates and define the exclusive venues for Sanity and Mainstream Acceptability.  But regardless of what drives this behavior, it's irrational and nonsensical in the extreme.

I could not have described Establishment Liberals any better.  Adolescent view of authoritarianism.... perfect.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#56) On May 29, 2010 at 12:07 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

David,

I was wondering when you were going to chime in! I figured you had just been busy. The liberals certainly are a strange lot these days, that's for sure. It was after all them that coined the phrase "fight the power" was it not? And that power was....

The government!

Dare

Report this comment
#57) On May 29, 2010 at 12:13 PM, whereaminow (91.11) wrote:

Dare,

Hey buddy, I'm just finishing up vacation.  I only caught a bit of the Paul-Maddow exchange, but I have to say it reminded me of the Guiliani-Ron Paul exchange from the debate.  The Statist NeoCons over at RedState nearly had an orgy of joy over that one, but then a funny thing happened....  People read about it, listened, and found out that Ron Paul was right and Guiliani was full of baloney.... and that was the end of that.

Same thing will happen with the Loony Left on this one.  And come November, Rand Paul will crush all comers.  And I guarantee the Democrat explanation will be that all Kentuckians, by golly, must be racist too.

So predicatable it's kinda pathetic.  

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#58) On May 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, 100ozRound (99.72) wrote:

This whole thing has nothing to do with race yet people seem to want to drag it out.  The point is, private business own their property because of the labor involved in producing it.

"If man acquires rights over things, it is because he is at once active, intelligent and free; by his activity he spreads over external nature; by his intelligence he governs it, and bends it to his use; by his liberty, he establishes between himself and it the relation of cause and effect and makes it his own…"

"Property, made manifest by labor, participates in the rights of the person whose emanation it is; like him, it is inviolable so long as it does not extend so far as to come into collision with another right; like him, it is individual, because it has origin in the independence of the individual, and because, when several persons have cooperated in its formation, the latest possessor has purchased with a value, the fruit of his personal labor, the work of all the fellow-laborers who have preceded him: this is what is usually the case with manufactured articles. When property has passed, by sale or by inheritance, from one hand to another, its conditions have not changed; it is still the fruit of human liberty manifested by labor, and the holder has the rights as the producer who took possession of it by right."

The government has no say so with what or with whom anyone may exchange that labor.

Flip this around; if you follow it through to its logical conclusion, once a government decides how any private business should exchange its labor, it can exert eminent domain over that business to enforce public policy, and that business will no longer be private.

Murray Rothbard does a great job explaining personal property and exchange rights here in chapter 2. 

Report this comment
#59) On May 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Cubbob (< 20) wrote:

Dare - I did read the article.  My comments were intended for Thong Patrol.

Report this comment
#60) On May 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 100ozRound (99.72) wrote:

Oops - I failed to properly cite the reference that I quoted.  It is from:

Leon Wolowski and Emile Levasseur, “Property,” in Lalor’s Cyclopedia of Political Science. . . (Chicago: M. B. Cary & Co., 1884), Ill, pp. 392–93.

Also on pages 35 through 37 in the link from my previous post.

Report this comment
#61) On May 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM, topsecret10 (< 20) wrote:

  The biggest racist/ narcissist In the country sits In the white house ...  his name Is Obama....    ONE BIG A$$ MISTAKE AMERICA....   TS

Report this comment
#62) On May 29, 2010 at 5:10 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

Cubbob,

I apologized then. I did not intend to get so defensive, but I have had people do that very thing to me in the past. Thanks very much for reading and commenting!

