Rand Paul seemingly opposed to parts of the Civil Rights Act?

[Kuya]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/201005...s/ynews_pl2154

Tea party candidate Rand Paul won Kentucky's GOP Senate nomination in part by bucking the establishment, but could his unconventional beliefs hurt him in the general election?

Paul is under fire today for saying Wednesday, first in an interview with National Public Radio and then to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that he opposes part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race," Paul told Maddow, saying discrimination and segregation were a "stain on our history."

But he said he doesn't agree with a provision in the bill that makes it a crime for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race

LATE UPDATE: Paul has now reversed himself and says he does support the Civil Rights Act.

It would appear that his libertarian views inform him that government shouldn't impose itself on the private sector even if it means allowing the private sector to refuse people over things such as race, gender or sexuality. Some people are using this to say he is racist, but i think the bigger issue is his ideology, libertarianism. It seems to me that libertarianism is prone to impose ideology over reality even at the expense of people.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

lolbertarians

[Yabby]

I think it took him 2 days before he just gave up on avoiding the question about voting for the bill back in the 60's and just said yes. He knew the media would keep ramming that question up his ass till he said yes or no lol.

[Kuya]

I saw him in that Rachel Maddow segment, he was quite uncomfortable.

[Zoolander]

Free market baby! Libertarianism ideology through and through, he is just trying to hide one of the crazy parts of it. There are plenty of other aspects of libertarianism that would drive both sides of the spectrum kind of crazy. I can't imagine the blindly pro-America conservatives would really buy in to shutting down our empire and greatly reducing our military strength (even though their alleged ideology says they should support that - these are ppl living their lives by a code of hypocrisy).

I really wish they weren't so obsessed with the free market, I like a lot of their social stances and other platforms...not the hardcore deregulation though (which is really what this is about, not a social issue).

[Cadsuane]

What fucking social stances? You can't have a position on a social issue if you believe that some magical freedom fairy is going to make everything better as soon as federal and state government is reduced to impotence.

[Kuya]

*Invisible Hand

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Trying to comprehend the lolbertarian state of mind that that the country won't turn into a Wal-Mart on Black Friday once all the rules and regulations are taken away is a fun way to kill time.

[Kuya]

The arguments are pretty annoying because they often rely on the fact that they might be plausible but only if you actually test it out, but nobody sane enough is actually going to test out ideas so extreme and potentially damaging. They force you to find empirical information to shut them up, which is often a waste of time. Very similar to anarchists.

[Zoolander]

The arguments are pretty annoying because they often rely on the fact that they might be plausible but only if you actually test it out, but nobody sane enough is actually going to test out ideas so extreme and potentially damaging. They force you to find empirical information to shut them up, which is often a waste of time. Very similar to anarchists.

I never really understood why the late 19th and early 20th century wasn't a good enough case study for them.

They kind of remind me of the true (Marxist) communists. No room for compromise, the ideology is manifested in every single policy and facet of life. At the very least I tend to respect the hardcore ones for sticking to their ideology in all areas of life (which is far more than I can say for other American conservatives)...too bad the invisible hand is a fallacy.

[Gryffes]

He doesn't believe government can dictate to business - and that if a company wants to be racist it's abhorrent but it can be and it will be economically punished and unviable.

While it's a fair point of view unfortunately it makes you easy to attack as racist.

[test123]

Is it a crime yet for a slut to refuse to sleep with a black man even tho she'd sleep with any white man?

[Drex]

And a daydreaming idiot if he thinks his business "ideals" would be upheld by even half the companies in the country under legal discrimination. His idea of how the country would work without the civil rights act is not at all grounded in reality.

[Beckwin]

It's not really a fair point of view. This is the sort of color-blind implied racism that works its way into a lot of conservative legislation (hi2u AZ bill that removed the word "race" and now pretends that profiling won't happen). It's especially rampant in libertarianism and I've been saying for a long time now that libertarianism (and capitalism) is pretty damn racist in nature.

Considering the ridiculous wealth disparity not only among classes but among race (as discussed in that other topic), pretending that markets would punish racists is laughable- there is too much wealth concentrated among the dominant race for there to be much in the way of serious repercussions for the few businesses that would pursue blatantly racist policies (and the more subtly racist policies wouldn't get enough attention for any mass movements to punish a business).

[test123]

If a porn producer refuses a black porn actress a job because none of his female actresses does not want to have sex with non-white people. Can he go to jail for that?

[Falcon]

The Free Market will handle Rand Paul's stances.

[Day]

ya'll niggaz postin in a kuya lolitical thread

[Cadsuane]

He doesn't believe government can dictate to business - and that if a company wants to be racist it's abhorrent but it can be and it will be economically punished and unviable.

While it's a fair point of view unfortunately it makes you easy to attack as racist.

If rights aren't guaranteed by some body or process then you do not have them, and the only rights that libertarians are interested in protecting are property rights. So yeah, it's a fair point if you're okay with the destruction of civil rights, which might not make anyone a racist but it does make you a throwback.

So what do libertarians suggest? Apparently, the truly hardcore libertarian prophets like Murray Rothbard talk about the necessity of segregation and the establishment of ethno-centric states to prevent racial tensions and inequality from happening, and about how those damn dirty niggers and spics are obviously worse off than their white counterparts statistically because of some racial proclivity towards stupidity, which is obviously the only possible explanation if the only economic argument up your sleeve is invisible hand this invisible hand that.

[Kuya]

Is it a crime yet for a slut to refuse to sleep with a black man even tho she'd sleep with any white man?

If a porn producer refuses a black porn actress a job because none of his female actresses does not want to have sex with non-white people. Can he go to jail for that?

Trying very hard here, buddy.

[Plow]

I never really understood why the late 19th and early 20th century wasn't a good enough case study for them.

They kind of remind me of the true (Marxist) communists. No room for compromise, the ideology is manifested in every single policy and facet of life.

Good thing we don't know anyone around here like that.


You know, those that wouldn't be happy if we cut military spending, instituted universal health insurance, dramatically increased education spending and public works to increase employment, cut taxes on the bottom 80% to basically 0, shouldered the majority of the burden on the rich, etc.

The kind that look at a scenario like that and go "wtf nobody deserves to be richer than me!"


Those people would get annoying as fuck.