I think the Libertarian point of view is...
[this was split off from a Ron Paul exposed as homophobe in movie, "Brüno" in the Censored and Uncensored category - Barry]
I think the Libertarian point of view is that if we limit the government's power (specifically, to the powers outlined in the Constitution), then whether the corporations are buying off the politicians or simply act as the government themselves, they will be limited in the scope of their power over the people. I do not consider myself a Libertarian or a member of any political party, but I definitely think this aspect of Libertarianism makes a lot of sense.
If the people really wanted to stop being poisoned, for example, they would educate themselves about the many poisons ubiquitous in our environment, water, and food supply, and how to avoid them. They would educate themselves about, say, detoxification pathways of the liver and how to support them so they could learn how to defend their bodies against what they are exposed to. And above all, they would stop giving their hard earned dollars to the very people who are poisoning them, to the extent that they possibly could. These multinational corporations don't get their money out of nowhere, after all. They don't put a gun to our heads and force us to buy their products. Public awareness and understanding is what brings about real change, not government. Giving the government power to regulate poisons in the food supply has clearly done nothing to alleviate the actual problem. Instead, we end up with the regulators labeling real foods like raw milk as dangerous, and raiding small farmers to put them out of business so they won't compete with the corporate dairy industry's profits. Meanwhile, food processors can label their products as "trans fat free" when they clearly do contain trans fat, as evidenced by the ingredient list, and the FDA turns a blind eye. Nearly all of our processed food is full of MSG, hidden with names like hydrolyzed soy protein, with not a peep from the FDA. Trans fat definitely qualifies as a poison, and MSG is used to induce obesity in lab rats (do a PubMed search for "MSG-induced obesity").
So relying on the government to save us (and expanding their powers in the process) is clearly not working. What people need to do, in my opinion, is to start relying on themselves and not just trust what the government and the corporate media tells them. We all have brains, and by God, we should use them! Both of the poisons that I mentioned are very easy to avoid if we are willing to do a little research, start reading labels, and change our eating habits somewhat, all small prices to pay to avoid poisoning ourselves and our families. We don't need the government to do that for us.
I hope I didn't bore you with my food industry spiel. I'm pretty passionate about food, so its kind of my thing. Have an enjoyable evening!
-Laurel
Thread: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Good post Laurel! I completely disagree with you, but it's a good post none the less. I think you underrate the power of corporations and overrate the intelligence of people. It just so happens you study food and are aware of these things, are you aware of all the ways corporations poison our environment, manipulate markets, mis-represent everything under the sun, etc. And if you are aware of each specific instance (each corporation, each product/service, etc.) do you have time for anything else?
What if the people decided to come together and asked various experts to keep an eye out for us, so we can continue on with our lives without being exploited and tricked? And what if we decided to call that "government"?
Thread: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Good post Laurel! I completely disagree with you, but it's a good post none the less. I think you underrate the power of corporations and overrate the intelligence of people. It just so happens you study food and are aware of these things, are you aware of all the ways corporations poison our environment, manipulate markets, mis-represent everything under the sun, etc. And if you are aware of each specific instance (each corporation, each product/service, etc.) do you have time for anything else?
What if the people decided to come together and asked various experts to keep an eye out for us, so we can continue on with our lives without being exploited and tricked? And what if we decided to call that "government"?
Hi Barry,
I do not think I am underestimating the power of corporations. On the contrary, it seems to me that the corporate elite have control over nearly every aspect of our society, including how we think. I believe Edward Bernays was not exaggerating when he said in his book Propaganda that at least 40% of what we read, hear, and watch in the mainstream media is pure propaganda, having nothing to do with actual fact. These days it may be much more than 40%. It’s plain to see that corporations poison the environment, manipulate markets, misrepresent themselves, etc., quite ruthlessly. The question is, what can we do about this?
Your proposed solution, for the people to get together and ask experts (the government) to keep their eyes out for them so they don’t have to pay attention and can go on with their lives, sounds nice, if not a bit irresponsible and unfeasible. For starters, does it seem at all likely to you that “the people” will ever “get together” to agree on who the experts truly are? Those who I consider to be experts are likely very different than your idea of experts, who are probably different from the next person’s experts. Things in life are rarely simple, so there are a great number of differing opinions among experts, and those who call themselves experts.
