Rand Paul raises nearly $650,000 in fourth quarter!

[GreyICE]

Please tell me you're kidding about this.

Not the very slightest little chance he's kidding about that. There was a long thread about how he'd come to the conclusion that he was the reincarnation of Galileo, it was actually um... yeah. So, anyone know where that's hiding in our archives.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Not the very slightest little chance he's kidding about that. There was a long thread about how he'd come to the conclusion that he was the reincarnation of Galileo, it was actually um... yeah. So, anyone know where that's hiding in our archives.

 

[doobiedoright]

Do you know the guy you're responding to thinks he is the reincarnation of Galileo?

Yes sir I do!
A complete nut job himself!

 

[zaphod2016]

My biggest objection to the Paul dynasty:

Folks like Galileo are the face of the Paul movement, and as a result, you assume I'm an irrational lunatic as soon as I mention the name in a favorable light.

Give me a Ron Paul who respects science over pandering to the religious right, and I can win a national election. But this? I'm not even sure what we are supporting any more.

 

[Cleon]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_774749fe3d4290b22.jpg

But wait, there's more!

 

[kevinquinnyo]

[...]

But I'm a firm believer that if you understand the consequences beforehand, then you're responsible for them. This isn't always anything damning. For instance, we understand that under a typical Western justice system that a certain percentage of innocent people will be imprisoned, but that's OK because we consider it worse to leave crime unchecked. At the same time, we understand that in exchange for basic rights, some criminals will go free and people will suffer for that. And that's OK because basic rights are considered to be more important than safety to some degree.

If we eliminate anti-discrimination laws, it's understood that systematic discrimination will occur and that certain unpopular groups and individuals will suffer for it, and ultimately, society at-large will suffer for it. At least, that feels like a reasonable guess since those are the conditions that spawned the existing laws in the first place. So what's the upside of a Starbucks with a "no Pakistanis" sign in the window? I can't really think of any. I'm sure we could find a few if we twisted it enough, but the point is, do those advantages outweigh the known harmful consequences?

Someone who claims not to condone murder but approves a plan at his factory that he knows will result in hundreds of otherwise avoidable deaths in order to boost profitability is at odds with his claim. By extension, I think it can be reasonably claimed that someone who claims not to be a racist but repeals a law that offers little benefit but will definitely result in a significant uptick in racial discrimination is at odds with his claim.

I'm sorry that ended up being so long, but I wanted my argument to be clear. Thanks in advance for bearing with me.

If, (as you say) there aren't any benefits, to Starbucks, or to society, in having a No-Pakistani policy, then why would we need the law against doing so?

Right? I mean you're basically saying that business related racism is damaging to society and the business itself, and then in the same breath you say that we need a law to stop it from happening.

Let me just go ahead and be real clear.

You're out of your mind if you think there would be "widespread, systematic discrimination" of unpopular groups without anti-discrimination laws.

I don't think the Anti-Pakistani Starbucks would be too popular. I think the regular Starbucks just win the market battle. At least that's where my money would be.

 

[WildCat]

Let me just go ahead and be real clear.

You're out of your mind if you think there would be "widespread, systematic discrimination" of unpopular groups without anti-discrimination laws.

That's why there was little such discrimination prior to the CRA, especially in the South.

Oh, wait...

 

[Cynic]

No problem at all. However, I just want to note that a resurgence of racism is not necessarily the end result of ending affirmative action laws. Racism is neither inborn nor inevitable, and I think that our society as a whole is less racist than it used to be.

But I'm not referring to affirmative action laws. I'm referring to laws that prevent outright discrimination, such as refusing to serve or hire someone who is Hispanic for the sole reason that he is Hispanic. A libertarian ideal would be to erase the legal gains of the civil rights era, obstensively for the sole reason that it's government telling people what not to do -- interfering with liberty.

I agree that America is probably less racist than it used to be. At least toward blacks, Asians, etc. I expect racism toward people of Middle Eastern descent has probably increased recently. Be that as it may, consider the reasons we are less racist today. It's hard to hold onto the idea that America is simply "growing up" as a people given the backdrop of human history. The question becomes more pointed -- why now?

That reason, I'm convinced, is due to the ratcheting, noose-tightening effect the civil rights movement has had on law, and law therefore on subsequent generations. It's called progressive for a reason. Laws like that take the wind out of groups that would rather ignore them because they are enforced by the government. They slowly but surely strangle at least the outward vestiges of racism from government itself for the same reason. Finally, people grow up questioning the backwards, racist notions of their parents (if present) in large part because of such laws. Deep down, people tend to want to believe that their government is a benevolent force, and will assume that if there's a law, there must be a good reason for it.

