Day 1, and really?

I thought it was interesting how a Tea Party candidate trounced the Republican last night, even though not as a third party candidate just a more conservative one.

But this I found just crazy, and only on Day 1 he has drawn controversy, and I really don't know what to think about it. I mean when I think about his father I don't think of racism, but his son on the other hand might not be so lucky.

So what do you think?

edit:

Sorry *Rand

Alizee-

United States845 Posts

May 20 2010 03:55 GMT

I don't think you're listening to what he's saying if you find it controversial. He, like his father, support true liberty. That means there are responsibility for your actions, not necessarily in the sense of government and law, but in the sense of community and society. You are free to cuss anyone out you want, but if in the end no one wants to deal with you, hire you, befriend you, that's the responsibility you accept. That's what he's getting at, if a business owner wants to deny people, he'll get a bad reputation, and inevitably go out of business. Some people don't understand true freedom.

Salv

Canada3083 Posts

May 20 2010 03:56 GMT

I fully agree with Rand Paul. It's a private business owners own decision if they didn't want to serve black patrons in their restaurant, or if they did not want to hire black employees for example. I would be against that personally, and I would find it ridiculous, just like Rand Paul is saying, but you cannot in a free society disallow someone's right to be an idiot.

Caller

Poland8075 Posts

May 20 2010 04:00 GMT

just take comfort in the fact that the non-discriminating firms will drive the discriminating ones out of the market

gogo gary becker

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

May 20 2010 04:02 GMT

Those are very good points, and true I guess true freedom is allowing anyone to be an idiot but also be willing to accept the consequences. But wouldn't this view be better, for political purposes, kept to yourself?

pubbanana

United States3063 Posts

May 20 2010 04:08 GMT

On May 20 2010 13:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Those are very good points, and true I guess true freedom is allowing anyone to be an idiot but also be willing to accept the consequences. But wouldn't this view be better, for political purposes, kept to yourself?

Personally, I think other people in his party have said things which would have been much better kept to themselves. To me, this isn't controversial and he's making a fair point.

Boblion

France8043 Posts

May 20 2010 04:09 GMT

What an amazing country. Ethnic quotas in universities but you have the right to not hire people because they have the wrong colour.
Jibba if you read this i need an explanation :p

motbob

United States12546 Posts

May 20 2010 04:09 GMT

Not in this case. Rand Paul is very libertarian, and I give him a lot of credit for letting it be publicly known that his libertarian views extend to issues in which the libertarian view is deeply unpopular.

Salv

Canada3083 Posts

May 20 2010 04:14 GMT

Rand Paul seems 'real' to me, much like his father. I appreciate that both of these politicians lay it out there for every one to see. You truly know what you're getting when voting for a Paul I feel. Ron gained some controversy when the media tried to spin his answers to suggest that terrorists were right to attack the USA. All he was trying to say was that we (USA, I am Canadian

) cannot ignore the reasons that the USA was attacked, and that that ignorance is a problem.

Sadist

United States7219 Posts

May 20 2010 04:14 GMT

#10

ya thats all fine now and the business would fall nowadays. But when you have years of deep seeded racism, allowing stores and businesses to operate this way wouldnt go away. There would still be places in the south where minorities couldnt go and shop or eat. Part of the reason we have government is to protect minority groups in our society.

Mindcrime

United States6899 Posts

May 20 2010 04:25 GMT

#11

On May 20 2010 13:00 Caller wrote:
just take comfort in the fact that the non-discriminating firms will drive the discriminating ones out of the market

gogo gary becker

The South had nearly 100 years with Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation in the public sphere, and permitted it in the private sphere. When were discriminatory firms driven out of the market?

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

May 20 2010 04:26 GMT

#12

On May 20 2010 13:09 Boblion wrote:
What an amazing country. Ethnic quotas in universities but you have the right to not hire people because they have the wrong colour.
Jibba if you read this i need an explanation :p

You don't have that right. AA exists partly as welfare and partly because diversity has an unquantifiable value to organizations. People think it's the politically correct thing to do, but research is showing that it's the beneficial thing to do for the organization. It only becomes an issue in near-equal candidates anyways.

The posts up top about true freedom are laughable, even if they're technically true. Preston Brooks had the freedom to beat Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, just as he had the freedom to restrict the freedom of other human beings. Public policy exists for the good of humanity. Ayn Rand-ish anarchic utopias are bullshit, and anyone who believes in them is retarded.

Things don't gradually improve on their own, and it is possible for a group in power to remain in power. No amount of 'free-ness' can change that. That belief is predicated on the false notion of universal rightness and wrongness, that is, without intervention, the general public will see that racism is wrong and will change their views. It's pretty fucking easy to socialize people to belief that racism is perfectly fine.

Not to mention, it puts faith in a long term solution, which has never been proven to come true, and it should be pretty obvious through reductio ad absurdum why "in the long run..." can be ridiculous. That's why you try to maintain balance. Even the Romans understood that.

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

May 20 2010 04:35 GMT

#13

On May 20 2010 13:25 Mindcrime wrote:

Show nested quote +

Hell, let's forget about racism and make it purely economic. What about sharecropping? How does that cycle end when you prevent government regulations? 2, 3, 7 generations? That's the kind of shit that makes Marxism appealing to idiots like baal.

As for the video, I have no problem with what he said. I think he's hopelessly wrong, just like his father often is, but I respect him for answering that question honestly and partially attempting to avoid "the game." He's still a GOP candidate, however, and he lets conservative social views override his liberalism, so it's not like he's an all-around libertarian champion. I think it's pretty clear for both of them that their religion affects their policy (which is unavoidable.)

What's most amusing is his ability to undermine the Republican party. The old guard, including McConnell is already starting to crumble. If it keeps up, I don't see any way that Obama can lose in two years. It'll be like Clinton in '92.

Vasoline73

United States7801 Posts

May 20 2010 08:59 GMT

#14

On May 20 2010 13:35 Jibba wrote:

Show nested quote +

Hell, let's forget about racism and make it purely economic. What about sharecropping? How does that cycle end when you prevent government regulations? 2, 3, 7 generations? That's the kind of shit that makes Marxism appealing to idiots like baal.

lol nice. Makes me wanna go see what's up at LP

QuanticHawk

United States32051 Posts

May 20 2010 13:45 GMT

#15

i don't have my headphones at work, anyone care to give a quick summary

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

May 20 2010 14:04 GMT

#16

Racism is bad, but the government shouldn't tell businesses who they can serve, therefore he says he wouldn't have supported the Civil Rights Act.

I bet he would've, however. Saying that is one thing, but I think for any of us that abhor racism, if you lived in the 1950s and saw what went on, it would be difficult to direct your moral compass away from it or believe things would get better without the CRA.

Tuneful

United States327 Posts

May 20 2010 16:32 GMT

#17

Well, Ron Paul(his daddy) did have that "Ron Paul Survival Report" publication back in 1996, in which some racist remarks could be found - he later claimed it was ghostwritten, but I still think he's responsible for the content of the report no matter who wrote it.

As for Rand, it's nice to see some kind of bottom-up undermining of established Republicans, especially Mitch McConnell. However, it's replacing one evil with a worse evil, I think.

KOFgokuon

United States14893 Posts

May 21 2010 00:12 GMT

#18

looks like he's already eating his words
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100520/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2171

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

May 21 2010 06:04 GMT

#19

Aha, sorry to all the mavericks out there but it's hard (impossible) to play by your own rules. It's like American History X. You join a side for protection or else Pelosi fucks you in the ass.