The Limits of GOP Ideology

Discussing Rand Paul, Ross Douthat writes:

This was all that Rand Paul needed to admit, after his victory in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary, when NPR and Rachel Maddow asked about his views of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “As a principled critic of federal power,” he could have said, “I oppose efforts to impose Washington’s will on states and private institutions. As a student of the history of segregation and slavery, however, I would have made an exception for the Civil Rights Act.”

[. . .] it shouldn’t come as a shock that [Rand Paul] found himself publicly undone, in what should have been his moment of triumph, because he was too proud to acknowledge the limits of ideology, and to admit that a principle can be pushed too far.

(Emphasis supplied.) Douthat is disingenuous here. The questions to be asked are obvious - what other "exceptions" should conservatives concede? Does Deep Water prove an "exception" is necessary for government regulation of commercial activities that affect the environment? Does the 2008 meltdown prove that an"exception" for government regulation of financial markets is in order? The "exceptions" swallow Douthat's conservative principles. Republicans and conservatives like Douthat have long expressed a desire to relitigate the New Deal. In describing the New Deal, Prof. Bruce Ackerman wrote:

[FDR's] eight appointments to the Supreme Court repudiated the laissez-faire constitutionalism of the preceding era and created the activist national government we know today.

Obviously enacting the New Deal was part of that. And in order to enact the New Deal (and appoint 8 SCOTUS justices), FDR and the Democrats had to win elections and win the argument against the Rand Pauls and Ross Douthats of the time.

FDR won the argument. Republicans want to win it by stealth. Rand Paul is a mainstream Republican in his views. What makes him unusual is he is honest about what Republican views mean. Douthat prefers the stealth approach.

Speaking for me only

< Al-Awlaki Video Released For Mass Distribution | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Paul (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:13:46 AM EST
    might even be able to get away with this type of thing if he had true libertarian beliefs but his stance on women is pretty much the standard GOP stance too. It's not only civil rights where he's with Republicans.

    And the Drug War... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    where he appears to be standing hand in hand with D's and R's....unless he's in libertarian stealth-mode on that issue...lol.

    Talk about refusing to admit to a failing ideology...prohibition.  All ideologies represented in government are down with that fail...and won't admit it's time to bend to some libertarian ideas on that front.

    Maybe it's a failing more prevalent in conservatives...but every ideology is susceptible to it...liberal, conservative, libertarian...you name it.


    That;s not the only place he's not libertarian (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    If he was truly true to his namesake's philosopy, he'd be for the Estate Tax, and a fully confiscatory one at that.

    Ayn Rand was quite forthright in stating (in her novels and elsewhere) that:  "the only people who should inherit are those who [are so capable they] would not need it" [because they'd make themselves wealthy through merit, skill and drive].

    In other words, in Rand's world the John Galts were the only ones who should inherit, b/c they were so skilled and superior they would be able to put it to an even better use.  The worthless, feckless sons and daughters of the rich (calling Mr. Bush) would take nothing because of their worthless, feckless nature.  Of course, IIRC even Rand recognized there was no principled way for anyone to discern which sons and daughters of the rich were worthless/feckless and which not, so only a wholly confiscatory estate tax was workable.

    Paul is showing himself here to be yet another corporate wh0re, b/c repealing the Estate Tax (and things like the Rule Against Perpetuities) were the first things the Rethugs went after, well over 20 years ago.  Yet another corporatist wolf masquerading in libertarian sheepskin.


    While off-topic, in that I (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:23:01 AM EST
    detect neither principles or ideology---only failure, with omissions and commissions, what in the world has to happen before President Obama nationalizes the response to the oil blow?

    He's (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:17:56 AM EST
    not going to do anything about that. Just like every other crises he'll hand if off to somebody else to handle. You have to remember he's "hands off" management style which translates IMO into the inability to ever lead on an issue.

    And never responsible for failure (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:31:21 AM EST
    he hopes.  

    Remember that line during the primaries (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:35:25 AM EST
    about needing someone to organize the papers on the desk?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:32:51 AM EST
    We all should be very, very concerned about Rand Paul, while the situation in the Gulf goes beyond crisis level....

    I take the legimitizing (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon May 24, 2010 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    of a discussion of if the civil rights act is good thing or not, very seriously.

    many of us (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 04:38:52 PM EST
    can actually be concerned about more than one thing at once

    You're right, President Obama's (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:40:43 AM EST
    crisis management skills are doing something that I thought could never happen--they are making the exorcist, Bobby Jindahl look competent.

    Administration response (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:56:07 AM EST
    In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon, at least seven new drilling permits and five waivers have been granted, according to records.

    The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. link

    This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter. link

    Obama the closet libertarian? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Emma on Mon May 24, 2010 at 12:02:42 PM EST
    Everybody's libertarian about something, I guess. Maybe Obama's getting ready to reach across the aisle to Paul, should he get elected.

    Yes, and with President Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    being quite all right with BP in charge of the response to a national disaster, what would it have been like with American and United Airlines being in charge of the 9/ll response with NYPD/NYFD as consultants or Ryder Truck Rentals the spokespersons during the Oklahoma City bombings.  Rand might find it ideologically just fine, but subject to an exception, but I would not bank on it.  Speaking of banks.....Rand would probably get rid of FDIC, and we could put out money in and trust the bankers to do what is right, and if we do lose everything, we will not put any more money in that bank, should we ever get any more.  That will show them.

    Ummm... (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 02:42:43 PM EST
    Apart from my wanting the leak to stop as much as you do, your analogy is weak.

    9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing were crimes. As far as I know no one from BP has been arrested yet, although a committee has been formed to explore the matter.

    And living downtown, I was less than thrilled with the government response and clean-up after 9/11. Many are dead or sick because of the lack of adhering to basic safety standards, and we do not have any idea about long term pollution caused by the haphazard cleanup.

    But at least if Obama took over, then he can be 100% blamed, as opposed to the 75% blame he is getting now.


