Rand Paul is not a racist, but is he blinded to the impact his ideology would have?

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, interesting thread.

 

I think it is sad that Rand Paul is a bit spineless. If he can't stand up for what he believes he should either quit saying how he believes that or quit politics.

 

I think that the Civil Rights act has largely been a good thing, but could well be obsolete. Circumstances are different now.

 

Bascule, private clubs are those with a specific membership, not not those which serve the public (non-members), whether or not it excludes portions of the public, and regardless of what they call themselves.

 

As for affirmative action, I am undecided. On the one hand, it discriminates against people who have done nothing wrong, on a basis of race, but who have an advantage due to discrimination by their ancestors (via inheritance). On the other hand, it helps other people who have likewise done nothing wrong but are still disadvantaged due to having historically been discriminated against based on race (due to inheritance).

[iNow]

I'm not following you here at all.

<...>

I'm not sure what is inconsistent about that.

Let's recap with a brief stroll through the milieu then.

 

 

Padren mentioned that there is a certain reality which we must acknowledge, in that historically segregation has had severe impacts toward the negative for black people.

 

Pangloss asked a different question inspired by Padrens post, and wondered what challenges black people faced that white people do not.

 

This was a red herring, and I fell for it, but it's totally irrelevant to the point. There is a reality in this nation that when these anti-discrimination laws were not in place we had severe issues of segregation. The reality is that these laws were required to protect the freedoms of a huge group of people within our populace.

 

Nobody was talking about things black people face that white people don't, and that is why I have called Pangloss' point an irrelevant red herring. People are talking about empirical evidence taken from our own history that the civil rights act was required to enforce freedoms for all, and that any arguments suggesting that the civil rights act restricts freedom are a bit short-sighted, rather naive, and when carried to their logical outcome they are ultimately inconsistent.

 

 

You then made an assertion that the reason racism is still going on is because we have laws on the books to try to prevent it. I find this to be a very strange argument to make, but I also acknowledge that it's likely not representative of your total views on why racism still exists. You said it to make a point, and I get that. The primary issue, however, is that you argued that the only solution to solve racism was to do nothing. I'm paraphrasing, but the rough outline of your point I've just put forth is largely accurate.

 

A few posts later, however, you acknowledged the challenges all of us were discussing about institutionalized racism, and at the end of your post indicated the existence of some remedy, it was just a remedy which you had not been able to find during your intellectual explorations.

 

I pointed out to you that you are being inconsistent. In one post, you argue against all remedies, suggesting the only course forward is to do nothing. In the next post, you imply a desire and a willingness to find a remedy, and this is contrary to the previous point that the only remedy is to take zero action.

 

I lamented how these logical gymnastics, internal inconsistencies, and self-contradictions seem IMO to be rather common among those arguing in favor of this idealized libertarian ideal, and how frustrating it is when otherwise intelligent people hold to the ideology so profoundly as to be unable to see this.

 

 

It is not my intent to suggest that your entire position is illogical and inconsistent. My intent is simply to demonstrate and draw attention to those many areas where it truly is.

[ParanoiA]

In one post' date=' you argue against all remedies, [b']suggesting the only course forward is to do nothing[/b]. In the next post, you imply a desire and a willingness to find a remedy, and this is contrary to the previous point that the only remedy is to take zero action.

 

Ah, but see that's exactly the problem right there - I did not say the only course forward is to do nothing.

 

You went wrong right here:

 

You then made an assertion that the reason racism is still going on is because we have laws on the books to try to prevent it. I find this to be a very strange argument to make, but I also acknowledge that it's likely not representative of your total views on why racism still exists. You said it to make a point, and I get that. The primary issue, however, is that you argued that the only solution to solve racism was to do nothing. [b']I'm paraphrasing, but the rough outline of your point I've just put forth is largely accurate.[/b]

 

It wasn't accurate at all. And thus all subtending logic was flawed.

 

That I believe private citizens, or business owners, have a right to discriminate if they so desire and that no law should prevent them does not conflict with the belief in a possible remedy for discrimination. Perhaps government could take other kinds of actions, in the form of the proverbial carrot instead of the unconstitutional stick that was used. Or perhaps the citizenry could stop excusing themselves from doing anything and participate in large scale boycotts of any practicing racist business models.

 

See, I never said the solution was to do nothing, but that's what you read. Probably because our discussions on a political forum are largely about law. And my libertarian intentions are aimed at law, specifically. I probably never gave the impression that the need for non-coercive remedies were acknowledged. Surely now you know, that they are.

 

To be clear, I don't believe black folks face any specific obstacles today that white folks don't face. I also don't believe the black race is as advantaged as it could have been if they had not been mistreated from the very beginning. One does not conflict with the other, unless you're trying to make the case the retardation of their advancement is an obstacle. I don't believe it is. I think it's more a comparison of total wealth, not total opportunity.