Here is proof of Libertarian racism

[Klaatu]

Here is proof of Libertarian racism


May 20, 2010
Paul takes heat for Civil Rights comments
Posted: May 20th, 2010 12:00 PM ET

(CNN) - Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway is putting the heat on GOP rival Rand Paul over Paul's recent comments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Paul - the Tea Party favorite who easily beat Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the state's May 18 Senate primary - repeatedly dodged questions in recent media interviews about whether he thinks parts of the landmark legislation amount to a constitutional overreach.

An interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal last month highlighted Paul's controversial views during which he said: "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners-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. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."

Following his primary victory on Tuesday, Paul was again questioned over his views regarding the legislation on National Public Radio and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. In response to questions, Paul said he supports the 46-year old measure except for the provisions that outlaw private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race.

While stressing that he is opposed to discrimination in any form, Paul suggested the measure runs up against individuals' First Amendment and property rights.

"I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires," he said.

He also said, "[I]f you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant, even though the owner of the restaurant says, 'Well, no. We don't want to have guns in here.' The bar says we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other. Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"

Conway said the statements are indicative of Paul's "narrow political philosophy that has dangerous consequences for working families, veterans, students, the disabled, and those without a voice in the halls of power."

The Democratic National committee is also putting the heat on Paul, sending several e-mails to reporters Thursday morning highlighting the quotes.

In a subsequent statement Thursday Paul made clear he does not believe the Civil Rights Act should be repealed.

Paul also took issue with the American with Disabilities Act - the 1990 measure that afforded the same rights to individuals with disabilities as those who are protected by the Civil Rights Act.

"I think a lot of things could be handled locally," he told NPR of the legislation. "For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."

Paul is a first time political candidate and son of Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Paul's victory levied a direct blow to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who tapped Grayson for the party nomination last year. McConnell and other GOP leaders in Washington, however, were quick to line up behind Paul after his win in a show of party unity.
source
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/20/paul-takes-heat-for-civil-rights-comments/?fbid=O2KK6Z5oneg&hpt=Sbin

[Raúl Duke]

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are actually the worst of libertarianism...

I heard that Rand Paul supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and opposes same-sex marriage. Goes to show how much he really cares about "individual liberty", he cares more about the "freedom" of property owners to discriminate.

[Klaatu]

You should hear this guy talk. I listened to him on the Rachel Maddow show last night. What a snake-in-the-grass he is. He insists that he is "against discrimination," yet would allow just that in so-called "private business."

Hello, Rand: a restaurant that serves the general public is not the same thing as a private home, where you have a choice as to who you wish to invite in. A restaurant is a public place. It does not matter who owns it; discrimination is wrong!

[Klaatu]

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are actually the worst of libertarianism...

I heard that Rand Paul supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and opposes same-sex marriage. Goes to show how much he really cares about "individual liberty", he cares more about the "freedom" of property owners to discriminate.

I cannot understand how a Libertarian could want to ban abortion and gay marriage. That wholly contradicts his claim of freedom and equal rights. Here is one more (of many) flaws in the Libertarian philosophy. They want "liberty for all," yet wish to pick-and-choose those liberties which they find acceptable. Hypocrites.

[howblackisyourflag]

I dont think he's a racist, I just think that his ridiculous ideology of protecting the tich at all costs has a logical conclusion of also allowing people to be racist or discriminate in other ways.

Its completely insane, and objectively it is racist if you look at what some of the consequences of what his ideas would be, but it does have a strange kind of internal logic that the principled physopaths who call themselves libertarians follow.

A better name for them would be 'propertarians', since all they care about is protecting the wealth of the rich at all costs.

[Obzervi]

Libertarian racism is very subtle in that it is not advocating overt acts of racism, but advocating not doing anything against racism under the guise of "smaller government". Many times their racism is cloaked under this facade and can only be picked up by those with a keen ear to the issue, mainly anti-racists and racists themselves who agree with libertarian racism. Libertarians seek to establish the circumstances in which racism can reign freely.

