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

[PenPho]

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."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

I don't count corporate entities as natural persons, nor is it reasonable to presume that business owners are not lessors. The point, however, was that the discrimination-is-no-problem argument places the rights of the "nation of shopkeepers" in a supervenient position to those of the "people of customers."

Is that like a really big 7-11?

[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."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

I don't count corporate entities as natural persons, nor is it reasonable to presume that business owners are not lessors. The point, however, was that the discrimination-is-no-problem argument places the rights of the "nation of shopkeepers" in a supervenient position to those of the "people of customers."

Is that like a really big 7-11?

It was indeed a poor word choice.

[Quality Start Machine]

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."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

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

You're confusing Federalism and Libertarianism. Bruce Bartlett did. You can be a Federalist and a Commie and you can have a broader view of the Constitution and be a libertarian.

If you believe the power of government need to be constrained to protect the rights of the individual, I'm not sure how you can make a case for involuntary servitude.

T. J. is right. There is not a single form of Libertarianism across either the left or right end of the spectrum that does not believe that all labor relationships must be entered into voluntarily. Whether you are a Rothbardian Libertarian, an Anarcho-Syndicalist, a Stirnerite, or an Anarcho-Communist, no one can force you to labor for another.

This. That, and they believe that people who just wanna have fun should be allowed to do everything within their rights to have that fun, as it's all they really want.

Provided they have completed that day's work.

[Quality Start Machine]

DPD.

NSFW - Language.

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/3yez

[Gilgamesh]

Expanded coverage to 5 million more individuals, cut foreign aid, and got the debt to 57% of GDP by 2018.  No VAT, either.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Expanded coverage to 5 million more individuals, cut foreign aid, and got the debt to 57% of GDP by 2018.  No VAT, either.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

56% by 2018.  Mostly through entitlement reform, but I also let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

[CT III]

Expanded coverage to 5 million more individuals, cut foreign aid, and got the debt to 57% of GDP by 2018.  No VAT, either.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

56% by 2018.  Mostly through entitlement reform, but I also let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

TEC is a Taxandspendocrat?!?

[Waco Kid]

http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/05/rand-paul-obama-criticism-of-bp-un-american.html

In an interview Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Paul says the president's response is part of the "blame game" that's played in the U.S. Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are "always someone's fault" and added, sometimes accidents just happen.

Hey Rand do yourself and the rest of us a favor and shut up.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Expanded coverage to 5 million more individuals, cut foreign aid, and got the debt to 57% of GDP by 2018.  No VAT, either.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

56% by 2018.  Mostly through entitlement reform, but I also let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

TEC is a Taxandspendocrat?!?

Jim DeMint's gonna have my legs broke.

[Quality Start Machine]

http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/05/rand-paul-obama-criticism-of-bp-un-american.html

In an interview Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Paul says the president's response is part of the "blame game" that's played in the U.S. Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are "always someone's fault" and added, sometimes accidents just happen.

Hey Rand do yourself and the rest of us a favor and shut up.

The Tea Party is the beast that is turning on its master. Good luck getting those independents this fall.

[R-V]

Some interesting thoughts on the Tory-Lib Dem coalition and their completely wacko approach to civil liberties abuses:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/21/britain/index.html

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html

In his ads, Grayson is attempting to paint Paul as a kook whose beliefs are outside the mainstream. Which may explain why on several issues, Paul is edging toward the center: Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.

"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms.

http://www.frumforum.com/rand-pauls-personal-special-interest

Rand Paul's libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts, or so reports the Wall Street Journal today:

Tea party favorite Rand Paul has rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday's Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government.

But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.

In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. "Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.

I guess this is what the original Rand meant by the morality of selfishness.

Both via: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/in-defense-of-rand-paul-kinda-ctd-2.html

Where Sully's reader notes:

Paul is willing to bend the issue of pure personal freedom for drug laws, abortion, and even coal subsidies ... but he thinks telling a restaurant it cannot discriminate is a bridge too far?  I still don't think he's racist, but what he chooses to be ideologically pure about certainly raises my eyebrow.

[Brownie]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html

In his ads, Grayson is attempting to paint Paul as a kook whose beliefs are outside the mainstream. Which may explain why on several issues, Paul is edging toward the center: Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.

"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms.

http://www.frumforum.com/rand-pauls-personal-special-interest

Rand Paul's libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts, or so reports the Wall Street Journal today:

Tea party favorite Rand Paul has rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday's Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government.

But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.

In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. "Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.

I guess this is what the original Rand meant by the morality of selfishness.

Both via: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/in-defense-of-rand-paul-kinda-ctd-2.html

Where Sully's reader notes:

Paul is willing to bend the issue of pure personal freedom for drug laws, abortion, and even coal subsidies ... but he thinks telling a restaurant it cannot discriminate is a bridge too far?  I still don't think he's racist, but what he chooses to be ideologically pure about certainly raises my eyebrow.

All fair points. It would have been refreshing to see Paul make headlines questioning the drug war and turning his back on Ky. Coal Subsidies.

[Brownie]

DPD

Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow:

But this controversy does raise the very important topic of the government's central role in American racism. First and foremost, Jim Crow was a legal regime, one that relied on state and local laws to restrict the political, social, and economic liberty of African Americans. Those laws interfered with the right to vote, to acquire property, to contract, to travel, to associate, to marry, and to keep and bear arms. Under the 14th Amendment, state and local governments are forbidden from violating such rights. Yet as we all know, the courts only selectively enforced the 14th Amendment during the Jim Crow era. Indeed, the Supreme Court has yet to enforce the 14th Amendment when it comes to gun rights. But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

It's also important to acknowledge that economic rights are not in some inherent conflict with civil rights. In fact, we have significant historical evidence showing that legally enforced property rights (and other forms of economic liberty) actually undermined the Jim Crow regime. Most famously, the NAACP won its first Supreme Court victory in 1917 by arguing that a residential segregation law was a racist interference with property rights under the 14th Amendment.

Finally, keep in mind that Plessy v. Ferguson, the notorious 1896 Supreme Court decision that enshrined "separate but equal" into law and become a symbol of the Jim Crow era, dealt with a Louisiana law that forbid railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to blacks. That's not a market failure, it's a racist government assault on economic liberty.

[Chuck to Chuck]

All fair points. It would have been refreshing to see Paul make headlines questioning the drug war and turning his back on Ky. Coal Subsidies.

You dare to suggest that we spend LESS on Homeland Defense?  Why do you HATE AMERICA?!?!?!?!?!