Rand Paul...don't ever Stall Again, Stand Up For Private Property Rights

Miscellaneous Current Events
181

As a side note, I actually took the time to read the Civil Rights Act and I think I know what Rand was talking about, it’s easy to understand why libertarians would have a problem with the wording of this part of the act. It’s based on a very broad interpretation of the commerce clause.

"TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97&page=transcript

182

“Conza, sometimes you say some dumb things man.”

What’s hilarious is you failed epicly to comprehend my post. I don’t know how I could have made it any clearer. I guess the difference here is, I contend oppression as a rights violation - you don’t. Since you believe, might makes right.

Then how can you call it oppression? If you believe the Third Reich had the legal authority to do what they did to the Jews - and might makes right, then surely you must contend it was just / fair / permissable? i.e those who followed the “law” (LEGISLATION) should not be punished.

A german killed a Jew, your response: [so what? It was allowed - it was the “law” (LEGISLATION).]

"That’s all that’s required for laws to be laws; someone has to have the power to enforce them.

As I pointed out earlier, if I could pass an edict that said that all self identifying libertarians would be killed as enemies of the state, and I could enforce this new rule, it would be law. But I do not have this power."

No, it’s not a law at all! It is legislation. Support of completely arbitrary descisions with a monopoly on violence.

“EDIT: I’ve been re-reading your post and I think I understand what you’re saying”

Great. I’d suggest you remove your adhominem against me though, save you the embarrasement [and intense irony]. I’d could ask you to apologise, but we both know that won’t happen. You’ve lied previously, and asking you to retract them also went no-where.

“but you’re still working from the paradigm of “the law is about right and wrong.” This is incorrect.”

No, you’re still working from the paradigm that might makes right. This is incorrect. You also fail to distinguish between legislation and law. This is incorrect.

And as such, you really haven’t address my question posed in that post at all.

183

I knew this was going to be a waste of time. Now legislation isn’t law.

“Support of completely arbitrary descisions with a monopoly on violence.”

This is how the law works.

And no, I won’t remove the ad hom, I think you’ve earned it and I don’t think I’ll get banned for calling an idiotic post idiotic. Perhaps I’ll be wrong, we shall see.

“No, you’re still working from the paradigm that might makes right. This is incorrect. You also fail to distinguish between legislation and law. This is incorrect.”

There is no distinction. To legislate is, by definition, to make law. I have never said that might makes right.

184

Jacob, “Idiotic” is indeed out of bounds. Can you please not test our limits? We’re awfully busy, and the last thing we need right is for you to abandon your previous equanimity. Thanks.

185

Alright, I apologize Lilburne, it won’t happen again.

Will this serve as precedent for them as well?

186

Jacob, please don’t drag me into this. I’m just a steward of someone’s private property; nothing more.

187

I’m sorry, I guess I’ve said too much. Redacted.