Rand Paul

[cornbread]

Look what happens when the Tea Party meets a real liberal.

Rand Paul had said in an interview with a newspaper that the Civil Rights bill was flawed and that he would not have voted for it. He breaks it down a little more here. It still sounds bad.

Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?

Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.

[GP1]

Look what happens when the Tea Party meets a real liberal.

Rand Paul had said in an interview with a newspaper that the Civil Rights bill was flawed and that he would not have voted for it. He breaks it down a little more here. It still sounds bad.

Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?

Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.

Maddow is an intellectual lightweight with a PhD using an extreme case that would never come up in today's society to try to make the guy look bad. The entire interview can be seen on the internet. The point Paul made throughout the interview is that people should not discriminate. He is right. If someone wants to have a whites or blacks only business, then so be it. Let people be free to shame the owners of these business until they are out of business.

The unemployment rate shot up today and people like Maddow are worried about things that are not relevant in 2010. Maddow should be asking questions like..."How do we bring down the debt? How do we bring down unemployment? How do we bring our troops home from a never ending war in the midddle east?" These are questions that matter in 2010.

The question Paul brings up is important for society today. What is the line between private and public? A leftist like Maddow thinks she is smarter than everyone and should be able to make laws governing our lives and businesses. She is actually a very dangerous person and people who are like her are dangerous to our freedoms.

Paul needs to focus on freedom, employment and smaller government. Maddow and her ilk will be in the minority debating silly issues from the past. Paul will win going away.

[Z.I.P.]

Look what happens when the Tea Party meets a real liberal.

Rand Paul had said in an interview with a newspaper that the Civil Rights bill was flawed and that he would not have voted for it. He breaks it down a little more here. It still sounds bad.

Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?

Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.

I had to feel for Rachel! The guy started out attempting to argue that the constitution only applied to government institutions, and was somehow voluntary for private businesses. So, when Rachel tried to press him on his answer, he did everything in his power to change the subject -- including this effort to confuse the issue by inserting "gun rights" -- something he and his tea party allies are more familiar with. One thing Rachel said that is a sure thing: You (speaking to Paul) are sure to hear this issue raised much more in the future. For his part, Paul at first tried to demure by acting to be too young to be familiar with the Civil Rights Movement ("Well, I was only a year old when that was passed"), then seemed to infer that those issues were all settled, and said that the questioning of his position on civil rights was an effort by his opponents to change the subject, and referred to the issue as "a red herring". Positive thing for him -- he hasn't (yet) suggested exchanging a chicken for health care!

More to come!

[GP1]

For his part, Paul at first tried to demure by acting to be too young to be familiar with the Civil Rights Movement ("Well, I was only a year old when that was passed"), then seemed to infer that those issues were all settled, and said that the questioning of his position on civil rights was an effort by his opponents to change the subject, and referred to the issue as "a red herring".

They are red herrings designed to distract from real issues like an ever expanding government, national debt, high unemployment and a never ending war. The DOW was down 376 today and unemployment is up and Europe is five years ahead of us into bankruptcy, but Maddow wants to discuss the civil rights movement. Give me a break. I realize how much Baby Boomers like to relive their youth because it somehow further inflates their already overblown sense of themselves, but Maddow is not focusing on the issues that face America today.

The next time Maddow asks Paul about his opinion of anything that went on in the 1960s, Paul should say, "I respectfully submit that is a stupid question and we need to focus on more important issues that face America today."

Rachel Maddow is a childish little girl who can't grow out of her glory days in high school debate club. There is a promo MSNBC runs with her saying she wants her show to be "fair" and she says it with a straight face. That's like saying Sean Hannity want to be fair. The only promo more crazy on MSNBC is the one of Olberman saying he "illuminates" issues on his show. Olberman illuminates political issues like I make a room more fragrant when I blast a fart after a two day bender. Maddow's show, Hardball and Olberman are no different than the clowns on the other liberal network filled with neo-conservatives, FOX News.

As far as gun ownership, I'll just say this. Freedoms are lost at the end of a pen. Freedoms are won back at the end of a gun. Never give up your gun.

