Asshole of the Year-Rand Paul-Ties to White Nationalists

[justintempler]

I'd like to start by saying I really don't know much about him, all I know is what ive read today, but to clarify your questions:.

I don't want your answers, I want his. He seems to have his own special way of screwing up a perfectly good idea.

I want to know how he proposes to fix the problems without creating new ones.
He wants the governement out of healthcare, are we going to have death panels to handle the people in Medicare and Medicaid?
We're going to encourage people to open health savings accounts and put their hard earned money in banks that we've decided we will no longer bail out if they get in trouble?
The devil is in the details.

BTW.

2 years in a row Obama wanted to end oil and gas subsidies just like Rand Paul wants. You know how far that went.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201

[sgreger1]

I don't want your answers, I want his. He seems to have his own special way of screwing up a perfectly good idea.

I want to know how he proposes to fix the problems without creating new ones.
He wants the governement out of healthcare, are we going to have death panels to handle the people in Medicare and Medicaid?
We're going to encourage people to open health savings accounts and put their hard earned money in banks that we've decided we will no longer bail out if they get in trouble?
The devil is in the details.

Fair enough. I was just paraphrasing his answers based on what i've read on him so far.

"He wants the governement out of healthcare, are we going to have death panels to handle the people in Medicare and Medicaid? "

- Rationing is going to happen no matter what, it happens already, and Obamas guy he elected to run the Obamacare thing says they certainly will be rationing as well. Call it death panels or not but rationing will happen no matter what, because there is just not enough to go around, therefore it's inevitable. Medicare and Medicaid are failed programs and need to be retooled. I doubt he has any great ideas, since no one seems to.

"We're going to encourage people to open health savings accounts and put their hard earned money in banks that we've decided we will no longer bail out if they get in trouble?"

- This is what insurance companies are for (like the FDIC). We need to set up insurance entities and make sure they don't insure more than they can pay out, should the worst happen (which it will).

"The devil is in the details."

-The devil is also in choosing incorrectly when voting for the lesser of two evils (which is what our voting system has become). At least he stands for SOME of the things a libertarian can believe in, something not many others can really claim nowadays.

[Mordred]

@OP: The blog you posted is incredibly biased, so whatever they say is a bit pointless. Reductio ad Hitlerum seems to be their only tactic.

With that said, I think many people don't understand what the aptly named Rand Paul is trying to say. He's on the same page as Ayn Rand (of "Atlas shrugged" and "The fountainhead"), a page I also happen to be on. Politically speaking, this means:

1) There should be as little government as possible and it shouldn't interfere with private business
2) A man (or woman) should never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for his/hers.
3) Capitalism is the only way forward, all forms of market control lead to stagnation

I'm paraphrasing and simplifying, of course. Now, number 2, in some regards, seem similar to Kant's categorical imperative but it's not the same at all. In fact, Rand's philosophy is diametrically opposed to that of Kant. Nor is it the same as the christian "do unto others" ideology.

And therein lies the problem. Many people don't quite grasp how extreme Ayn Rand's ethics really are and are thus surprised by their outcome, when one as Paul thinks them through. Even more importantly, Rand was NOT a libertarian. While there is quite a bit of overlap in the two philosophies, they have a very different basis.

People might be offended when they hear this: "A free society will abide...discrimination - even when that means allowing hate filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.", and if they are, it's because they haven't thought things through. Freedom comes at a price. If I'm free to be gay, smoke pot and carry an AK-47, then how could this be, unless other people are free to be straight, christian fundamentalists and also carry an AK-47? The government is merely there to ensure that we keep these freedoms and don't shoot each other with said AK-47s . It's NOT there to tell me to be straight, to tell the other guy to be an atheist. It's not even there to tell us to like each other. (Btw, I'm neither gay, nor do I smoke pot or own any guns, it's just an example, ok?).

Of course, Rand Paul will fail, just like Ayn Rand did, because people are deathly afraid of a truly free society. They'd rather have a government that reminds them of their parents, one that seems to take care of them and is, of course, always right, even if they sometimes throw little teenage fits when their toys get taken away.

[tom502]

I like Rand Paul, and Ron Paul, and do believe Ron Paul would have made a much better president than we have now.
I do not believe Rand Paul is a racist, but many racial nationalists do support a more libertarian view, so they may like him. The black racists like Obama.

I do not agree with Rand Paul on quite a few points, like abortion, guns, gay marriage. But then, most in office do agree with him on these issues.

I agree more with Rand, and Ron Paul more than I agree with who we have in office now.

So, I will vote for him.

[Mordred]

I like Rand Paul, and Ron Paul, and do believe Ron Paul would have made a much better president than we have now.
I do not believe Rand Paul is a racist, but many racial nationalists do support a more libertarian view, so they may like him. The black racists like Obama.

This is an issue that most libertarians (and similar) are faced with. Their agenda forbids them from calling for bans on extremist organizations and thus, these organizations latch onto them.

However, it's crucial to understand that just because I recognize somebody's right to their point of view does not mean I endorse it. In fact, I may be highly critical of it and discourage it as best I can.

For instance, I'm a atheist and highly critical of religion. However, I can't call for it to be banned, lest I also concede that others may call for it to be mandatory. I will not live for the sake of another man (in this case, accept their mandatory religion), nor will I ask anyone to live for my sake (in this case, abandon their religion).

On the racism issue, Ayn Rand said the following:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

Also:

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

but also:

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority.

