Kentucky Libertarians not happy with Rand Paul

[Ravi]

FRANKFORT, Ky. — The Libertarian Party is considering running a candidate in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, saying GOP nominee Rand Paul — the son of a former Libertarian presidential candidate — has betrayed the party's values.
Party Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Wednesday that Paul has been a black eye for Libertarians because of stands he's taken on issues, including his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


The Associated Press: Libertarians may run Senate candidate in Ky.


Interesting. I thought, at least from the comments on this forum, that Libertarians believe that a business that is open to the public has a right to discriminate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarian Party does not represent every libertarian. The Libertarian Party started off in the 1970’s as a radical libertarian political party under the watchful eye of “Mr. Libertarian” Murray N. Rothbard. In recent years, however, the Libertarian Party has tried to make itself more appealing to the masses by toning down its radical platform and moving more towards conservatism, in the opinion of many libertarians including myself. While we may vote for Libertarian Party candidates, we don’t necessarily think the LP is the best representation of libertarianism.

From my thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/117696-what-is-libertarianism.html

Also...

The state chairman of the Libertarians of Kentucky has disavowed statements by the party’s vice chair, that suggest the group is considering running a real Libertarian candidate against Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul.

KY Libertarians: Rand Paul Is Not One Of Us — But We Won’t Run A Candidate Against Him | Independent Political Report

And if they ran a LP candidate that didn't believe in property rights then I'd be hard pressed to consider them a "real Libertarian."

 

[Ravi]

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

 

[Gunny]

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

The answer is the left in particular spends WAY too much time and effort smearing libertarians and calling them racists and whatnot ....

One thing I've learned ... when the left is afraid/fears something, they mindlessly attack it with, ignoring facts and logic, and post the same dogma over and over again, and most of the time have no idea what they believe in.

Y'all are S-O-O-O programmed by "veeger".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

Well we won't know how the Libertarian Party would do on the national stage until the laws that are biased against all third parties are repealed, and since Republicans and Democrats make those laws we probably shouldn't hold our breath for that to happen.

Rand Paul doesn't support any discrimination, he just doesn't believe that the Constitution says that the federal government has the right to tell us who we can permit on our own property.

I would agree that he's not a libertarian, but not for the reason you gave which is completely inaccurate.

 

[Ravi]

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

The answer is the left in particular spends WAY too much time and effort smearing libertarians and calling them racists and whatnot ....

One thing I've learned ... when the left is afraid/fears something, they mindlessly attack it with, ignoring facts and logic, and post the same dogma over and over again, and most of the time have no idea what they believe in.

Y'all are S-O-O-O programmed by "veeger".

I don't think that opinion is racist. I just think it is incorrect.

I can see how some people would consider it racist because it is the very same argument used in the sixties to keep Jim Crow laws in place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

Please point to anyplace where Rand said he supports discrimination.

What I think would happen – what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe in any private property should discriminate, either. And I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to.

Those are his exact words, how do you tiwist that to say he supporst discrimination?

 

[Ravi]

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

Please point to anyplace where Rand said he supports discrimination.

What I think would happen – what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe in any private property should discriminate, either. And I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to.

Those are his exact words, how do you tiwist that to say he supporst discrimination?

He supported the notion that a business owner running a business that is open to the public has a right to discriminate.

"I like the Civil Rights Act in a sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains," Paul said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. There's 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act. One deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that."

He's incorrect. The constitution doesn't allow it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution doesn't allow the the federal or state governments to make laws that discriminate against people, but private property is private property. You can exclude people based on whatever reason you want from your home, there's no reason it should be any different in a private business.

 

[Paulie]

This is funny coming from the LP, considering who they ran for the presidential.

"a real libertarian".

 

[Ravi]

The Constitution doesn't allow the the federal or state governments to make laws that discriminate against people, but private property is private property. You can exclude people based on whatever reason you want from your home, there's no reason it should be any different in a private business.

Absolutely there is...your home isn't open to the public.

 

[Paulie]

Rav how long do you think the average company would stay in business if they excluded certain groups?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution doesn't allow the the federal or state governments to make laws that discriminate against people, but private property is private property. You can exclude people based on whatever reason you want from your home, there's no reason it should be any different in a private business.