    You are right, it is weak, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    but I really did not intend my ruminations to be analogous. Rather, hyperbole taking outsourcing of responsibilities to a Rand Paul extreme.  Perhaps, it is frustration eclipsing clarity--an attempt an an explanation, not an excuse.  The 9/ll response was bereft of basic safety considerations and so many responders and others continue to pay the price. My opinion of Mayor Giuliani (formed from afar) was never very good before and even worse afterward, but on 9/ll he served an important leadership function. Especially, with George Bush flying around the country on Air Force One, going on Cheney's direction to Cold War bunkers in the West (whatever happened to that claim that Air Force One was under attack, anyway?).   But, I hoped that President Obama would show greater leadership than I believe he has so far. I was not aware that the Commission he plans to appoint will be looking for crimes, other than perhaps environmental felonies, but it would not be out of order for him to also have the DOJ investigate individual negligence.  I do not agree that if he was bold in his leadership, even at this late date, he would not be blamed 100 percent. It is what is needed and what only he can give. While, of course, anything that goes wrong or even right for that matter will be fodder for the wingers, but this is a matter of national emergency and actions should not be driven totally by possible political fallout.

    lol Giuliani As a Leadership Example... (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    My opinion of Mayor Giuliani (formed from afar) was never very good before and even worse afterward, but on 9/ll he served an important leadership function.

    Well he had you fooled.

    Great Leadership in his own mind.. only. Terrible example, imo

    He was the worst. Set the police against the fire dept, (pro police as usual), lied about air quality,  did nothing for NYers except to use the event to promote his own greedy agenda.  

    Pre 9/11, he was on his way out as Mayor as everyone was sick of him. After 9/11 he played it well enough to regain some fans... but when he told NY that they needed him and we should suspend the Nov elections, which would oust him, NY resoundingly said NO WAY Giuliani  ...  


    No, Squeaky; I don't think he had me fooled. (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    As I said, before--never very good and even worse afterward. I think that is congruent with your assessment, but, perhaps, without native New Yorker zest.  My point was that, by default,   on the day of 9/ll , and essentially on that day only, he served an important leadership function with his voice.  But, then maybe I was too needy and fooled even on that limited score.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:26:30 PM EST
    He was sanctimoniously elf serving, which is worse than nothing, imo.

    And I did notice that your 'before and after' assessment of the guy was spot on.  

    If he had really contributed to the emotional, and physical well being of NYers, he may have been able to pull off the 'NY needs me' stunt and postponed the election. But everyone could not wait a second longer to give him the boot.


    Hmmmm, (none / 0) (#87)
    by Emma on Mon May 24, 2010 at 06:11:30 PM EST
    I wonder if there's any prosecutor's office in the U.S. that forms a "committee" to determine if someone has broken a crime.  Seems to me, and I'm just spitballing here, that it's the DOJ who should be figuring out if a crime has been committed.

    But, IOIYO.


    Obviously (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    No one is calling this a crime... except everyone, in the non legal sense of the word..

    Seems to me that if there was ample evidence to show that BP or others intended to cause the spill, they would be all over it in a second.

    At least the insurance companies would be looking to get out of paying because their insured engaged in criminal activity.


    We will not know if there is evidence, ample or (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:03:42 PM EST
    otherwise, without an investigation.  And, that includes a criminal investigation by the DOJ.  After all, it would not be the first time that BP has been involved in crimes in the legal sense of the word.  The Texas Refinery, as a recent example, BP pleaded guilty to a one-count felony violation of the Clean Air Act and paid $375 million and a criminal penalty of $100 million.  The Alaska pipeline leak resulted in a misdemeanor charge in 2006; in 2003 there was an indictment of individual for gas price manipulations, the Bush DOJ, in a sweetheart deal, agreed not to prosecute if BP agreed to a little oversight.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:29:44 PM EST
    They are criminals, hopefully they will be forced to pay.

    On the other hand, we, who are addicted to the brown gold, also bear some responsibility, imo.


    Agreed, a dollar a gallon tax (none / 0) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    on gasoline would help on the demand side, with tax credits for certain income levels and farming and tax stamps (like food stamps) for those where income tax credits are not meaningful. Again, the crisis could be deployed toward these and alternate fuel development, but that would take leadership from someone.  Sec of Energy Steven Chu,  a nobel laureate in physics and very impressive intellect,  was interviewed by Ms. Maddow. Dr. Chu stated  with regard to the NYT article regarding weasel interpretations of the president's moratorium on drilling until causes and safety could be determined, and he answered that he only knows what he read in the paper. But, from his point of view, he feels that there should be none whatsoever, new or modifications or anything.  But then, who is he, and what does he know?  Maybe, a little more interagency cooperation and pooling of intellect and resources would be a nice touch.

    I'll See Your Dollar And Raise You One (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    Five dollars a gallon would be a good start.

    While it may not be called a committee (none / 0) (#99)
    by christinep on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:58:55 PM EST
    prosecution determinations--and, as a 27 year EPA employee in Enforcement--are typically the product of the discussion/evaluation/argument of several individuals (staff attorneys, inspectors, managers) in the office directly involved (and, in the big cases, sometimes in coordination with DC.) Also: The first year or two with EPA, I was deeply (no pun intended) involved with oil spill issues--then under section 311 of the Clean Water Act. The legal and protocol approach today involves, as it did then, the lead Coast Guard as overseer with the operation of remediation & response being conducted by the responsible party. The problems involving response coordination may be several...but, an obvious issue right now is the need to explain more fully (and with feeling) that it is important for the responsible party to be pushed as far as possible to effect the clean-up with their time & money. Should the federal government step in preemptively, the onus of responsibility for a thus far unresolvable problem would shift to the US (as opposed to the government) in the significant eyes of the public. At some point soon, it may be that the government acts under a broader emergency authority (but, recognize the broader legal implications of that.) Seriously, it is a dilemma on several levels--beginning with the fact that the clean-up of this disaster is more problematic than BP initially acknowledged. So...the clean-up needs to occur without further delay, the government's right to recover damages needs to be preserved without any mitigation arguments by getting prematurely involved to appear to let BP off the hook, and the WH needs to get its communication act together about what is happening and when. (An aside: As we've all discovered, sometimes daddy and momma don't know what to do. Down the road, a pointed discussion about risks and contingency plans for deep wells would be called for while everyone still remembers.)

