Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[Mechaman]

Are you saying that you believe that tens of millions of people having equal rights, the right to vote, the right to live their lives without facing institutionalized, state-supported discrimination and harassment, all of that liberty, is not worth the liberty that some (and, until you give us concrete examples, hypothetical) white business owners had to surrender?

Did those business owners really have to surrender those rights in order for tens of millions of people to have other rights?  Why was that part necessary?
Otherwise I would have to say that yes you have a point.  However, I believe it was a very low move to include the provision about business owners, even if it meant no more state sponsored discrimination and harrassment.
Believe me, issues like Civil Rights aren't black and white to me, I actually do think about the outcomes.  The fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a net good effect in regards to state sponsored discrimination doesn't change the fact that it was wrong of the government to force individual business owners to give up their rights to conduct business the way they please.
I can say that if I were in Congress I would've cast an "abstain" vote simply because to this day I don't know what exactly to think of the CRA of 1964.  Sometimes I'm pro, sometimes I'm against, right now I'm in the middle.
Other libertarians probably disagree.

[Marokai Backbeat]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

There is no right to not be discriminated against.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you know all this how?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racism is bad. Violating individual freedom is just as bad.

You've still not given us a SINGLE CONCRETE EXAMPLE of an individual's freedom that the Civil Rights Act violated.

Any private business that has ever been sued by the EEOC has had it's rights violated.

Here's a list.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-23-09a.cfm

Why those government bastards. Obviously women should have no protection from sexual harassment. A man's right to inappropriately touch and ogle a woman in the work place should not be infringed!

[Franzl]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

[Lief 🗽]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

There is no right to not be discriminated against.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you know all this how?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racism is bad. Violating individual freedom is just as bad.

You've still not given us a SINGLE CONCRETE EXAMPLE of an individual's freedom that the Civil Rights Act violated.

Any private business that has ever been sued by the EEOC has had it's rights violated.

Here's a list.

So in all those cases you believe that the liberty of the business owner to discriminate against minorities is more important than the liberty of the people suing to have equal access and treatment?

[Holmes]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

There is no right to not be discriminated against.

Says... you. Why do you think your personal opinions on freedom and rights is the correct one?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you know all this how?[/quote]

I've seen your pictures, read your posts about yourself, I know you go to University, I know you're educated, I know you're well off because you can afford higher education, a computer, the internet, and probably more. No one would think twice about you if they saw you walking down the street, or in an airport, or anywhere else. You are privileged.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racism is bad. Violating individual freedom is just as bad.[/quote]

Racism is bad... but if someone is being oppressed by a majority class, that's legally okay?

[Oakvale]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

I know, it's like some bizzare comedy sketch. Have we stepped back in time forty years?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

There is no right to not be discriminated against.

Says... you. Why do you think your personal opinions on freedom and rights is the correct one?

These are not merely my opinions but rather views rooted in the objective nature of freedom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, kinda creepy...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A private business choosing who it wants to hire does not constitute "oppression".

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

I know, I'm so OFFENDED, I'm going to cry. Don't we know that such discussion is outside the boundaries of respectable politically-correct debate? WTF people?

This is the 21st century, freedom and objectivity are out the window.

[Sbane]

Are you saying that you believe that tens of millions of people having equal rights, the right to vote, the right to live their lives without facing institutionalized, state-supported discrimination and harassment, all of that liberty, is not worth the liberty that some (and, until you give us concrete examples, hypothetical) white business owners had to surrender?

Did those business owners really have to surrender those rights in order for tens of millions of people to have other rights?  Why was that part necessary?
Otherwise I would have to say that yes you have a point.  However, I believe it was a very low move to include the provision about business owners, even if it meant no more state sponsored discrimination and harrassment.
Believe me, issues like Civil Rights aren't black and white to me, I actually do think about the outcomes.  The fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a net good effect in regards to state sponsored discrimination doesn't change the fact that it was wrong of the government to force individual business owners to give up their rights to conduct business the way they please.
I can say that if I were in Congress I would've cast an "abstain" vote simply because to this day I don't know what exactly to think of the CRA of 1964.  Sometimes I'm pro, sometimes I'm against, right now I'm in the middle.
Other libertarians probably disagree.

So should businesses be able to discriminate in hiring? I can try and understand why forcing businesses to serve everyone was not that "important". At least not to the degree to take away their freedom of association. But what about hiring? If people cannot get jobs due to the color of their skin, they are relegated to second class citizenship. There is no way to get around that. And if someone supports that, even if it is out of "principles", they are aiding and abetting that behavior.

[memphis]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

And this is exactly why Paul is going to crash and burn. This issue is electric. It gets people energized to the max and public opinion is not on the side of Paul and Libertas. You've done it again tea partiers. I look forward to Senator Conway.

[Linus Van Pelt]

If you'll forgive the bad pun, there may be a gold mine waiting for Conway in certain parts of the state if he has the sense to press Paul on whether he thinks Massey Energy should similarly be free to make its own decisions about mine safety.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint.