Let’s take, for example, the commonly accepted expert opinion that saturated fat consumption is a cause of heart disease and other ailments. This is the official standpoint of our government. I can prove to you, using data from the University of Oxford that is freely available online, that there is no such link. In fact, the data actually suggests that lower intakes of total fat and saturated fat are associated with higher rates of death from heart disease. So why do the “experts” promote this faulty viewpoint? It comes back to corporate profits (and well, there’s a little bit more to it than that, in my opinion, but its not important for the purpose of our discussion). The vegetable oil industry is largely behind the mainstream promotion of the lipid hypothesis. Since the USDA, whose main purpose is to promote commodity agriculture, is responsible for crafting our official dietary guidelines, does it come as any surprise that they tell us that most of our diet should come from grains and that our fat should come from polyunsaturated vegetable oils (generally corn and soy)?
I could list numerous other examples of the “experts” in our government getting things very, very wrong, often with horrible consequences for the people. Isn’t it a simple and true observation that ever since the government started telling people what to eat that our health has deteriorated rapidly as a nation? Or that since we started limiting our fat intake on the advice of the experts that we have gotten fatter than ever before? What about the economic experts who said the housing bubble would keep on growing? Or how about how the experts from the EPA told the 911 first responders that it was safe to breathe the air? Now they are all getting cancer and lung disease. How could the experts, if they truly are experts, get these things so terribly wrong? Are there any government experts that you believe actually can be trusted to get things right?
It seems that the government’s experts are at best biased (due to tremendous amounts of industry propaganda that most of us are fed daily), and at worst are dishonestly promoting the agendas of the corporate elite. There is a revolving door between industry and regulatory bodies. Those experts who attempt to be unbiased find themselves out of a job. Here’s a perfect example, the recent firing of Mark Keating from the National Organic Program for daring to suggest that they follow their own rule-making requirements: https://foundation.westonaprice.org/...sda-today.html
With our government experts so unbelievably corrupt, what do you suggest that we do about this? Is the answer really to give the regulators more of our tax dollars and more power? How do you think that could possibly make an impact on the levels of corruption we are seeing?
Now, to your point about there not being enough time for people to find out all of this information themselves, I have several things I would like to address. First, I am not opposed to relying on experts from time to time. I would never claim to know everything there is to know about every corporation, every product or service, ever pollutant or food additive. It is necessary for us, as human beings with finite time available to us, to delegate some of the research to others. It is of vast importance, however, that we choose our experts wisely. Personally, I use several methods to decide whether I am willing to trust the information provided by any given source. First, common sense and critical thinking, along with intuition, are necessary to be sure that the information makes sense in the first place. Questioning everything is a good idea! It can be helpful to look at the funding for the information source. I like to check the references for specific facts to ensure that the info source has conveyed the data accurately. Its not good to trust someone without checking at least some of their facts beforehand, regardless of their credentials. And last but definitely not least, I look at the general health level (psychologically speaking) and personality type of the people conveying the information to decide if I think they are sincere and can be trusted. I have come to know the Enneagram as an invaluable tool for helping to discern these things, as there is a lot of confusion around what makes for a healthy and balanced individual.
An example of an info source that meets my criteria for a trustworthy expert would be the Weston A. Price Foundation. But would I want to make the WAPF part of the government? NO! I am certain that if that were to happen, all of their noble and honorable board members would be replaced with industry shills, and their message would go down the drain. They provide accurate info precisely because they are independent. Also, do I believe every single thing the WAPF says just because it came from them? Of course not! They have been wrong or mistaken in the past about some things, because they are only human after all, but have shown a willingness to correct themselves when new information comes to light. To me, that is a sign of truly outstanding character.
Second, I think our common sense can come into play once again to guide us in our everyday decisions so that we won’t need to rely on government experts to keep us safe. Why would we trust the experts when they say, for instance, that one chemical food additive is harmful but another is safe, when they have been shown time and time again to be wrong? It makes more sense to assume that, since we have not evolved to ingest chemicals, that all chemicals are unsafe for human consumption and should be avoided. Rather than needing to memorize the properties, safety, and myriad names of each individual chemical, we could simply buy foods that don’t contain lists of chemicals at all! Rather than replacing all of our plastic containers with BPA-free ones (only to learn a few years down the line that some other toxic chemical is leaching into our food), we could reject all plastic containers for our food and instead use materials that we know for a fact are safe and won’t leach any chemicals. Rather than worry about whether our organic meat is from confinement cows whose feces are polluting our rivers, we could simply buy our meat from local farmers whose farming methods we can see for ourselves. Rather than worrying about which products are owned by which mega-corporation, we could make every effort to buy our products from local producers so we know for a fact we are not giving our money to evil billionaires. Obviously we cannot be 100% about things like this, that would be impossible for most of us. But I believe that we could have a major impact on the landscape of our economy if we were willing to use our brains a little bit more and choose quality and conscience over convenience.
