Rand Paul (1 Viewer)

[whoknew]

For the record, I disagree with Paul on felon disenfranchisement. Obviously that has a disparate impact on minorities, but society has a strong reason for not wanting felons to vote, so I'm fine with that in much the same way that I'm fine with not allowing felons to own guns even though I consider myself a second amendment supporter.

What's that?

If you can't follow the rules of civil society, you don't get to participate in making those rules.

Why? Maybe I don't follow them because they are stupid and should be changed. Should I not have a say in speed limit laws in Texas? Disenfranchising me because I disagree with a law made by the majority doesn't seem like an important government interest.

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

I understand that's your position. But is that enough of an important or compelling (not sure which would apply) government interest to disenfranchise a large group of society?

I don't think so. I mean, I'm sure its been tested, so I guess the S.Ct. agrees with you. But its not the first nor the last time they are wrong.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Let's say that the current drug laws are applied disproportionately. That would typically only be changed at the ballot box. But the people who are disproportionately affected by the laws, are barred from voting. Which makes it harder to change at the ballot box. It's a feedback loop that helps reinforce crappy laws.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Discrimination at private businesses is something I'm torn on. It's a lot easier to be in favor of allowing now than it was in 1964 when an entire town would put up 'No Blacks Allowed' signs.

I think the further you get away from interstate commerce the less defensible it gets. The flower shop owner or photographer who doesn't approve of an interracial marriage is one thing, the motel owner or common carrier (airline, busline, etc.) or places like restaurants where people congregate is another.

 

[Concept Coop]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

That works both ways. A penitentiary is supposed to be a place of penitence for the convicted.

How often does that happen?

 

[Concept Coop]

That works both ways. A penitentiary is supposed to be a place of penitence for the convicted.

How often does that happen?

The idea that penitence is something that can be tasked to another is equally absurd.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That works both ways. A penitentiary is supposed to be a place of penitence for the convicted.

How often does that happen?

The idea that penitence is something that can be tasked to another is equally absurd.

You're right, it has to be undertaken. A lot (most?) never do so.

 

[Concept Coop]

You're right, it has to be undertaken. A lot (most?) never do so.

It's personal, so I have no idea how we would measure that. The system does the opposite of rehabilitate, so I don't think repeat offender counts serve as an accurate measurement of penitence.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You're right, it has to be undertaken. A lot (most?) never do so.

It's personal, so I have no idea how we would measure that. The system does the opposite of rehabilitate, so I don't think repeat offender counts serve as an accurate measurement of penitence.

It's sad, but the only theoretical "purpose of punishment" that really holds up to much analysis, IMO, is retributive justice. The system isn't effective at deterrence, rehabilitation, or restitution. And we don't have the capacity to make it more than minimally effective at incapacitation.

 

[Concept Coop]

You're right, it has to be undertaken. A lot (most?) never do so.

It's personal, so I have no idea how we would measure that. The system does the opposite of rehabilitate, so I don't think repeat offender counts serve as an accurate measurement of penitence.

It's sad, but the only theoretical "purpose of punishment" that really holds up to much analysis, IMO, is retributive justice. The system isn't effective at deterrence, rehabilitation, or restitution. And we don't have the capacity to make it more than minimally effective at incapacitation.

Very sad. Even more so that the failure, in terms of the advertised purpose(s), is fact and has been for some time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You're right, it has to be undertaken. A lot (most?) never do so.

It's personal, so I have no idea how we would measure that. The system does the opposite of rehabilitate, so I don't think repeat offender counts serve as an accurate measurement of penitence.

All I was saying was that it works both ways, society seeks to rehabilitate, so there is a duty flowing that way; and I don't think most of the people going in or coming out have an intent to rehabilitate, even though there should be a duty flowing in the other direction as well.