[cornbread]

For his part, Paul at first tried to demure by acting to be too young to be familiar with the Civil Rights Movement ("Well, I was only a year old when that was passed"), then seemed to infer that those issues were all settled, and said that the questioning of his position on civil rights was an effort by his opponents to change the subject, and referred to the issue as "a red herring".

They are red herrings designed to distract from real issues like an ever expanding government, national debt, high unemployment and a never ending war. The DOW was down 376 today and unemployment is up and Europe is five years ahead of us into bankruptcy, but Maddow wants to discuss the civil rights movement. Give me a break. I realize how much Baby Boomers like to relive their youth because it somehow further inflates their already overblown sense of themselves, but Maddow is not focusing on the issues that face America today.

The next time Maddow asks Paul about his opinion of anything that went on in the 1960s, Paul should say, "I respectfully submit that is a stupid question and we need to focus on more important issues that face America today."

Rachel Maddow is a childish little girl who can't grow out of her glory days in high school debate club. There is a promo MSNBC runs with her saying she wants her show to be "fair" and she says it with a straight face. That's like saying Sean Hannity want to be fair. The only promo more crazy on MSNBC is the one of Olberman saying he "illuminates" issues on his show. Olberman illuminates political issues like I make a room more fragrant when I blast a fart after a two day bender. Maddow's show, Hardball and Olberman are no different than the clowns on the other liberal network filled with neo-conservatives, FOX News.

As far as gun ownership, I'll just say this. Freedoms are lost at the end of a pen. Freedoms are won back at the end of a gun. Never give up your gun.

No matter how much you try to twist, push and pull, the so called red herring argument is going to be Rand's undoing. You can't mess with the civil rights laws.

Once it gets out that he wants to repeal social security, the dept of education, the IRS, etc... the election is lost.

I can't turn you arguing his policy points. Tea Baggers are the hard right of American Politics. Everytime I talk to one of you, guns or something racist comes out. Your fringe party is unelectable.

America has matured.

[Z.I.P.]

For his part, Paul at first tried to demure by acting to be too young to be familiar with the Civil Rights Movement ("Well, I was only a year old when that was passed"), then seemed to infer that those issues were all settled, and said that the questioning of his position on civil rights was an effort by his opponents to change the subject, and referred to the issue as "a red herring".

They are red herrings designed to distract from real issues like an ever expanding government, national debt, high unemployment and a never ending war. The DOW was down 376 today and unemployment is up and Europe is five years ahead of us into bankruptcy, but Maddow wants to discuss the civil rights movement. Give me a break. I realize how much Baby Boomers like to relive their youth because it somehow further inflates their already overblown sense of themselves, but Maddow is not focusing on the issues that face America today.

The next time Maddow asks Paul about his opinion of anything that went on in the 1960s, Paul should say, "I respectfully submit that is a stupid question and we need to focus on more important issues that face America today."

Rachel Maddow is a childish little girl who can't grow out of her glory days in high school debate club. There is a promo MSNBC runs with her saying she wants her show to be "fair" and she says it with a straight face. That's like saying Sean Hannity want to be fair. The only promo more crazy on MSNBC is the one of Olberman saying he "illuminates" issues on his show. Olberman illuminates political issues like I make a room more fragrant when I blast a fart after a two day bender. Maddow's show, Hardball and Olberman are no different than the clowns on the other liberal network filled with neo-conservatives, FOX News.

As far as gun ownership, I'll just say this. Freedoms are lost at the end of a pen. Freedoms are won back at the end of a gun. Never give up your gun.

No matter how much you try to twist, push and pull, the so called red herring argument is going to be Rand's undoing. You can't mess with the civil rights laws.

Once it gets out that he wants to repeal social security, the dept of education, the IRS, etc... the election is lost.

I can't turn you arguing his policy points. Tea Baggers are the hard right of American Politics. Everytime I talk to one of you, guns or something racist comes out. Your fringe party is unelectable.

America has matured.

This is not your father's Paul-itician. I'm sure daddy's eyes went a-rollin' when he watched THAT interview.