    I believe that under The Clean Water Act (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:30:43 PM EST
    amended, but not repealed by the Oil Pollution Act (33 USC, section 1321 (c), the president has emergency powers.  If investigation determines that the terms of the lease were violated, or criminal negligence is involved, the rights to recover are clear.  Moreover, bold and extraordinary steps can and are taken by presidents when the national interest is at stake.  (President Obama has called for the killing of an American citizen deemed a threat, for example).  Fines from violations alone might exceed the liability limit, and clean up costs will be hard for BP is escape.   And, of course, the taxpayers will be picking up the tab for much of the damage, in some shape or form, in any event.  I feel that fear of the costs is not the real problem in nationalizing the response.  Certainly, when needed we bailed out banks to the tune of a $trillion, without assurances of getting any back, because it was something that had to be done in the national interest.

    You are right in your statement of authorities (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:50:49 PM EST
    But, KeysDan, the issue--as you know--relates to the most expeditious way to effect the clean-up. It may be that the US will have to "nationalize" the clean-up. But (and talk about "buts") the practical consequence really comes down to whether the US can accomplish that quicker than BP and its "experts." As you also know, the pool of these "expers" is limited. Personally, I've entertained doubts about whether it was possible to know that BP was not forthcoming on Day 1. The result of following a normal presumption in a civil incident <that the company would respond as openly and quickly as possible under the circumstance> may well have gotten us to today with some days lost. To tell you the truth, tho, I'm not sure that the past several days would have looked any different--other than spin and posturing--if the experts for the company or the experts for the Coast Guard were involved. Understand, that I am definitely not supportive of what appears to be BP's earlier foot-dragging and lack of innovation, but no report TODAY states precisely how it would now be done differently. Yes, yes...it is frustrating as h***. I want EPA to preserve and build its case without the inevitable complications of what would happen legally if we had no more of an answer than BP does. (BTW, any criminal action would be later in time because the immediate focus must be remediation and clean up.)

    What's the problem, (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:06:19 PM EST
    I just got back from a short auto trip and caught the President (or CEO) of BP on the radio making a statement . He wanted to assure EVERYONE that he won't rest until EVERY DROP is cleaned up.
     I think I heard him saying he'd wring out every wave with his bare hands, but the dog was barking so I may be wrong about that.

    Did you not know of BP's bad rep, Christinep? (none / 0) (#128)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:57:59 AM EST
    You said:
    Personally, I've entertained doubts about whether it was possible to know that BP was not forthcoming on Day 1.

    Here's how any sensate being could have known that BP was not forthcoming on Day 1: It's BP, and their horrendous reputation PRECEDES them -- in every corner of the world.


    I look at all major oil companies (none / 0) (#131)
    by christinep on Wed May 26, 2010 at 07:22:06 PM EST
    with a requisite degree of environmental skepticism. But, company behavior has been shown to change (btw, lots of examples of that)--especially in the environmental area. Whether it is all about money, I don't pretend to know. It does involve balancing good will $ v. potential remedial & penalty costs. So....

    Were you an attorney for the EPA or (none / 0) (#132)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 07:50:08 PM EST
    another related government agency at some point? I get that impression -- just querious -- as some of my friends say.

    Yes (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    That is the way I look at it. Besides the fact, were the Fed Gov to get in on the act, there is no reason to believe that they would immediately solve the problem. Remember the f'ups with FEMA during NOLA?

    More than likely the government would have to find and hire the same experts that are on the job now, the only difference would be that the government gets the blame if it takes a year to plug the hole.

    Tragic, hard to think of the damage to wildlife etc...

    I would not be surprised it this winds up being the largest out of control oil spill we have ever seen. Not an easy problem to solve, evidentially.


    Yes no immediate resolution seems to be (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:43:27 PM EST
    in the cards, with the hand we have been dealt.  However, we need more than governmental oversight. of the failed BP attempts. And, we do not know if BP is acting its or our interests, such as trying in the first critical weeks to capture the oil and save the well, rather than destroy it  If we are all fortunate, the Top Kill will staunch the flow, this will be tried on Wednesday, although the schedule seems fluid, so to say.  But the best hope is for relief wells, two are now being drilled but will not be ready to try until mid-August.  But even then, do we know that these two wells being drilled are adequate or in the right place?  If, not, count out another three months.  Proprietary concerns of BP need to give way to the collective resources available, including those of ConocoPhillips, Pemex, and Shell.  The EPA told BP not to use the Corexit dispersant, but it told the EPA to buzz off--it had a stockpile on hand and orders with Nalco.  

    Megan McCain "get it" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:44:35 AM EST
    Yes, Rand Paul could just be an anomaly; the next Tea Party candidate who rises to national prominence could be the answer to the movement's prayers. Yet I believe that Paul offers a lens into the Tea Party's broader problems. While anger over the way the country is run is valid, when it comes to specifics--and to direct, clear solutions--things fall apart.

    Paul's role within the Republican Party (if any) has yet to be determined. But one thing I am sure of is that, until we start nominating candidates who have more realistic views of the complex world we live in and stop seeing things strictly in black and white (no pun intended), we are going to continue losing elections and becoming punch lines for late-night talk-show hosts.

    luck for (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    us, no, they likely will not.

    After what the conservative/reactionary/extremist (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:15:44 AM EST
    ideology has bequeathed the nation, it should be evident that Paul's principles should be the exception, and extremely rare ones at that.

    Re: Ron Paul's creepy offspring (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:39:37 AM EST
    I find this frustrating.  On one hand, I understand why the Democratic Party can't jump on this the way you (BTD that is) can (and the functions you are fulfilling are supposed to be different).  A black President accusing the entire Republican party of being racist...is not going to happen.  Unfortunately.

