If you missed the Rachel Maddow interview of Rand Paul last night, here it is:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
A few days ago I argued with a gun-rights extremist that one person’s rights, respected absolutely, turn into other people’s oppression. And here’s a good example. Rand doesn’t think that civil rights laws should apply to private business, because such laws restrict a business owner’s “rights.” So Rand is just fine with going back to the days when restaurants could refuse to serve African Americans, because that’s what freedom is all about.
Rand Paul said this in an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal:
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.
In a free society, we have to draw lines between “boorish” and “dangerous” or “oppressive.” Words are one thing — sticks and stones, etc. — but discrimination that limits peoples’ opportunities and access to goods and services that other people enjoy, not to mention housing and jobs, goes beyond “boorish.”
One of Rand’s arguments on Maddows’ show last night was that if restaurant owners can be forced to serve people because of race, neither can restaurant owners bar customers carrying firearms. However, I never heard of melanin posing a safety hazard. And, y’know, guns are not intrinsic to your person in the same way race is. So there’s no parallel.
The story is that Rand refused to take his opponent’s concession phone call on Tuesday night. It’s not clear if that’s exactly what happened. It may have been more of an amateurish blunder than an intended snub.
Josh Marshall wrote of Rand’s acceptance speech that “he came off to me as arrogant, bellicose and even a little messianic in his demeanor. To put it baldly, he sounded like a jerk.” But someone pointed out to Josh that “arrogant, bellicose and messianic” is standard tea-party style; it’s what the baggers want from their “leaders.”
I don’t know where the polls are right now with Paul and his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, but I hope the Dems make a fight of it, at least.
I’ve never had a course in logic, but I get the impression that Rand’s thought process is to make an absolute of the first amendment that then subordinates all other amendments to the ramifications of that absolute.
If that is correct, then it fits right in with the phony respect for the Constitution that is parroted by the baggers. Why have we not seen his proposed revision of the CRA, if it is so central to his belief system? For a man who claimed in the interview to be unfamiliar with the full text of the CRA, he seemed very precisely aware of how many titles it has and which specific one he disagreed with in a specific part. All this just boils down to the same old racism. Rand the Elder has had a newsletter with reported racist content published under his name, yet claims he has no relation to it and no control over it. I wonder who was writing that stuff.
From another angle: Did you ever see a student trying to rationalize his way out of wrongdoing? There was a perfect body language match and a perfect match in attempted parsing of his words. This guy is not as smart as he thinks, but he is smart enough to lead the baggers. A flock of 50 sheep will follow a guy rattling 25 grains of corn in a bucket.
Oh yes: GO, RACHEL!!!
Rand Paul’s position makes my blood run cold. He wants to deliver power at the state level, which means pretty soon there could be states so toxic in their laws against common sense and decency that they’ll have to put yellow warning tape around the state lines. I’m looking at YOU, Kentucky. And Texas.
He knows how to toot that dog whistle, though. As Bill Bush stated, there are scads of baggers with their ears perked up right now.
Chilling.
Pauls argument is weak at best, atrocious and racist at worst.
First, in true Libertarian fashion, he stands for the individuals rights. Right. Fine. OK, but what lights that restaurant, isn’t food shipped in on public roads, didn’t the public it wants to serve get their via public roads, are the dished washed by municipal water? And the list could go on and on, as I’m sure you know.
Uhm, those things are supported by public tax money, Dr. Paul. So, if I pay MY taxes, and MY taxes are among those that help keep this business in business, why, if I’m black, brown, a woman, disabled, gay, etc., WHY is it ok for the OWNER to not serve ME, based on some prejudice he/she/it has?
Now, let me see if I get this other stance of his correct:
Ok, Dr. Paul, you’re against government telling a business who it can and cannot serve.
But, you’re FOR government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.
Libertarian, my ass!
He’s an opportunist who’s stringing along a bunch or rightie talking points and meme’s hoping to bamboozle the obtuse conservative morons in KY who are racists and sexists.
Let Paul keep talking. And talking and talking… He can give a nice little soundbite. But, his inner-loony comes out if you just let him talk. The floor’s all yours, Dr. Paul!