[cornbread]

This is not your father's Paul-itician. I'm sure daddy's eyes went a-rollin' when he watched THAT interview.

He learned a hard lesson today. Did you see how fast he backtracked?

Here

And here

Flip-flopping is skill US politicians need to know. He has lost crucial time sticking naively to his ideals, however crazy. He may just turn into a real politician yet.

[GP1]

For his part, Paul at first tried to demure by acting to be too young to be familiar with the Civil Rights Movement ("Well, I was only a year old when that was passed"), then seemed to infer that those issues were all settled, and said that the questioning of his position on civil rights was an effort by his opponents to change the subject, and referred to the issue as "a red herring".

They are red herrings designed to distract from real issues like an ever expanding government, national debt, high unemployment and a never ending war. The DOW was down 376 today and unemployment is up and Europe is five years ahead of us into bankruptcy, but Maddow wants to discuss the civil rights movement. Give me a break. I realize how much Baby Boomers like to relive their youth because it somehow further inflates their already overblown sense of themselves, but Maddow is not focusing on the issues that face America today.

The next time Maddow asks Paul about his opinion of anything that went on in the 1960s, Paul should say, "I respectfully submit that is a stupid question and we need to focus on more important issues that face America today."

Rachel Maddow is a childish little girl who can't grow out of her glory days in high school debate club. There is a promo MSNBC runs with her saying she wants her show to be "fair" and she says it with a straight face. That's like saying Sean Hannity want to be fair. The only promo more crazy on MSNBC is the one of Olberman saying he "illuminates" issues on his show. Olberman illuminates political issues like I make a room more fragrant when I blast a fart after a two day bender. Maddow's show, Hardball and Olberman are no different than the clowns on the other liberal network filled with neo-conservatives, FOX News.

As far as gun ownership, I'll just say this. Freedoms are lost at the end of a pen. Freedoms are won back at the end of a gun. Never give up your gun.

No matter how much you try to twist, push and pull, the so called red herring argument is going to be Rand's undoing. You can't mess with the civil rights laws.

Once it gets out that he wants to repeal social security, the dept of education, the IRS, etc... the election is lost.

I can't turn you arguing his policy points. Tea Baggers are the hard right of American Politics. Everytime I talk to one of you, guns or something racist comes out. Your fringe party is unelectable.

America has matured.

This is not your father's Paul-itician. I'm sure daddy's eyes went a-rollin' when he watched THAT interview.

Do you guys really thing Paul is going to lose an election in Kentucky? If so, you believe Maddow is fair and Olberman is illuminating.

[GP1]

Your fringe party is unelectable.

America has matured.

There is no actual Tea Party. Actually, I belong to the Libertarian Party so I can say that freely.

Maturity is not being a servant of the government. Maturity is not allowing another to tell you how to live your life. Anyone who wants more government is actually fearful of maturing.

People who are in government are actually the most stupid people in our society. Why should we look at what they do as mature? They are children like Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity.

[Dave in Green]

Both Ron and Rand Paul have appeared many times on MSNBC, including Rachel Maddow's show. Rand Paul first announced that he was exploring his senatorial bid on Maddow's show. Both father and son seem to have gotten along well with Maddow in the past, and never seemed to have a problem with any of her questions about the economy, etc. This was simply a followup question to an interview that Rand Paul had with the Louisville Courier Journal newspaper, in which the same question was asked. If he'd given a straight answer, Maddow would have moved on to other questions.

But like so many other politicians, Paul became evasive when asked the difficult question. He dodged giving a straight answer because he knows that mainstream America has long ago left behind the concept of private businesses having the right to discriminate based on such things as race, religion, sex, etc. Only a small minority of mostly white folks want to go back to those good old days -- good for them, not so much for those who would end up returning to their previous status as the objects of overt discrimination by a small minority of mostly white business owners who might want to formalize their bigotry.

It's hard to win a general election with views that differ so greatly from those of the majority of mainstream voters.

This issue is not going to go away, nor should it.

[GP1]

It's hard to win a general election with views that differ so greatly from those of the majority of mainstream voters.

This issue is not going to go away, nor should it.