Actually, yes, you can. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?

Respectfully, a temporary fix at best, brittain33, unless you think Little Rock has seen the light.

[Franzl]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

I know, I'm so OFFENDED, I'm going to cry. Don't we know that such discussion is outside the boundaries of respectable politically-correct debate? WTF people?

This is the 21st century, freedom and objectivity are out the window.

As always, you're putting words in my mouth. I never disputed your freedom to discuss anything you want. I'm saying it's quite sad and indicative of your insanity that you would feel the need to actually debate something like this.

And btw, all you're doing is advocating the protection of one freedom over another, nothing else. Don't act like one particular freedom is universal.

[Holmes]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

There is no right to not be discriminated against.

Says... you. Why do you think your personal opinions on freedom and rights is the correct one?

These are not merely my opinions but rather views rooted in the objective nature of freedom.

Just that? How about using  things that matter, like the Constitution, or Supreme Court rulings, or legislation, to back up your claim?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, kinda creepy...[/quote]

How is it creepy? You have posted pictures of yourself in the pic thread for everyone to see. You have spoken to me about your education in chemistry in University. You have told the whole forum where you live, too. How you think, what your opinions are, how you feel, what you like... everyone has. It's not creepy. You've put it out for everyone to see. I know a lot about members here because I read posts and I forge conclusions based on what they say.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A private business choosing who it wants to hire does not constitute "oppression".
[/quote]

I'm not merely using employment as an example. There are many ways someone can be discriminated against, that could constitute oppression.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

I know, I'm so OFFENDED, I'm going to cry. Don't we know that such discussion is outside the boundaries of respectable politically-correct debate? WTF people?

This is the 21st century, freedom and objectivity are out the window.

As always, you're putting words in my mouth. I never disputed your freedom to discuss anything you want. I'm saying it's quite sad and indicative of your insanity that you would feel the need to actually debate something like this.

And btw, all you're doing is advocating the protection of one freedom over another, nothing else. Don't act like one particular freedom is universal.

No I'm not. I'm advocating equal and universal freedom from aggression for everyone.

[memphis]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint.

Actually, yes, you can. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?

Respectfully, a temporary fix at best, brittain33, unless you think Little Rock has seen the light.

Show me one school in Little Rock (or anywhere) that will deny access based on race in 2010.

[Sbane]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

I guess they are just too blinded by their ideology to think about the real world consequences of their positions. In many ways libertarians are just the polar opposites of communists. When you first hear their ideology it seems great, until you realize how horribly naive it is.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint.

Actually, yes, you can. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?

Respectfully, a temporary fix at best, brittain33, unless you think Little Rock has seen the light.

Show me one school in Little Rock (or anywhere) that will deny access based on race in 2010.

State-enforced segregation and discrimination is not the issue here.

[Franzl]

No I'm not. I'm advocating equal and universal freedom from aggression for everyone.

False, you're advocating equal and universal freedom from agression for a majority of people.

Screw the rest.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

I guess they are just too blinded by their ideology to think about the real world consequences of their positions. In many ways libertarians are just the polar opposites of communists. When you first hear their ideology it seems great, until you realize how horribly naive it is.

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No I'm not. I'm advocating equal and universal freedom from aggression for everyone.

False, you're advocating equal and universal freedom from agression for a majority of people.

Screw the rest.

Nope, I have never done that, sorry. Please do not make up lies to misrepresent my position.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This sort of response is precisely why this conversation is pointless, people.

No I'm not. I'm advocating equal and universal freedom from aggression for everyone.

False, you're advocating equal and universal freedom from agression for a majority of people.

Screw the rest.

Nope, I have never done that, sorry. Please do not make up lies to misrepresent my position.

[Franzl]

No I'm not. I'm advocating equal and universal freedom from aggression for everyone.

False, you're advocating equal and universal freedom from agression for a majority of people.

Screw the rest.

Nope, I have never done that, sorry. Please do not make up lies to misrepresent my position.

You are advocating total and complete majority rule, what else? You're saying that everyone has freedom to whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it violates the freedom other people enjoy (or should enjoy).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No I'm not. I'm advocating equal and universal freedom from aggression for everyone.

False, you're advocating equal and universal freedom from agression for a majority of people.

Screw the rest.

Nope, I have never done that, sorry. Please do not make up lies to misrepresent my position.

You are advocating total and complete majority rule, what else? You're saying that everyone has freedom to whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it violates the freedom other people enjoy (or should enjoy).

Nope, I have never said that. As long as it exists, the state has the responsibility to respect and protect the rights of all its citizens, majority and minority.

The non-aggression principle is objective and universal, as I have stated on numerous occasions.

[The Mikado]

I guess they are just too blinded by their ideology to think about the real world consequences of their positions. In many ways libertarians are just the polar opposites of communists. When you first hear their ideology it seems great, until you realize how horribly naive it is.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

Amazing article from a few years ago (by a right-winger, no less).