Third, if something is truly a priority for us, we will find time for it. If we truly love to do something, like hiking, reading, playing music, or cooking, we make time in our lives for these things, right? Likewise, if we really want to know the truth about something because we love ourselves and our children, or because we value our health and our future on this planet, it is not a burden to find out the truth, but an adventure! I would submit that if we use our common sense like I just suggested, it really does not take that much time or effort to educate ourselves, especially with the wonders of the Internet at our disposal. I have learned everything I know about nutrition and dangers in the food supply (and a lot about many other equally important topics) in the last two years, and I don’t feel that I’ve had to sacrifice anything else in my life to do so.
Fourth, I think it is worth hitting on the value of thinking for yourself. Experts are great and all (when they can be trusted), but think for a second of all the most enlightened and wise characters throughout history. Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, J. Krishnamurti... do any of these people tell you to just listen to them, take their advice, follow their rules, and you’ll be ok? NO! They tell us to learn for ourselves what is true, not to merely take their words for it, but to understand it with all of our being. They tell us to observe the natural world and ourselves and come to our own conclusions They led by their example rather than by rules and dogma, and their example was one of a major break with the established experts and conventional thinking of each of their days.
OK, now that I’ve got that subject out of the way, I want to comment on your suggestion that I somehow overrate the intelligence of people. I’m not sure what I said to give you that impression. I actually think most people are pretty damn stupid. But why are they stupid? I can’t accept the idea that humans are naturally this unintelligent and unable to think for themselves. It seems to me that we have been deliberately dumbed-down, through both the public education system and the incessant propaganda of the media. The corporations want workers and consumers, not free-thinking individuals. But there is another way that we have been dumbed-down that few people seem to have any awareness of, and that is through the food supply and through the information we have been taught to believe about food.
Our ability to think clearly depends on our brain’s structure and function. First and foremost, our brain is made up mostly of fat. Cholesterol is absolutely essential for growing children because of its role in healthy brain formation. It is a building block of our sex hormones, which definitely have a big effect on the way we think and feel. It is used for healing and repair in our bodies, makes up much of the membranes of every cell in our bodies, and is the precursor to bile salts, needed for fat digestion. These essential roles explain why our bodies manufacture the vast majority of our cholesterol, and also why statin drugs (which block the body’s ability to manufacture cholesterol) are so dangerous and come with so many awful side effects. The public has been duped into avoiding this essential nutrient, with disastrous effects on our health and ability to think clearly, by such respected experts as the American Heart Association and the American Dietetic Association.
Even more importantly, perhaps, is the role of protein and adequate protein digestion in brain function. You see, amino acids are what the body uses to build neurotransmitters, including those in the brain, which affect how we think and feel. Not eating enough protein, as is common in vegetarian and vegan diets (also promoted heavily by the mainstream experts) and even in some omnivorous diets, can lead to difficulty thinking and brain fog. I had severe depression for many years, which resolved itself when I changed my diet. My brain fog is gone, my motivation has increased exponentially, and I am interested in learning about the world around me, whereas before I was too self-absorbed to even care.
Worst of all, lack of hydrochloric acid in the stomach makes it impossible for our dietary protein to be broken down. Doctors who have actually measured the HCL levels in their patients have found that about 90% of patients have some degree of low stomach acid! So why all the silence about this from the “experts”? It seems they would rather sell us drugs to balance our neurotransmitters than simply tell us to eat more protein and be sure we are digesting it properly.
If you then add to this mix the many neurotoxins we consume everyday, the mercury we inject our babies with, among many other things, it is not wonder that people are having trouble thinking. So no, I do not think that the average American is intelligent. But I do know that we all have the potential to become a lot more intelligent and capable of critical thinking than we are right now, simply by reclaiming our health.