But a libertarian ideal is to remove that forward-thinking, progressive force. IMO, the libertarian notion what "government is for" is far too narrow, out of date, and self-serving. The role of government in first ending slavery, then helping to squeeze out outward, hurtful aspects of racism isn't easily dismissed. Racism is not "over" and it never will be. I don't know if "racism" is inborn or not, but I do know that it's rampant enough in human cultures that declaring the problem solved and eliminating the safeguards against it that so many people suffered for to establish would surely be a mistake.

You have to question a desire to do that, if only to understand it.

This is completely unfair. No one on earth besides the Neo-Nazis think that if the federal government were reduced massively in power and libertarian ideology implemented skinheads would be running the place.

So I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'higher ups' in the libertarian party looked at them, asked if what they wanted would come true if the libertarian goals were implemented, and said... no.

I didn't suggest such a worst case scenario. I suggested that the progress that has been made would halt and probably gradually reverse itself. That's not skinheads running the place. If the higher ups of the libertarian party looked at the laws put in place as a result of the civil rights movement (e.g. ending segregation, etc, not "affirmative action" laws) and decided that nothing bad would come of it, they are at best failing to learn from history, failing to comprehend why those laws became necessary in the first place.

There's also the small fact that the concept of making an employment decision on the basis of race rather than qualifications is something that most libertarians consider as something the free market would correct (if there's a large pool of, say, skilled people with black skin who can't find work because of their skin color, a company will employ them, and more cheaply than their competition. Then their competition will be forced to hire the more skilled people for more money, or go out of business because they're spending more for less. Eventually the situation equalizes due to the 'Invisible Hand,' blah blah...). It may or may not be convincing (I think it ignores a lot of real-world facts). But racist? No.

On the scale of history, it was practically yesterday that the "free market" was owning slaves on the basis of race. That's not hyperbole -- it's a fact. The free market is amoral. It doesn't care for right or wrong. This idea that no one would discriminate because there's no profit in it completely ignores history. I think you've said as much, but how hard it is it to identify this free market just-so story for what it is? Not very. So again, I have to question the motivations of presumably highly intelligent and well-educated people that are willing not only to accept but also promote such a thing. What might be blinding them to the obvious fact that if what they're suggesting were true that those laws would not have been erected in the first place?

 

[Cynic]

If, (as you say) there aren't any benefits, to Starbucks, or to society, in having a No-Pakistani policy, then why would we need the law against doing so?

Right? I mean you're basically saying that business related racism is damaging to society and the business itself, and then in the same breath you say that we need a law to stop it from happening.

Let me just go ahead and be real clear.

You're out of your mind if you think there would be "widespread, systematic discrimination" of unpopular groups without anti-discrimination laws.

I don't think the Anti-Pakistani Starbucks would be too popular. I think the regular Starbucks just win the market battle. At least that's where my money would be.

Wildcat has already answered this, as have I in a post to GreyICE just now. But since you've cited a commonly proposed mechanism (which I've highlighted above) for why it wouldn't be an issue, I'll expand.

There are a number of reasons this kind of mechanism isn't foolproof. And if you're thinking that even having laws in place isn't foolproof, that should make you stop right now and re-think your idea. But I'll continue.

I dearly love Chick-fil-a. But I boycott them because they've become rather well-known for their religious discrimination practices for hiring and especially promoting employees. Did you know that? Most people don't. And that's one reason right there. Chick-fil-a has been sued time and again for this but they persist, and it gets worse the closer you get to the corporate. Imagine if what they were doing didn't even have a law against it?

Denny's is a pretty good place too. Even though the Moons Over My Hammy never ends up being as good as the picture on the menu makes it look, I still fall for it time and again. But they too have gotten a nasty reputation for unequally treating customers based on race. I don't boycott them because I'm not convinced it's systematic, but it might be. Imagine if they didn't even have to pretend?

Neither of these institutions has a sign on the door suggesting anything untoward. There's no telling what particular store manager or district manager is going to be like. When you walk into Starbucks, you might not think anything of the fact that all the people waiting on your are white. It might never cross your mind that it's because those are the only applicants given interviews. How would you know?

I mentioned the "sign on the door" thing to make it perfectly clear what level of discrimination I was talking about. But it doesn't have to be anywhere near that obvious.

And then, of course, there the fact that it's "location, location, location" for a reason. When you're the only or best place around, you're going to get business.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Rand Paul raises nearly $650,000 in fourth quarter!

We all make mistakes.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

Wildcat has already answered this, as have I in a post to GreyICE just now. But since you've cited a commonly proposed mechanism (which I've highlighted above) for why it wouldn't be an issue, I'll expand.

There are a number of reasons this kind of mechanism isn't foolproof. And if you're thinking that even having laws in place isn't foolproof, that should make you stop right now and re-think your idea. But I'll continue.

