Rand Paul, racist and tea party supporter, has mysteriously changed his position on

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7960
  • Start date Start date
no it's not. it may *allow*for* racism to enter the picture, but pro-private property rights are not racist.
 
oh, and as an example of what I said above................an ice cream shop in my town had beautiful floor installed over the winter. no idea what the guy was thinking, because after the first night of baseball, kids with cleats fucked it up pretty bad.

so he put up a big "NO CLEATS!" sign.

so a friend of mine lost his mind, and went on a rant about how he should open an ice cream shop next door and name it CLEATS ALLOWED, and encourage kids with cleats to come get ice cream there.

..............after a lot of discussion, he and a friend of his did it. they didn't name it that, but there's a BIG sign in the window that says "CLEATS WELCOME!!" you want to take bets on how long it takes the other place to change their policy, or go out of business?





replace cleats with "blacks" and there's why Paul's policy is the right one.
 
Private clubs engage in commerce.

The reality of the matter is that most people like being around their 'likes.' A large portion of blacks associate with blacks, whites associate with whites, Germans with Germans, Spanish with Spanish, Korean with Korean, etc, etc, etc.

It is only through trade, commerce, and the markets that individuals interact with 'unlikes' on a consistent basis. Free markets, regardless of what any stupid fucking law says, integrate society and bring people closer together. It is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation - the absence of any form of forced integration - which makes peaceful relationships - free trade- between ethnically, religiously, linguistically, racially, or culturally distinct people possible.
 
pro private property rights is the same as being racist

if those pro private property rights allow discrimination
 
Equality

Smoking bans I'll give you but I feel there is some merit to banning it in terms of providing a safe working environment for your employees. But lets not go there right now, it will change the conversation.
 
those are letegious issues that are being waged now, no doubt way late in the American experiment that says "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

the way recognition victories have been accomplished in America is best described as piece meal. becoming recognized at citizens deserving of the right of an american has proven to be lengthy process.
 
I don't want blond anchorwomen or mustached men in my shop.

i'm being discriminatory...........am I being racist?
 
because any imposition on freedom must be active; not passive. ie. Not giving some object or service to someone can never take away someones freedom, while actively forcing someone to take a punch in the face, or to give you money, does take away their freedom. Freedom IS basically the ability to be left alone, and the ability to make voluntary contracts (which stems from the ability to be left alone).

So, you are free to services which business provides only in the case where the business owner and you are in agreement (all contracts must be voluntary). Freedom is not things that make you feel good (an equal and harmonious society, everyone being educated, everyone being healthy and living forever), in my mind its associated with having a true ability to be alone/introspective and act/think without external influence. This isn't the easiest thing to do, but it's a two way thing: the owner of a business and the patron both have their freedoms.
 
@ libertarian idealism

I understand that he doesn't want to force private business to do anything, but guess what, thanks to the civil rights act we live in a far better and superior society.
 
it is mine, too.

but that's not the issue. the is whether the govt should be able to tell a business owner who he can service, and I disagree with the govt doing that.
 
BET is racist. I don't see any other races on their channel. They get away with it too. On national TV.
 
it is also wrong to deny someone who is qualified for a job because he is the wrong race and wont help fill a quota
 
There are exceptions like if someone is acting belligerent, drunk, disorderly, etc. that is good cause. Excluding someone just because of the way they look is unacceptable. No, but a lot of closet racists use that argument.

It didn't.
 
Back
Top