Rand Paul Tea Party Candidate

[Accountable]

So the basic principle here is... Since it's a private business and not government run, then the government should be ablt to tell you how to run it, right? If you don't want to serve blonds, that's ok.

Generally, you're correct, but you're famous for taking banal generalities, trying to apply them to ridiculous extremes, and accusing those you decide to disagree with of fully supporting the extreme. The basic principle is indeed that if a business wants to be so stupid as to refuse to serve blonds, the government should not step in to prevent such stupidity.

So on the same logic, if I have own a private business next door to you, say a bar, and I want to host swinger parties on the week-ends, then I should be able to, right? I mean you don't have to come to the party, but since it's a private business the government (federal or local) should not be able to tell me I can't, right?

First, it's not remotely the same logic.

Second, local zoning laws (which I agree with if fairly applied) make it highly unlikely that there would be a bar next door. In that unlikely event, I would be aware that it was a bar; bars get loud. Swinger parties are no louder than biker bars or gay bars or the rare neighborhood bar where there's no theme.

Conclusion: If I'm okay living next to a bar, I'm okay living next to a swinger bar. Why wouldn't I be?

 

[Accountable]

You get my point though, right?

I mean replace "swinger bar" with anything you would morally object to... since you don't want the government telling private business owners what they can and cannot do, then they can basically do anythig they want and you have no recourse.

So if I morally object to gay bars I should be able to get them banned?
How about alcohol bars? Many people morally object to drinking.
Many churches ban dancing. Those people morally object to that. Ban it?
There are still some in the Deep South (and I'd bet many in other places as well) who morally object to race mixing. They should be able to get the gov't to close those bars who let in more than one race, shouldn't they?

Morality has no place in the laws of a free society.

 

[Minor Axis]

You ask for a moral reason for something in which morality has no place. People discriminate based on color all the time. I'm pale as hell and had a tough time getting a date. Maybe I should have sued for discrimination. I myself prefer women (discriminating against men) who are a little more olive-skinned (discriminating against the very pale and very black).

Our morality based laws do not raise the bar to that level as you really don't know why someone rejects you on the social scene.

Women should have the right to vote because they are citizens. Voting is a right of all adult citizens (OMG we're discriminating against children! :eek ) and is a governmental function. The government should not be allowed to discriminate against its own citizens (with a very few narrowly defined exceptions, such as children voting.). Morality has nothing to do with it.

Not allowing women to vote was a moral decision as was changing it. And btw, they just did not hand the right to vote to women on a silver platter. It took a movement. Children are not adults so the moral approach our society has taken is to allow them to mature before giving them the right to vote. Morality has EVERYTHING to do with it.

I wish you had considered more carefully. I've been very careful to separate government facilities, policies, and services from private business. You've mixed them once again. You specifically mention schools when we've been talking about private business. Considering a government that is not allowed to discriminate, that is forced to protect and serve all citizens equally, wouldn't those barriers you mention be gone?

The point is it does not matter if if it school or a private business imo. A moral standard is a social standard and most of us function within society. If it applies to one it should apply to the other. The barriers to blacks in this country were mostly carried out by private businesses run by white people. The segregated schools were also put into place by white people. Ok so you disagree. I'm more than happy to allow my argument to stand on it's merits. As a politician you can say you are against discrimination, but if you do nothing about it as Ron Paul would (do nothing), then it is just lip service trying to have your cake and eat it too.

So if I morally object to gay bars I should be able to get them banned?
How about alcohol bars? Many people morally object to drinking.
Many churches ban dancing. Those people morally object to that. Ban it?
There are still some in the Deep South (and I'd bet many in other places as well) who morally object to race mixing. They should be able to get the gov't to close those bars who let in more than one race, shouldn't they?

Morality has no place in the laws of a free society.

