Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[TheGreatOne]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

[Badger]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

[Badger]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

Provided it is a government crafted by voluntary consent of all involved parties.

[Badger]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

Provided it is a government crafted by voluntary consent of all involved parties.

What the hell does that mean? Do you believe the states and US government consittute such a structure? If not, what do you envision?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

Provided it is a government crafted by voluntary consent of all involved parties.

What the hell does that mean? Do you believe the states and US government consittute such a structure? If not, what do you envision?

Of course I don't the consider the U.S. government a legitimate governing body; I thought that was common knowledge.

[exopolitician]

lol.


Way to go Kentucky.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

Provided it is a government crafted by voluntary consent of all involved parties.

What the hell does that mean? Do you believe the states and US government consittute such a structure? If not, what do you envision?

     It essentially means an anarchist community. Anarcho-capitalists typically support governmental bodies, provided that they are strictly voluntary.

[Badger]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

Provided it is a government crafted by voluntary consent of all involved parties.

What the hell does that mean? Do you believe the states and US government consittute such a structure? If not, what do you envision?

     It essentially means an anarchist community. Anarcho-capitalists typically support governmental bodies, provided that they are strictly voluntary.

In other words, one can pass laws that only apply to anyone who agrees to be bound by them.
I refuse to acknowledge the speed limit in a school zone, so I'll exercise my "liberty" to drive through at 80 mph.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

Provided it is a government crafted by voluntary consent of all involved parties.

What the hell does that mean? Do you believe the states and US government consittute such a structure? If not, what do you envision?

     It essentially means an anarchist community. Anarcho-capitalists typically support governmental bodies, provided that they are strictly voluntary.

In other words, one can pass laws that only apply to anyone who agrees to be bound by them.
I refuse to acknowledge the speed limit in a school zone, so I'll exercise my "liberty" to drive through at 80 mph.

     You're supposed to leave the community & go live somewhere else if they pass a law that you find particularly objectionable, though in that sense it is not much different than the world as it is. The main difference is that the smaller scope (instead of the United States of America, you'd have, say, the Homeowners Association of the Marina) of government would mean that you'd probably be able to find a community that covers just about any portion of the spectrum one can imagine. Of course, most people would not have the means to leave their community the moment it passed a law they found particularly objectionable. In that sense, it is not much more voluntary than government currently is.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

Provided it is a government crafted by voluntary consent of all involved parties.

What the hell does that mean? Do you believe the states and US government consittute such a structure? If not, what do you envision?

Of course I don't the consider the U.S. government a legitimate governing body; I thought that was common knowledge.

How is U.S. government illegitimate?

[King]

How is U.S. government illegitimate?

Because Ron Paul isn't leading it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How is U.S. government illegitimate?

Because Ron Paul isn't leading it.

Oh yes, how could be I so stupid!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

[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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

I believe that both are important, Grumps. More importantly, I believe the former not only can affect the latter, but as did in the case of the CRA.

I don't think you're overestimating the depth of racism in 2010, I just think you're underestimating its all-pervasive influence (especially, though by no means exclusively, in the South) in 1964.

You might be right, Badger.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

[Badger]

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.

I believe that both are important, Grumps. More importantly, I believe the former not only can affect the latter, but as did in the case of the CRA.

I don't think you're overestimating the depth of racism in 2010, I just think you're underestimating its  influence (especially, though by no means exclusively, in the South) in 1964.

You might be right, Badger.

Of course I am, silly. That's my usual state of being.

Beyond that I think Brittain's excellent real life examples of how civil rights legislation in Massachusetts changes social norms for accepting his status as a person--and by changing social mores helps drag grudging hearts and minds towards, if not acceptance, at least resignation that times have changed--is an excellent example. As the gay civil rights movement is at about the same place now as the black civil rights movement was in the late 50's to early 60's, the lessons are applicable.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

So why do you defend rights of governments like Alabama state government during Jim Crow days, if this government itself was according to your philosophy illegal?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

So why do you defend rights of governments like Alabama state government during Jim Crow days, if this government itself was according to your philosophy illegal?

Sorry, I never defended Alabama state government during Jim Crow days; you are lying again.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

So why do you defend rights of governments like Alabama state government during Jim Crow days, if this government itself was according to your philosophy illegal?

Sorry, I never defended Alabama state government during Jim Crow days; you are lying again.

Have you forgot your previous posts, Lib? You clearly sits with segregationis state authorities in a name of freedom from federal government in issue of imposed desegregation, yet you just responded that government which refuses a fair rights to citizens is illegal, so according to your logic, why should we care about their rights against federal government?

Contradiction?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

So why do you defend rights of governments like Alabama state government during Jim Crow days, if this government itself was according to your philosophy illegal?

Sorry, I never defended Alabama state government during Jim Crow days; you are lying again.

Have you forgot your previous posts, Lib? You clearly sits with segregationis state authorities in a name of freedom from federal government in issue of imposed desegregation, yet you just responded that government which refuses a fair rights to citizens is illegal, so according to your logic, why should we care about their rights against federal government?

Contradiction?

No, there is no contradiction. You lied about my positions, so I would expect an apology.

[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.