If Conway’s not a total twit, he can win in KY.
Oh, and not to mention, Paul’s a racist and sexist as well as an opportunist.
What a vile individual.
bill bush, nice take on the student’s body language angle!
I’ll have to watch later, I just had a bowl of cereal and don’t really feel like hurling. From what I know of this schmuck he’s basically an exact political clone of his old man. It’s been my experience that people who have adopted their parents political beliefs lock stock and barrel are not politically curious enough to be taken seriously. He’s the dream dimwitted teabagger candidate, he wants to totally eliminate government, no oversite, no regulations, no rules a real right wing extremist. I mean he was named after Ayn Rand for cripes sake, who names their kid after that kook? He’d be a scary guy with the power of a single senator.
I, too, watched Rachel last night and the interview with Dr. Paul. His arguments have a certain appeal IF one lives in a perfect world. As a matter of fact, on paper, in a perfect world, a lot of conservative ideas sound good. But once you min in the human element and the profit motive, those ideas quickly have as much appeal as a bucket of spit.
Dr. Paul, and his 1790s ideas dressed up as libertarian thought would be a huge mistake in any elected body.
One problem with Paul’s philosophical posture is that its real-world ramifications are so abhorrent that critics tend to get snagged on them, and fail to continue on to also dissect the philosophical problems with the positions.
For example, the businesses don’t exist in a vacuum. They can only function because there is a government that is providing police and fire protection, and a functioning, reliable currency, and roads for supplies to arrive on, etc. Taxpayers ALL help provide for these benefits to the business, so is it legitimate that only some get the benefits of being able to get service from that business? If a business owner has a “right” to deny me service, do I have a corresponding “right” to deduct a portion from my taxes for it?
Like most Libertarian philosophy, Rand Paul’s position works great, as long as you only consider one person’s liberty at a time. Sadly, in a modern industrial society, we have millions of individuals whose rights continuously collide and intersect in complex ways.
And where do Paul’s supposed rights of the individual businessman stop, if at all? Was it just for the Federal government to deny Southern plantation owners the right to operate their business with slave labor? Should those opposed to slavery just refused to patronize those businesses until slavery just withered away?
It is a sad problem with our society that Rand Paul can come across as a philosopher with ideas and reasoning skills that, in a just world, would have been demolished in a first week freshman year bull session.
Oh, and another thing. Rand Paul’s philosophical purity would be a lot more plausible if it extended to freeing medical doctors from government interference in their rights to offer services to women.
Actually, not to be flip, he claims to believe that life begins at conception. So, OK, but he completely fails to explicate what that implies philosophically, about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of this unborn individual. It’s a classic case of conflicting rights, and he punts. Why does the state have legitimacy to prioritize the rights of the new life over the woman’s? Is the woman due any compensation from this baby for the nine months of forced uterine rental and nourishment? If it is too heinous to force a lunch counter owner to server someone he doesn’t like, how can we justify forcing a woman to disrupt her entire life to carry a child? Because the embryo would die? What if there’s a miscarriage? Who pays the woman damages for the loss of her freedom, if the child doesn’t live long enough to recompense her?
Rand Paul doesn’t even pretend to think these questions matter, which means he’s a Libertarian when he wants to be, not out of some serious conviction.
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent….
ME: Ah HA HA HA HA. Like hell you would.
Hard core libertarians tend to believe that it is only possible for a government to oppress a person, that it is simply not physically possible for a business to do any oppressing.
I used to try to argue with them online, trying to get them to see that such is not the case.
I stopeed arguing with them when more than one argument, involving different people on different message boards, resolved down to “Of course the people in that scenario still have freedom. They are perfectly free to starve to death, if they so choose.”
How do you argue with that???
-me
Right. And according to the First Amendment, we cannot throw them in jail. That’s all.
I agree he’s a jerk. Could it be that because he was born after the CRA he missed the whole understanding of the issue of discrimination and how it is rooted in society? It seems to me that he refers to discrimination as institutionalized solely by the use of Jim Crow laws and discriminatory policies of government ,but all discrimination becomes institutionalized when the government fails to protect the equality of rights of it’s citizens.