[tom502]

I've had this theory of life, especially on Earth, of a progressive evolution of human, which basically ascends through 3 spheres, first is the body, second, the mind, and third, the spirit. I believe this Earth planet is mainly in the sphere of the body, with a small penetration to the mind sphere. This is why most everything on Earth is body based, be it race identification, gender, looks, fashion, body pleasures, food, etc. But some small amount of a small minority with a foot or leg in the mind sphere. I think the ETs are probably more majorily in the mind sphere, Then the spirit sphere is much higher, and not physically perceptible. This also is a broad laying out of the realms in which one is reborn into after leaving this body. We can continue in the body sphere, ascend to the mind sphere, or ascend higher to the spirit sphere. I do not want to continue in the body sphere.

[Mordred]

I've had this theory of life, especially on Earth, of a progressive evolution of human, which basically ascends through 3 spheres, first is the body, second, the mind, and third, the spirit. I believe this Earth planet is mainly in the sphere of the body, with a small penetration to the mind sphere. This is why most everything on Earth is body based, be it race identification, gender, looks, fashion, body pleasures, food, etc. But some small amount of a small minority with a foot or leg in the mind sphere. I think the ETs are probably more majorily in the mind sphere, Then the spirit sphere is much higher, and not physically perceptible. This also is a broad laying out of the realms in which one is reborn into after leaving this body. We can continue in the body sphere, ascend to the mind sphere, or ascend higher to the spirit sphere. I do not want to continue in the body sphere.

That's all nice and well, but forgive me for being blunt: you pulled it out of your arse. You might as well believe that after you die, you will ascend to Valhalla and spend eternity defending Asgard alongside Odin. It's just as valid and you get to prepare for it by listening to Viking Metal.

That, and it has nothing to do with the thread whatsoever.

[tom502]

My post makes perfect sense in a logical manner, and such can be witnessed in daily life experience. You may not understand it, and that's fine, that's Earth. But it was in reply to the Ayn Rand statement on race, which she basically pulled out of her arse, though I don't disagree with it, generally, and it technically had nothing to do with the original post. But the thread was about race, then entered into Ayn Rand's race view, and I replied with mine.

[Mordred]

Oh, it makes sense alright, it's just that it has no legs to stand on. You see, talking about something that "is not physically perceptible" is a huge copout. You cannot claim to know anything about such a thing, since you're very much a physical being. Therefore, my claims of Valhalla are just as valid (or, more to the point, invalid) as your spirit sphere. And since one cannot know anything about it, even its existence is purely wishful thinking (hence my comment that you pulled it out of your behind). You say it is a theory, rather than a belief, so I must ask you: what evidence, if any, have you gathered to support this theory? Specifically, what supports the existence of a mind sphere and a spirit sphere?

Conversely, Ayn Rand's quotes on racism are very much based in reality and observation, namely that it is wrong not to use reason to judge a person and instead assume to know them based on their race. Specifically, to be able to pass judgement on a human being, one must observe his or her actions and then use one's reason to examine those. A racist does not do that, he or she assumes a person of a given race to have certain MENTAL traits, such as a jew is greedy or a black man is dumb. Thus, a racist does not use reason, which, in Ayn Rands philosophy, is the greatest "sin" there is.

[tom502]

When entering the fields of spirit, and even mind, it's not a physical science, so it's usually not like examining a rock, but can be an observation in social environments. We see obviously a clinging to body identification, and people who live soley as their body, then we see those who aspire more to an intellectual understanding, then those who aspire to a more non-physical spiritual identity. Granted, in the realm of spirit, much of not most, is subjective realization.

My post was not meant to be argumentive, just my theory on why race, and body identification is so strong on the Earth planet, and why for humankind to progress, it must ascend to the higher spheres of identity.

[Mordred]

Our inability to agree stems from your firm belief in the fact that the soul/spirit/mind are somehow distinct from the body. I have seen no convincing evidence of this being the case, therefore I say that there is no such distinction.

This leads us to the interesting point where we both disagree with racism and both agree that one must judge a person on their individual merits and flaws, yet we come to this realization through very different thought processes, you because of your belief in the body/soul dichotomy and me in spite of my belief that no such dichotomy exists. Fascinating.

[truthwolf1]

There is nothing perfect about any politician even my favorite Ron Paul but Rand for now is the only anti-establishment choice like it or not.

[Darwin]

The concept of states' rights has been in bad odor since before the civil war but it is still worthy of consideration since it is embedded in the constitution. There are few provisions in the constitution that can not be used for dubious or even plainly evil purposes so the concept by itself is inherently worthy even if you consider some of the results unsalutary. It is not logically impossible, to put it mildly, to disapprove of a given federal usurpation of a constitutional right while at the same time admitting that said usurpation resulted in a net moral good.

[sgreger1]

Rand Paul is not a racist, he wasn't saying that black shouldn't be allowed in restaurants. He is just a hardcore free market/no gov intervention type. His look on it is that the free market will reign supreme, so if one should decide they would like to reserve the right to refuse a customer for whatever reason, than they should be allowed to make that choice. But he says that it would be bad for business because if you just cut out any customers who are black, those people will go elsewhere and you will lose business and fail. Failing is something that you have a right to do as a business, so if you choose to make crappy decisions, than go for it. I can't say I disagree with him, though I know it's a touchy subject since this particular example is in regards to discriminating based on race.


Overall I agree with his ideology though. I mean if I was running a rap cd store or something, I would want the employees to all be black and of a certain image, this is good for business and is therefore a business decision rather than a racist one. If I want to open an all blonde white chick strip club, than I would only want to hire white blonde chicks. In today's world that is illegal and injust for some reason, and therefore business is harmed. I don't feel its racist, but I can certainly understand the arguments by those who feel it is racist. It's kind of a gray line/touchy subject thing, which is why Rand Paul would have been smart to avoid it.

Mordid and Tom, keep it rolling baby, I got like 7 more hours of work to get through!

[tom502]

I have a headache.