[Klaatu]

Libertarian racism is very subtle in that it is not advocating overt acts of racism, but advocating not doing anything against racism under the guise of "smaller government". Many times their racism is cloaked under this facade and can only be picked up by those with a keen ear to the issue, mainly anti-racists and racists themselves who agree with libertarian racism.

That is a good way to put it.

"Not doing anything" to stop racism kind of reminds me of the (true) story of a mugging and killing in NYC, but no one wanted "to get involved." In Paul's case, he actively wants the government to get uninvolved in fighting discrimination against not only minorities, but disabled people as well (He wants to repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act!)

[Red Saxon]

I would like to note that by Libertarian, you mean Libertarian Capitalists.

;)

[Klaatu]

I would like to note that by Libertarian, you mean Libertarian Capitalists.

;)

Thank you, but I am unfamiliar with the term "Libertarian Socialist." What are your views?

[Ligeia]

Reminds me of something an "Anarcho"-Capitalist would say: They abhor racism,sexism, child labor,..etc., but private property rights are the most important freedoms in the world. If owners still do such things then they are simply making "bad business decisions" since their customers will decline....according to their logic.
Nonetheless, I sense that this is subtle racism to gain from a far-right electorate (while appealing to other rightists who are only interested in property rights-logic).

[Red Saxon]

Thank you, but I am unfamiliar with the term "Libertarian Socialist." What are your views?
This sums it all up quite well.

Not an oxymoron. In fact, the term "libertarian" was first used by a French anarcho-communist back in 1857 to describe himself (an anarchist). The modern term libertarianism (economic freedoms) was originally called liberalism. The term "libertarian" describes liberty (thus, the term is also used to describe metaphysical liberty within philosophy and metaphysics), and the term socialism describes a society in which wealth is fairly distributed. Thus, it is neither a literal nor a practical contradiction.

A libertarian socialist would argue that a society based on such huge disparities of wealth is unfree. If you wish to enter into employment, you choose first and take orders later (as with liberal democracy). Libertarian socialists believe in voluntary association and economic democracy. This will allow the individual to reach his/her full potential.

The most famous example of successful libertarian socialism is the anarcho-syndicalist experiment in Spain during to Spanish Civil War, which was eventually destroyed by Communists and Fascists (see Orwell' "Homage to Catalonia" for excellent first hand reportage of this). At its peak, the anarchist union (CNT) had one million members.

Although sharing much of (if not all of) the Marxist analysis of capitalism, lib socialists vehemently oppose state socialism, especially the authoritarian socialism of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and, more recently, the socialism of Hugo Chavez. The modern dispute between the two schools of socialism began in the First International, in which Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin bitterly argued over the road socialists should take. This dispute has continued ever since, with many Marxist regimes imprisoning, murdering (Russia), and exiling (Cuba) anarchists.
Modern advocates of libertarian socialism include linguist Noam Chomsky, historian and playwright Howard Zinn, and the Industrial Workers of the World ("One Big Union"), and the International Workers Association (of which the Spanish CNT is its largest affiliate).

[x371322]

As a Kentuckian, I can confirm that Rand Paul is, and you can quote me on this, a racist douche bag. I hope he gets his ass handed to him come November. But of course, knowing my state as I do, I'm sure he'll win by a pretty decent margin.

[Klaatu]

As a Kentuckian, I can confirm that Rand Paul is, and you can quote me on this, a racist douche bag. I hope he gets his ass handed to him come November. But of course, knowing my state as I do, I'm sure he'll win by a pretty decent margin.

I am positive that not one black, latino, gay person, or other minority will vote for him. And collectively, minorities do make a sizable amount of voters just about anywhere.

What if we still lived in Rand's world, where discrimination is allowed. Rand is travelling through the desert, out of food, water, gas, etc. He stops at a Latino-owned gas station. The owner, a Latino man with a black wife, refuses to sell Rand any food or gas, saying "No Whites Allowed" thus Rand must thumb a ride to the next town, but no one picks him up, because he is white, and all the cars have drivers who are prejudiced.