The “free association” people *do* have a point. However, free association led to outcomes that were clearly unacceptable to a free people.
This has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future – when a freedom becomes too dangerous or harmful, we find a way to reduce the harm. If you’re sick, and won’t voluntarily quarantine yourself, the state may do so forcefully. (And, if I had my way, would be obligated to make up for your loss of freedom to the extent possible – contacting all people who needed contacting, forbidding your employer from firing you for the absence, etc..) It must only be done when *necessary* – but it will be done.
Civil rights were the same way. People were spreading sickness; the harm was too great; it had to be stopped in the least intrusive way possible.
That interview was very painful for me to watch because I was hopeful that Paul would bring some “reality” to the Republican party. He clearly does not.
I think that Libertarians have good intentions, but even a simple sand lot football game needs rules. Chief’s comment is right on the mark.
I’m not sure if Paul was afraid of offending his base or what, but he couldn’t bring himself to address Maddow’s question. Paul viewed Maddow’s question like she said “has your mom ever caught you wacking it in the closet?”
The question was simple and direct, no esoterica, and while it was kinda hypothetical, he keeps saying “it’s interesting that….”
No, it ain’t interesting; yes or no! Simple thing.
And serving blacks or gays has absolutely nothing in common with serving people armed with guns.
I am deeply saddened by his comments because I was hoping for some sanity on the Republican side.Two web sites I visit daily and enjoy are Antiwar.com and Lewrockwell.com, I certainly don’t agree with all I read there , but they gave me great solace during the Bush years when I thought I was the only voice in the wilderness in regards to my antiwar views.
Mr Paul is sadly mistaken in thinking we have to tolerate boorish people with abhorent behavior. Since when? Our jails are full of ’em( so is the “Tea Party).
Yeah, and guess whose they consider?
The only thing I can think of that’s stupid enough to work is “Well, by the same token you are still perfectly free to snort cocaine, drive 85 down a residential street and shoot a guy in the head – it’s just that you’ll go to jail for it.”
I can’t believe how simple this is. We have a law-enforcement apparatus to prevent and punish what we the people deem are crimes. You will be punished if you kill someone; that’s a crime. You will be punished if you run a stop sign; that’s a crime. You will be punished if you discriminate in whom your business serves. That’s a freaking crime. Is it a loss of liberty? I guess you could say that in the most laboratory sense, but don’t be a moron.
We aren’t a theocracy (and for Jebus’s sake, the libertarians even get that!), so the way we decide that something is a crime is that the people, through our representatives, decide what things are crimes. It really is as simple as that.
God, I had this conversation sophomore year of college. And people who haven’t figured this stuff out are major-party candidates for Senate?
And another thing, the “free market” has pretty much created the mess we’re in now.The “Tea Party” dolts don’t realize that the 2nd amendment has less bearing on their lives than their credit score. Our credit scores control everything from our auto insurance rates to possible employment, and it ain’t controled by the “Gubmint”.When big corporations control everything, there is no freedom.Corporations have the ability to “terminate” employees.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/senate-preserves-unlimited-card-rates
I’ve been reading a few good things about Jack Conway, Paul’s Democratic challenger:
and
and, in the comments:
It’ll be interesting to see how someone of Conway’s caliber does with an extremist like Paul, in a state like Kentucky.
moonbat,
“He didn’t go to law school. I did. I don’t need a lecture on Constitutional law from Rand Paul or Sarah Palin.â€
He could have said, ‘Now, I’m no Opthamologist, but I know what I’m seeing, which is someone with idea’s too far out of the mainstream to serve in the Senate. I think you see it too. So vote for me in November. I have a far better vision of KY’s future than Dr. Paul.””
moonbat, despite the slight John Edwards-y look that I thought Jack Conway had about him, I made a small contribution to his campaign yesterday because Rand Paul is just that bad.
Of course, Rand son of Ron made an even bigger contribution to Conway’s campaign; if he keeps on talking, that 20-point lead could disappear completely by the end of summer.