I can tell you down here people are overwhelmed with crime. There are 900-1100 cops when there should be 2500. The cops were so corrupt the feds took it over. The jail is so bad that prisoners were left to drown during Katrina (the feds have taken that over too). People are scared to talk to the police. We have shootings that hit multiple innocent people pretty often. We have corrupt judges and very poor local media. The Feds have more or less been the cavalry. I think most people here (black, white, hispanic) feel that if the Feds or the NOPD can manage to put a "bad guy" away because they found x-grams of this or a vial of that that is just very helpful. I'd like to know why someone would want to take that arrow out of our quiver.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think Paul is wrong about the Civil Rights Act, but I don't see what relevance that has to anything we've been talking about recently.

Well it seems intellectually inconsistent to advocate throwing out the 1964 CRA while asserting that there needs to be federal reform of sentencing laws on the basis of inequitable results.

Rand Paul didn't advocate throwing out the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail that wasn't addressed to you? If you threw it away, that's a felony.

We all commit lots of felonies even if we are seldom prosecuted. If failing to obey laws that carry large criminal penalties renders one unfit to vote, we need to return to a monarchy because a democracy would be impossible.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think Paul is wrong about the Civil Rights Act, but I don't see what relevance that has to anything we've been talking about recently.

Well it seems intellectually inconsistent to advocate throwing out the 1964 CRA while asserting that there needs to be federal reform of sentencing laws on the basis of inequitable results.

Rand Paul didn't advocate throwing out the Civil Rights Act.

I think I quoted the reference, it was the public accommodations part he objected to, which if the voting rights is the heart then the P/A is pretty much the thorax of that particular law.

 

[Concept Coop]

All I was saying was that it works both ways, society seeks to rehabilitate, so there is a duty flowing that way; and I don't think most of the people going in or coming out have an intent to rehabilitate, even though there should be a duty flowing in the other direction as well.I can tell you down here people are overwhelmed with crime. There are 900-1100 cops when there should be 2500. The cops were so corrupt the feds took it over. The jail is so bad that prisoners were left to drown during Katrina (the feds have taken that over too). People are scared to talk to the police. We have shootings that hit multiple innocent people pretty often. We have corrupt judges and very poor local media. The Feds have more or less been the cavalry. I think most people here (black, white, hispanic) feel that if the Feds or the NOPD can manage to put a "bad guy" away because they found x-grams of this or a vial of that that is just very helpful. I'd like to know why someone would want to take that arrow out of our quiver.

That's crazy; I had no idea it was that bad. Thanks for sharing. It's certainly something I'd be interested in reading up on.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail that wasn't addressed to you?

Don't answer this, he's entrapping you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail that wasn't addressed to you? If you threw it away, that's a felony.

We all commit lots of felonies even if we are seldom prosecuted. If failing to obey laws that carry large criminal penalties renders one unfit to vote, we need to return to a monarchy because a democracy would be impossible.

I think the key there is the reliability of due process. People lose the right to vote when they are convicted.

The feds are reading our mail without our permission, which is a felony. Where would we start with that?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think Paul is wrong about the Civil Rights Act, but I don't see what relevance that has to anything we've been talking about recently.

Well it seems intellectually inconsistent to advocate throwing out the 1964 CRA while asserting that there needs to be federal reform of sentencing laws on the basis of inequitable results.

Rand Paul didn't advocate throwing out the Civil Rights Act.

I think I quoted the reference, it was the public accommodations part he objected to, which if the voting rights is the heart then the P/A is pretty much the thorax of that particular law.

He thinks the government shouldn't force private businesses to adopt non-racist policies.

That's not at all inconsistent with opposing racist drug-sentencing guidelines.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

All I was saying was that it works both ways, society seeks to rehabilitate, so there is a duty flowing that way; and I don't think most of the people going in or coming out have an intent to rehabilitate, even though there should be a duty flowing in the other direction as well.I can tell you down here people are overwhelmed with crime. There are 900-1100 cops when there should be 2500. The cops were so corrupt the feds took it over. The jail is so bad that prisoners were left to drown during Katrina (the feds have taken that over too). People are scared to talk to the police. We have shootings that hit multiple innocent people pretty often. We have corrupt judges and very poor local media. The Feds have more or less been the cavalry. I think most people here (black, white, hispanic) feel that if the Feds or the NOPD can manage to put a "bad guy" away because they found x-grams of this or a vial of that that is just very helpful. I'd like to know why someone would want to take that arrow out of our quiver.

