Fuck its silent in here.......

[R-V]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

[CBStew]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

[Brownie]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

[R-V]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

[Brownie]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

[Chuck to Chuck]

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

In a pure world, yes.  If a business owner chooses to give up revenue based on a person's skin color, that's their right to refuse that business and profit.  In fact, it stands to reason that another business would open right next door offering the same product and put the discriminatory business under as the non-discriminatory business would be more profitable.

That said, we don't live in a pure world.  Other factors can and do come into play.  Peer pressure is a huge one.  "How dare you sell to those guys who are dark on the left side and white on the right! I'm not coming to your kid's bar mitzvah because you serve them."  

Bruce Bartlett had a piece on why the free market failed here:

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

Sometimes, a little government regulation isn't a bad thing.

[Quality Start Machine]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

[R-V]

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

In a pure world, yes.  If a business owner chooses to give up revenue based on a person's skin color, that's their right to refuse that business and profit.  In fact, it stands to reason that another business would open right next door offering the same product and put the discriminatory business under as the non-discriminatory business would be more profitable.

That said, we don't live in a pure world.  Other factors can and do come into play.  Peer pressure is a huge one.  "How dare you sell to those guys who are dark on the left side and white on the right! I'm not coming to your kid's bar mitzvah because you serve them."  

Bruce Bartlett had a piece on why the free market failed here:

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

Sometimes, a little government regulation isn't a bad thing.

A whole bucket full of THAT. I could MAYBE understand if Paul's argument were "legislation like the Civil Rights Act wouldn't be necessary in TODAY'S social climate, because there's more societal pressure for equality than there is for a second class of citizens." But it's not. He seems to think that, absence the Civil Rights Act, the free market would've stopped segregation. I couldn't disagree more.

I just don't understand clinging to ideology at the expense of common moral sense.

[SKO]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

[Bort]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

[Brownie]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

No it's me too. I don't need to get a license to do anything else in the church or to enter into a contract.

[Quality Start Machine]

Another lefty hit job on libertarianism:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

But Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

Gubment involvement in marriage was originally for record-keeping purposes only.

[Wheezer]

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

[Quality Start Machine]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

[Bort]

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

I think we know what I think.