But the Federal government should have the right to force another into your establishment through racial quotas? That's not racist? This law has done nothing to improve race relations in this country and has only given the Federal government more power over private businesses. The only way race tensions can heal is if it is done voluntarily. For example, I believe if the south was allowed to end slavery peacefully as every other nation in the world did there would be much less racial tension down there today.
He advocates for businesses to discriminate not just against minorities, but also is against the Americans with Disabilities act, which as someone who's significant other is confined to a wheelchair I find totally abhorrent.
I'm not arguing in support of racial quotas, I'm arguing against allowing any businesses the right to deny a person service because of the color of their skin. Curious about that whole Civil War thing... When exactly do you imagine the South would have decided to give up their slaves? Would they have just one day 'seen the light'? Besides, the Civil War was fought because they formed the Confederacy and chose to secede from the Union. Their motivations for doing that may have been borne out of a fear that legislation would come about making slave-holding illegal, but it's not like Lincoln said "Okay, free your slaves... Or else!".
This is what he actually advocates: "I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions." Slavery was an economic system that died out peacefully for mostly economic reasons. If not for the rising costs associated with labor and competition, slave rebellions were on the rise. It may have taken an additional 10 or 20 years, but I think the wait would be worth avoiding total war. Yes, I know the south seceded to get away from Northern economic controls, and then Lincoln invaded to regain control.
Lots and lots of dodging. Explain yourself or shut the fuck up, it's that simple. He says he doesn't support telling business owners to not discriminate, but he supports civil rights in terms of Federal Government? The fuck is this guy talking about? He supports the Civil Rights movement, but not actually enforcing the concept of civil rights in terms of business practices? It doesn't work like that on this planet. If you want business owners to be able to discriminate based on a race you have to say that. Trying to work around it and make it sound pretty makes you look like a slimy, cowardly political cad. I most definitely wont support a man who can't clearly explain his position, or doesn't base his position in the realm of logical assertions. I get the idea that businesses won't operate if they segregate because people won't go there, but... since what we have now is supposedly going to happen anyway, you're unwinding something that harms no one and will be re-established anyway for the sake of what? Proving a point? I smell a pander.
The employment issue is a small part of the disabilities act and it already allows for reasonable accommodations such as giving an office on the first floor in a two story business. Access is also important for individuals with disabilities to be able to access services such as restaurants, malls, doctors offices and if there were no laws providing such access it would curtail life opportunities for the disabled. So his argument really doesn't hold water, he's just another dishonest politician using smoke and mirrors to misdirect.
Yeah what's up with people thinking he comes across as racist? I didn't get that at all and the fact that he kept repeating it was just kind of annoying. I support fair gun laws, but that doesn't mean I support the shooting of babies. I support fair drug laws, but that doesn't mean I support 5 o'clock crack giveaways. So then why is it assumed that just because Rand believes in allowing businesses more freedom that he supports racist policies? I mean, sure, if his policy was enacted businesses would be allowed to discriminate, which is what I disagree with. Mostly because I live in the South, and I know the shitstorm it would cause. You can argue that a free market wouldn't allow those businesses to survive, but I think the precedence is for the opposite. I don't really interpret this as an attack, but I do think Rand fumbled a bit.
The Civil Rights Act made discrimination illegal in the public sector (which he supports) and in the private sector (which he doesn't support). Understand now?
The government shouldn't tell us how to use our money, but we can tell them how to use our money. Makes sense, right? It serves humanity by allowing for voluntary progression. Forcing people to do things only breeds resentment and slows down society. If abortion weren't mandated by the Federal government people would have realized by now that banning abortions causes far more harm than mandating its existence, and there would be no debate. Instead, we force people to accept it and they still think it should be banned.
Yea, people with disabilities will have curtailed life opportunities. Using coercion on private businesses is not necessarily the best way to improve their opportunities, especially when its done from some bureaucratic throne in DC. I worked at a health club and this lady sued us because we didn't have a handicap pool entrance thingy, then we got it, and then she quit. Now they have this $10,000 tool that nobody has used since. Is that fair?
Just so it's clear I'm not calling this guy a racist. I just think he's a politician. Yeah, but this is 2010. The Civil Rights movement was 50 years ago. If the outcome is the same what is the point in removing it? It seems to me like he's appealing to a voter base or trying to prove a point more than actually thinking about it. I like the idea of telling business owners you can't segregate against who you serve based on the color of their skin, more than removing that law and wasting more and more time and money to come to the same outcome. We should be beyond this shit by now.
I don't think repealing the Civil Rights Act is on his list of things to do. The only reason it's being brought up is to hurt his campaign. Appealing to a voter base? Dude has principles and that's the only reason he would defend such an easily misconstrued position. I doubt most of the GOP goons would understand his position. He even says, "This is the hard part about believing in freedom."
I guess I just don't like how he articulated his argument. I mean, I know what he means, but the way he explained it was so muddled... Say what you mean, don't skirt around it and try and make it sound pretty by comparing it to gun laws or some other shit. I hate politicians.
I haven't actually watched the video so who knows, I might agree with you. It sounds like he wasn't prepared for this question, but he should have been. I'm guessing they'll pull out all the tricks they used against Ron Paul in his 2008 campaign and rehash them on Rand.
Solid point. I read somewhere in here that the Paul's are 'conservative' candidates, which IMO isn't really true in our current climate. Maddow did pull a sheisty trick--but Rand could've done a better job articulating his point like others have said.