That's crazy; I had no idea it was that bad. Thanks for sharing. It's certainly something I'd be interested in reading up on.

HBO's Treme covers some of those themes pretty realistically from what I can gather.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think Paul is wrong about the Civil Rights Act, but I don't see what relevance that has to anything we've been talking about recently.

Well it seems intellectually inconsistent to advocate throwing out the 1964 CRA while asserting that there needs to be federal reform of sentencing laws on the basis of inequitable results.

Rand Paul didn't advocate throwing out the Civil Rights Act.

I think I quoted the reference, it was the public accommodations part he objected to, which if the voting rights is the heart then the P/A is pretty much the thorax of that particular law.

He thinks the government shouldn't force private businesses to adopt non-racist policies.

That's not at all inconsistent with opposing racist stuff in general, or racist stuff (such as drug sentencing guidelines) by the government in particular.

He thinks that the feds should not enforce civil rights in places of public accommodations or in interstate commerce. I think it's inconsistent to say that the feds should seek to prevent inequities in one area (sentencing guidelines) but not in other areas within federal control.

And I think the reason is that he doesn't really care about the racial aspect of the guidelines discrepancies, RP is just concerned with the drug aspects and reducing the federal involvement as much as possible.

 

[Concept Coop]

He thinks that the feds should not enforce civil rights in places of public accommodations or in interstate commerce. I think it's inconsistent to say that the feds should seek to prevent inequities in one area (sentencing guidelines) but not in other areas within federal control.

I think that's the key difference.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

He thinks that the feds should not enforce civil rights in places of public accommodations or in interstate commerce. I think it's inconsistent to say that the feds should seek to prevent inequities in one area (sentencing guidelines) but not in other areas within federal control.

I think that's the key difference.

I'm thinking motels/hotels, restaurants, airlines, buslines, that kind of thing. To me those are private companies that perform a "public" function. I don't think RP sees it that way, he sees them as just "private". I have a hard time seeing some one who intellectually justifies allowing discrimination in such places as really concerned about racial inequity.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have a hard time seeing some one who intellectually justifies allowing discrimination in such places as really concerned about racial inequity.

That's an understandable limitation on your part. But it's a limitation that should make you less confident, rather than more confident, that you understand Paul's thought process well enough to charge him with inconsistency.

 

[Concept Coop]

I'm thinking motels/hotels, restaurants, airlines, buslines, that kind of thing. To me those are private companies that perform a "public" function. I don't think RP sees it that way, he sees them as just "private". I have a hard time seeing some one who intellectually justifies allowing discrimination in such places as really concerned about racial inequity.

I'm bi-racial; raised in white Utah; grew up in a black congregation; white mom; black dad (married until I was well into adulthood). I don't even believe in race, honestly, beyond it being the cultural construct that we allow it to be. My views are pretty out there on the subject.

That said, I agree with him. I don't think we should be giving the government the power that comes with the task. It has nothing to do equality--which I'm for--but tasking the government with it, beyond the exercise of their own services. It's not their job to cure racism and I don't think their enforcing it helps.

 

[cstu]

I'm thinking motels/hotels, restaurants, airlines, buslines, that kind of thing. To me those are private companies that perform a "public" function. I don't think RP sees it that way, he sees them as just "private". I have a hard time seeing some one who intellectually justifies allowing discrimination in such places as really concerned about racial inequity.

I'm bi-racial; raised in white Utah; grew up in a black congregation; white mom; black dad (married until I was well into adulthood). I don't even believe in race, honestly, beyond it being the cultural construct that we allow it to be. My views are pretty out there on the subject.

That said, I agree with him. I don't think we should be giving the government the power that comes with the task. It has nothing to do equality, but tasking the government with it, beyond the exercise of their own services. It's not their job to cure racism and I don't think their enforcing it helps, beyond internally, as it should serve all of it's people equally.