I say, let there be poetic justice. :mad:

BTW, I am not suggesting that blacks and latinos are prejudice here, only trying to illustrate a point.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

[Klaatu]

This sums it all up quite well.

Thanks. Your explanation makes sense.

I will from now on refer to "Libertarian Capitalist" in order to avoid confusion.

[Agnapostate]

I don't know if the prohibition of racial discrimination by private businesses is worth much. It seems that Paul's argument could be undercut by the entire "primitive accumulation/vulgar libertarianism" issue when it comes to large corporations, but it would be crippling for them to announce overt racial discrimination these days. The only places that would still fly are in a few local proprietorships in the backwoods of Mississippi, and who even goes there?

[Klaatu]

After giving this Rand Paul fiasco some more thought, I've decided to thank Paul for helping expose the true colors
of the typical Libertarian Capitalist. People like Paul live in some fantasy world of their own, where everything is
perfect, everyone is honest, no one gets hurt, etc. People like Paul want small government, and this is supposed to
solve society's ills? As if things are not bad enough already.

Suppose we shrink the government down to Paul's preference. With a small government, how do we catch terrorists?
dope dealers? thieves, rapists, murderers? How to protect people from discrimination and unfair labor practices?
Paul would do away with the minimum wage, industrial health and safety rules, allow polluters to dump, and unsafe
foods and products to be sold, caveat emptor.

That is the way it used to be. Back in the jungle! proximus egomet mihi (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proximus_egomet_mihi#Latin)

[Raúl Duke]

"No Whites Allowed"It would say "no pinche gringos"
not sure if such a think is likely (the scenario your posit) in his world but it is possible.

[Technocrat]

The only "libertarians" we have in office in this country are economic libertarian. This is the same as saying fiscal conservative.

What socialists and anarchists are interested in is social libertarianism. Unfortunately, most economic libertarians are no where close to being socially libertarian. It gets confusing. Sometimes I think this is a deliberate strategy to confuse people, like how economists say that free market economics is "efficient", by using a completely made-up definition of "efficiency".

[Agnapostate]

It would say "no pinche gringos"
not sure if such a think is likely (the scenario your posit) in his world but it is possible.

"Gringo" doesn't mean white, if that's what you meant. It's an alternately affectionate/pejorative Mexican term for U.S. citizens akin to "yankee."


The only "libertarians" we have in office in this country are economic libertarian. This is the same as saying fiscal conservative.

No, as that would imply that capitalism has anything to do with economic liberty, and given the hierarchical authoritarianism of its labor markets, that's plainly false.

[synthesis]

Y'all are a little naive about the role of rhetoric in politics.

The point is not whether his ideology is racist, or whether racism is his ideology. Ideology is merely a mask for political agendas. There are multiple audiences for this sort of rhetoric, and Rand Paul knows exactly who they are.

[Technocrat]

No, as that would imply that capitalism has anything to do with economic liberty, and given the hierarchical authoritarianism of its labor markets, that's plainly false.

You are misunderstanding what the term "economic libertarian" means. Libertarianism is basically a philosophy that says that individuals shouldn't have an external authority controlling them. So, economic libertarianism is a philosophy which says that the best economic situation would be one in which the government did nothing to control the market. I'm talking about how the terms are used in everyday discussion. The majority of the people calling themselves libertarian, who actually run for and get elected to public office, are economic libertarian. That's how they get away with calling themselves 'libertarian' while at the same time opposing things like abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization. It's confusing and deceptive. The desirable kind of libertarian is social libertarian, not economic libertarian, since economic libertarianism amounts to free market ideology which results in an unequal distribution of wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

[Raúl Duke]

"Gringo" doesn't mean white, if that's what you meant. It's an alternately affectionate/pejorative Mexican term for U.S. citizens akin to "yankee."

Hispanics/Latinos can be white...

Hypothetical racism from Latinos are usually targeted to anglo-saxons, etc (non-hispanic whites).

