Ron Paul: The GOP Candidate to Beat?

[Dos Equis]

Thanks.

I understand this is a "hot topic" but only because people are only looking at the surface of it. Dig a little deeper and you'll understand how important freedom is and the responsibilities that come with it are. If we as a group aren't ready to accept that, then we deserve totalitarianism.

Society has determined that freedom has limitations.  We have decided that if you run a business, you don't get to refuse to hire someone solely because they are Hispanic.  If you own a restaurant, you cannot limit your clientele to Irish folks.  If you run a hotel, you cannot limit your invitees to black people.  These freedom limitations are good public policy.  They didn't change anyone's mind about views on ethnicity (or any other protected class), but they did change how people operate in the marketplace.

There is nothing totalitarian about equal treatment. 

[Skip8282]

Really? How so? At least present an counter that incites some thought.

Although I did stray from the civil rights act theme in my example the overall defense of private property stays in tact. Your postion is that equal opportunity and equal protection under the law supercedes private property rights. I'm taking that same overall theme you're defending of protecting society from any abuse, by suggesting we should put cameras into every home to make sure no one is being abused. If you ignore the technical improbability of performing such a task and view it in a philosophical sense would you not be opposed to having the government facilitate such a move because it infringes on your private property?

Incite thought, lol.  About what?  Rather than making an argument, you've made a ridiculous assertion that I support something that I don't.  That is not my position, it's your overly fanatical interpretation. 

I believe you should be able to do what you want in your own home and on your own property (provided you're not bothering others).  Wanna keep out blacks, Mexicans, or whoever else, knock yourself out. 

But when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society.  And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights. 

Just as public safety supercedes a private property owner's rights.  You don't get to throw up a concert hall with an unsafe roof, let everybody in, and claim "private property rights" when the roof collapses on people.  You don't get to install gas lines anyway you want without a government inspection, and on, and on.  Don't like it, don't engage in commerce in this society.

And even if you're not engaged in commerce, private property ownership is not an absolute.  There has to be some rules.  Somebody can't buy the two plots next to my house and just start using it as a 7/11 or whatever the fuck they want.

Now, if you don't want to operate publically, and you want to do things privately - then discriminate all you want.

[Dos Equis]

Incite thought, lol.  About what?  Rather than making an argument, you've made a ridiculous assertion that I support something that I don't.  That is not my position, it's your overly fanatical interpretation. 

I believe you should be able to do what you want in your own home and on your own property (provided you're not bothering others).  Wanna keep out blacks, Mexicans, or whoever else, knock yourself out. 

But when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society.  And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights. 

Just as public safety supercedes a private property owner's rights.  You don't get to throw up a concert hall with an unsafe roof, let everybody in, and claim "private property rights" when the roof collapses on people.  You don't get to install gas lines anyway you want without a government inspection, and on, and on.  Don't like it, don't engage in commerce in this society.

And even if you're not engaged in commerce, private property ownership is not an absolute.  There has to be some rules.  Somebody can't buy the two plots next to my house and just start using it as a 7/11 or whatever the fuck they want.

Now, if you don't want to operate publically, and you want to do things privately - then discriminate all you want.

Exactly.  Well said.

[Fury]

Incite thought, lol.  About what?  Rather than making an argument, you've made a ridiculous assertion that I support something that I don't.  That is not my position, it's your overly fanatical interpretation. 

I believe you should be able to do what you want in your own home and on your own property (provided you're not bothering others).  Wanna keep out blacks, Mexicans, or whoever else, knock yourself out. 

But when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society.  And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights. 

Just as public safety supercedes a private property owner's rights.  You don't get to throw up a concert hall with an unsafe roof, let everybody in, and claim "private property rights" when the roof collapses on people.  You don't get to install gas lines anyway you want without a government inspection, and on, and on.  Don't like it, don't engage in commerce in this society.

And even if you're not engaged in commerce, private property ownership is not an absolute.  There has to be some rules.  Somebody can't buy the two plots next to my house and just start using it as a 7/11 or whatever the fuck they want.

Now, if you don't want to operate publically, and you want to do things privately - then discriminate all you want.

Well said, Skip. The naivety of the Ron Paul fanatics rivals the stupidity of the Obama drones.

[Skip8282]

Society has determined that freedom has limitations.  We have decided that if you run a business, you don't get to refuse to hire someone solely because they are Hispanic.  If you own a restaurant, you cannot limit your clientele to Irish folks.  If you run a hotel, you cannot limit your invitees to black people.  These freedom limitations are good public policy.  They didn't change anyone's mind about views on ethnicity (or any other protected class), but they did change how people operate in the marketplace.

There is nothing totalitarian about equal treatment. 

I actually think that's part of what turns people away from RP.  His fans are incredulous that you could possibly disagree with one of his positions, and they seem to take the ridiculous extreme in a discussion.  Camera's all of the house, lol.  WTF?

[Dos Equis]

I actually think that's part of what turns people away from RP.  His fans are incredulous that you could possibly disagree with one of his positions, and they seem to take the ridiculous extreme in a discussion.  Camera's all of the house, lol.  WTF?

True.  Some of his supporters are pretty fanatical. 

[Fury]

I actually think that's part of what turns people away from RP.  His fans are incredulous that you could possibly disagree with one of his positions, and they seem to take the ridiculous extreme in a discussion.  Camera's all of the house, lol.  WTF?

The fanatical and vocal nature of most Ron Paul fans is indeed pretty annoying. They're completely incapable of criticizing anything the guy says. Blind worship.

[Skip8282]

Well said, Skip. The naivety of the Ron Paul fanatics rivals the stupidity of the Obama drones.

Sometimes, they are crazy fanatical.  I was in Lowes one time when a couple who had RP support shirts on were going ballistic because the signs were bilingual.  I know they don't represent the majority of RP fans, but damn it was weird.

[tu_holmes]

Sometimes, they are crazy fanatical.  I was in Lowes one time when a couple who had RP support shirts on were going ballistic because the signs were bilingual.  I know they don't represent the majority of RP fans, but damn it was weird.

Lots of crazy out there.

[Bindare_Dundat]

I actually think that's part of what turns people away from RP.  His fans are incredulous that you could possibly disagree with one of his positions, and they seem to take the ridiculous extreme in a discussion.  Camera's all of the house, lol.  WTF?

Hardly. I mentioned several times that I don't agree with all of his beliefs.

I'm very open to differing but intellectual views (the only way I'll continue learning anything) and you offered an explanation this time that I can take something from, much different then your previous sarcastic remark and  I appreciate that. I would definitely like to continue this later when I have more time.

[Bindare_Dundat]

But when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society.  And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights.  

 A private business is private property. If they sell a service or item to the public how are they no longer a private business or no longer private property? 

If no public funds are used to run the business the government shouldnt have the authority to tell it who it can exclude and include. Any business should should be able to refuse services to anyone they see fit. Is it right? Thats for you to decide. How is it smart for a business to refuse to serve customers for something as aribitrary as race? The free market has a mechanismto put such businesses out of business.  Compettitors that serve everyone eventually take away business from the offenders in this case.

Does this "equal protection" apply to other minorities, or just racial ones? Should hotel and restaurant owners be forced to accomodate neo-Nazis or incredibly obnoxious people? In the latter instance, the PC left forces restaurant owners NOT to abide by "equal protection"

Just as public safety supercedes a private property owner's rights.  You don't get to throw up a concert hall with an unsafe roof, let everybody in, and claim "private property rights" when the roof collapses on people.  You don't get to install gas lines anyway you want without a government inspection, and on, and on.  Don't like it, don't engage in commerce in this society.

Like I said, with freedom comes responsibility, not a right to endanger others.

And even if you're not engaged in commerce, private property ownership is not an absolute.  There has to be some rules.  Somebody can't buy the two plots next to my house and just start using it as a 7/11 or whatever the fuck they want.

No one suggested you can do "whatever the fuck you want", you're the only one bringing that up.

[Benny B]

Haha, damn Chris matthews gets absolutely owned in this interview.  He is such a piece of trash.   

Only in your own feeble mind did Chris Matthews get "absolutely owned" in that interview. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Society has determined that freedom has limitations.  We have decided that if you run a business, you don't get to refuse to hire someone solely because they are Hispanic.  If you own a restaurant, you cannot limit your clientele to Irish folks.  If you run a hotel, you cannot limit your invitees to black people.

It happens all the time. People are refused entry based on how they are dressed. Do you deny a restaurant or club a right to do that?

[Bindare_Dundat]

The fanatical and vocal nature of most Ron Paul fans is indeed pretty annoying. They're completely incapable of criticizing anything the guy says. Blind worship.

Im being fanatical? Gimmie a break. You know very well I have no problems accepting when I'm wrong about something and I surely don't follow blindly. You havent ever been vocal about something, does that make you fanatical?

[Dos Equis]

It happens all the time. People are refused entry based on how they are dressed. Do you deny a restaurant or club a right to do that?

Yes a restaurant or club has the right to have a dress code . . . which has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. 

[The True Adonis]

People should have equal rights under the law, however I do not think people should be treated equally whatsoever.  There is no such thing as equality and we are far from being equal.

[The True Adonis]

Yes a restaurant or club has the right to have a dress code . . . which has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. 

It could.  Particular cultures and sub-cultures do dress accordingly and alike.  IF I owned a club and put a sign out that says, "No one allowed with Pants on The Ground, Gold teeth, Doo-Rags, Necklaces of any kind, sports Jerseys, Oversized clothes" I think its clear whom we would be targeting.  Isn`t it?

[The True Adonis]

A little video on Equalty and why it does not make sense to treat people equally.

[The True Adonis]

Or if I had a club and I had a sign that said, "No admittance if wearing a Burka, towel on your head or Turban".   Or "Anyone wearing a cross of any kind or in possession of a bible will be considered Trespassing".  See how that works.

[The True Adonis]

A little more on equality.  Would you honestly treat someone who is a member of Al-Quaeda equally to your mother, father, brother or sister?  I surely wouldn`t.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Yes a restaurant or club has the right to have a dress code . . . which has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.  

They have a right to have a dress code for their employees and the employees sign a contract that says they accept this but I'm not so sure that a night club can legally refuse a patron for wearing jeans if they want everyone to wear slacks. Im trying to find more info on that, if you do please let me know.

Either way, unless the guy wants to come in looking like a complete slob or naked, i don't see how one can be justified over the other because at it core its still discriminatory.

[Dos Equis]

It could.  Particular cultures and sub-cultures do dress accordingly and alike.  IF I owned a club and put a sign out that says, "No one allowed with Pants on The Ground, Gold teeth, Doo-Rags, Necklaces of any kind, sports Jerseys, Oversized clothes" I think its clear whom we would be targeting.  Isn`t it?

Nope. 

[Dos Equis]

They have a right to have a dress code for their employees but I'm not so sure that a night club can legally refuse a patron for wearing jeans if they want everyone to wear slacks. Im trying to find more info on that, if you do please let me know.

Either way, unless the guy wants to come in looking like a complete slob or naked, i don't see how one can be justified over the other becasue at it core its still discriminatory.

Sure they can.  Nothing wrong with a "no jeans" dress code.  Have you ever gone to a restaurant that required you to wear a coat and tie? 

Discrimination isn't wrong.  It's discrimination on the basis of a "protected class" that's wrong.  Race/ethnicity = protected class.  Dressing like a slob, or being naked (which itself is illegal) is completely different. 

[The True Adonis]

Nope. 

Oh really?  You don`t think sub-cultures and cultures have their own mannerisms, norms, values, dress codes etc...?


"No one allowed with Pants on The Ground, Gold teeth, Doo-Rags, Necklaces of any kind, sports Jerseys, Oversized clothes" If I posted that sign, you honestly don`t have a clue who I would be trying to target?

[The True Adonis]

Sure they can.  Nothing wrong with a "no jeans" dress code.  Have you ever gone to a restaurant that required you to wear a coat and tie? 

Discrimination isn't wrong.  It's discrimination on the basis of a "protected class" that's wrong.  Race/ethnicity = protected class.  Dressing like a slob, or being naked (which itself is illegal) is completely different. 

What "race" is someone if they are 1/16th Black?