    On the other hand, I am beginning to believe that an openly ideological Democrat no longer exists in public office.  

    While Paul's position (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:53:43 AM EST
     on civil rights was framed vis-à-vis Race, I believe his Libertarian views are more broad. Rather than looking flustered trying to respond to Rachel Maddow's question regarding "eating at a lunch counter," he could have answered another way. He could have said, "Rachel, I believe there's a huge difference between National, Government obligations, and personal, private, individual rights.

    Let's say a very devout Muslim opens a coffee shop catering to equally devout Muslim customers. The purpose would be to socialize, drink tea/coffee while discussing the deep and varied meanings of the Quran, and Islam in general. And let's say a group of Hassidic, orthodox Jews come in, and just sit and stare (and sip coffee) at the Muslim clients. Knowing how uncomfortable that would make his intended customers, shouldn't the owner, who opened the shop with his own capital and labor, be able to restrict his customers to fellow, devout Muslims?

    Just asking.

    In theory... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    in a perfect world, I believe a business owner should have the right to serve or not serve whoever the hell they want...only the public sector should be required to serve all equally.  I mean it is hard to argue that it ain't tyrannical to order a person to make a sandwich for all comers.

    But in light of the long history of inequality under the law, especially in the South...the Civil Rights Act was a justified curtailing of the freedom to be a bigoted shop owner...the states themselves were discriminating, a drastic measure was necessary.  Though I'd like to think at some point in our evolution, it would no longer be necessary to be codified into law...we could restore the freedom to be a bigoted shop owner one day.


    "it is hard to argue . . " (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Merle on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    No, it's not hard at all.
    Who forced you to decide to sell sandwiches in interstate commerce in the first place?

    Your "theory" is  an empty self-serving hate-enabling rationalization just like Paul's.


    The need to eat... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:31:18 AM EST
    and make a living "forces" us all to labor in one form or another...some make sandwiches.  

    If I owned a sandwich shop, I'd like to reserve my right to refuse service to, I don't know, maybe Rand Paul for being such a hyporcrite. Or Dick Cheney.  Or the State of Arizona.


    "in a perfect world . . . (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    . . . I believe a business owner should have the right to serve or not serve whoever the hell they want."

    precisely.  we do not and will not ever live in a perfect world.


    The public sector? (none / 0) (#93)
    by lilburro on Mon May 24, 2010 at 07:27:43 PM EST
    In libertarian paradise we still have a dynamic public sector able to meet everyone's needs?  

    Yeah.  Right.

    As much as I enjoy the gay community I don't know that I'd want to be stuck the rest of my life hanging out in the same establishments.  And under libertarian paradise rules the likely outcome is that the gay community is the only place I would get served a sandwich.


    no (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:15:10 AM EST

    more (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:16:05 AM EST
    if that is what he wants its not a coffee shop he should be opening.

    Why are shop owners... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:22:04 AM EST
    allowed to discriminate against the shirtless and/or shoeless?  What if your religion forbids wearing shoes?

    health (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    I expect.  do you really want to eat next to some hairy fat guy with dirty feet?

    Dirty feet... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    dirtier shoes...wtf is the difference?  Shirtless or paper-thin tank top...same deal.

    Me thinks the health code is stealth discrimination against barefoot shirtless hippies:)


    when I was a barefoot (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:57:30 AM EST
    hippie I suspected the same thing.
    now for what ever reason, I get it.

    C'mon kdog (none / 0) (#102)
    by christinep on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    It ain't a "perfect world." Life is a bit more robust--sometimes for good, and sometimes not--than libertarian theory. This is more than a jocular back & forth about shirts, shoe, and whatnot. Rand Paul, and his Libertarian cohorts, would ultimately take us to Darwinism as our guiding "societal" principle. (And: I am being harsh. Most often, I enjoy your comments and interesting queries. But, the Civil Rights area and the essence of government involvement in helping those not at the tope of the heap are areas where my sense of humor escapes me. Take a close look at Paul and his cohorts, and think about what it would mean for any community.)

    Paul and his ilk... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:23:18 AM EST
    are frauds, I see this..."don't tread on me, tread on them" faux-libertarians.  They want more freedom to rig markets, fill prisons, and close borders...that's not how I understand libertariansim.

    I'm thinking about a "no treading period" libertarianism...would it better serve the people?  Damned if I know...but I'm not keen on how rigged markets are serving the people, the reverse robin-hood thing we've got going on, the nanny state where the nanny steals your jewelry.  And ya can't blame it all on GOP conservatives, the "liberal" party is down too and it makes me sick.  Just watched a very informative documentary last night, "The End of Poverty?"...the way our global system of regulation and control puts a boot on the neck of third world people...one can't help but wonder if some true-libertarianism is in order.

    Speaking for me, I don't want the promise of crumbs from cradle to grave, the promise to be served a piece of fruit or coffee with sugar grown by a modern day indentured servant...I just want a fighting chance against exploitive market riggers...the freedom to have a chance.


    It isn't about "crumbs" (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Tue May 25, 2010 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    I don't want the crumbs or left-overs from a society based upon exploitation either, kdog. Your points on that score are well put. But, where I come from (literally and figuratively), most things/situations/resolutions don't have to be and usually are not "either-or." The problem with Libertarianism, in my view, is that so much is dependent on "we don't like/accept one bad thing, so lets be the complete opposite way." (And, actually, at the root of it is a "me first, second, and always." The Good Samaritan example is much more preferable for me.) Sometimes I really like cliches and adages because they can say so succinctly what we all learn as the years go by. Examples: "Don't burn down the barn to kill the rat" or "Careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater."  In most situations--privately in relationships or publicly in society--we exist alongside other human beings (and wonderful animals.) Surprisingly my husband & I (2 very different temperaments with 2 different approaches to problem-solving) have been married for many years; the reason, I believe, is that during the polar-opposite times, we manage to work out a compromise/we come to the middle with a bit of give and take. Isn't that the way it works with individuals, organizations, governments, and societies--isn't that the way it works if it is going to work at all? It isn't about nanny-states; noone asks anyone who is able to forego responsibility. In fact, we take on more accouontability and responsibility if the empathetic reality of being a Good Samaritan resides at the heart of society.