Now, this brings me to my last and most important point, which is natural selection. Most people on this forum probably accept the theory of evolution as valid, and some would even ridicule those who subscribe to other ideas such as creationism. But when it comes to actually allowing natural selection to play out in our human society, they falter. People seem to think it would be cruel to let nature take its course, i.e., to let people who are unwilling to use critical thinking to fail. Instead they think that we must cover for these people by having the government experts tell them what to do, what not to do, what to eat, what to buy, which drugs to do and which ones not to do, etc. We must bail out the stupid, protecting them from themselves. Its like some kind of twisted form of compassion.
Problem is, it doesn’t work! Partly because the advice of the experts is, as we have seen, dead wrong! But also partly because nature is far more intelligent than those who subscribe to this point of view of protecting the stupid from themselves. Natural selection will find a way to eliminate those who are weaker and less intelligent, so that we can progress as a species and adapt to new circumstances. It might seem cruel, but that is how nature operates. Sometimes this takes an obvious form, such as the person who does something really stupid and dies in the process. Other times it is more gradual and not so obvious. I believe that those who are unwilling to learn the truth for themselves and instead take the advice of the mainstream experts will find themselves unable to reproduce in the near future. This is already starting to happen. On the other hand, those who take the time to find out what a healthy diet really means, and who are willing to take steps to recover their health and protect themselves from the toxins we are constantly exposed to, will continue to propagate our species, and in this way, nature will select for those who can adapt to the times we are faced with.
Thanks for reading, and have a great night! I'll leave you with a wise quote from Lao Tzu:
"Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it." -Lao Tzu
-Laurel
Thread: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
I do not think I am underestimating the power of corporations. On the contrary,...
Another excellent post, Laurel! It shows both the wisdom and the heartless extremism of libertarianism.
I don't have to time to address each point, but I'll say this:
1) It's most unfortunate that the government is owned by the corporations. So asking them to look out for "us" by keeping a watchful eye on "them" is foolhardy. Getting corporate money out of government, as well as corporate "personhood" abolished are two first steps. But it goes beyond that. They still have vast PR power and most people are beholden to them for their livelihoods. As we've seen recently, people will do anything including giving them more money, in the hope that they will create more jobs with no guarantee. However creating jobs is not their "job"! Their job is to create money!
So yes, presently, we can't rely on the government at the moment.
2) Your comment about
Quote:
Natural selection will find a way to eliminate those who are weaker and less intelligent
shows the idealistic purity of Libertarianism and why it must be tempered. Part of the human experience is that we have the power to rise above simple natural selection. That's where compassion comes in. There are places where rugged individualism is appropriate and places where it's not. Consciously allowing people to die because of their stupidity (including not being fully versed on which unpronounceable chemicals will kill you faster than others) goes too far.
I'm going to have to limit my time in this discussion. I hope others will join in with a range of POVs.
Clearly Libertarianism is enjoying a rise in popularity. I trust the Paul family will continue to stick close to the party line (Wait, has Rand stayed?). I'll be curious to see if the fellow Tea Party-ers tow it as well. It's worthy to be considered (and they will show how ideologically bankrupt the Republicans are) but it will ultimately fail to carry the day, or be a truly viable system, because compassion is essential, greed is heartless, and on a fundamental level we are one, and that needs to be reflected in our government. :heart:
Thread: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Hi Barry,
I also will have to limit my time for this post because it's getting late. I'd just like to say that by no means am I advocating a lack of compassion for others! I do not advocate consciously allowing others to die because of their stupidity. If I felt that way, would I spend so much time and effort educating others about nutrition for free, when I could be charging exorbitant fees for this information? I believe that those who have beneficial knowledge that others lack have a moral obligation to share that information with others. However, I cannot force others to listen to what I have to say or to believe me. Most people probably will not believe me and will continue to rely on the "experts", and it is those people who I am speaking about when I say they will be eliminated by natural selection. It is their choice, their stubbornness and lack of open-mindedness to different points of view that will be their downfall.
I believe strongly in the power of compassion and love to change the world. In fact, I think compassion and love for others and ourselves are the only things that can change the world, and that is why I am so opposed to the current role of our government. Governments cannot have compassion; people have compassion. But I disagree that we have the power to rise above natural selection (which is essentially rising above nature, which we are a part of), and to be honest, knowing what I know, I don't see why we would want to! Seriously Barry, I urge you to read the work of Weston A. Price, so you can see for yourself what incredible genetic potential we have. His work has changed my life and my health in many ways, humbled me when I thought I knew it all, and opened my mind to countless new possibilities and a new way of looking at life and the world. If we were only to follow the simple laws of nature (and believe me, they are simple!), there would be no need for anyone to be weak or stupid.