I dearly love Chick-fil-a. But I boycott them because they've become rather well-known for their religious discrimination practices for hiring and especially promoting employees. Did you know that? Most people don't. And that's one reason right there. Chick-fil-a has been sued time and again for this but they persist, and it gets worse the closer you get to the corporate. Imagine if what they were doing didn't even have a law against it?

Denny's is a pretty good place too. Even though the Moons Over My Hammy never ends up being as good as the picture on the menu makes it look, I still fall for it time and again. But they too have gotten a nasty reputation for unequally treating customers based on race. I don't boycott them because I'm not convinced it's systematic, but it might be. Imagine if they didn't even have to pretend?

Neither of these institutions has a sign on the door suggesting anything untoward. There's no telling what particular store manager or district manager is going to be like. When you walk into Starbucks, you might not think anything of the fact that all the people waiting on your are white. It might never cross your mind that it's because those are the only applicants given interviews. How would you know?

I mentioned the "sign on the door" thing to make it perfectly clear what level of discrimination I was talking about. But it doesn't have to be anywhere near that obvious.

And then, of course, there the fact that it's "location, location, location" for a reason. When you're the only or best place around, you're going to get business.

Yes, but you yourself said that it's not good for society as a whole, or the business itself to discriminate. So, if the businesses lose money by doing so, why would they do it? And why do we need a law against it, if it's not a good entrepreneurial tactic?

Perhaps Chik-Fil-a's policy is discriminatory against other religions or athiests, but perhaps Chik-fil-a has found that this discrimination actually helps them to make more money. In that case, discrimination is actually profitable.

At the end of this post you allude to (what I assume) is a location based monopoly, which would allow for racism or discrimination, despite the fact that it's still bad overall for business. While this is possible, monopolies are extremely rare, and certainly not cause for a law against discrimination in my opinion.

Here's the point. Tons of businesses discriminate. There are gyms set up for women only. There are clothing companies that only make shoes for men. As other posters have made clear, things like The Catholic league would certainly not hire a methodist, etc.

But "widespread, systematic discrimination" is unlikely.

We've progressed in the last 50 or 60 years, and I don't think anti-discrimination laws are responsible. We've just gotten smarter, more respectful, more tolerant, and more open-minded.

I think it's a case of the law being a symptom of the civil rights movement, and not the other way around. You seem to be saying it's the other way around.


And as for Chik-fil-A, I have a similar problem with them. Given that Chik-fil-A openly promotes Christian values, I would think it more Christian of them to stay open on Sundays, take enough money to cover operation costs, and donate the extra profit to charity.

Of course that ignores the possibility that being closed on Sunday in observance of their religion might actually make more money for them on Monday, or some other such mechanism.

 

[dudalb]

To compare Chik a Fil policies of not opening on Sundays to somebody saying Blacks cannot eat in their restaurants is just plain crazy.
Thanks for reminding me why my college career as a Libertarian was so brief.

 

[GreyICE]

Okay, yeah. Cynic seems to really have a good understanding of the issue, so I don't feel a need to add anything to what I said.

I simply feel the need to say that although I don't necessarily think the Libertarian position is racist, this is not to say that it's fundamentally grounded in the real world - i.e. correct.

It seems so divorced from reality to be absurd, nearly Dadaist, but it's not racist. Just very wrong (really, a lot of the problem with Libertarianism is that it seems to assume several of the constructs used in economics 101 (the perfect marketplace, the perfectly informed consumer, the perfectly price discriminatory public, etc.) actually exist).

 

[MattusMaximus]

But wait, there's more!

Oh... my... FSM...

Nothing else to add but

 

[kevinquinnyo]

To compare Chik a Fil policies of not opening on Sundays to somebody saying Blacks cannot eat in their restaurants is just plain crazy.
Thanks for reminding me why my college career as a Libertarian was so brief.

But nobody compared Chik-fil-A being closed on Sunday to a "no blacks" policy at a restaurant.

The comparison was in their discriminating hiring practices that seems to be selective toward Christians. The 'closed on Sunday' thing was separate.

Besides, what about complaining about chik-fil-A being closed on sunday even vaguely implies a libertarian viewpoint?

I just don't get your comment.

 

[Galileo]

Yeah, even if Rand is elected..which I doubt...Hell, I don't even think he will get the GOP Nod (there are lots of nasty things the GOP officials can do to keep Paul from getting the nod if push comes to shove) he will quickly be written off a a nutcase and a loose cannon by his own party...just like his dad.

Rand Paul just got endorsed by the GOA!

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[elbe]

Rand Paul just got endorsed by the GOA!

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was endorsed by an antelope? Well, I can see how that's a more positive change over his normal supporters.

 

[elbe]

Hey, I just noticed the tags on this thread. I don't really know anything about Rand Paul, so maybe someone has a better idea, but is he actually a libertarian unlike his father?