    I'm all for... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 01:40:20 PM EST
    doing right by your neighbor and being a Good Samaritan...which is why I wonder if we're not better off, if we wouldn't see better neighbors and more humanity...if we weakened the hopelessly corrupt Samaritan middle man..if communities had more autonomy to self-govern and serve community needs.

    Working through Uncle Sam, the IMF, the World Bank...central planning, it ain't working for anybody but the top 1%.  I hear what you're saying about not scrapping the little bit that works...but what do we do when the ability to make positive changes is a seeming impossibility through the current framework?


    Weakening the middle man (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    so "communities" can break into the Harper's Ferry Armory and get started with the real war of weakening Monsanto and Bechtel?

    Because (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Tue May 25, 2010 at 03:50:30 PM EST
    What is a "community"?  A neighborhood?  A city?  A region. A state?

    If you are really a libertarian, then you should want to do away with unions - gotta let the free market take care of things like wages and working conditions.  You should also be very vocal about limited regulation - the gulf spill, as case in point.  A libertarian again would say the market will dictate how BP should be punished (customers will abandon them if and take their business elsewhere becuade of BP's business decisions).  This is the same philosophy espoused by GWB - let the oil companies police themselves when it comes to pollution - they'll do the right thing, right?


    Old pal... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:17:24 PM EST
    all I am is really confused.  But I'm fairly confident only we can put BP outta business...the government has no interest, in fact we gotta watch them too less they bail 'em out if we're successful.

    I started as wealth-redistributin' commie-pinko remember...till I got a better look at who would be doin' the distributing and whose interests they serve...some tenets of libertarianism started looking like a fighting chance for a common man in the police state age after that.

    But it's all pipe-dreams...corporatism is here to stay, "don't tread on me, tread on them" faux-libertarianism has the floor as the "alternative" to the status-quo...lol.


    "true libertarianism (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    is in order" is like saying "true christianity" or "true enlightenment" is in order.

    Ultimately, you're talking about some kind of positive mutation in human consciousness, that so far has been lacking. At least from where I sit.


    Yeah man... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    I need to stop thinking about how we unscrew this pooch because it will drive you insane, especially if you aren't properly medicated.

    You've been around the block a few more times than I...does it just continue to get more & more perplexing the more you perceive?


    Perplexing (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    but also amazing..

    So you've got that goin' for ya..which is nice. (with apologies to Bill Murray)


    This is true... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:40:17 PM EST
    listening to Levon bang skins and sing alone is worth the price of admission....which as far as I can tell is constant conscience pangs.

    Funny you sould mention.. (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    I just listened to No More Cane, Jupiter Hollow and Long Black veil about an hour ago. Put me in a better mood almost instantaneously..

    As long as there's music, there's hope.


    I don't know about hope... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:52:31 PM EST
    but it is another excellent opiate....much preferred to that religion stuff:)

    In their purest, best forms (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Tue May 25, 2010 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    they're all connected: in that one place of freedom nobody can take away.

    That's not discrimination (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:36:05 AM EST
    That's the health dept codes and letting people know you won't be fudging on them :)  Bartenders get to refuse service though.  I refused a lot of service in my day and I was entrusted with that, but I could also be charged and sued for allowing people to become too drunk or serving someone who was already intoxicated.

    Actually (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    I don't think he should be able to restrict his customer base BUT if he is catering to that clientele usually things have a way of working themselves out. I can't imagine many Jews really wanting to go to a coffee shop like that.

    The problem in the south... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    back in the day was the lack of equality under the law...if a black person opened a shop serving whites and blacks the cops woulda busted the place up...that was the real problem...and racial hatred in general of course.

    Now that such inequality under the law based on race has faded (thanks in part to the CRA), wouldn't black people not want any part of a whites-only coffee shop?  Just like jewish people in Shooter's hypothetical?  And the difference today is those blacks now have the equality under the law necessary to open their own shop.

    Ya can't forget the shop owner's liberty...you do have the right to be an arsehole.


    Not if you are running a (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    a "public accomodation."  Kind of sounds like you really agree with Rand Paul on this.

    I find it an interesting (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    debate...as a freedom extremist I find it hard to justify forcing the pizza guy to slave over the oven to serve somebody he/she can't stand, for whatever reason...even if they do make their standard profit on the deal.

    Do you agree that pharmacists should (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    be able to refuse to fill prescriptions for morning after pills.  Birth control pills?  

    Freedom of choice (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 24, 2010 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    Using the same rationale, the Hindu at the grocery store should be allowed to refuse to ring up or bag your steak or the Jewish clerk refuse to deal with your pork chops!

    I believe in freedom of choice. You're free to not work at a place that contradicts your beliefs. Your personal beliefs shouldn't be forced on everyone else.


    I think those things... (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    should be available without a prescription requirement...and that a drug store owner can choose to stock or not stock whatever they want.  

    If there is demand for a product, somebody will fill it...just look at all the illegal sh*t that is readily available to fill demand.


    thats simplistic (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:00:28 AM EST
    in rural america where the person that stocks it may be hundreds of miles away.

    Sounds like an opportunity... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:11:20 AM EST
    for the person in need of those pills in a rural area to go into business selling them...there is an obvious demand not being served...they could make a killing.  Remember, in libertarian world you could place an order for overnight shipment of 500 pills...take what they need and sell the rest.

    This whole debate is unrealistic because we live in such a sick imperfect world...but its fun to discuss because its not as clear cut as some would like to be...because arseholes have rights endowed by the creator, the same as the cool kids.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    Your perspective is as one living in a big city like NYC, but out in the hinterlands, you are marked, tagged and a target if you become known for selling morning after pills.

    IOW in the pure libertarian free market system, which comes first: make a buck providing a needed service, or having your brains blown out by some psycho religious nut.