It depends on where you are running. Paul will not lose because of what he said. People are not concerned about what happened over 40 years ago now.

Nancy Pelosi wins election after election and her views are not mainstream.

[cornbread]

It's hard to win a general election with views that differ so greatly from those of the majority of mainstream voters.

This issue is not going to go away, nor should it.

It depends on where you are running. Paul will not lose because of what he said. People are not concerned about what happened over 40 years ago now.

Nancy Pelosi wins election after election and her views are not mainstream.

You have no idea how the media works do you? Remember this guy? He was going to be the front runner for the GOP.

Instead, something racist slipped out. The media got a hold of it, and he was done.

Rand let something slip out. The media has a whiff.

It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong. Fair or unfair is not the concern. It is drastically different than the mainstream. And it will make for great news every night. Check out this list of greatest hits so far.

• Will GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul take away your Social Security check? More at 11
  
• Teachers unions unite against Rand Paul. Wants to destroy Dept of Education. After this break
  
• Will you be able eat at your favorite restaurant? Rand Paul may change that. More at 11
  

It will be an uphill battle for him to be elected. I don't think he will make it. Watch him run to the left as he completes his transformation into a full politician.

Libertarianism is a great theoretical system. It is on level with communism as the greatest ideas that will never work.

[GP1]

It will be an uphill battle for him to be elected. I don't think he will make it. Watch him run to the left as he completes his transformation into a full politician.

Libertarianism is a great theoretical system. It is on level with communism as the greatest ideas that will never work.

Paul will win his election in Kentucky. It's not like he is running in California or Oregon. Obama was elected after having past associations with some of the biggest Marxists in the country. I'd love to know what he said to those people behind closed doors. Obama is not in the mainstream of American thought. Paul may seem strange on the surface, but if people really looked into his views, he would be mainstream.

We know communism does not work because we have seen it fail in our lifetime. We are getting away from freedom in this country and we need more freedom if we are go generate the types of ideas necessary to move the country forward. People in government are not smart enough to advance an idea to move society forward. Government creates one idea. Liberty creates many ideas, good and bad, and we can then pick the best ideas. Liberty will work if they try.

A problem Libertarians have in general is not that they we right (we are), it is our society can not handle adult conversations. Libertarians want to have adult conversations about real problems facing America today. Maddow, Hannity, Limbaugh, Olberman, etc want to have high school debate club. I'm not interested in high school debate club. Speaking of adult conversations, the biggest voting block in the US is Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers are the worst generation this country has ever created as they are a bunch of lazy, self-centered children. The US is going to be destroyed by supporting these bums when they start sucking at the breast of Social Security. The math simply does not work. The answer is to make people work longer before getting SS, but that will never happen because Baby Boomers want free money so they can go ride their bikes rather than contribute to society. In reality, Boomers don't care if the US is destroyed by them being on SS, they just want their money so they can go play.

When Paul gets into the Senate, many in the Tea Party will be surprised to see he will vote, at times, with Democrats. Paul will vote with Republicans to cut taxes and government, but he will also vote with Democrats to bring the troops home from that waste of time in the Middle East. The last time I checked, mainstream meant voting in the middle. I don't know if Paul is in the middle or not, but he sure is different. We need "different" in politics right now.

[Dave in Green]

It's certainly true that most ordinary citizens are not any more concerned about the theory behind the 46-year-old Civil Rights Act than they are about the theory behind the 223-year-old U.S. Constitution or subsequent Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution. Most people aren't so concerned with philosophies or laws as they are about the practicality of how those philosophies and laws affect their lives and the lives of their families.

Most Americans are generally familiar enough with the republican and democratic philosophies to have a rough idea of how their lives will be affected when those parties are in power. They have no idea how it would affect their lives to have libertarians in power. So people naturally have more questions about libertarianism, and it's up to the media to ask the tough questions and pry out answers, especially when a candidate is not completely forthcoming.

All political philosophies can be made to sound good in theory, especially by persuasive or charismatic speakers, and libertarianism is no different. At its core, libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom with minimum government interference. Who wouldn't like it when it's put like that? The problem is how to get there, and how would it actually affect the lives of ordinary citizens and their families?