This time I'll leave you with a quote from Dr. Price himself:
"Life in all its fullness is Mother Nature obeyed." -Weston A. Price
-Laurel
Re: Thread: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Another excellent post, Laurel! It shows both the wisdom and the heartless extremism of libertarianism.
I don't have to time to address each point, but I'll say this:
1) It's most unfortunate that the government is owned by the corporations. So asking them to look out for "us" by keeping a watchful eye on "them" is foolhardy. Getting corporate money out of government, as well as corporate "personhood" abolished are two first steps. But it goes beyond that. They still have vast PR power and most people are beholden to them for their livelihoods. As we've seen recently, people will do anything including giving them more money, in the hope that they will create more jobs with no guarantee. However creating jobs is not their "job"! Their job is to create money!
So yes, presently, we can't rely on the government at the moment.
2) Your comment about shows the idealistic purity of Libertarianism and why it must be tempered. Part of the human experience is that we have the power to rise above simple natural selection. That's where compassion comes in. There are places where rugged individualism is appropriate and places where it's not. Consciously allowing people to die because of their stupidity (including not being fully versed on which unpronounceable chemicals will kill you faster than others) goes too far.
I'm going to have to limit my time in this discussion. I hope others will join in with a range of POVs.
Clearly Libertarianism is enjoying a rise in popularity. I trust the Paul family will continue to stick close to the party line (Wait, has Rand stayed?). I'll be curious to see if the fellow Tea Party-ers tow it as well. It's worthy to be considered (and they will show how ideologically bankrupt the Republicans are) but it will ultimately fail to carry the day, or be a truly viable system, because compassion is essential, greed is heartless, and on a fundamental level we are one, and that needs to be reflected in our government. :heart:
Making blanket statements equating libertarian with tea-partiers is not right, Barry. There are plenty of liberal libertarians who see the movement as about liberty, not right wing ideology (or theology). I don't see libertarianism and compassion as mutually exclusive concepts. Bristling at the idea of the government as the invasive partner of the individual is a very natural thing, don't you think?
Re: Thread: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
Making blanket statements equating libertarian with tea-partiers is not right, Barry. There are plenty of liberal libertarians who see the movement as about liberty, not right wing ideology (or theology). I don't see libertarianism and compassion as mutually exclusive concepts. Bristling at the idea of the government as the invasive partner of the individual is a very natural thing, don't you think?
Point taken. But in my defense, Rand Paul is often cited as a Tea Partier, and I haven't notice him objecting. The Tea Party isn't real party yet, as far as I know, and there's no platform or definition you can point to. But a central theme is limiting government, which is quite aligned with Libertarianism, if not so ideologically pure ( or conscious: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!")
One thing I really appreciate about Libertarianism is that is very consistent and true to it's principles (as opposed to the Tea Party which is only consistent about being negative and angry.)
Which brings me to the point (which should probably go to another thread), which is that it seems to me that it's a whole lot easier to get people excited and enthusiastic when they are fighting against something rather fighting for or more importantly supporting something.
The biggest factor that was responsible for the huge emotional support for the Obama campaign was GW Bush and the travesty of the prior 8 years. Once in office, that support has flagged, even if the same people still support Obama, which seems to be what polls are saying.
Sure part of it is the power of possibility and not having to deal with the inconvenient details (such as uniform Republican opposition and abuse of the filibuster) as well as Obama's compromises. But another part is that it's just easier to be against something and create anger and fear around that. Or maybe it's just that the PR technology has learnt how to harness to stoke the anger really effectively (and Obama and fallen down on countering that PR).
My sense is that the recent Republican electoral successes will eventually be good the Democrats and Obama. First Republican will have to actually participate in government, rather then be petulant and throw tantrums (filibusters). But more to my point, it will serve to raise the energy of the Democrats because there's something to fight now, rather than in-fighting to find that 60th vote.
(Gosh, somebody better tell the moderator that this thread has been hi-jacked! :wink:)
Re: Thread: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Another excellent post, Laurel! It shows both the wisdom and the heartless extremism of libertarianism.
Heartless? Libertarians believe people should help other people. Because governments are corrupt. Who is heartless? The ones who take responsibility and personally help others, or the ones that don't want to bother and just hope the government will take care of it? Why send aid via Al Capone? How many here offered their help to the person who posted recently that their house was in jeopardy from the rains? Just go to a Ron Paul forum and search "help needed" and compare.
Quote:
1) It's most unfortunate that the government is owned by the corporations. So asking them to look out for "us" by keeping a watchful eye on "them" is foolhardy. Getting corporate money out of government, as well as corporate "personhood" abolished are two first steps.
They're owned by corporations because the federal government is over-bloated, too powerful, and don't follow the Constitution (there is no rule of law anymore and the people have been made too ignorant and apathetic to enforce it). There aren't supposed to be all these Federal departments which the lobbyists can go to to influence policy for the entire country. Most powers are supposed to go to the state or to the people, where we can keep a watchful eye. There isn't supposed to be one system dictated by a central power - we should have up to 50 different systems going on, competing and learning from each other. Why have slimey Washington DC bureaucrats make decisions for Sebastopol? Look at what has happened since the federal government started being involved in education. Governments become corrupt and that is why they have limited power in our Constitution.
Quote:
But it goes beyond that. They still have vast PR power and most people are beholden to them for their livelihoods. As we've seen recently, people will do anything including giving them more money, in the hope that they will create more jobs with no guarantee. However creating jobs is not their "job"! Their job is to create money!
The purpose of government is to protect our rights. That's why the Bill of Rights comes before the Constitution. The government can't create real jobs for people. With whose money do you think they pay those people? 600,000 "jobs" were created for the census. How does the govt taking money from people to pay other people help our economy? Real jobs are created through the free market, not governments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Government and Job Creation
by Ron Paul
As the current economic downturn shows no signs of lifting, we hear quite a lot of rhetoric from current and potential office-holders about what government can and will do to create more jobs. This is especially disconcerting to those who understand that the best thing government can do for job creation is to simply get out of the way.
Jobs are properly created by businesses. Government-created jobs are either fueled by fiat money and manipulated market conditions or directly funded by taxes paid by businesses and individuals who then have less to hire people for real wealth creation. Government-created jobs destroy wealth and sap potential from the economy. The several stimulus bills passed by Congress have done much to expand government but not much to keep money in the hands of real job creators — the entrepreneurs...
continued at https://www.ronpaul.com/2010-10-27/t...ut-of-the-way/
--------------------------------------------------
Just so you know: the original Tea Party movement was started by RP supporters during the Bush administration, (so it's not a racist movement against a black President as the press reported - youtube 'tea party 2007'). Yearly Tea Parties were held. Then one day, Sarah Palin held some high priced fundraiser, and the news started reporting that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin were leaders of the tea party! WHAT??? Palin and Beck are shills and are hated by Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul has spoken out saying they're pushing Neocon (Bush Cheney McCain) ideology. So the Tea Party leaders you see on TV is controlled opposition. The movement was hijacked.
Rand Paul appears to be welcoming the new Tea Party movement (made up largely of disgruntled Fox viewers) and it is speculated that he will be educating them on the issues. He's already commented on how certain issues are neither left or right if that gives you a clue to where he might be heading. Many Ron Paul supporters don't care for Rand as he takes sort of a Republican line on issues but it could be a political move. Rand is not his father, but I personally will support any candidate, left or right, who will follow the rule of law and uphold their oath of office.
It's obvious that the establishment was threatened by Rand Paul, judging by the coverage of him (he is not the corporate press darling that Obama was). The whole Civil Rights issue about the government pushing their authority on one's private property was disguised as a racial issue, to provoke an emotional response from the public, but the real issue is whether the govt has the right to dictate on matters that were previously off-limits. If a private business owner is racist, do we really need the government to take care of it (and at the loss of our private property rights and freedom of speech)? No, we simply boycott that business. But if the business owner's right to free speech is taken away, how will one know which businesses to boycott?
Letter from (black) Allman Brothers Band bassist to Rachel Maddow:
"Rachel,
I am a 45 year old Black American male who loves your show but I strongly disagree with you about your position on Rand Paul. Just so you know I voted for Obama and Kerry because I was horrified by both Bush and Palin respectively. Here's where I disagree with you.
1. If someone in the Klan owns a restaurant and doesn't want to serve me, why on earth would I want to support him by giving him my money? I don't want my money going to buy little Klan baby clothes. I'd rather the privately owned establishments wear their racism on their sleeves so I know who to support. If they want to lose my money, and the money of all other minorities and people with brains and a conscience, then fine. Racism is bad business.