    Most sane people looking to make some good money do it so they can live the lifestyle they choose. Being dead at worst or harassed on a daily basis would usually not be part of that dream, imo.


    Well... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    even in my freedom-extremist dreamworld, murder is against the law.  

    This is what bugs me about "mainstream" libertarians...they get bogged in philosophical debates about whether the CRA is a form of tyranny...fun to discuss, sure...but this is debate where ya say the end justified the means, and change topics to the war on drugs.


    Well Yeah (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    Anyway, I do think that your perspective thrives because of the luxury of living in a big city.

    In a small town, if a pharmacist is allowed decide what drugs to stock, and who to sell them two, they should lose their license.

    Just as not serving someone a burger at the counter, because of the color of their skin is a crime.

    America is a big place. What if, for example, a group of like minded people save up enough of their hard earned $$, buy a town and make it restricted to "christian only, whites only". Do you think that the government should give that kind of racist behavior a pass?

    I don't.


    In libertarian-world.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    you don't need a license to sell drugs, all you need is drugs and customers:)

    I get your point, and I am spoiled by the city...but in a global economy you can the drugs in your hand next-day ordering from outta state, even in W. Bubblef*ck.  It's not an issue like it was in horse & buggy days.

    As for the white christian town...as long as it's private property, what do I care...actually I dream of a similar refuge for open-minded, tolerant, peace and freedom loving people.


    sundown towns (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CST on Mon May 24, 2010 at 12:06:13 PM EST
    like what you're talking about are pretty much why most minorities live in the city today.  After slavery ended, small towns across the north and midwest refused to let black people live there.  Previously most of them were farmers, but there is power in numbers and cities were safer.  These things have very real, historical implications.  And they aren't good ones.

    Yup (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    A blight..

    Private Property? (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon May 24, 2010 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    Like Sty Town, Peter Cooper VIllage?

    so libertarian paradise (none / 0) (#92)
    by lilburro on Mon May 24, 2010 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    is still supported by an exploitative "global economy"?  

    I can't get behind it.  Allow intolerant people the freedom to organize and stockpile as much ammo as they want, and freely travel to the more tolerant town that holds separate beliefs, none of which include an interest in stockpiling an arsenal....yeaaaah not getting behind that.


    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    as far as I know there's no coffee shops that are officially all white or all black but there are businesses that do cater to different segments of the populace here. Even though white people do go to "soul food" restauarnts the majority of their clientele is African American and if you go in Po Folks the majority of their clientele is white though I don't know why anybody would eat there because their food is so horrible.

    Aren't they starting a all white (none / 0) (#81)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon May 24, 2010 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    Basketball league in Atlanta?

    Not (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 24, 2010 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    that I know of.

    Hopefully this link works (none / 0) (#109)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 12:09:38 AM EST

    I thought it was sorta funny.


    Maybe this link will work (none / 0) (#110)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue May 25, 2010 at 12:10:34 AM EST
    Only if is a private golf club in Augusta. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    no (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:32:29 AM EST
    "uncomfortable" should never be a reason to discriminate.

    That being said, obviously if people are causing actual disturbances (not just staring) than you are free to remove them from your place of business.

    Actually, I think this is an exact example of what should not be ok.  I am a big fan of people brushing shoulders with those they would otherwise be uncomfortable with.  From my personal experience, the more you have devout Jews and Muslims hanging out at the same establishments, the harder it is for them to hate each other.


    But doesn't the individual... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:38:39 AM EST
    have an inalienable right to discriminate?  Not the state, just the individual.

    I mean we all discriminate...rational people discriminate based on character, loons by race/gender/religion.  If I own a place of business, shouldn't it be my right to choose who I do business with?  Again, in a clean slate perfect world without so much discrimination by the state/inequality under the law baggage to lug around.


    Open to the Public (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 24, 2010 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    What you do in the privacy of your home is completely your business  (within limits!). When you chose to open a business to the public, that includes all. If you want to restrict your customers, you should open a private club.

    What kind of sign would you hang to notify people that you don't want thier business!


    "I reserve the right to refuse (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon May 24, 2010 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    service to anyone."

    And the customer has the right to sue! (none / 0) (#79)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 24, 2010 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    not in business (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    and I don't think it's come as far as you think.

    Based on your logic, people should be able to discriminate when giving jobs or housing or selling food or for that matter pay discrimination.  This already exists, but in your world there would be no way too fight back.

    The problem is this stuff is already too pervasive, and I don't think we've come nearly as far as a society as you think we've come where this wouldn't cause major issues.  I think it already exists on a large scale, and the people who hold the power cards are still mostly white men.

    We don't live in a clean slate perfect world.  And frankly, I don't think that is even possible.  If that were the case we wouldn't need laws against murder either.


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:56:29 AM EST
    hence I think the CRA was justified, even if technically it's tyrannical.  Desperate times.

    But you gotta admit it is at least kinda wrong to demand a black restaurant owner serve a party of KKK-arseholes...right?


    I dunno (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    can you picture the KKK going to a black-owned restaurant?  If they did, maybe it would serve as a learning experience.

    And again, there are rules that you can kick people out if they actually cause disturbances.


    Sure I could... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    in the hopes that the restaraunt owner refuses to serve, so they can sue.

    Let's all put ourselves in the shoes of a service provider for a sec...picture the
    person(s) you most despise...would you appreciate being forced to serve that person(s)?

    Honestly, I wouldn't.  But I see how the common good is served by it, all things considered...but this is how food gets spat in.

    Farva: Give me a double bacon cheeseburger.
    Dimpus Burger Guy: [into microphone] Double baco cheeseburger. It's for a cop.
    Farva: What the hell's that all about? You gonna spit in it now?
    Dimpus Burger Guy: No, I just told him that so he makes it good. [into microphone] Don't spit in that cop's burger.
    Farva:' Yeah, thanks.
    Second Dimpus Guy: Roger, holding the spit.