[Agnapostate]

You are misunderstanding what the term "economic libertarian" means. Libertarianism is basically a philosophy that says that individuals shouldn't have an external authority controlling them. So, economic libertarianism is a philosophy which says that the best economic situation would be one in which the government did nothing to control the market.

That would bring about the collapse of capitalism, which seems inconsistent with "libertarian" (actually propertarian or some other term, since libertarianism is properly a synonym of anarchism consistent with its origin as a political term), ideology. Uncontrolled markets have never and can never be a viable condition of the capitalist economy, and if "laissez-faire" policies were applied now, it would simply perpetuate the consequences created by past statist intervention in the phase of primitive accumulation of capital.


I'm talking about how the terms are used in everyday discussion.

I know what's meant by the terms; I simply disagree with the current nature of their application, though that conflicts with descriptive semantics. This is because I believe that the continued usage of the present definitions will cause greater long-term confusion even if deviation from them causes short-term confusion.


The majority of the people calling themselves libertarian, who actually run for and get elected to public office, are economic libertarian. That's how they get away with calling themselves 'libertarian' while at the same time opposing things like abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization. It's confusing and deceptive.

I've never heard of a "libertarian" politician opposing same-sex marriage and drug legalization, or at the very least "states' rights" perspectives on the issues, though they can go either way on abortion rights. Someone who simply ran on a rightist economic platform wouldn't be distinct from mainline conservatives.


The desirable kind of libertarian is social libertarian, not economic libertarian, since economic libertarianism amounts to free market ideology which results in an unequal distribution of wealth.

Economic libertarianism is the philosophy which will produce economic liberty, which is not capitalism and its authoritarian labor markets. The fundamental axioms of so-called "libertarianism" may be "free market" in nature, but since capitalism has never been characterized by free markets and never can or will be, the actual policies advocated by propertarians end up strengthening statist interventionism, making them guilty of the "vulgar libertarianism" that Kevin Carson speaks of. Free markets actually require socialism, and the elimination of the concentration in interdependent oligopolies that macroeconomic policy sustains under capitalism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

Classical liberalism, for its faults, was focused on agrarian individualism (among property-owning Anglo-Saxon males of age). Modern corporate capitalism has no relationship to that, and defense of it is similarly unrelated to classical/economic liberalism, apart from the Rawlsian sense in which the term "liberal" is currently used.


Hispanics/Latinos can be white...

Hypothetical racism from Latinos are usually targeted to anglo-saxons, etc (non-hispanic whites).

I wasn't thinking clearly since I would have known better than to issue a presumptuous correction when I was talking to you, but many U.S. citizens, who inaccurately consider Mexicans to be a race, believe that "gringo" is a term applied to whites, despite the white nature of the Mexican ruling class and the non-application of the term to them. I was pointing out that it was nationalist and not racist.

[Technocrat]

I know what's meant by the terms; I simply disagree with the current nature of their application, though that conflicts with descriptive semantics. This is because I believe that the continued usage of the present definitions will cause greater long-term confusion even if deviation from them causes short-term confusion.

Hey, I'm not defending how the terms are used, just pointing it out. I agree that that the way the terms are used today leads to widespread confusion.


I've never heard of a "libertarian" politician opposing same-sex marriage and drug legalization, or at the very least "states' rights" perspectives on the issues, though they can go either way on abortion rights. Someone who simply ran on a rightist economic platform wouldn't be distinct from mainline conservatives.

Well, make a visit to Texas sometimes (Ron Paul's home).


Economic libertarianism is the philosophy which will produce economic liberty, which is not capitalism and its authoritarian labor markets. The fundamental axioms of so-called "libertarianism" may be "free market" in nature, but since capitalism has never been characterized by free markets and never can or will be, the actual policies advocated by propertarians end up strengthening statist interventionism, making them guilty of the "vulgar libertarianism" that Kevin Carson speaks of. Free markets actually require socialism, and the elimination of the concentration in interdependent oligopolies that macroeconomic policy sustains under capitalism.