Not out there - I totally agree.

My daughter is European, African, Indian, Native American and probably some Middle Eastern in there. So the idea of 'race' is really meaningless to me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm thinking motels/hotels, restaurants, airlines, buslines, that kind of thing. To me those are private companies that perform a "public" function. I don't think RP sees it that way, he sees them as just "private". I have a hard time seeing some one who intellectually justifies allowing discrimination in such places as really concerned about racial inequity.

I'm bi-racial; raised in white Utah, grew up in a black congregation; white mom, black dad (married until I was well into adulthood). I don't even believe in race, honestly, beyond it being the cultural construct that we allow it to be. My views are pretty out there on the subject.

That said, I agree with him. I don't think we should be giving the government the power that comes with the task. It has nothing to do equality, but tasking the government with it, beyond the exercise of their own services. It's not their job to cure racism and I don't think enforcing it helps, beyond the government, which should serve all of it's people equally.

Well, I grew up in New Orleans (fwiw I'm half Spanish, my grandparents from Spain), and I'd hate to think what this city would be like if the 1964 CRA hadn't nudged people along. Seems crazy to think about now, but one day people were in different restaurants and different hotels and bars (with exceptions) and then the next they weren't. People got arrested for sitting down to eat at a counter. To me the law was an expression of national will and desire (and rights), and as it turned out nearly everyone wanted that, not such a bad thing. I agree with what you say in principle, but then again do I think people have a right to stop and stay in hotels, and go to public places equally? Heck yeah.

ETA, Btw, totally agree with this:

I don't even believe in race, honestly, beyond it being the cultural construct that we allow it to be.

Look, I have to say I enjoyed the conversation. Going to beer up before the Saints game. Have a good weekend, -

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have a hard time seeing some one who intellectually justifies allowing discrimination in such places as really concerned about racial inequity.

Do you understand how a person who is extremely opposed to recreational drug use might nonetheless think it should be legal? If so, it's not so large a leap to understand how a person who is extremely opposed to racist policies in restaurants or hotels might think they ought to nonetheless be legal.

In either case, there's a cost-benefit analysis that takes into account not only the effects of drug use (or racism), but also the effects of prohibition, both good and bad. Well meaning people with similar values can come to opposite conclusions on such matters.

My views about the Civil Rights Act used to be pretty close to Rand Paul's current views. I favored the parts that ended Jim Crow, but disfavored the parts that constrained private actors. I've since changed my mind. I now think that anti-discrimination laws are a good idea. But the change had nothing to do with how much I cared about racial equality. I cared the same amount then as I do now. I just did the cost-benefit analysis a bit differently.

Whether one thinks that certain parts of the Civil Rights Act should be repealed has nothing necessarily to do with how much he cares about racial inequality. That's as true about Rand Paul as it is about anyone else. You and I might agree that he's mistaken about the issue; but to conclude that it's because he values racial equality less than we do is an invalid and unfair leap.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I have a hard time seeing some one who intellectually justifies allowing discrimination in such places as really concerned about racial inequity.

Do you understand how a person who is extremely opposed to recreational drug use might nonetheless think it should be legal? If so, it's not so large a leap to understand how a person who is extremely opposed to racist policies in restaurants or hotels might think they ought to nonetheless be legal.

In either case, there's a cost-benefit analysis that takes into account not only the effects of drug use (or racism), but also the effects of prohibition, both good and bad. Well meaning people with similar values can come to opposite conclusions on such matters.

My views about the Civil Rights Act used to be pretty close to Rand Paul's current views. I favored the parts that ended Jim Crow, but disfavored the parts that constrained private actors. I've since changed my mind. I now think that anti-discrimination laws are a good idea. But the change had nothing to do with how much I cared about racial equality. I cared the same amount then as I do now. I just did the cost-benefit analysis a bit differently.

Whether one thinks that certain parts of the Civil Rights Act should be repealed has nothing necessarily to do with how much he cares about racial inequality. That's as true about Rand Paul as it is about anyone else. You and I might agree that he's mistaken about the issue; but to conclude that it's because he values racial equality less than we do is an invalid and unfair leap.