You are kidding yourself in this argument. All of our laws are based on morality. Is it wrong to kill? MORALITY! Is it wrong to steal? MORALITY! Is it wrong to molest children? MORALITY dude!! And all sorts of bans have been put into place based on morality- canceling a prom when a gay couple plans on attending, an alcohol free society, yes, no dancing at church, not allowing blacks to mingle with whites at a diner, or push them to the back of the bus. That is the reality of morality. But as time goes by, morals change. Gay couples are being accepted, and an alcohol free society was a pipe dream. You are kidding yourself if you think humans operate on a level that does not include acting on their morals. It's integrated into our DNA. Just like you think a clump of cells deserve to have the full protection of the law. You try to say it's science. It's not. Your opinion of what can be allowed to happen to the cells is based strictly on your MORALITY!

 

[Accountable]

Whose morality would you have us impose? Yours? Mine? The Church? Politicians?
If your morality and mine are opposed to one another, whose holds sway? Who makes that decision?
Since ours is a moral society based on morality with morality-based laws, why do we have lawyers? Shouldn't we have moral people advocating for us instead?

 

[Minor Axis]

Majority morality. First thing you have to do is admit that it is the morality of the majority or if you prefer, the morality of those in power that prevails in our law making. So some of us try to vote into power, those whose morality we agree with. (Most of us don't vote. )While there are standards based on logic, logic is trumped by what is perceived to be right and wrong or advantageous to "me" (which could also be described as the lack of morality.)

Lets try a different approach and say we can function without "morality". How would we end up with laws that say murder and stealing are bad? Do we decide that murder is wrong because it destabilizes society? Or it takes away someone else's right to live? But how did we decide that everyone has a right to live? How did you decide that a bundle of cells deserves to live? Logically why do these cells always deserve to live?

BTW, if we logically decide that murder destabilizes society and it should be illegal, we could also decide that discrimination does the same thing. Yes everyone discriminates as it is in our nature. But if you want to place a dividing line between where you can discriminate and where you can't IMO it should be between public and private. Privately you don't have to invite anyone to your home that you don't want to. But a store, a library, a school, a restaurant, these are public places. Overt discrimination in these places should not be condoned because it is bad for society and in this particular case I'm picking society over individual rights. It's my morality telling me that.

 

[MoonOwl]

Let's impose mine. If it harms none, do as you will....... Works for me.

 

[Minor Axis]

Let's impose mine. If it harms none, do as you will....... Works for me.

By this answer I assume that you are against institutional discrimination?

 

[MoonOwl]

By this answer I assume that you are against institutional discrimination?

What's that?

Honestly, I can see both sides.

I live in a Tourist state. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a common sign... For someone w/out shoes or shirt to complain they aren't getting served is silly to me.

But if I'd lost my shoes or shirt at the beach, it's not fair that I can't get served :24: I want food dammit....

As I abhor PC Thinking because I think it's ruining the world, I think a business owner should be allowed to make their own rules - within reason. That said, the above sign is ok, but something like No Blacks or No Whatevers is not. Because that's unfair. Not because it's UnPC.

Ok, I'm done talking out my ass for now.... :24:

 

[hart]

Majority morality. First thing you have to do is admit that it is the morality of the majority or if you prefer, the morality of those in power that prevails in our law making. So some of us try to vote into power, those whose morality we agree with. (Most of us don't vote. )While there are standards based on logic, logic is trumped by what is perceived to be right and wrong or advantageous to "me" (which could also be described as the lack of morality.)

Lets try a different approach and say we can function without "morality". How would we end up with laws that say murder and stealing are bad? Do we decide that murder is wrong because it destabilizes society? Or it takes away someone else's right to live? But how did we decide that everyone has a right to live? How did you decide that a bundle of cells deserves to live? Logically why do these cells always deserve to live?