Yes, I see you're talking about the terms as they should actually be defined, not how they are actually used in everyday conversation. That's cool so long as you make it clear that's what you're doing.

[Klaatu]

Rand Paul, the racist prick, just got elected to the U.S. Senate. :thumbdown:

[Amphictyonis]

I heard that Rand Paul supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and opposes same-sex marriage. Goes to show how much he really cares about "individual liberty", he cares more about the "freedom" of property owners to discriminate.

I heard Rand Paul worships the Aqua Buddha!

6BCa8xw9yGY



Give Explosive Situation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14692) the credit for that video^

[Klaatu]

I'll bet thousands of clueless Christians voted for this douchebag, only because he wants to ban abortion.

Careful what you wish for, coneheads...

[Thirsty Crow]

I dont think he's a racist, I just think that his ridiculous ideology of protecting the tich at all costs has a logical conclusion of also allowing people to be racist or discriminate in other ways. I actually agree with this conclusion, since from what I've read I really do not get the impression that his support of the "right" to discriminate in public places stems from his own essentialist views on other groups, but rather from his essentialist view on economic "liberty".


Its completely insane, and objectively it is racist if you look at what some of the consequences of what his ideas would be, but it does have a strange kind of internal logic that the principled physopaths who call themselves libertarians follow.

This is an important point. It really shows how the potential practice of lassez faire and the ideology of "economic liberty" is, at best completely impotent when it comes to issues of racial domination/oppression (as well as gender and sexual orientation oppression), and at worst - completely uninterested. But such is capitalism, with its social relations, taken to its "logical" consequences.

[Klaatu]

You can argue all you want about whether Paul is, or is not, racist. But it is a no-brainer that
(A) legalized discrimination is, or would be, a racist doctrine, and even more important:
(B) Such a policy enables the racist business-owner to freely discriminate. Therefore, whether
or not Paul himself is racist is not the real issue here; the issue is whether we enable private
"lunch-counter racists" to ply their filthy, evil ideology upon the innocent public. I say NOT

[Klaatu]

Rand Paul "There Are No Rich! There Are No Middle Class! There Are No Poor!"

In other words, we are beholden to our masters... (according to Rand Paul)

okeXguQTbOY

[timbaly]

I heard Rand Paul worships the Aqua Buddha!

6BCa8xw9yGY



Give Explosive Situation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14692) the credit for that video^


What a terrible and irrelevant political ad. It's no surprise that this anti-regulation, pro-child labor candidate won the Senate seat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What a terrible and irrelevant political ad. It's no surprise that this anti-regulation, pro-child labor candidate won the Senate seat.On the national TV news last week, I saw a report about how most of the Ads being run by democrats were attacks on the character of individual Republicans... I guess when your party is pushing mearly a softer version of what the tea-party wants, it's hard to criticize the Republicans based on the issues.

In California we elected a wacky liberal, liberal-hugging, moon-beam, liberal by the name of Jerry Brown. His first promise which was the headline in the far-left Pravda of San Fransicko, "The SF Chronicle": "Jerry Brown prepares for 'austere government' (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/03/MN3A1G6GLM.DTL)"


governor-elect Jerry Brown (http://www.sfgate.com/jerry-brown/), warning that Californians sent a message in Tuesday's election that they are "in no mood to add to their burdens" with new taxes, said Wednesday he has begun laying the groundwork for cutting government costs and repairing the "broken process" of producing a state budget...


"I'm going to try to pare down as much as I possibly can," said Brown, speaking to reporters in his Oakland campaign headquarters.


The good news is that Meg Whitman's campaign lost! The bad news is that her politics won!

Let them eat organic cake!

[Klaatu]

Thank the gods that Aaahnold Sweetsneeagah is probably back to making movies again (I DIG his films!!!) ;) :D :thumbup1:

[Weezer]

Who is Aqua Buddha?
:laugh:

[Klaatu]

Who is Aqua Buddha?
:laugh:

Someone from one of Rand Paul's wet dreams? :lol: