Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?

[furface]

Actually, I agree with furface on this.

Thank you. I think I'll leave this conversation before I get more people to hate me, though. I know I come off a bit strong. The thing I want to convey, and am probably not doing it so well, is that people need to consider what widely different political factions think about this movement. I personally try to think in terms of what set of ideas can I embrace that I can sell to people from a wide range of political views. You can't do that if you force every single issue you personally hold onto other people in other places that have virtually nothing to do with you.

I apologize if I offended anybody.

 

[TruthisTreason]

I'd love to here Rachael Maddow's answer....

 

[silentshout]

If I run a restaurant, I will not serve La Raza along with KKK.
Both of them are racists and both of them suck.
And it's my property, so suck it.

I agree. Honestly i think this whole thing is ridiculous...why was this question even asked to him? He is not running to repeal the civil rights act.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

but honestly if the law applies to some then why not all? So if it's not applied across the board then i don't get it.

Welcome to the world of fiat legislation.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Thank you.

Hey, I thank you just as much for agreeing with me!

I think I'll leave this conversation before I get more people to hate me, though.

Ahh man, don't do that! I wanted a reply to my post explaining why libertarianism isn't about forcing anything on anyone, to see if I explained it at all well and if you're on board now.

 

[Akus]

Yes or no?

Feel free to argue your response in the thread.

What if neither yes or no are appropriate answers since no Klansman would ever eat at a black owned restaurant?

 

[pcosmar]

Very unlikely to happen in the case of gun possession, unless you live in a place where there a lot of people who want to ban guns. Why would you want to live in a place where everybody wants to ban guns? I think that gun nuts get a kick out of watching other people submit to their views. That's what they're after, forcing other people to accept their politics. It's not enough to just live in a place with people who are like minded with them. It's all about controlling other people.

The Supreme Court loves the constitutionally mangled concept of personal gun possession. They make out like they're protecting individual rights when what they've done is actually quash community militia rights. Only an idiot would pull a personal right to bear arms out of the 2nd Amendment wording. You've traded the important right of militias for the right of a beer drinking idiot wearing an NRA shirt to watch NASCAR and wax his gun when he wants to.

Sorry, But you are quite wrong. Insultingly so.
You disagree with those that founded this country, You disagree with Common Law, And with the stated positions of Ron Paul.

But let me back that up.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

Patrick Henry,
The great object is, that every man be armed.

Patrick Henry,
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

Cockrum v. State,
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.

And this is just a small sampling. There is much more on the subject, as it was (and is) a pivotal Right.

 

[furface]

Remember: a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to takeaway everything you love. A D.C. that can force states to legalize porn is a D.C. that can force states to not legalize drugs.

Excellent point. Everybody seems to be arguing about Nanny's particular policies. The point is whether or not Nanny should exist in the first place.

Sorry, But you are quite wrong. Insultingly so.

Sorry to say that I'm not heart broken by this statement. Try not to be insulted. The arena of ideas can be quite volatile.

You disagree with Common Law, And with the stated positions of Ron Paul.

You need to check Ron Paul's views on state rights and the 2nd Amendment a little closer. But anyway, when people start farting on about "common law" and fantastically obscure legal theories, I know it's really time for me to leave.

 

[speciallyblend]

I agree. Honestly i think this whole thing is ridiculous...why was this question even asked to him? He is not running to repeal the civil rights act.

because rand paul has brought it up before in past interviews!! rand blew the interview bottom line!! everyone can be angry at rachel maddow all you want but the bottom line is rand paul blew the interview!!

 

[low preference guy]

What if neither yes or no are appropriate answers since no Klansman would ever eat at a black owned restaurant?

Maybe he doesn't know the owner and the employees are white.

 

[fatjohn]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thx for this one. Imagine Rand asking this question to whatshername. Nice smackdown. Made me smile

 

[catdd]

I remember when the black caucus tried to force the Dallas Cowboys to hire a black coach after Jimmy Johnson left.
That's what happens.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

because rand paul has brought it up before in past interviews!!

I believe a left-wing newspaper brought it up in a prior interview. Rand never brought it up.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

No, not all, but a significant number were. Why would they riot when they should have been celebrating? Why didn't they build new businesses in their neighborhoods instead of burning them down? Those riots set the blacks back thirty years.

Uhh...the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964........the race riots happened in 68 in response to Dr. King's assassination, high unemployment, police brutality, etc. Was is justified? Hell no, I dont think destroying people's property is ever justified, honestly I just dont understand rioting, it does no help to a cause and it makes no sense. I dont understand when the LA Lakers win the championship, mother fuckers go to flipping cars, looting, and burning down buildings....I dont understand rioting period...but it will definitely happen when you have a large group of people that feel oppressed. I agree those riots set blacks back, look at Detroit, there are still remnants of the 68' riots.

Black unemployment was like 50% during that time, then you had Vietnam and the draft....shit was crazy.

 

[Reason]

Yes or no?

Feel free to argue your response in the thread.

This thread/poll/analogy is pure win.

Thank You.

 

[SWATH]

Should Jessie Jackson be forced to allow David Duke into his home if he doesn't want him there? Should Rachel Maddow be forced to allow Rick Santorum into her home if she doesn't want him there?

 

[RCA]

Before the Civil Rights Act, weren't businesses PREVENTED from serving blacks?

 

[YumYum]

Uhh...the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964........the race riots happened in 68 in response to Dr. King's assassination, high unemployment, police brutality, etc. Was is justified? Hell no, I dont think destroying people's property is ever justified, honestly I just dont understand rioting, it does no help to a cause and it makes no sense. I dont understand when the LA Lakers win the championship, mother fuckers go to flipping cars, looting, and burning down buildings....I dont understand rioting period...but it will definitely happen when you have a large group of people that feel oppressed. I agree those riots set blacks back, look at Detroit, there are still remnants of the 68' riots.

Black unemployment was like 50% during that time, then you had Vietnam and the draft....shit was crazy.

The riots ended by 1968. They started with the Harlem Riot of 1964, just as Civil Rights was being passed. Then there was the Watts Riot of 1965, not to mention Newark, New Jersey; Rochester, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago and do not forget the Detroit Riot of 1967. This was all before King's assassination. Also, what is confusing, is that blacks were committing crimes on other blacks, and yet they had the Federal government on their side with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ gave them welfare and food stamps and they still rioted. The point is, Ron Paul is correct: the Civil Rights Act didn't bring harmony as it claimed it would, but brought on riots. I wish someone who is black would explain the logic behind tearing up your own neighborhood?

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

The riots ended by 1968. They started with the Harlem Riot of 1964, just as Civil Rights was being passed. Then there was the Watts Riot of 1965, not to mention Newark, New Jersey; Rochester, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago and do not forget the Detroit Riot of 1967. This was all before King's assassination. Also, what is confusing, is that blacks were committing crimes on other blacks, and yet they had the Federal government on their side with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ gave them welfare and food stamps and they still rioted. The point is, Ron Paul is correct: the Civil Rights Act didn't bring harmony as it claimed it would, but brought on riots. I wish someone who is black would explain the logic behind tearing up your own neighborhood?

When you find them let me know because I never understood it myself.

It's like the LA riots in the 90's.......what was the purpose of that?? Some cops got away with beating a man down..what else is new? So lets tear down our own neighborhood and destroy it's economy? Yes, that makes tons of sense. Could be Collective effervescence.......I dont know

 

[pcosmar]

I wish someone who is black would explain the logic behind tearing up your own neighborhood?

I'm not black, but I am colorblind.
There is no logic to mob mentality. It is unleashed raw emotion, usually anger. and often frustration.
Logic is not in the equation.