BTW, if we logically decide that murder destabilizes society and it should be illegal, we could also decide that discrimination does the same thing. Yes everyone discriminates as it is in our nature. But if you want to place a dividing line between where you can discriminate and where you can't IMO it should be between public and private. Privately you don't have to invite anyone to your home that you don't want to. But a store, a library, a school, a restaurant, these are public places. Overt discrimination in these places should not be condoned because it is bad for society and in this particular case I'm picking society over individual rights. It's my morality telling me that.

I don't disagree with what you state, (in fact Aliens is one of my favorite movies ) There is no perfect system. Democracy has it's problems....I didn't vote into power in the Bush Jr. years the one I most agreed with but the one I least disagreed with......and Bush still won. At least having voted I felt I could say, don't look at me I voted the other way. I mean if you vote for a pres. and he sucks the first four years then you go and elect him again.....whose the bad judge of character?

Obama has faced more problems in his first years then the majority of two term presidents entire terms.

People are fed up, but it started long before Obama's presidency. My two cents.

 

[Tim]

Generally, you're correct, but you're famous for taking banal generalities, trying to apply them to ridiculous extremes, and accusing those you decide to disagree with of fully supporting the extreme. The basic principle is indeed that if a business wants to be so stupid as to refuse to serve blonds, the government should not step in to prevent such stupidity.

First, it's not remotely the same logic.

Second, local zoning laws (which I agree with if fairly applied) make it highly unlikely that there would be a bar next door. In that unlikely event, I would be aware that it was a bar; bars get loud. Swinger parties are no louder than biker bars or gay bars or the rare neighborhood bar where there's no theme.

Conclusion: If I'm okay living next to a bar, I'm okay living next to a swinger bar. Why wouldn't I be?

Let me see if I can make my point a little clearer.

If you own a private business that serves the public, then you need to serve the public within established guidelines. Once you decided that you wanted to own a service based business, you opened yourself to a whole lot of regulations that are meant to protect the public.

If you want to own a business that only caters to certain people, then it needs to be private, meaning it's NOT open to the public. We have quite a few of these clubs around here. Right down the street is a bar called the firehouse. You need to be a member to get it, membership is very difficult to get unless you know a current members and they can vouch for you. Well there are zero minorities as members and not a single woman. And you will never see a minority or woman as a member at this club.
To me, this is fine. It's a private club with private membership. Since they are not open to the public, they can do whatever they want when it comes to membership. But a public business where any member of public can just walk in off the street must open their doors to all races and genders.

 

[Accountable]

Let me see if I can make my point a little clearer.

If you own a private business that serves the public, then you need to serve the public within established guidelines. Once you decided that you wanted to own a service based business, you opened yourself to a whole lot of regulations that are meant to protect the public.

If you want to own a business that only caters to certain people, then it needs to be private, meaning it's NOT open to the public. We have quite a few of these clubs around here. Right down the street is a bar called the firehouse. You need to be a member to get it, membership is very difficult to get unless you know a current members and they can vouch for you. Well there are zero minorities as members and not a single woman. And you will never see a minority or woman as a member at this club.
To me, this is fine. It's a private club with private membership. Since they are not open to the public, they can do whatever they want when it comes to membership. But a public business where any member of public can just walk in off the street must open their doors to all races and genders.

So the purpose of your scenario was not to focus on the immorality of a swingers' bar, but on the wrongness of not allowing non-swingers?? You didn't mention anything in your post about restricting the clientele, only that it was a swingers bar. Aren't you aware that gay bars cater to homosexuals but don't kick you out if you're straight? I would assume that a swingers bar would welcome open-minded singles unless they had a sign out front, which you didn't mention.

Okay, so it's okay for a private business to be exclusive if it announces itself as such? It seems like you have a problem with a business' marketing rather than discrimination. Pre-1964 businesses did what you recommend . They hung signs in the window very specifically stating who they served and who they didn't.

 

[Minor Axis]

I live in a Tourist state. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a common sign... For someone w/out shoes or shirt to complain they aren't getting served is silly to me.

But if I'd lost my shoes or shirt at the beach, it's not fair that I can't get served :24: I want food dammit....

As I abhor PC Thinking because I think it's ruining the world, I think a business owner should be allowed to make their own rules - within reason. That said, the above sign is ok, but something like No Blacks or No Whatevers is not. Because that's unfair. Not because it's UnPC.

Like no Iraqi's. I agree with you that would be un-pc.

 

[Accountable]

Let me say now that I really enjoy these conversations with you and Ed. You & I are less consistent than Ed, but I think we all give real consideration to the other point of view.

Majority morality. First thing you have to do is admit that it is the morality of the majority or if you prefer, the morality of those in power that prevails in our law making.

The fact that it is true does not make it right. It is against the spirit of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I think you may have read into my statement that morality has no place in society, which I never said and vehemently disagree with. What I meant to say, thought I said but didn't, probably have said in past threads, and should have clarified, (tired yet? ) is that morality has no place in law.

There's a very good and specific reason that we had separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, today we try to change the phrase to eradication of Church by the State, or replacement of Church with State. If morality were the basis of our legal system, rather than equality, we wouldn't have anyone released on a technicality. It wouldn't matter that the police didn't strictly follow procedure if there were witnesses to the crime. What would be more important is that the criminal be punished for his crime. There is a place for morality in our society, and each individual should be moral. But the laws themselves should have equality and protection of rights as their foundation, rather than that which passes as morality at the moment ... changing at the next.

Lets try a different approach and say we can function without "morality". How would we end up with laws that say murder and stealing are bad? Do we decide that murder is wrong because it destabilizes society? Or it takes away someone else's right to live? But how did we decide that everyone has a right to live? How did you decide that a bundle of cells deserves to live? Logically why do these cells always deserve to live?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ... "

BTW, if we logically decide that murder destabilizes society and it should be illegal, we could also decide that discrimination does the same thing. So the reason must be instead that it takes away someone else's right to live. Yes everyone discriminates as it is in our nature. But if you want to place a dividing line between where you can discriminate and where you can't IMO it should be between public and private.

I agree unreservedly.

Privately you don't have to invite anyone to your home that you don't want to. But a store, a library, a school, a restaurant, these are public places. Overt discrimination in these places should not be condoned because it is bad for society and in this particular case I'm picking society over individual rights. It's my morality telling me that.

A store is privately owned. A library and public school are owned by the public. A private school is privately owned. A restaurant is privately owned. I agree that publicly owned facilities must not discriminate, but a private citizen must be allowed to decide who he will serve in the business he owns. I absolutely agree with you that the public should not condone such behavior, but laws are not necessary. People can instead simply decide not to patronize such establishments. That would be far more powerful than any law.

 

[Accountable]

What's that?

Honestly, I can see both sides.

I live in a Tourist state. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a common sign... For someone w/out shoes or shirt to complain they aren't getting served is silly to me.

But if I'd lost my shoes or shirt at the beach, it's not fair that I can't get served :24: I want food dammit....

As I abhor PC Thinking because I think it's ruining the world, I think a business owner should be allowed to make their own rules - within reason. That said, the above sign is ok, but something like No Blacks or No Whatevers is not. Because that's unfair. Not because it's UnPC.

Ok, I'm done talking out my ass for now.... :24:

Like no Iraqi's. I agree with you that would be un-pc.

I agree as well, but no law is necessary.

 

[Minor Axis]

Let me say now that I really enjoy these conversations with you and Ed. You & I are less consistent than Ed, but I think we all give real consideration to the other point of view.

Truth be told I've been enjoying our conversations too! Something to do when issues can be discussed without the heavy sarcasm, yelling and name calling.

The fact that it is true does not make it right. It is against the spirit of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I think you may have read into my statement that morality has no place in society, which I never said and vehemently disagree with. What I meant to say, thought I said but didn't, probably have said in past threads, and should have clarified, (tired yet? ) is that morality has no place in law.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are moral positions. I guess we have to disagree on this. People's decisions= morality.