    - Super Troopers

    None taken... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    we're just feeding each other's brains...and I fully realize my libertarian utopia would be as disasterous as somebody elses socialist utopia, or religous conservative utopis...just more free and more fun:)

    Then The Hypothetical Owner (none / 0) (#129)
    by Blue Jean on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    is free to open a hypothetical private club, and say "I'm inviting only Muslims who want to discuss the Quaran."  There are plenty of private book clubs who operate under invitation only.

    However, if you're going to open a business to the public, then you have to include ALL of the public, not just the 10% or the 25% or 37% that you feel comfortable about.


    My point, (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    I think, is that the Left shouldn't be hooting and high fiving at Paul's recent "gaffe" just yet. If he framed his position in a more familiar way ( I think Kdog get's it) it gives all the closet racists (more than we think) a convenient way out.

    in Pauls case (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:34:53 AM EST
    its a bit late for framing.  he has been saying this stuff for years.  

    and obviously (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    I think hooting and high fiveing is totally in order.

    It gives them a point (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    to organize and empower around and from too.....bleh!

    A new meaning to the phrase (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:39:28 AM EST
    "American exceptionalism."

    Missing the point (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    It's personal, private money. Shouldn't a person have the right (for whatever reason) and if it's his/her belief that a certain type of clientele is required for the business to be a success, be able to restrict his customers to that demographic?

    Night clubs do it all the time; you know, the doorman with the "thumb" determining who has the "look" and who doesn't to gain admittance.

    no (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:59:08 AM EST
    absolutely no.  this is exactly what Wallgreens was doing in the 60s.  as far as night clubs, if pressed they could not enforce it legally I suspect.

    Sure (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:53:14 AM EST
    Then they shouldn't be forced toundergo things like health inspections and fire marshal inspections, right?

    If Somebody Wanted To Sue (none / 0) (#130)
    by Blue Jean on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:12:03 PM EST
     If somebody wanted to sue, and say "I wasn't admitted to Studio 54 because I didn't look funky enough." then they're free to do so.  Unfortunately, nobody's ever gone that far, because such a case would be really entertaining.  

    Besides, there was no sign outside Studio 54 that said "Only cool people have a chance of getting in here."  Coolness is a relative state that changes all the time; if you're not cool today, then you could be cool tomorrow.


    heh (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:05:35 AM EST
    from the NYTimes

    "It's a remarkable situation, given where things were a year ago, where Republicans clearly have an opportunity to do really well," said David Winston, a Republican pollster who concentrates on Congressional races. "The door is open in terms of potential. But we have to answer the question, Why us?"

    actually (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:06:16 AM EST
    I think its more likely many are ASKING why us.

    When pols are pols (none / 0) (#64)
    by Rojas on Mon May 24, 2010 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    what's the difference?

    I don't think (none / 0) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 24, 2010 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    we've answered the question. And it's one reason the Repubs, and the Tea's are making such headway. It's the idea that the D's "know better" what we "free, individual citizens" should do, feel, or be allowed to do; the Mommy Party.

    Most of the comments here have been personal feelings, and what we should, or shouldn't be allowed to do. I'm talking about THE LAW. If you separate out Government, public institutions, and large corporate entities (like Woolworth's) which tend to dominate and monopolize markets, I don't see why an individual, using his/her own private capital shouldn't be able to run their enterprise just about any way they please. (within certain obvious limitations, so let's not get silly)

    And that feeling is at the heart of these "movements" today, and if we don't take heed of the powerful emotions they unleash, we most assuredly are staring at Armageddon come November.

    The Tea Party is a crude, dangerous mutation growing out of that feeling, and naturally, they're ripe to being manipulated, and mobilized by duplicitous dirt bags like Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin. Nevertheless, Ronnie's "Get Government off our backs" still stirs the animal spirits in a lot of people.....and for good reason.

    One reason (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Mon May 24, 2010 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    Because, as a business, you get certain tax deductions (especially as a small business) that a private business gets.  If you are a private club, I believe you are organized differently and don't get some of the same benefits

    A private club DOESN'T get (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Mon May 24, 2010 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    Sounds like more... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 01:46:20 PM EST
    inequality under the law we need to deal with...I knew there had to be a reason private clubs were less than equal to a regular open to the public business, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.

    Again (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Mon May 24, 2010 at 02:34:30 PM EST
    You have to get out of your urban-centric reference point.  If the only grocery store in town didn't want to sell to black people, would that be ok?  Not everyone has the Internet, or a car, or a way to go 20 miles to get groceries.

    Again... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon May 24, 2010 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    I gotcha...I see why it was necessary and agree it was necessary...I just find this an interesting devil's advocate to play...and I don't think it is wrong to question and anything and everything...even if it is "long settled".

    "Armageddon come November" (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 24, 2010 at 02:57:42 PM EST
    is highly overrated.  

    Because they run a place of PUBLIC accommodation (none / 0) (#89)
    by Emma on Mon May 24, 2010 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    I don't see why an individual, using his/her own private capital shouldn't be able to run their enterprise just about any way they please.

    People need jobs to live.  People need to go to stores to buy things to live.  People need places to stay when they travel.  People need places to live.

    All of those are places of PUBLIC accommodation which make their money by admitting the general public to them.  They choose to make their living offering a public accommodation, it should accommodate the public without prejudice.  If people don't want to serve the public, they should choose other ways of making their living.  

    To people who live in cities or even large towns where there are a plethora of options, or to people who have never been denied anything on the basis of their race, etc., it might not seem like a big deal to walk a little farther, take the subway to the next stop, and go someplace else to shop, or eat, or stay, or live.  However, where there isn't a plethora of shops, people will find themselves shut out or badly inconvenienced if one store, or one chain of stores, or one neighborhood, or one hotel, or one anything refuses to provide them with a public service or a job because of their race etc.

    (In fact, this limitation of services is exactly what the anti-choice movement is creating all over the country.)

    If you make your living selling a public accommodation, or you make your living by employing other people (a public good), you should have to do so on a race etc.-neutral basis.  The minute you engage in public commerce, you have lost the right to claim you are a wholly private actor.


    So, in fact (none / 0) (#90)
    by Emma on Mon May 24, 2010 at 06:44:07 PM EST
    I don't think we've answered the question. And it's one reason the Repubs, and the Tea's are making such headway.

    We HAVE answered the question.  Time and time and time again the question has been answered:  if you engage in public commerce, through provision of goods, services, or jobs, you can no longer claim to be a private actor.  Because you are not a private actor, you are a public actor making your living by being such.

    This answer goes back to the Wobblies, the labor movements of the 1920s, the depression, the cases that led Roosevelt to his court-packing scheme, and the many civil rights movements in this country.  Again, again, and again, the question has been answered.

    I don't pretend to know why, or even if, the Republicans or Tea partiers are making "headway" or what that "headway" would even look like.  What I do know is that pretending there has been no answer to this question is just as shortsighted, ignorant, and historically bereft as anything the tea partiers throw out there.


    LoL....Emma (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 24, 2010 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    No, the question hasn't been answered "time and time and time again." You all have been too busy preening, and letting everyone know what a good person you are instead of trying to comprehend the question (or maybe hypotheses would be a better word.) There's a reason the Repugnant Republicans keep kicking our butts, regardless of the fact that their actual administrations have been so damaging to the majority of our citizens. Think Nixon, Reagan, Bush. Somerby tries to examine, and explain it almost daily, and by the responses I've gotten here, I'd say he has a long way to go still.  

    You haven't answered the question; you use the question to make speeches. You talk right past the questioner, stopping just long enough to drop some poorly veiled pejoratives, and draw inferences that simply don't exist.

    Sarah Palin, and that whole bunch, have a huge following and I would think that trying to understand why that is would be more important than just coming up with new put-downs and new derogatory terms.

    Simply labeling them "racists" and letting it go at that is not a formula for success at the polls, as we're seeing more and more. Maybe trying to understand the deeper chords they've uncovered, and are exploiting to great advantage, would be the smarter way to go.
    And I truly do forgive you for your last sentence. That was so funny! LoL!


    Funny, (none / 0) (#111)
    by Emma on Tue May 25, 2010 at 12:34:55 AM EST
    I didn't see anywhere in either post where I called anybody a racist.  But whatev -- that's well worn BS.

    For what it's worth (none / 0) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:19:09 AM EST
    you might find anger management courses helpful:)

    I was simply trying to have a generic, philosophical discussion regarding the issues that have riled up many people in today's political arena. Mr. Paul is just a metaphor for the greater topic of Libertarianism, and/or The Tea Party, and/or the Republican party; "Thinking out of the box" if you will..

    Having been brought up in several foster homes, the best being the four years I spent with an AA couple in upstate NY, my interest was peaked with this post. After that I spent several years with a family where the father was a doctor, a psychiatrist actually. When the State closed the hospital where he worked, the family adopted a young AA girl (a patient) who learned to cope with schizophrenia. "Dolores" became my sister and spent the last decade of her life in my home with my family.

    I'm just telling you this stuff to maybe clear up a little bit why I have a special interest in this subject.

    Oh, and I think, if you go back and re-read what I wrote, I don't think you'll find anything to imply that I believe you're a racist. I certainly don't believe that; I was just commenting on the general "throw-away" line many Liberals use, when the topic is much more complicated than that.

    It's kind of like the laws regarding religion; freedom "of" religion, and freedom "from" religion. When they passed the CRA (and of course I'm 100% in approval) we've been programmed to think of it only in the sense of it making discrimination against minorities illegal. But it also stripped the majority of many, here-to-for, benign "rights."

    At least that's the subject I was hoping to explore.

    In the future I'll ask that fanatic freedom fighter, Kdog, to interpret for me. Lol.


    Maybe you need some reading comprehension (none / 0) (#115)
    by Emma on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:51:20 AM EST

    Oh, and I think, if you go back and re-read what I wrote, I don't think you'll find anything to imply that I believe you're a racist. I certainly don't believe that; I was just commenting on the general "throw-away" line many Liberals use, when the topic is much more complicated than that.

    Because 1) I never thought you were implying that I'm a racist and 2) what I am replying to is your (repeated) assertion that the liberal default position when backed into a corner is to call people racists.

    I'm not backed into a corner:  I clearly explained why "private" employers are not allowed to discriminate, they're not private.  And I never called anybody a racist.


    GOP = Grossly Obvious People (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dadler on Mon May 24, 2010 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    At least you know where you stand though.

    Wow (none / 0) (#77)
    by kaleidescope on Mon May 24, 2010 at 03:41:47 PM EST
    Was Ackerman ever wrong about Roberts, though.

    The Common Law Rule (none / 0) (#83)
    by rea on Mon May 24, 2010 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    I believe a business owner should have the right to serve or not serve whoever the hell they want.

    Actualy, the rule at common law, dating back to the Middle Ages, was that common carriers and innkeepers were required to serve all comers, without discrimination.

    Libertarians want no government intervention (none / 0) (#84)
    by kmblue on Mon May 24, 2010 at 05:24:40 PM EST
    in their business, until the time comes to protect their property.  THEN they want government intervention, and quickly.  See Digby.

    Extrapolation Explosion (none / 0) (#100)
    by DaveCal on Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:00:09 PM EST
    Why is the title to this post "The limits to GOP Ideology"?  Do Rand Paul or this writer, Russ Douthat, speak for the GOP ?  

    Or is the post just another TalkLeft punching bag, posted to allow the commenters to freely rail away at their preconceived notions of what all republicans think, or what all conservatives think?  

    Isn't your title also disingenuous, BTD?    

    I guess you didn't read the other posts (none / 0) (#113)
    by observed on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:54:47 AM EST
    Yes, Rand Paul speaks for the GOP---even for mealy-mouthed faux-centrists like Brooks, and definitely for Rove, Gingrich, Armey, Delay.
    I'm going back in time because the GOP has become even MORE radical since the 90s, when the leadership was quite clear about its opinion of the New Deal, etc.