Stossel defends Rand Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter LOL I LIKE COCKS
  • Start date Start date
I've been looking at various campaign donors tonight on opensecrets.org. latest donor info listed is from 3/31/2010

Texas donated $57,650 and California donated $72,300 to Jack Conway.

One trend I notice is that there are a LOT of attorneys that donated to Jack Conway. And then finance/investors, writer/artist types




Texas donated $164,477 and California donated $100,458 to Rand Paul

I see a whole lot of technical professions; engineers, inventors and programmers. Also self employed, small business owners, military. I also see more doctors/dentists giving to Rand. Even some guy from the US Securities and Exchange Commission




That is some interesting information right there. Rand Paul donors are a much more diverse group of people...more common folk.
 
Once again I have to point out that Rand's entire argument is based on the assumption that the free market system "will work itself out" (someday one of you tards is going to have to explain that assumption) and that the CRA has no positive effect on race relations
 
Wrong. The argument is based on the principle that individuals have a right to property and that with that right, they have a freedom of association and a right to discriminate who they allow on that property.


Racists losing business is a side-issue and ignores the actual right that free people have to property and exclusivity.
 
so explain to me how can it be a free market system if the people aren't free to participate in it?
 
lol, IT'S NOT A FREE MARKET IF YOU CAN'T CARRY A NUCLEAR BOMB WITH YOU EVERYWHERE!


It's a free market because property owners have the right to use their property as they see fit. If Wal-Mart wants to ban guns from being carried in their store, there is no violation of individuals rights, 2nd Amendment, nothing. Property owners can set the requirements and regulations for their own property.
 
You're missing my point. Just because one aspect of it is free does not mean the rest of it is. If my local grocery store refuses to hire blacks, I'm not about to drive an hour out of my way each week so that I can protest by buying from another store that doesn't practice discrimination. The reality of reality makes your idealism unworkable. This is why this whole Rand Paul thing is hilarious. Not because people don't understand his argument, but because people know you can't just ignore problems and hope they fix themselves. People recognize that government needs to step in and provide balance against private industry so problems can be solved! Hindsight is 20/20 and now 40 years later we know the CRA worked. His argument is based on the assumption that it didn't, and I have yet to see evidence of this.
 
yes, he said that

no, he did not say that.




if you can't understand his argument, can you please shut the fuck up?
 
I saw on Stossel's blog this morning that he replies to yesterdays ruff interview.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/21/racism-and-rand-paul-%C2%A0/

May 21, 2010 10:18 AM UTC by John Stossel
Racism and Rand Paul
Megyn Kelly, on her show yesterday, berated me for defending Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul’s objection to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for supporting the right of private business owners to decide who they serve.

This came up because Paul recently said this:
"I don't like the idea of telling private business owners [what to do]. I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anyone from your restaurant -- but at the same time I do believe in private ownership. And I do think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets public funding. And that's mostly what the civil rights act was about."
The left is apoplectic: “Paul's lunch counter libertarianism disgusts us” is a typical comment on the Huffington Post.
Rand’s fellow Republicans cringed too. Everyone fears being called a racist. In response to the uproar, Paul issued a statement that said: "I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
None of it? How about the part that denies private citizens the right of free association? I hope Paul stands up to the pressure.
If not, freedom of association is in trouble. Will government tell the Black Student Association that they must admit Whites? Tell gay groups they must admit straights? I told Megyn Kelly:
"It's time now to repeal that part of the law. Because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. I won't ever go to a place that's racist, and I'll tell everybody else not to. And I'll speak against it. But it should be their right to be racist."
Racism is wrong. But I don't trust government to decide what discrimination is acceptable. After all, it was government that first legislated racism, first enforcing slavery, and then Jim Crow laws. The part of the Civil Rights Act that outlawed that is a good law.
But the clumsy fist of government cannot attack racism without stomping on the rights of individuals. The free market, as usual, will address the problem. It punishes racists. A business that doesn’t hire blacks will lose customers and good employees. It will atrophy while its more inclusive competitors thrive.
Media Matters sneers that: "Market forces hadn't exactly made anti-black discrimination disappear during the several centuries before the Civil Rights Act."
But the NY Post’s Robert George points out:
Companies couldn't stop discriminating even if they had wanted to: "Jim Crow also mandated discrimination in private enterprise (the opposite of today's reality which mandates desegregation). If you WANTED to open a restaurant (or run a hotel) that served blacks and whites equally, in most Southern states, you COULDN'T."
However, George is sure that Rand and Ron Paul get that:
Both Pauls make this issue sound like it's a minor point involving whether whites should be forced to serve blacks. Jim Crow was far more complicated than that. To be both philosophically and politically "right" from a libertarian POV, the answer is that "Jim Crow, a series of anti-freedom laws across the South, prevented open economic trade between free individuals. The federal government was correct to say that states can't prevent economic enterprise. It went too far, however, in policing individual decisions beyond that."
We are in agreement. But from what I understand, so are the Pauls. (George’s full column here.
Megan Kelly forwarded me this email from one of her viewers:
Megyn:
I am 73 years old and was raised in Louisiana, where I attended segregated schools, ate at segregated restaurants, etc. I did that not because I wanted to, but because it was the law.
Once that existing law was overturned, northern folk predicted riots ... None of that happened.
There are some idiot racists in the south, and elsewhere. But Stossel is correct, the market place would have done away with the racism, once the segregationist laws were removed. ... I was there and saw it. I do believe in the kindness and openness of people. If the laws requiring integration were repealed today, the south would remain the same as it is.... As a graduate of Yale, I know where lawyers come down on this. "A hammer sees everything as a nail."
Your reaction is the same as the law students I attended Yale with. They were wrong, and so are you. Stossel is correct.
Jerry Ainsworth
I love it when people end letters that way.


Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/21/racism-and-rand-paul- /#ixzz0oZuUHtX2
 
Back
Top