MT I greatly appreciate the reply. This is a deeper conversation than time allows as I have some cold ones with my name on it at a tailgate.

But in short I think people have forgotten how Jim Crow worked. It was based on irrational racial definitions. It kept our country from being shared, it kept the 14th Amendment from applying to all, it keep fundamental rights, privileges and immunities being shared by all. The 1964 CRA did not intrude on private actions or beliefs, what it said was that as a country what we do in public, common places we do together, as Americans. I think that's huge. Being against that aspect of the CRA really to me takes that away, I guess I don't understand how that could be if one believes in racial equality. Maybe I've done a poor job of thinking this out, maybe it's more emotional, because I sense it's not getting through.

Anyway, have a good one.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, here is a Rand Paul-ian libertarian statement.

The market is the best tool to combat racial discrimination performed by private enterprises. Because the market cannot combat racial discrimination performed by public enterprises, the coercive force of law is the best (and only) tool to combat racial discrimination by public enterprises.

Now, that statement may be wrong as a matter of fact. Indeed, I think it is. But it is not inconsistent with a distaste for racial discrimination. And it is certainly not a hypocritical statement for a libertarian to make.

 

[Insomniac]

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, here is a Rand Paul-ian libertarian statement.

The market is the best tool to combat racial discrimination performed by private enterprises. Because the market cannot combat racial discrimination performed by public enterprises, the coercive force of law is the best (and only) tool to combat racial discrimination by public enterprises.

Now, that statement may be wrong as a matter of fact. Indeed, I think it is. But it is not inconsistent with a distaste for racial discrimination. And it is certainly not a hypocritical statement for a libertarian to make.

How well did the market do eliminating racial discrimination by private enterprises in the century between the end of the Civil War and the 1964 CRA? It seems if anything the market reinforced the practice of racial discrimination. Believing that the market will automatically lead to the best moral result even in the long run is not supported by facts in this case.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How well did the market do eliminating racial discrimination by private enterprises in the century between the end of the Civil War and the 1964 CRA? It seems if anything the market reinforced the practice of racial discrimination. Believing that the market will automatically lead to the best moral result even in the long run is not supported by facts in this case.

You're making the free marketers' case for them.

Compare the North to the South during that period. With respect to racial stuff, markets were somewhat free in the North. Markets were not at all free in the South, where governments required segregation.

So in the period you're talking about, it seems that markets did a whole lot better than governments when it came to eliminating racial discrimination.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail that wasn't addressed to you? If you threw it away, that's a felony.

We all commit lots of felonies even if we are seldom prosecuted. If failing to obey laws that carry large criminal penalties renders one unfit to vote, we need to return to a monarchy because a democracy would be impossible.

You're a bright guy, MT. I am going to assume that we both agree that your example shouldn't be placed in the same category as rape and murder. Right?

 

[Politician Spock]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail that wasn't addressed to you? If you threw it away, that's a felony.

We all commit lots of felonies even if we are seldom prosecuted. If failing to obey laws that carry large criminal penalties renders one unfit to vote, we need to return to a monarchy because a democracy would be impossible.

You're a bright guy, MT. I am going to assume that we both agree that your example shouldn't be placed in the same category as rape and murder. Right?

The "felony" category?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail that wasn't addressed to you? If you threw it away, that's a felony.

We all commit lots of felonies even if we are seldom prosecuted. If failing to obey laws that carry large criminal penalties renders one unfit to vote, we need to return to a monarchy because a democracy would be impossible.

You're a bright guy, MT. I am going to assume that we both agree that your example shouldn't be placed in the same category as rape and murder. Right?

The "felony" category?

Yes. If you want to go down this road that opening mail that isn't addressed to you is a felony (like rape and murder), then that's really an argument that those statutes are absurd, not that felon disenfranchisement is absurd.

I agree wholeheartedly that we over-criminalize stuff. That has no impact whatsoever on my position that murderers and rapists and child molesters shouldn't have a say in how I live my life.