Libertarianism is not monolithic. It has various wings that run the gamut up to and including anarchism, which is the current "system" in Somalia. The government of Somalia is certainly minimal, everyone gets to carry guns, and Somalians do pretty much whatever they want as long as they can avoid getting shot by other Somalians doing what they want. I doubt that many Americans would like to see that extreme in this country, and it's certainly an extreme that Rand Paul does not seem to advocate.

But exactly where does he stand on all the issues that affect ordinary citizens? Mr. Paul appears on the surface to be a fairly moderate libertarian. He says today that if he had been alive during the civil rights movement that he would have marched with Dr. King. He says he's absolutely in favor of eliminating discrimination in the public sector. But in the private sector, the libertarian philosophy of individual freedom over government regulation trumps enforcement of any anti-discrimination policies. How would that end up affecting whites, blacks, browns, yellows, men, women, Catholics, Jews, etc., in the real world, not the theoretical?

Personally, I find some value in all the different political philosophies, including libertarianism. I also see flaws in each when it comes to execution by their respective political parties, and am always wary of any party getting excessive power. I like to see all viewpoints represented, and have the best of each maximized and the worst of each minimized. An informed electorate and an effective system based on checks and balances is important to prevent excesses.

Rising to the national stage of becoming a front runner for the U.S. Senate has officially opened Pandora's box for Rand Paul. Each time he speaks out on a new subject, his remarks are not just going to be heard by the true believers, but by the general public that was previously barely aware of his existence. He's now getting close to a position that can directly affect their lives and the lives of their familes. He has some splainin to do, and each explanation will result in new questions.

Welcome to the real world, Dr. Paul.

[cornbread]

Like it or not, the political stability of a 2 party system has kept America along a pretty narrow and successful path. The comparative difference between our 2 parties is small compared to other worldwide examples in their political climates. Ideas from outside the main stream are adopted more slowly and deliberately into one of the two parties.

America doesn't jump all the place when things are going badly. We elect people who make course corrections.

Ideas like libertarianism, communism, socialism, capitalism, all the -isms inform our politics.

America has real problems that high ideals won't fix.

• Growing population of poor
  
• Highest ever recorded teenage unemployment
  
• school funding
  

Electing a guy who wants to disband 3/4 of the government is not a serious choice. He doesn't even understand things he is opposed too (hypothetical situation he brought up citing is disagreement with the Americans with Disabilities Act)

America works pretty well. Even under Bush, Clinton, etc things worked, and vital things got changed. It is not perfect, but it works well at navigating emerging issues, placating the populous, and promoting business and the general welfare.

• No one is taking anyones guns.
  
• Healthcare still works and will soon work for everyone.
  
• Social Security is here to stay/ or it will be fixed. It is too good of an idea to let go of.
  
• Taxes are lower than ever before. Sorry if you are rich, you will be paying more. But you live in the greatest country in the world.
  

[Dave in Green]

For example, Dr. Paul, exactly how does the right to carry arms into restaurants relate to the right to discriminate against people in restaurants?

Louisville Courier-Journal Story

And exactly what is the difference between a private company making an honest mistake resulting in the deaths of oil rig or coal mine workers (because we all really do know that mistakes can happen to anyone) versus fatal industrial accidents resulting from a private company knowingly violating government regulations designed to protect workers as well as the environment?

Louisville Courier-Journal Story

Keep splainin, Dr. Paul, so that we can all try to better understand how we would be affected if people with your philosophy were running government.

[GP1]

America has real problems that high ideals won't fix.

[*]Growing population of poor

[*]Highest ever recorded teenage unemployment

[*]school funding

Libertarian ideas can solve all of these problems.

Growing population of poor? Open the door for individuals in this country to create jobs and expand the economy. Create conditions where people have enough money to support their local food shelter (ie: Haven of Rest) and the poor will be better taken care of. Stop driving down the cost of labor with illegals. Revisit NAFTA...it has been a disaster for the USA and especially middle class workers.

