Rand blew it.
What I would have asked Maddow is: should it be illegal for me to turn down someone’s request for a date because of her race? It may be a dick move, but since when is being a rude jerk a crime?
Esuric: Much to do about nothing. The liberals fear libertarianism so they’re going to try to paint him as a racist. They did the same thing to his father. He should have said:
“Why is it the governments job to save businessmen from engaging in bad business practices? If a businessman wants to lose money then he should be able to.” It’s that simple.
Were businessmen losing enough money from these sorts of practices to go out of business before the legislation was passed?
First, they don’t have to go out of business; losing revenue is big price to pay for stupidity. Second, the world has changed since the 1950’s, and it had nothing to do with the civil rights act of 64. Legislation follows social change; it doesn’t cause it. Also, states can pass it if they so choose.
I hate to say it, but it seems like Rand Paul is a bad debater just like his father (at least, that’s my conclusion from watching all these recent interviews.) I respect both of them, but they are just too meak and indirect in the way they conduct themselves.
f.
Yes, you have to take it to them. The liberals will avoid serious intellectual debates at all costs. They will imply that you’re a racist, or that you’re a reactionary who’s “out of touch” ect. To win a debate you have to be aggressive.
Yo amoralists and ethical subjectivists, what is your economic argument against the question posed by Maddow.
What do you believe is the best response to that, a response that would actually shut down the ‘left’s’ attempts to claim the moral highground ?
So glad you asked. I just finished writing a blog post on what my response would have been.
I asked, but you did not answer.
Where is the economic argument? Where is the value free response? Or appeals to utilitarianism? Better yet, one that even vaguely resembles a clear cut smackdown against the “left”.
Or am I to expect a bloom / liberte type response, and that will have to suffice… for who cares about a strategy for liberty, right? For why care about justifying your principles (when you have none).
They have the legal high ground, Conza. They’ve got precedent. That’s all that needs to be said imo. The law says property owners aren’t allowed this particular choice, they’re not allowed this particular choice.
Rand Paul should pick his battles more carefully, this one cannot be won. The people have spoken, they care less about property rights than they do about punishing racial discrimination. There can be no smackdown of the left in this arena. None. All that an aspiring politician can do with this battle is make himself look bad trying to backpeddle when he realizes his audience doesn’t accept the NAP.
The only saving grace is that he’s running in Kentucky, they may sympathize with what he said more, I don’t really know, I haven’t seen any polls.
HOWEVER, what has to happen now, imo, is that other Republicans need to issue statements saying they don’t like what Rand said so that the racism card doesn’t get played more often, we will lose that battle every time EVEN IF our logical arguments are better.
EDIT: What I’m also trying to say is that Rand is running as a Republican, not a libertarian. If he wants to run as a libertarian and say things like this on Maddow, so be it. But don’t do it with the Republican brand on the line. We don’t need this kind of heat going into November.
Well, here’s your poll:
“Rand Paul, riding the momentum of his big Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now posts a 25-point lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race, but there’s a lot of campaigning to go.”
Here’s something I concocted a while ago:
You see, with every further discriminating employer/property owner/customer, the cost of discriminating for a “non-discriminator” increases. Suppose there are 3 employers, you and two competitors. These competitors suddenly decide to lay off all Jews they employ. The pool of Jewish workers seeking employment suddenly increases which enables you to hire Jewish workers at a lower price than before. This will grant a Jewish applicant a possible advantage compared to a non-Jewish contender. Furthermore, among those laid-off workers there might just be a number of potentially indispensable talents nobody would fire in their right mind. These geniuses will be glad to work for someone who judges them according to their abilities, not their religion, and will thus give your enterprise a head start.
The same principle applies for housing, restaurants, liquor stores and everything else. Every practicing hater will only increase revenue for open-minded and tolerant folks, thereby willingly disadvantaging himself.
It should also be mentioned that not only will the discriminated minority avoid doing business with a discriminating businessman, but sympathizers of the disadvantaged group might decide to spend their money elsewhere as well. Depending on how apparent and how devoted somebody discriminates, this may cost the discriminating person a business, workplace or social reputation in no time.
It seems like there’s no real economic benefit from barring discrimination on race/gender, since we’re saying the market would do it anyway. The only way you can argue against a redundant law as bureaucracy.
Anyway, we only get a superior system when the majority of every group is served, but some are still allowed their preference to discriminate (pareto efficiency). We’re not allowed to claim that its valuable to not associate with only white people, so this argument cannot be made.
Paul should just say he values peace, prosperity, and freedom, for every american, and that he doesn’t have race issues on the top of the priority list. I know people complain that politicians change the subject, but sometimes the subject is stupid as hell. They’re only asking him this to stop a libertarian from getting any liberal votes. It would be terrifying if the Tea Party split the democratic party too.
Any bets on what question they’ll ask immediately after you say “well, the market will get rid of it?”
I generally don’t respond to liars & those who are intellectually dishonest.
However;
“this one cannot be won”
No, you’re wrong. But thanks for confirming everything I just said.
"EDIT: What I’m also trying to say is that Rand is running as a Republican, not a libertarian. If he wants to run as a libertarian and say things like this on Maddow, so be it. But don’t do it with the Republican brand on the line. We don’t need this kind of heat going into November. "
Haha!! ! That is hilarious bloom.
I’d have love to see you on her show, where Maddow then asks you about your support of an unconsitutional, illegal war and what you’d do if you were to fight.
And you’d respond like you have done previously on these forums:
bloomj31:
“I would…get…ready to…willing kill anyone and everyone that got in my way, man woman and child”
bloomj31:
“I support doing what is necessary. If that involves murdering people, so be it.”
Bloom… mate, you’d be a PERFECT representation of the republican label!
Any bets on what question they’ll ask immediately after you say “well, the market will get rid of it?”
My guess would be to ask why the market didnt get rid of racism in the first place and then go on to assert that it is the free market which creates segregation and slavery.
You think that’s the best reponse to Maddow’s question? And that it’s a smack down against the 'leftists" ?
Yes. And that would be the takeaway from the clip. They’ll play little 30 second soundbytes on radio and talk shows and it won’t be a fair fight.
Obviously, my excerpt would be way too long for a political show based on sound bites. But it can be transformed:
“Racism is an irrational world view. Racists hurt themselves economically and socially with their behavior. Government intervention only gives them the opportunity to pose as victims. We don’t want that to happen!”
But anyway, what would be your ethical smackdown against Maddow? Appeals to private property?
Yes. And that would be the takeaway from the clip. They’ll play little 30 second soundbytes on radio and talk shows and it won’t be a fair fight.
Agreed completely. Politics is a dirty game. Its not about how you achieve your agenda. Its simply about aquiring the power to acheive your agenda. It attracts some of the most ambitious, ruthless people in the world. I think this is the point of veiw you take in many of your posts. Its ugly but its reality.
This is the reason why I get so disgusted with politics and have a hard time watching most news programs. Even when watching those stories that are favorible to my point of veiw I have to change the channel when they are being dishonest.