 

[Fennis]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail that wasn't addressed to you? If you threw it away, that's a felony.

We all commit lots of felonies even if we are seldom prosecuted. If failing to obey laws that carry large criminal penalties renders one unfit to vote, we need to return to a monarchy because a democracy would be impossible.

You're a bright guy, MT. I am going to assume that we both agree that your example shouldn't be placed in the same category as rape and murder. Right?

The "felony" category?

Yes. If you want to go down this road that opening mail that isn't addressed to you is a felony (like rape and murder), then that's really an argument that those statutes are absurd, not that felon disenfranchisement is absurd.

I agree wholeheartedly that we over-criminalize stuff. That has no impact whatsoever on my position that murderers and rapists and child molesters shouldn't have a say in how I live my life.

Rand Paul's bill restores voting rights to non-violent felons and moves some drugs felonies to misdemeanors.

 

[Politician Spock]

If you rob banks out of a sense of civil disobedience, I still don't want you voting.

Edit: Also, speeding isn't a felony. We're talking about serious violations of the law, not minor stuff.

It'll be hard to sell the justice system as correctional rehabilitation, while robbing the "rehabilitated" of their citizenship.

And I highly doubt you think all felonies are serious violations on a personal and moral level. A quick Google search will show that all of have committed a felony.

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail that wasn't addressed to you? If you threw it away, that's a felony.

We all commit lots of felonies even if we are seldom prosecuted. If failing to obey laws that carry large criminal penalties renders one unfit to vote, we need to return to a monarchy because a democracy would be impossible.

You're a bright guy, MT. I am going to assume that we both agree that your example shouldn't be placed in the same category as rape and murder. Right?

The "felony" category?

Yes. If you want to go down this road that opening mail that isn't addressed to you is a felony (like rape and murder), then that's really an argument that those statutes are absurd, not that felon disenfranchisement is absurd.

I agree wholeheartedly that we over-criminalize stuff. That has no impact whatsoever on my position that murderers and rapists and child molesters shouldn't have a say in how I live my life.

I kinda would like to keep opening mail that isn't addressed to you as a felony. Eventually email will be seen as no different, and the NSA will be guily of billions of fellonies.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes. If you want to go down this road that opening mail that isn't addressed to you is a felony (like rape and murder), then that's really an argument that those statutes are absurd, not that felon disenfranchisement is absurd.

I agree wholeheartedly that we over-criminalize stuff. That has no impact whatsoever on my position that murderers and rapists and child molesters shouldn't have a say in how I live my life.

Imagine if we disenfranchised every one whoever got creative with their taxes? There might only be a few dozen or so of us voters left.

 

[Insomniac]

How well did the market do eliminating racial discrimination by private enterprises in the century between the end of the Civil War and the 1964 CRA? It seems if anything the market reinforced the practice of racial discrimination. Believing that the market will automatically lead to the best moral result even in the long run is not supported by facts in this case.

You're making the free marketers' case for them.

Compare the North to the South during that period. With respect to racial stuff, markets were somewhat free in the North. Markets were not at all free in the South, where governments required segregation.

So in the period you're talking about, it seems that markets did a whole lot better than governments when it came to eliminating racial discrimination.

Not everything is a matter of economics. The Jim Crow laws were a result of racial bigotry not the cause of it. The level of racial bigotry in the North was nothing to be proud of but it did not approach the level Southern whites displayed from the end of the Civil War until well after the 1964 CRA. In the "more advanced" North it wasn't until after WWII that black players were allowed in pro sports, an area that seems easier to integrate than most. Even if we credit the free market with inspiring Branch Rickey to sign black players so his team would win more games and sell more tickets it took over 80 years to get to that meager level of progress.

In the South the level of bigotry was much greater. They wouldn't even allow blacks to play on their college football teams until ~1970. For a long time most of the Southern team wouldn't even play games against integrated teams. No laws were needed in the South to prevent hotels, restaurants and other businesses from banning blacks. It is very likely that any business that did allow blacks would lose all their white customers. Without the laws that stopped these practices it is likely IMO that things would be much the same in the South as it was in 1963.