Absolutely there is...your home isn't open to the public.

As I've explained before "open to the public" is simply an implied invitation for the public to come in, but if you're racist then obviously that invitation doesn't apply to the entire public.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He supported the notion that a business owner running a business that is open to the public has a right to discriminate.

I am sure you support the right of an individual to say that the moon is made of green cheese if he wants to. Even with that evidence I will not jump to the conclusion that that you personally think the moon is made of green cheese, or any other type of cheese.

"I like the Civil Rights Act in a sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains," Paul said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. There's 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act. One deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that."

He's incorrect. The constitution doesn't allow it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I must have failed reading comprehension at some point. I challenged you to show me where he supports discrimination, and the best you can come up with is quoting the constitution? And then you insist that it means something other than what it says?

Since we had this conversation in other threads I am forced to presume that you are simply hoping to catch me in a contradiction, there is no other reason to rehash a discussion that already proved that a business is free to discriminate if it wants to, as long as it does not violate the CRA in doing so. Paul correctly points out that portions of the CRA are unconstitutional, even if SCOTUS says otherwise. In case you think that SCOTUS is never wrong, I shall simply point to Dredd Scott vs Sanford

 

[Paulie]

But it's just fine and dandy for the converse of this whole argument, where the public would discriminate against a business and avoid it if it were owned by, say, black people.

There's no law that says people have to do business with minority owned companies, so why should there be laws to the converse of that?

 

[Ravi]

Rav how long do you think the average company would stay in business if they excluded certain groups?

Why does that question matter?

How long would they stay in business if they killed their customers?

 

[Paulie]

Rav how long do you think the average company would stay in business if they excluded certain groups?

Why does that question matter?

How long would they stay in business if they killed their customers?

It matters because there doesn't need to be a law like that to "protect" a group. The market would protect them by virtue of society's general overall intolerance of racism, and the company would eventually go out of business.

The media would run wild with it, and before long there would be boycotts, marches, protests, etc.

It would be SUICIDE to have a discrimination policy.

There's no fucking need for that specific law. And that has nothing to do with being racist. It's called being a REALIST.

 

[Ravi]

The Constitution doesn't allow the the federal or state governments to make laws that discriminate against people, but private property is private property. You can exclude people based on whatever reason you want from your home, there's no reason it should be any different in a private business.

Absolutely there is...your home isn't open to the public.

As I've explained before "open to the public" is simply an implied invitation for the public to come in, but if you're racist then obviously that invitation doesn't apply to the entire public.

A business doesn't have a right to redefine the term "public."

Also, how can a state grant a license to someone to both be open to the public and to discriminate? It cannot. If you want to discriminate you can choose to be a private club.

 

[Ravi]

He supported the notion that a business owner running a business that is open to the public has a right to discriminate.

I am sure you support the right of an individual to say that the moon is made of green cheese if he wants to. Even with that evidence I will not jump to the conclusion that that you personally think the moon is made of green cheese, or any other type of cheese.

He's incorrect. The constitution doesn't allow it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I must have failed reading comprehension at some point. I challenged you to show me where he supports discrimination, and the best you can come up with is quoting the constitution? And then you insist that it means something other than what it says?

Since we had this conversation in other threads I am forced to presume that you are simply hoping to catch me in a contradiction, there is no other reason to rehash a discussion that already proved that a business is free to discriminate if it wants to, as long as it does not violate the CRA in doing so. Paul correctly points out that portions of the CRA are unconstitutional, even if SCOTUS says otherwise. In case you think that SCOTUS is never wrong, I shall simply point to Dredd Scott vs Sanford

SCOTUS is often wrong. But the constitution rarely is...and the constitution doesn't give a business open to the public the right to discriminate.

It is almost as if you believe that a business has more rights than an individual.

 

[Paulie]

Not every business requires a license to operate. It's pointless to get that specific about it.

The state has very little control over something like, say, a convenience store.

"no shirt, no service". That's discriminatory, but that's ok because it doesn't touch a nerve like "no white skin, no service" would.

Even though they both mean the same thing: 'if you don't meet our standards, you can't come in".