There is a place for morality in our society, and each individual should be moral. But the laws themselves should have equality and protection of rights as their foundation, rather than that which passes as morality at the moment ... changing at the next.

The laws you refer to are projections of morality.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ... "

A clump of cells may eventually turn into a developed human being, but until then, the mother takes precedence.

A store is privately owned. A library and public school are owned by the public. A private school is privately owned. A restaurant is privately owned. I agree that publicly owned facilities must not discriminate, but a private citizen must be allowed to decide who he will serve in the business he owns. I absolutely agree with you that the public should not condone such behavior, but laws are not necessary. People can instead simply decide not to patronize such establishments. That would be far more powerful than any law.

But stores are open to the public for the most part. This is where we disagree. Another example: health providers are corporations, privately owned by investors. By your reasoning they could discriminate against who they want to discriminate against. That is what the latest health bill fixed to some degree. I realize you are probably against this too because it's the government's doing.

What would happen if the government decided to divest itself of a variety of enterprises, what then? For example in the last couple of wars, in the name of profit, the U.S. government instead of using military service personnel for most war related tasks, have made unprecedented use of for-profit contractors. Your view allows for too many holes for discrimination.

The difference between us is that you are drawing the line between government service and private (corporations), where I draw the difference between public (businesses open to the general public) and private (your home, your private club). Most puzzling, you don't understand that everything we do, every decision we make, every law that is passed has moral underpinnings. Even this is a moral statement:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ... "

 

[Accountable]

I think the moral part of this conversation deserves its own thread.
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?p=1615450#post1615450

But stores are open to the public for the most part. This is where we disagree. Another example: health providers are corporations, privately owned by investors. By your reasoning they could discriminate against who they want to discriminate against. That is what the latest health bill fixed to some degree. I realize you are probably against this too because it's the government's doing.

If they are private businesses they should be able to serve whom they choose, yes. I have faith that (1) There would be plenty of enterprises that would choose to serve all even without threat of government force, and (2) the public outcry - or even the threat of public outcry - would be so great that few would even take the risk of being biased.

What would happen if the government decided to divest itself of a variety of enterprises, what then? For example in the last couple of wars, in the name of profit, the U.S. government instead of using military service personnel for most war related tasks, have made unprecedented use of for-profit contractors. Your view allows for too many holes for discrimination.

Once again you try to mix government and private industry. The gov't even now has for-profit contractors fighting battles in the Middle East. All gov't contracts call for contractors to treat their employees as if they were union employees, whether the company is unionized or not. When I worked construction we always looked forward to gov't contract jobs because our pay almost doubled and we got time-and-a-half overtime pay.

The difference between us is that you are drawing the line between government service and private (corporations), where I draw the difference between public (businesses open to the general public) and private (your home, your private club).

You're right, and it seems that you have a problem with people calling themselves public rather than actually practicing discrimination. Had that Walgreens in 1964 called itself an exclusive drug store for whites only, your posts (and Tim's) seem to indicate that you would have no problem with them keeping blacks out.

Most puzzling, you don't understand that everything we do, every decision we make, every law that is passed has moral underpinnings.

Oooooohhh! And you were doing so well,too. I understand about the moral underpinnings. I would expect and hope that the individual decision-makers use their morals. But the laws themselves have no morals and must not dictate morality. We stand for freedom and liberty, even the freedom to be immoral, so long as everyone else's freedom is not compromised. But let's move this into the other thread.

 

[Tim]

If they are private businesses they should be able to serve whom they choose, yes. I have faith that (1) There would be plenty of enterprises that would choose to serve all even without threat of government force, and (2) the public outcry - or even the threat of public outcry - would be so great that few would even take the risk of being biased.

