Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[Mechaman]

That's a liberty according to Paul followers: if you don't have a money, you can go eat s**t and die. Because helping you is wrong.

Viva la liberte!

What if some Paul followers like the taste of sh*t?

[Mechaman]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

No, defining "freedom" as being able to legally discriminate against the disabled---that's scary.

That is the definition of freedom. You people want to re-define it to mean something other than true freedom.

So 'true freedom' is the right to discriminate against the disabled without fear of penalty. Fascinating.

No, freedom is the right to run a business without fear of being threatened with government guns because you didn't bankrupt yourself trying to conform to ridiculous nonsensical regulations.

He's right.
The idea that people wouldn't think discrimination is evil without government intervention is frankly insulting to my intelligence.  Society should be the one to punish people who they see as discriminatory, not the government.  If you think that a business owner who refused to have handicap modifications in their business place wouldn't get boycotted, picketed, or lose a number of customers within a month of setting up shop then you frankly have very little faith in humanity.
I don't care if this is Libertas I'm agreeing with and I'm sorry I don't think of the government as this great omnipotent God who dictates everything into action and without whom there will be chaos and evil and everyone will suddenly turn into racist sexist nativist disabled people hating bastards just because there is no Super Giant Nanny State to watch over us.

[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.

[Mechaman]

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.

If you read my response to Lief you would see that I specifically said I would have "reservations" about the CRA of 1964 not that I was deadset against it.  But no, because I voice reservations about one specific part of it and said that if I happened to be in Congress I might vote "abstain" (not even a "no" vote mind you) when a good majority of Congress was going to vote for it anyway I'm suddenly being "blinded by ideology".  I'm not saying I would vote against the CRA of 1964, I am not saying that, nor am I saying it is nothing but evil.  What I am saying is that I would have reservations about legislating how individuals do business, that's my reservation.
Quit implying that I haven't researched this topic and are merely following ideology, if that was the case I would be totting the "no" line instead of merely claiming to have reservations.