2. There's two facts none of us can get around. Churches are still the most segregated places in America every Sunday morning. Its called freedom of religion. There are still restaurants where you can't go in D.C. and I can't go in Georgia. That's called tribalism. Integration cannot be forced privately, only publicly. Tribalism cannot be defeated by legislation. Freedom of speech and of religion means also freedom of @!$%#s. I prefer them with their hoods off.
3. I respectfully say that I think you're wrong to imply that Rand Paul is a racist for believing that
Woolworth's should be allowed to be segregated. I will go on the record right now and state that I believe that Woolworth's and any other privately owned business should be allowed to be segregated. We Black's have a choice now that we didn't back before the Civil Rights Act. Why would I want to support cracker ass Woolworth's if that's who owns the store? I'll take my money elswhere. If you had your way, I wouldn't know one from the other. I hope we can one day agree to let Woolworth's be free to take off its Klan Hood so you and I both know where to spend our money. Its not like and oil company. We all "have to" buy gasoline for now. We blacks have a choice which lunch counter we want to sit at in 2010. Rand Paul stated that when violence occurred it was wrong. He said it was morally reprehensible and he would never support it? He shouldn't be smeared as a racist.
I love you to pieces and as a person of color I identify with your pain, but I'm glad these racists and homophobes want to come out into the open now. I don't think Rand Paul is one of them.
Oteil Burbridge
Bassist Allman Brothers Band
Re: Thread: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
Letter from (black) Allman Brothers Band bassist to Rachel Maddow:
"Rachel,
I am a 45 year old Black American male who loves your show but I strongly disagree with you about your position on Rand Paul. Just so you know I voted for Obama and Kerry because I was horrified by both Bush and Palin respectively. Here's where I disagree with you.
1. If someone in the Klan owns a restaurant and doesn't want to serve me, why on earth would I want to support him by giving him my money? I don't want my money going to buy little Klan baby clothes. I'd rather the privately owned establishments wear their racism on their sleeves so I know who to support. If they want to lose my money, and the money of all other minorities and people with brains and a conscience, then fine. Racism is bad business.
2. There's two facts none of us can get around. Churches are still the most segregated places in America every Sunday morning. Its called freedom of religion. There are still restaurants where you can't go in D.C. and I can't go in Georgia. That's called tribalism. Integration cannot be forced privately, only publicly. Tribalism cannot be defeated by legislation. Freedom of speech and of religion means also freedom of @!$%#s. I prefer them with their hoods off.
3. I respectfully say that I think you're wrong to imply that Rand Paul is a racist for believing that
Woolworth's should be allowed to be segregated. I will go on the record right now and state that I believe that Woolworth's and any other privately owned business should be allowed to be segregated. We Black's have a choice now that we didn't back before the Civil Rights Act. Why would I want to support cracker ass Woolworth's if that's who owns the store? I'll take my money elswhere. If you had your way, I wouldn't know one from the other. I hope we can one day agree to let Woolworth's be free to take off its Klan Hood so you and I both know where to spend our money. Its not like and oil company. We all "have to" buy gasoline for now. We blacks have a choice which lunch counter we want to sit at in 2010. Rand Paul stated that when violence occurred it was wrong. He said it was morally reprehensible and he would never support it? He shouldn't be smeared as a racist.
I love you to pieces and as a person of color I identify with your pain, but I'm glad these racists and homophobes want to come out into the open now. I don't think Rand Paul is one of them.
Oteil Burbridge
Bassist Allman Brothers Band
This is an awesome letter and I agree 100% with Oteil. A person is not racist for supporting freedom of expression for everyone. A lot of people give lip service to the idea of tolerance, while simultaneously displaying intolerant behavior towards those who disagree with them.
By the way, not only did Oteil play with the Allman Brothers but also with Derek Trucks (a great musician) and the Aquarium Rescue Unit (a great and unique band). This guy is awesome!
Also, thank you for your commentary on the Tea Party and government-created jobs. My husband was a census worker last year and he can confirm that he was rehired for each new operation. That way, the numbers make it look like many more jobs are being created than actually are. Not only that, but the jobs are temporary and don't count as a real job anyway. As for the Tea Party, it is absurd for anyone to think that Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are pushing the same message. Sarah Palin is for big government, so long as it supports her socially conservative ideology. Glenn Beck is the biggest shill in the universe. It's hard to think of someone more fake than he is. That anyone has accepted that these people are leaders of the Tea Party movement is a testament to how dumbed down our society has become.
-Laurel