Teenage unemployment? Create conditions where business can succeed and adults will be put back to work instead of woking in fast food restaurants. Once they leave fast food restaurants, the teenagers will have a place to work. Close the borders and there will be more jobs for Americans. Libertarians don't believe in open borders, we believe in the Constitution. It is the job of the Federal government to protect the borders and they need to get to work. The Arizona border law is more about the failure of the Federal government to act than a statement on Arizona.

School funding? The more money we throw at schools, the more stupid the kids get. Maybe we aren't putting money in the right places. Let people at the local level decide what is best for their school. If we listen to the multitude of ideas from around the country, we would get more ideas than the one from the Federal government. If two heads are better than one, thousands of heads should be even better.

[GP1]

For example, Dr. Paul, exactly how does the right to carry arms into restaurants relate to the right to discriminate against people in restaurants?

The gun rights issue is not being handled well by Rand Paul. He is playing the high school debate club game reporters like to play. Don't play their game. His father, the almost as great as the Great GP1, Ron Paul, would run circles around these reporters. The question isn't about gun rights, it is about personal property rights. If you own a business, it should be up to you to decide what people do or don't bring into your establishment. If a restaurant owner does not want guns in his establishment, he has every right to tell people not to bring them in. If a gun owner does not like it, he can go somewhere else. If a restaurant owner allows guns and someone doesn't like it, they can go somewhere else to eat.

[cornbread]

America has real problems that high ideals won't fix.

[*]Growing population of poor

[*]Highest ever recorded teenage unemployment

[*]school funding

Libertarian ideas can solve all of these problems.

Growing population of poor? Open the door for individuals in this country to create jobs and expand the economy. Create conditions where people have enough money to support their local food shelter (ie: Haven of Rest) and the poor will be better taken care of. Stop driving down the cost of labor with illegals. Revisit NAFTA...it has been a disaster for the USA and especially middle class workers.

Teenage unemployment? Create conditions where business can succeed and adults will be put back to work instead of woking in fast food restaurants. Once they leave fast food restaurants, the teenagers will have a place to work. Close the borders and there will be more jobs for Americans. Libertarians don't believe in open borders, we believe in the Constitution. It is the job of the Federal government to protect the borders and they need to get to work. The Arizona border law is more about the failure of the Federal government to act than a statement on Arizona.

School funding? The more money we throw at schools, the more stupid the kids get. Maybe we aren't putting money in the right places. Let people at the local level decide what is best for their school. If we listen to the multitude of ideas from around the country, we would get more ideas than the one from the Federal government. If two heads are better than one, thousands of heads should be even better.

You are spouting off idealistic solutions. They sound great. Which is the appeal. Awesome.

But do they fix anything?

Create conditions where people have enough money to support their local food shelter- How do you do that? I mean really. All politicians would love to do that. The tea party/ libertarians don't have a corner to themselves on that issue. And what about in lean times?

No fix there.

Create conditions where business can succeed...blah blah..It is the job of the Federal government to protect the borders- Teenage unemployment is not connected to illegal immigrants other than the fact that a $0.99 cheeseburger is possible with them here working in our fields. Kicking out productive half-citizens who pay taxes and raise families here is not the solution to anything.

No fix there. Just shifting the problem.

local education? multitude of ideas from around the country? -That is silly. Someone smarter than makes a good point.

The least we can do is to not egregiously widen the gap ahead of time if we can help it. This is why I oppose such measures as fully privatizing education -- along with, of course, concern over the abuses of miseducation that occur when children are treated as parents' chattels, to be fed exclusively whatever lies and dogma the parents want to restrict them to. The Libertarians I've heard from so far have unfortunately tended to sound a lot more interested in parents' rights than in children's. The former are so much easier to cast in terms of noninterference... or in terms of property.

Land of opportunity? Not if you are educated in a Mississippi backwater where the world is only 6000 years old and Jesus rode a raptor!

[cornbread]

He is going to get destroyed. This is only the 2nd day!

This quote is priceless. On Libertarianism being juvenile:

This is the belief system of people who have been the unwitting recipients of massive government backing for their entire lives. To borrow a phrase, they were born on third base, and think they hit a triple.