This may be true in larger population centers, but what about rural towns where one type of "person" is not always welcome? Imagine rural West Virginia where the only grocery store for miles and miles excludes one type person or another. You wouldn't have the diversity you speak of nor the population to support more than one store. A large number of the population live in such areas and it would be devastating if minority groups were driven out by a concerted effort of local business. If you don't think that would happen, then you live in a dream world.
I live in one of these areas. Our stores are few and far between... and I can tell you that the Klan is alive and well in my neck of the woods. If they could have every store in my area whites only, they would... And the funny part is, I live 60 miles from Philadelphia and 80 miles from NYC... so it's not like I am in the middle of West Virginia's back country.

You're right, and it seems that you have a problem with people calling themselves public rather than actually practicing discrimination. Had that Walgreens in 1964 called itself an exclusive drug store for whites only, your posts (and Tim's) seem to indicate that you would have no problem with them keeping blacks out.

Walgreens is open to the public. Anyone can just walk in from the street and shop there. So it would be wrong in every sense of the word.
The private clubs I'm talking about are closed to EVERYONE. The only way you can even enter the building is by being a member and the state regulates how many members they can have and still be considered a private club.
It's very clear the difference between a public business (open to the public) and a private business (closed to the public.

 

[Accountable]

This may be true in larger population centers, but what about rural towns where one type of "person" is not always welcome? Imagine rural West Virginia where the only grocery store for miles and miles excludes one type person or another. You wouldn't have the diversity you speak of nor the population to support more than one store. A large number of the population live in such areas and it would be devastating if minority groups were driven out by a concerted effort of local business. If you don't think that would happen, then you live in a dream world.
I live in one of these areas. Our stores are few and far between... and I can tell you that the Klan is alive and well in my neck of the woods. If they could have every store in my area whites only, they would... And the funny part is, I live 60 miles from Philadelphia and 80 miles from NYC... so it's not like I am in the middle of West Virginia's back country.

Excellent point. Outstanding really, and definitely an issue that would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Since you agree with my statement, don't you agree that government force isn't necessary, at least in larger population centers?

Walgreens is open to the public. Anyone can just walk in from the street and shop there. So it would be wrong in every sense of the word.
The private clubs I'm talking about are closed to EVERYONE. The only way you can even enter the building is by being a member and the state regulates how many members they can have and still be considered a private club.
It's very clear the difference between a public business (open to the public) and a private business (closed to the public.

So a place like Costco is cleared by you to discriminate if they choose to change their membership rules?

 

[Tim]

Excellent point. Outstanding really, and definitely an issue that would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Since you agree with my statement, don't you agree that government force isn't necessary, at least in larger population centers?

Once you start addressing this on a case by case basis, you open a whole other can of worms. Laws need to treat everyone fairly and if you allow one business to discriminate, then it would be hard to tell others they can't. And who would police this?
A blanket "no discrimination" policy covers everyone. While a very small number of businesses might feel the need to have the option to discriminate, the vast majority don't have a problem with the law.
I actually think this entire topic is out in left field. Why Rand would even bring it up is beyond me. He's going to try to make a point about how private businesses are unfairly regulated by the federal government and he chooses the civil rights act? I mean how many businesses have come forward and said that the federal government is denying them the right to discriminate? Where is the public outcry to allow discrimination?

There isn't, so this whole topic is a non starter.

So a place like Costco is cleared by you to discriminate if they choose to change their membership rules?

Open membership is not the same. Cosco is open to the public. I am able to walk in to any Cosco, pay the membership and shop till my wallet is empty. They can never be considered a private club since they have open membership and no caps on the number of members.
These private clubs are just that, private. You cannot walk in and get a membership. You need to be invited by another member and wait until an opening is available.

Look into it, there are very strict rules concerning private clubs. Rules that clearly define what makes a club private.

 

[Accountable]

I actually think this entire topic is out in left field. Why Rand would even bring it up is beyond me.

Read the article. He didn't bring it up. Madow did. She's desperate for ratings.

Open membership is not the same. Cosco is open to the public ....

tippety tap tippety tap