Archive for the ‘libertarian’ Category
Posted in abuse of power/corruption, government regulation, ideology, libertarian, nanny state, politics, Republicans, US Constitution, video, tagged Civil Rights Act, discrimination, freedom, racism, Rand Paul on May 31, 2010 | 2 Comments »
When Rand Paul suggested the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far, he was widely criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Here, Professor Williams explains why they are wrong and Rand is right, while making a far more important point about liberty itself.
Posted in abuse of power/corruption, ideology, libertarian, nanny state, politics, US Constitution, tagged Civil Rights Act, discrimination, Rachel Maddow, racism, Rand Paul on May 25, 2010 | 3 Comments »
David Kramer writes:
A racist White store owner cannot legally prevent a Black customer from trading with him. Yet, a racist White customer can legally prevent a Black store owner from trading with him by just not walking into his or her store. So what’s the difference? In both cases, one of the two parties (i.e., the Black person) in the trade is being economically “hurt” by the other party (i.e., the racist White person).
Not to mention the Civil Rights Act only “protects” a limited group of minorities. What about the others?
Posted in abuse of power/corruption, government regulation, ideology, libertarian, nanny state, politics, US Constitution, tagged Civil Rights Act, discrimination, Rachel Maddow, racism, Rand Paul on May 25, 2010 | 4 Comments »
Thomas DiLorenzo asks:
Why do you think say, a Jewish restaurant owner, should be forced by the governent to serve a neo-Nazi wearing a swastika armband, who just finished marching in a “Hitler Was Right” parade down mainstreat (legally protected by your buds at the ACLU, of course)? Shouldn’t he be free to just say “Get the hell off of my property, you scumbag”? Do you really think that forcing him to serve the Nazi, as the Civil Rights Act would do if enforced, is conducive to freedom? What would give the Nazi a “civil right” to agitate and hector the Jewish restaurant owner in this way?
The Civil Rights Act is anti-freedom.
Posted in abuse of power/corruption, government regulation, hysteria, ideology, libertarian, nanny state, politics, US Constitution, video, tagged Civil Rights Act, Rachel Maddow, racism, Rand Paul on May 24, 2010 | 1 Comment »
Posted in fear-mongers, government regulation, ideology, libertarian, mainstream media, nanny state, politics, Republicans, US Constitution, tagged Civil Rights Act, Rachel Maddow, racism, Rand Paul on May 22, 2010 | 3 Comments »
Wesley Messamore asks:
Rachel, should black restaurant owners be forced to serve white nationalists? Hmm? Say David Duke walked into a black restaurant and wanted to be served. Does the black restaurant owner have a right to say, “Mmm… no thanks, we’d rather not serve you”? Or does David Duke have a right to be served by the black restaurant owner? Yes or no, please.
It’s interesting — to be consistent, Maddow would practically have to say that Duke has a right to the black restaurant owner’s labor, which is dangerously close to advocating something akin to slavery. Yes or no, Maddow?
Let’s use another example: if Fred Phelps (that’s the God Hates Fags guy) walked into a gay bar and demanded to be served a drink, would Maddow support the right of the restaurant owner or bartender to refuse to serve him? Yes or no, please.
The Civil Rights Act institutionalized racism in Amerika. If you support it, you are the one that is racist.
Posted in government regulation, ideology, libertarian, mainstream media, nanny state, politics, tagged discrimination, MSNBC, neocon, Rachel Maddow, racism, racist, Rand Paul on May 21, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Via Skeptical Eye:
Well, let me ask you a question Rachel. Should it be illegal for someone to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating? Or who one wishes to have conversations with? Or who one chooses to allow into his own home? If not, why should it be illegal when it comes to operating a business?
I think racism is stupid, but you know what? Part of freedom is allowing other people to do stupid things. I think doing drugs is stupid but believe government has no role in trying to outlaw them. I think prostitution and gambling are unwise but think people have a right to do both.
Likewise, I think it’s stupid to be a racist. But should it be illegal? Of course not, because being a jerk simply isn’t a crime. It may be morally reprehensible. So is cheating on your wife, but no sane person supports a law against that. By demanding that your own moral thinking be legislated into law, you guys on the left are no better than the neanderthals of the religious right. Let’s not forget that it was your cherished government–not the market–that enforced and upheld the notorious Jim Crow laws.
So yes, I believe people have a right to be racist and will not apologize for it. In a free society, that is your absolute right. But where are all these supposed racist business owners? Are they the ones hiring illegal immigrants by the truckload and outsourcing our work to ‘minority’ nations*? Let’s face it: money ultimately trumps race in the marketplace.
Update: I take that back. Rand has issued a statement supporting the Civil Rights Act now. This boob has absolutely no principle. He is not only a neocon, but a full-fledged statist. What an insult to his father, Ron Paul.
Bill Hicks explains:
Posted in abuse of power/corruption, fear-mongers, government regulation, hysteria, libertarian, politics, tagged amnesty, illegal immigration, immigration, Mexicans, national ID, racism, racists, Real ID on May 6, 2010 | 20 Comments »
To all the racist nuts worried about brown people crossing an arbitrary border, David Zemens says:
You’re worried that if people emigrate, you might not pull down $18/hour plus benefits to be a high school custodian — as if being compelled by the forces of supply and demand to accept a $13/hour gig instead is a degradation even remotely similar to being locked in some craphole third-world country making $100 shoes for 8 cents a day.
Put yourself in their shoes (no pun intended). You could live in a poverty stricken country where you can barely afford to feed your kids, or you can A) continue to suffer while spending years and untold amounts of money you do not have attempting to legally immigrate into another country or B) bypass the inhumane, immoral, unethical and totally idiotic bureaucracy to make a better life for yourself and your family. Ask yourself what you would do.
The ultimate goal of this divide-and-conquer “debate” is to get you to finally accept the totalitarian national ID scam.