Link to article

[GP1]

This is a link to the Libertarian Party web page. See for yourself what it is. It is more than an extreme version of Republican politics. We are pro-choice. We are ready to bring the troops home. We are small government. We are for liberty. We understand there are certain defined constitutional roles the government plays and is not doing them very well right now.

For the third time, Rand Paul is not going to lose a general election in a state like Kentucky. What he said would cost him an election in a state like California, but not Kentucky.

[GP1]

Land of opportunity? Not if you are educated in a Mississippi backwater where the world is only 6000 years old and Jesus rode a raptor!

I agree, but isn't it the right of a parent and the people of Mississippi to turn their children into a generation of morons if they wish?

[cornbread]

I agree, but isn't it the right of a parent and the people of Mississippi to turn their children into a generation of morons if they wish?

The right of kids to make something of themselves override those of the parent to indoctrinate them.

Putting education in the hands of a central government is not a great idea. But it is a solution to removing it from the local concentrations of wackos that want to indoctrinate.

[GP1]

I agree, but isn't it the right of a parent and the people of Mississippi to turn their children into a generation of morons if they wish?

The right of kids to make something of themselves override those of the parent to indoctrinate them.

What other parental rights would you like to take away?

Morons are not born, they are made. Morons have been around forever. Another generation of morons will not destroy the world. It is the right of a parents to create a moron if they so wish.

[Z.I.P.]

Looking back at the entirety of this thread, the most interesting thing I find is that I end up agreeing with much of the basic opinions of BOTH sides -- El Grande GP-1 representing the Libertarian Right, and Cornbread and Dave being (and I believe the term is accurate) representative the Libertarian Left.

The fact GP-1 states that I agree with is that for a large swath of America, Mr Rand Paul's ideology is very much "mainstream". Sadly to me and others, Paul's beliefs are not at all extreme within his own political party. As shown in this very incisive political cartoon far too many Americans think that because government too often screws up, that we should therefore shoot ourselves in the foot by eliminating the very engine of democracy, and embrace the ideal that "the only good government is a dead government".

On the other hand, I would never choose freely to live in a state where private institutions, be they the limited liability corporation, or not-for-profit corporations like the major labor unions or political groups ranging from the ACLU to the John Birch Society enjoy rights to discriminate wantonly based on (just a few among many potential -isms), race, sex, age or disability when public institutions (mean, evil, representative government) are prevented from doing so by the document that ties the nation together. As I read in a comment yesterday to the original Paul article from the Maddow Show -- Rand Paul doesn't personally believe in or practice racial discrimination, but he wants to reserve the "rights" of others (private businesses, not public agencies) to discriminate because that will all settle out in the "free market" of personal choice. Of course the free market of personal choice is just another term for Jim Crow society. And not even Rand Paul wants to go back there. But back there is where we will all end up if we leave justice up to the strongest or best armed force in the hood, as the right-wing Libertarian perspective desires.

An interesting aside: One of the first politicians I supported for office after moving to my current home state was the Libertarian Party candidate for Mayor of Honolulu, in the late 1980s. His name, I think was Michael Schweigart, and he was a grad of the U of Akron School of Law. His graduate institution was not the reason for my support, but rather his strong support of individual rights and limits to government abilities to pry into the private business of citizens. Back then the Libertarian Party here and in many other places were very much more left-leaning. Someplace in the 1990s, the party was kidnapped by forces that were more interested in protecting the interests of private profit than the rights of individual citizens. A great example is the "Citizens United" case, where Corporate Citizenship rights were endorsed by the US Supreme Court. Should a libertarian support giving "rights" to non-human corporate entities that drown out the rights of natural-born citizens, because the corporations have "free-speech" under the Bill of Rights? The founders of the nation certainly fought against that concept, and over 80% of people polled after the SCOTUS decision (including over 75% of Republicans) disagreed with it. But I'm sure that Ron and Rand Paul would fight to preserve just such anti-democratic corporate rights. That's the difference between civil rights (left-libertarian) and corporate/private institutional rights (right libertarian).