I also have an ad idea for Conway.
Have a person walk into and Opthomologist’s office and sit down with the machine that goes on your nose and over your eyes.
The doctor walks in. He/she says, “OK, now tell me which looks better to you.”
The first flip of the lenses goes to a clip of Rand talking about Civil Rights and Disability Rights.
The Doctor asks, “Is that one any good?”
And then flips to a clip of Conway talking about America.
Then the doctor, again, “Is this better?”
Then flips the two back and forth a few times, asking, “Is this better?” with each flip.
The final flip can be to Conway, the person in the chair says, “This ones much, much better.”
Cue the music – “I can see clearly now…”
c u n d gulag — Your ad idea — I can see it!
There was a decent amount of support for Ron Paul from the Students for a Democratic Society at Rutgers in ’08, and I couldn’t wrap my brain around that one. Yeah, he wanted a total withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, but it seems like my friends in SDS didn’t bother to look much deeper into his platform. I thought about that while I watched this video and how Libertarianism looks pretty but man, when she opens her mouth…*facepalm*
Just as a social experiment for 7 days, would it be possible to declare Kentucky a “free market zone”, just to let Rand Paul’s idea run loose and see how they’d work in 2010 America? I mean, would any businesses even flirt with discriminatory policies anymore? How would they even be enforced? I’m pretty sure a 911 operator would not take a request for white police officers seriously.
I bumped into a young man wearing a Ron Paul for President T-shirt at some progressive conference, ca. 2006, and I asked him if he knew Ron Paul wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. The kid turned purple; the only thing he knew about Paul is that Paul was opposed to the war in Iraq and had badmouthed Bush on occasion.
Nod. And if we made it a crime to pick your nose, you’ll be punished if you’re caught picking your nose. Is the inability to pick your nose a loss of liberty? I’m sure you could say that in the most laboratory sense[sic], but don’t be a moron.
(The preceding paragraph was ironic, for the irony impaired.)
Arbitrary uses of the law to punish people is wrong; using the law to correct injustice is not. There was an injustice, the law had to correct it. Yes, loss of the ability to say “I don’t like you, I won’t serve you,” is a bad thing; it is a loss of freedom. But the injustice was even worse.
I think that’s a nice distinction, and it’s one that too many people aren’t seeing. It seems to me that we’re not making a clear distinction between restrictions that are arbitrary even if popular and those that serve a real public need.
I clearly remember that back in the 1960s, when desegregation and civil rights were The Big Issue, I heard whites fall back on the argument that the law shouldn’t be enforcing morality. In other words, they conceded that racial discrimination was wrong, but they said it still wasn’t government’s job to force desegregation on people who didn’t want it. I don’t know if any well-known conservatives said that, although it would be fun if they did.
But it goes back to the argument that if restaurants cannot deny service to people because of race, they can’t deny service to people who are carrying guns. The difference is that (1) guns are dangerous, skin isn’t; and (2) the gun owner can still be served in the restaurant if he leaves his gun elsewhere, but the person facing racial discrimination can’t receive service there under any circumstances. One person is restricted because of something he is doing, for reasons of public safety, and the other is restricted because of his physical person out of sheer bias.
Gulag, you really ought to find a way to produce that ad of yours, and send it to the Democratic party in KY (or put it on YouTube & go viral). I’m serious. Find a video camera and a couple people who can act. Think about it.
I live in Los Angeles where film students whip these things together, for little or no cost, all the time. Living in a townful of aspiring actors and directors helps. My brother, an aspiring actor, gets all his costumes at a great thrift store/army-navy store. It can be done.
cundgulag – your first post was brilliant. Like his name-sake, Ayn, Rand, like she can rightfully be called a purveyor of pop-philosophy. Whether it’s abbreviated thinking or shallow thinking, the sorry fact is that ‘they’ seem incapable of weighing the consequences, or even imagining that they exist, beyond their pop-philosophy arguments.
The 19th century ruling by the Court in Plessey vs. Fergie launched the Jim Crow laws. Ruling that “separate is equal” the racists were off and running. (The ‘consequences’ were with us for decades.)