Dare

Report this comment
#63) On May 29, 2010 at 7:06 PM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

a lot of kentuckenians are racist.  Most traditional red states are.  duh.  probably not u but come on.  i just can't figure out why people are still upset that the republicans screwed up this entire country and can't get over it. where were you 5-6 years ago when aspects of the constitution were torn apart, or where were you when big banks lobbied the SEC in 2004 to take on more bad debt on their balance sheets?  War? tax cuts to the multi-millionaires? reduced environmental compliance?  where were you?  now you all are mad over a fix of the republicans mess.  bailouts were enacted by the republican president, senate, and congress.  cracks me up.  you cry socialism but where were you during the worst presidentancy of our country's history?   any intellectuals in the tea bag party?  (remember the funny sexual reference to this name)

Report this comment
#64) On May 29, 2010 at 8:19 PM, whereaminow (91.11) wrote:

thongpatrol,

Dare and I were fighting Bush the whole way.  That's where we were.  Problem is, we didn't stop fighting just because our guy got into power.  Obama is Bush III and your apathy is regrettable.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#65) On May 29, 2010 at 8:23 PM, whereaminow (91.11) wrote:

See here

I Know Where I Was The Last Eight Years

"Where were you the last eight years when Bush was wasting billions, starting wars, and taking away our liberties?"

Right beside you, my friend, fighting him every step of the way.  I kept fighting because I knew the fight didn't end at the ballot box.  I kept fighting for you because I thought you were fighting for me.  I thought we were brothers and sisters in this war.  It turns out, you were fighting for yourself.  Now that the election is over, you've got your little piece of the pie (and what a tiny little crumb it is!) Now you're happy and content.  Suddenly I'm your enemy because I think the fight isn't over. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is, it seems to be you that is new to the Fight, not us. Particularly considering your childish mentality concerning the Tea Party and your ignorance of the Libertarian fight against Bush for 8 years.  

You have some learning to do.  I think you should you check it out.  It will keep you from sounding like an idiot.

David in Liberty

 

 

Report this comment
#66) On May 29, 2010 at 11:37 PM, whereaminow (91.11) wrote:

"We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." --Bastiat

It's sad that Bastiat knew all this 150 years ago and today so many people are clueless.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#67) On May 30, 2010 at 12:04 AM, catoismymotor (78.36) wrote:

Dare, thank you for the blog. It has spawned some good debates and insights.

 

David, amen to #65 & #66. Thank you for quoting Bastiat. His work and wisdom are not as well known as they should be.

 

The Law by Frederic Bastiat in pdf.

 

Report this comment
#68) On May 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

Cato,

Thanks! Always a pleasure to have you join in on my blog. :)

Dare

Report this comment
#69) On May 30, 2010 at 1:40 PM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

foolish ones.  why are you still with the same party you were trying to fight?  how long has this fight been going on?  since Nixon?  or Johnson?  is that irony or what.  it's very obvious the republicans do not meet your standards.  what i find even funnier, is most of the low IQ republicans think obama is a socialist.  the head of socialist party claims palin is true socialist.  he says obama is not even close.  do some research on this.  please. 

if you are against socialism, please ax these socialist programs:  DOD, education, roads/highways, social security, medicaid/medicare, fire, and police.  i'm sure i missed at least 20 others that people are dependent on.   how many of your relatives rely on these services and would tell you that it is un-american to cut these services?  these are socialist programs no matter how justified they are.  

Report this comment
#70) On May 30, 2010 at 10:48 PM, DaretothREdux (45.22) wrote:

thongpatrol,

I would axe every single program you mention without hesitation and hand it over to private industry, but the unfortunate reality is that too many people have become dependant on government for their very survival...so I would probably have to slowly eliminate them.

Dare

P.S. I have never voted for a Republican in a presidential election, so dont try and throw me in with that lot.

Report this comment
#71) On June 01, 2010 at 7:49 AM, whereaminow (91.11) wrote:

Lew Rockwell crushes this nonsense.

But do we dare let property owners make such decisions by themselves? From a historical point of view, the injustice against blacks was perpetrated mostly by governments. Private business does not go in for race-based policies, because it means excluding paying customers.

And this is precisely why racialists, nationalists, and hard-core bigots have always opposed liberal capitalism: it includes and excludes based on the cash nexus and without regard to features that collectivists of all sorts regard as important. In the imagined utopias of the national socialists, the champions of commerce are hanged from lampposts as race traitors and enemies of the nation

David in Qatar

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement