"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Van Cruncheon]

if you have faith in other people, you are ignorant of both history -and- sociology

hell, you're ignorant of basic libertarianism, which preaches selfishness -- "enlightened" selfishness, of course, which is an oxymoron -- and resents any social mechanism that suborns one human to another for greater survival, and outright abhors altruism

why would anyone trust folks when they're all out for #1, and calls that selfishness "enlightened"

[Dickie Dee]

Never understood that. 
Maybe I'm just naive.

Not naive, willfully ignorant.

[Beardo]

How is "enlightened" selfishness" an oxymoron?

Everyone is selfish, it's nature. The difference between me and you is that you pretend thats not how it works.

[Beardo]

I'm willfully ignorant. Spell it out for me.  

[Stoney Mason]

Never understood that. 
Maybe I'm just naive.

Not naive, willfully ignorant.

If he used willfully ignorant though he couldn't pretend he was "enlightened".

[Van Cruncheon]

no, everyone is not EXCLUSIVELY selfish. we are collectively selfless/self-sacrificing in arguably equal measure. we would not have survived as a species if we did not have social mechanisms by which we suborn ourselves to the needs of the larger group. we are SOCIAL CREATURES. we go mad when left in isolation.

[Stoney Mason]

no, everyone is not EXCLUSIVELY selfish. we are collectively selfless and sacrificin in equal measure. we would not have survived as a specifies if we did not have social mechanisms by which we suborn ourselves to the needs of the larger group. we are SOCIAL CREATURES. we go mad when left in isolation.

Dude he's read Ayn Rand and Ron Paul.

I think he has a very deep and nuanced understanding of mankind and right and wrong based on those two philosophers.

[Beardo]

I think he's playing by JayDubya rules, where every new page makes the last page null.

I'm not trying to. What am I looking for on the last page?

[Beardo]

no, everyone is not EXCLUSIVELY selfish.

I'm not saying they are.

[Beardo]

It isn't our nature, either.

You don't think that wanting to improve our life is in our nature?

[Van Cruncheon]

so you have faith that people are NOT selfish when it serves your political purposes, but ARE selfish when it excuses your own irresponsible behavior? i would like to subscribe to your hilariously petty newsletter

[Van Cruncheon]

It isn't our nature, either.

You don't think that wanting to improve our life is in our nature?

how is that a selfish thing? rising tide, lifts all boats, socialism, etc

[Beardo]

so you have faith that people are NOT selfish when it serves your political purposes, but ARE selfish when it excuses your own bad behavior? i would like to subscribe to your hilariously petty newsletter

I never said this. I just said that people are not "Exclusively selfish" As in your example, a human would go mad in isloation, so it would be very selfish of him to not go mad, would it not? He might even be will to give up something that would be gained by being alone?

how is that a selfish thing? rising tide, lifts all boats, socialism, etc

How is that not selfish? Perhaps we have a different definition of selfish.

[Beardo]

Is it selfish for someone to want to make more money?

[AdmiralViscen]

How is "enlightened" selfishness" an oxymoron?

Everyone is selfish, it's nature. The difference between me and you is that you pretend thats not how it works.

He accepts that that is how it works and therefore the government must take action in the gaps created by that selfishness

edit

and by gaps I mean instances where individuals are unwittingly victimized by that selfish attitude. for example, if black people are 5% of a town's population and they can't buy groceries because their boycott of the segregated grocery store is meaningless when 60% of the population is happy to shop there, or even -gasp- shops there BECAUSE it's segregated

[Van Cruncheon]

Is it selfish for someone to want to make more money?

is it selfless for someone to want to make money

[Van Cruncheon]

we treasure our personal consciousness -- our ability to strategize as individuals beyond our basic instincts for long-term gain -- but we gleefully condemn our equal measure of social consciousness, favoring short-term individual satisfaction over long-term social and societal gains

like it or not, society is its own organism, and it behooves to help it operate not on instinct but in consideration of an elevated perspective, a perspective that requires sacrifice as well as satisfaction

but what do i know, i buy netbooks like arabs buy twelve-year-olds

[Fresh Prince]

When you earn more money and use that money to buy something at Walmart- you are helping a chinaman.

[Brehvolution]

So basically:

If market tyranny is cost prohibitive, where is the govt. to protect me?

If I'm white and money isn't an issue(fuck everyone else and myself if shit goes down) in the short term, why is the govt. meddling in my endeavors?

Tea party conundrum.

[Oblivion]

What U.S. history would look like if it was written by Texas and Arizona.

[AdmiralViscen]

Saw this on twitter, haven't watched it yet though.

 
Pretty great, deep Rachel Maddow interview with Rand Paul about his thoughts on the Civil Rights Act http://slate.me/bAq7NC

[Phoenix Dark]

He's honestly talking about parts of Boston being desegregated in the 1840s?

[Debaser]

Pretty great, deep Rachel Maddow interview with Rand Paul about his thoughts on the Civil Rights Act http://slate.me/bAq7NC

It's really not that deep. Just 20 minutes of Maddow trying to get Paul to say what he means, which is that private businesses should absolutely have the right to discriminate racially, sexually, or however the hell else they want, and Paul doing everything he possibly can to dodge coming out and saying it.

"The interesting thing is..." I'd say the interesting thing is that you won't just cop to it, dude!

[Phoenix Dark]

The Rand Paul camp has issued a new statement (via Greg Sargent) saying that Paul does in fact support the power of the federal government "to insure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race."

That appears to be a full reversal from Paul's comment on Rachel Maddow Wednesday night that, referring to the section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bars private institutions from race-based discrimination, "had I been around, I would have tried to modify that."

Said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton (who, by the way, was also a spokesman for Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign):

"Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to insure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."

That goes further than the statement from Rand Paul himself earlier today that endorsed the Civil Rights Act because of its "intent" but fell short of supporting the power of the government to ban racial discrimination by private businesses.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/reversal-paul-backs-govt-enforced-ban-on-discrimination.php?ref=fpb

lol

[Eric P]

this whole thing is fucking weird.

like i can't believe someone who has full time staffers and a father who has publicly faced the same issues doesn't have pat answers ready to go for some of this stuff.

 "i believe in freedom for all except when it tramples the freedoms of others, and as such the civil rights act was a wonderful way to reclaim freedom after jim crow laws codified systematic racism."

boom.

and i'm a moron.

[huckleberry]

Unfortunately I believe Paul is a shoe-in in November.  This is Kentucky, after all. 

[Stoney Mason]

Libertarians always do well when they group think among each other. It all sounds wonderful and fair (to them) when they back each other up.

And then they explain what their views actually mean to the general public and people always think they are bat shit insane.

[TakingBackSunday]

wait a minute....his real name is fucking Rand Paul?

Jesus Christ.

[Eric P]

technically Randall Paul

[Dickie Dee]

Libertarians always do well when they group think among each other. It all sounds wonderful and fair (to them) when they back each other up.

And then they explain what their views actually mean to the general public and people always think they are bat shit insane.

Libertarians On Paul's Civil Rights Stance: 'Very Reasonable'

Rand Paul's apparent opposition to a key provision of the Civil Rights Act places him well within the mainstream of libertarian thought, according to several leading libertarians.

The GOP Senate candidate told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last night that he would have tried to "modify" the law's ban on racial discrimination by private businesses. That was an expansion of comments he made last month to a Louisville newspaper, in which he said that opposing the ban was "the hard part about believing in freedom."

...

Walter Block, a libertarian professor of economics at Loyola University, and a senior fellow with the libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute, went further. "I think anyone who doesn't believe that isn't a libertarian," he said, calling Paul's comment "a very mainstream libertarianism."

"I'm delighted that Rand Paul said that," an enthusiastic Block added. "I think it's magnificent. I didn't realize that he was that good."

"The spirit of non-discrimination," said Block "ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality."

...

[TakingBackSunday]

technically Randall Paul

Still though, there's only one fucking reason he's using that nickname.

[brawndolicious]

compulsory bixexuality what?

[Phoenix Dark]

This bold move shows the Tea Party capable of backing down instantly from any stance when it's politically expedient.

Seriously though I think the dude is toast.  the tea party is already fighting the racism thing and this is going to maul them if they let it continue..

Well he is running in Kentucky, to replace the winner of the "most batshit crazy guy in elected office" award

[Fresh Prince]

Here to explain Beardo
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

[Joe Molotov]

wait a minute....his real name is fucking Rand Paul?

Jesus Christ.

ObamaJesus, save us!

[Oblivion]

I don't think Rand is racist. The problem is that like most libertarians, he's just unbelievably naive/dense. He seems to think that because most people aren't racist nowadays, they would punish the businesses that ARE racist. The irony being that the only reason most people aren't racist now is directly because of legislation like the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[etiolate]

Oblivion, I don't believe it works backwards.

But I do believe in unicorns in track suits.

[Brehvolution]

Oblivion, I don't believe it works backwards.

But I do believe in unicorns in track suits.

Sure it does for the simple fact that the civil rights act was enacted. It works backwards because that is AynRand Paul whole premise. It is his basis for his belief because the civil rights act changed how (white)people could run their business.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

Has anyone asked Rand about other widely popular libertarian stances of legalized drugs and prostitution?

that's the thing, either he wins and becomes a republican who doesn't go with the establishment with the GOP, votes against war and social conservatism, or his stances become so much of a liability that a republican loses to a dem in fucking Kentucky of all places.

him getting the nomination was lose-lose the GOP.

[Phoenix Dark]

So the senate just passed a financial regulation bill that will ensure big banks never threaten the economy ever again, with tough regulations on derivatives, swaps, etc

Oh wait, it doesn't do any of that.

[TakingBackSunday]

some turdslurp on facebook

with the damn dems and our commy president it wont matter anyhow in a few months the governemnet with fucken control wall street too and make sure everyone forgets what capatilaism was about.....we are screwed....good thing the world is ending in 2012 hahaha

How can anyone legitimately think this shit

[AdmiralViscen]

Has anyone asked Rand about other widely popular libertarian stances of legalized drugs and prostitution?

that's the thing, either he wins and becomes a republican who doesn't go with the establishment with the GOP, votes against war and social conservatism, or his stances become so much of a liability that a republican loses to a dem in fucking Kentucky of all places.

him getting the nomination was lose-lose the GOP.

Rand is going to go right ahead and vote along with the rest of the GOP, don't kid yourself.

[Mandark]

Even under Mandark's hypothetical of an area where bigots flock together and create a place where the market rewarded such behavior, you would be dealing with a tiny, marginalized, self-selecting group.

Even under Mandark's hypothetical of an area where bigots flock together and create a place where the market rewarded such behavior, you would be dealing with a tiny, marginalized, self-selecting group.

Even under Mandark's hypothetical of an area where bigots flock together and create a place where the market rewarded such behavior, you would be dealing with a tiny, marginalized, self-selecting group.

Even under Mandark's hypothetical of an area where bigots flock together and create a place where the market rewarded such behavior, you would be dealing with a tiny, marginalized, self-selecting group.

Even under Mandark's hypothetical of an area where bigots flock together and create a place where the market rewarded such behavior, you would be dealing with a tiny, marginalized, self-selecting group.

I just, I can't.  PD, you explain it to him.

[brawndolicious]

The issue isn't about Wal-mart or whatever.  It's about small mom & pop stores that get healthy revenue from their either apathetic or racist white customers.

This was widespread obviously.

[brawndolicious]

It's about small mom & pop stores that get healthy revenue from their either apathetic or racist white customers.

Hence, tiny and marginalized.

the vast majority of white people in the south were apathetic towards civil rights.  They didn't hate black people, they just didn't see a reason to care why their gardener/domestic had to shop at a different store.

It wasn't seeing him have to shop at a less convenient store on the black side of the town that got the civil rights act through.  It was seeing him get shot with fire hoses and bitten by dogs.

[Phoenix Dark]

You do realize that really happened, and is not some hypothetical. And could easily happen again in the south in 2010. You're looking at this from a strictly economic/business perspective and pretending like the human aspect of racism is so impractical it can't possibly exist in the real world. It might not exist in libertarian world, but Mississippi?

We're not talking about McDonalds here, or some large franchise Al Sharpton could boycott nationally. Racism is impractical from a business perspective, but I seriously doubt the owner of the Woolworth lunch counter gave a shit about the potential revenue lost from refusing blacks.

[brawndolicious]

It wasn't seeing him have to shop at a less convenient store on the black side of the town that got the civil rights act through.  It was seeing him get shot with fire hoses and bitten by dogs.

So, emotional overreaction to a clear injustice leading to missing the mark and perpetuating further injustice, then?

More like it would just look bad to still be apathetic towards the only realistic solution now that the racism is on the front page.

Do you think there was some widespread boycotting going on by the whites or market share being lost to the stores that made a few more bucks because they sold to blacks?

[Mandark]

JAYDUBYA:  Businesses wouldn't discriminate against minorities, it's against their enlightened self-interest!

PHOENIXDARK:  Actually, most white-owned businesses throughout a large portion of the United States did just that for roughly a century and only stopped after intervention by the federal government.

JAYDUBYA:  I just explained how that would never happen.

PHOENIXDARK:  ...but it did happen.

JAYDUBYA:  Maybe.  But even if it did, it's impossible that it ever could have.

[Ichirou]

JAYDUBYA:  Businesses wouldn't discriminate against minorities, it's against their enlightened self-interest!

PHOENIXDARK:  Actually, most white-owned businesses throughout a large portion of the United States did just that for roughly a century and only stopped after intervention by the federal government.

JAYDUBYA:  I just explained how that would never happen.

PHOENIXDARK:  ...but it did happen.

JAYDUBYA:  Maybe.  But even if it did, it's impossible that it ever could have.

Fuck.  JayDubya completely, absolutely annihilated.

[brawndolicious]

I do think it looks bad to be apathetic to this "realistic" solution, when it's appropriate to condemn it.  What you described, the dogs and hosing - represented actions on the part of local governments that violated the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.  This is a significant problem, and one that warrants concern.  It does not logically follow that the "realistic" or appropriate course of action is to diminish property rights.

Realistically, people wouldn't get mad at the local government for doing something illegal that they would support/not care about if it was a regular person.

What actually happened when you gave people those "property rights" was that they used it to victimize an entire ethnic group.  People chose to value some rights over others.

If you could just point out a historically relevant trend showing that this was definitely going to change without the aid of the civil rights act then you might have an argument.  Until then, I won't put so much faith in the average whites back then.

Rhetorical question. As a matter of historical record, there was not.  Do you think that there would not be widespread boycotting or market share lost in May 2010?

Harder to teach hate and fear after 50 years of shopping and going to school with blacks.  You know this was my argument all along.

[Ichirou]

Not wanting to sell someone something does not "victimize" in any conceivable way.

"I need to buy gauze and bandages, I was just stabbed."

"Sorry, I don't sell to nigras."

Fuck you, JayDubya.  Aren't you the same moron who was arguing on GAF a few years ago that open racism no longer existed?

[Ichirou]

Conveniently ignoring my point that you were the one retardedly arguing that racism no longer appreciably existed and if it did it only existed behind closed doors where it "didn't really matter."

Thank God psychos like yourself are an extreme minority.

[brawndolicious]

So what you're saying is that it is unrealistic to expect people to get mad at the actual source of a problem. 

No, I am saying that the illegal actions of the local government were supported by their constituents.

Not wanting to sell someone something does not "victimize" in any conceivable way.

If almost all white business owners do this to all blacks then it creates a problem, yes.

Thus voting away essential liberty, and not even for temporary security, but for the sake of maybe making people treat each other nice at some point in the distant future, if we take your argument to its conclusion.

No, not distant future.  People get along if you force them to work together and be around each other.  My point is that it's been several generations since people have lived in such segregation that those racist attitudes are being lost.

Furthermore, you cannot realistically hope to substantiate that all things that did happen were the only way they could have happened, that they were the best way they could have happened, or that particular objectionable aspects were the chief agents in achieving what you consider a desirable outcome.  I don't think you'll find history at large amenable to that reasoning.

I never suggested that.

I'm just saying there's no historic precedent showing that your philosophy would work.  Does there seem to be a correlation between the civil rights act and a decrease in racism/segregation?  yes, so I think it is one of an infinite number of solutions.

Of course I knew this is where some would want the goalposts moved to; I took this into account well beforehand.

From a utility argument standpoint, it is already in the business's financial best interest to take any paying customer.  Overwhelmingly, the sort of practices the law prevents would already be commercial suicide due to boycotts, protests, and the simplicity and speed of modern communication.  Even under Mandark's hypothetical of an area where bigots flock together and create a place where the market rewarded such behavior, you would be dealing with a tiny, marginalized, self-selecting group.  These laws are useless and outmoded; the assertion that such laws led to a status quo where the laws were rendered useless and outmoded is both unverifiable, and also not particularly salient.

We still have an amendment that makes it illegal to own slaves.

Just because a law is going to be useful now doesn't mean it's going to be useful forever as people's prejudices and philosophies change.

[Ichirou]

You made a point?  It sounds to me like you're trying to make a quote, and one that seems pretty alien to me.

Bigotry along the lines of superficial differences will exist as long as superficial differences do, long after the notion of "race" goes out the window (as it should and hopefully will).

Yeah, too bad NeoGAF fucked with their search system, or I would find all your old distinguished mentally-challenged quotes, causing your balls to shrink back into your abdomen and you to scurry away for another few weeks, licking your wounds from the pure, raw ownage.

Not that I need to, since Mandark & Co. do that well enough on their own.

[Brehvolution]

JayDubya
The Civil Rights Act takes away essential liberties.

Make it so.

[Beardo]

We still have an amendment that makes it illegal to own slaves.

And that is well.  Would that we had equivalent amendments that were as protective of the right to property and the right to life.

Slavery is a violation of the human right to liberty and the right to property - you must have self-ownership, self-determination; someone using aggressive force to take that away that self-determination is inherently and inexorably wrong in a way that makes not selling you a cheeseburger pale in comparison... just a bit.

A concept lost on most liberals.

[Beardo]

Anyone know how the benevolent invisible hand of socialism is guiding europe?

[The Fake Shemp]

I miss all the good distinguished mentally-challenged fellow fights

[Beardo]

I'd be scared shitless about the law if I thought it is as bad as liberals think it is.

[Stoney Mason]

I'd be scared shitless about the law if I thought it is as bad as liberals think it is.

That's because you are a hypocrite.