Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[Franzl]

Do those principles include opposing civil rights?

[Franzl]

Do those principles include opposing civil rights?

Nope, they don't.

Then why can't he come out in favor of the Civil Rights Act?

[Franzl]

Do those principles include opposing civil rights?

Nope, they don't.

Then why can't he come out in favor of the Civil Rights Act?

Because he doesn't support ineffective, authoritarian, centralizing, anti-freedom legislation?

Care to explain what's ineffective about the act?

[Franzl]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint. Federal "civil rights" legislation has only increased racial tension and strife and increased centralized power over everyone's lives.

Sounds great in theory.....but what negative consequences do you feel the Civil Rights Act have caused in REALITY? Do you seriously believe conditions for racial minorities are worse as a result?

[Franzl]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint. Federal "civil rights" legislation has only increased racial tension and strife and increased centralized power over everyone's lives.

Sounds great in theory.....but what negative consequences do you feel the Civil Rights Act have caused in REALITY? Do you seriously believe conditions for racial minorities are worse as a result?

What's hilarious here is that Libertas is expressing a "liberty for the largest group" sentiment. Even though, as a Libertarian, he puts liberty and individual rights above all else (in theory) his attitude here seems to be that blacks should've just sucked it up and waited another generation or two, since heaven forbid we force the white people to do anything, which would seem to me to be decidedly anti-freedom.

Why do you hate freedom, Marokai? Don't you know that legislatures representative of a majority have to initiate civil rights and other protections of minorities? Judicial activism needs to die a painful death! Power to the people!!! Ron Paul for President!

[Franzl]

BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS MORE POWER!!!!! OMG OMG !!!

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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).

[Franzl]

You're assuming that freedom from the state is the only true freedom, and the only type of freedom worth protecting.

I'm telling you that freedom can also be violated by other people/groups/institutions besides the state. Did you ever consider hat?

[Franzl]

You're assuming that freedom from the state is the only true freedom, and the only type of freedom worth protecting.

I'm telling you that freedom can also be violated by other people/groups/institutions besides the state. Did you ever consider hat?

You are misrepresenting my position again, as I have never said that the state is the only violator of freedom.

Correct me if I'm wrong then....you aknowledge that people other than the state can violate freedom....but you oppose the state intervening in order to prevent that from happening?

[Franzl]

and if there are differences, it's not because of race.

at least not per se.

[Franzl]

If you guys think changing the rules at the point of a gun is more important than changing hearts, then I fear all is lost.

I would say it's impossible to change hearts, or rather, to force peoples' hearts to change.....but at the same time, it's necessary to provide minorities with protection, if necessary by force, to keep them from suffering at the hands of an opporessive majority.

[Franzl]

Hearts weren't changed. In fact, hearts were hardened by state encouragement of racial distrust and tension.

Cite?

[Franzl]

If you guys think changing the rules at the point of a gun is more important than changing hearts, then I fear all is lost.

What's your point?

The rules were changed at the point of  agun, and hearts were changed later. Do you deny that support for segregation is no longer mainstream?

Hearts weren't changed. In fact, hearts were hardened by state encouragement of racial distrust and tension.

My friends from MA and TN have intimated that because federal intervention was used, all is well now and there's no problem.  In my personal opinion they're right as far as "rules" are concerned, but to me it's a simplistic view of a much deeper problem that will never go away, no matter how much federal intervention there is.  That's my point, Xahar.    I don't know how to state it in a simpler way and I know you don't agree because you say hearts ARE changed......I say they're not, but that's just my opinion.

You may be right....but isn't the way it is today still preferable....that blacks in the South no longer have to be worried about getting lynched?

[Franzl]

Well, obviously not all hearts are changed (that would be impossible), but a great many are. Besides, cahnging things at the point of a gun has a direct effect, whereas changing hearts can take a very long time. The former is more important.

And that's where I part company with you and brittain33 and memphis.

We don't need to necessarily debate what's more important.....but isn't changing things at the point of a gun, effectively giving millions of people the rights of a citizen.....better than doing nothing simply because it doesn't change everyone's hearts?

[Franzl]

How stupid can you get, Libertas?

1.) Obama's percentage of the White vote is not a lot lower than what Kerry got.....sure it may have gone down a bit in some places, but it's not like Whites in the South were a loyally Democratic group until Obama came along.

2.) Wouldn't you agree there's a difference between not voting for someone because he's black......and treating him as a second class citizen? For example, how many of the Whites that voted against Obama in the South, in your opinion, would support segregation?

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here...

[Franzl]

You may be right....but isn't the way it is today still preferable....that blacks in the South no longer have to be worried about getting lynched?

Lynching Germans or me is just as troublesome.......and a violation of everyone's civil rights.

I dunno what you're trying to say here......are you or I getting lynched anywhere?

[Franzl]

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.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

Again, ignoring questions

Right, I only have like six or seven people here all demanding immediate responses.

As for your question, that is not the issue here, as I have never once voiced approval for the state taking away one's individual rights.

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION FOR ONCE

[Franzl]

Libertas is saying he opposes state sponsored discrimination, but is equally opposed to the federal government forcing that on the states.

It's an extremely stupid and irrational position, of course.....but it doesn't necessarily contradict itself.

[Franzl]

It's irrational because human rights are something that need to be protected, period. There's no reason someone living in Alabama should be at a comparative disadvantage because Alabama doesn't protect him from discrimination, whereas a similar person living in, say, Tennessee, enjoys all the freedoms and rights other citizens do because his state does offer protection.

There's no reason to protect a state's right to discriminate just for the sake of "states' rights".

[Franzl]

I didn't say the state franzl, I said private individuals. Govt as an entity doesn't have the sam right to discriminate like a private citizen does.

What I'm saying is that people living in states (or communities, or whatever) that allow discrimination to occur (theoretically here, assuming there were no Civil Rights Act), are at an unfair disadvantage compared to people that live in states that do choose to protect their rights.

I believe that this would be unfair.

Even if you reject that the federal government should be involved in a lot of things, particularly economic things, such as the minimum wage (and I am sympathetic to such arguments against federal involvement), I don't see why anyone could oppose the federal government making sure that every citizen enjoys equal rights.

[Franzl]

Franzl, should ethnic businesses be forced to hire a different race or group? Should hooters be forced to hire men as waiters?

If I were perfectly consistent, then yes....even if it's pretty irrational in practice.

That said, it's kind of stupid to enforce in these particular cases, as both examples you provide offer a particular service that only certain people can provide.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. Hooters definitely should be required to employ men, yes, and they do actually, just not as waiters. They have a legitimate business interest in only having women servers, though.

Even if it's not universally consistent.....isn't that kind of different in your mind, States, than a business simply saying he won't hire a black because he "hates n**gers"?

[Franzl]

The problem is that the "libertarian" view here demands total and absolute consistency, which isn't realy practical.

In 99% of cases, "discrimination" doesn't serve any real interest....so any argument in favor of allowing it is weak.

In Hooters case...."discrimination", which it technically is, serves a legitimate business interest, namely providing customers with hot girls serving them. But despite that, Hooters does employ men for all other positions.

Any absolute position is bound to be irrational.....and saying that all bans on discrimination are illegitimate simply because there are individual cases where exceptions are warranted....seems very irrational to me.