The free market seemed to reinforce prejudice more than it changed it. IMO there isn't much evidence that the free market was a major factor in the Civil Rights movement in the North or South.

 

[timschochet]

How well did the market do eliminating racial discrimination by private enterprises in the century between the end of the Civil War and the 1964 CRA? It seems if anything the market reinforced the practice of racial discrimination. Believing that the market will automatically lead to the best moral result even in the long run is not supported by facts in this case.

You're making the free marketers' case for them.

Compare the North to the South during that period. With respect to racial stuff, markets were somewhat free in the North. Markets were not at all free in the South, where governments required segregation.

So in the period you're talking about, it seems that markets did a whole lot better than governments when it came to eliminating racial discrimination.

Not everything is a matter of economics. The Jim Crow laws were a result of racial bigotry not the cause of it. The level of racial bigotry in the North was nothing to be proud of but it did not approach the level Southern whites displayed from the end of the Civil War until well after the 1964 CRA. In the "more advanced" North it wasn't until after WWII that black players were allowed in pro sports, an area that seems easier to integrate than most. Even if we credit the free market with inspiring Branch Rickey to sign black players so his team would win more games and sell more tickets it took over 80 years to get to that meager level of progress.

In the South the level of bigotry was much greater. They wouldn't even allow blacks to play on their college football teams until ~1970. For a long time most of the Southern team wouldn't even play games against integrated teams. No laws were needed in the South to prevent hotels, restaurants and other businesses from banning blacks. It is very likely that any business that did allow blacks would lose all their white customers. Without the laws that stopped these practices it is likely IMO that things would be much the same in the South as it was in 1963.

The free market seemed to reinforce prejudice more than it changed it. IMO there isn't much evidence that the free market was a major factor in the Civil Rights movement in the North or South.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but not your last sentence. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, started by Rosa Parks and led by Martin Luthet King, was probably the single most important act of the Civil Rights era.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How well did the market do eliminating racial discrimination by private enterprises in the century between the end of the Civil War and the 1964 CRA? It seems if anything the market reinforced the practice of racial discrimination. Believing that the market will automatically lead to the best moral result even in the long run is not supported by facts in this case.

You're making the free marketers' case for them.

Compare the North to the South during that period. With respect to racial stuff, markets were somewhat free in the North. Markets were not at all free in the South, where governments required segregation.

So in the period you're talking about, it seems that markets did a whole lot better than governments when it came to eliminating racial discrimination.

Not everything is a matter of economics. The Jim Crow laws were a result of racial bigotry not the cause of it. The level of racial bigotry in the North was nothing to be proud of but it did not approach the level Southern whites displayed from the end of the Civil War until well after the 1964 CRA. In the "more advanced" North it wasn't until after WWII that black players were allowed in pro sports, an area that seems easier to integrate than most. Even if we credit the free market with inspiring Branch Rickey to sign black players so his team would win more games and sell more tickets it took over 80 years to get to that meager level of progress.

In the South the level of bigotry was much greater. They wouldn't even allow blacks to play on their college football teams until ~1970. For a long time most of the Southern team wouldn't even play games against integrated teams. No laws were needed in the South to prevent hotels, restaurants and other businesses from banning blacks. It is very likely that any business that did allow blacks would lose all their white customers. Without the laws that stopped these practices it is likely IMO that things would be much the same in the South as it was in 1963.

The free market seemed to reinforce prejudice more than it changed it. IMO there isn't much evidence that the free market was a major factor in the Civil Rights movement in the North or South.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but not your last sentence. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, started by Rosa Parks and led by Martin Luthet King, was probably the single most important act of the Civil Rights era.

That was a political act, a protest, that proved a point. It had zero economic impact or influence on ending segregation. If it was just the boycott the city of Montgomery would have let blacks walk where they were going until cows came home... or the chickens, or goats, or until Vandy beat Bama.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How well did the market do eliminating racial discrimination by private enterprises in the century between the end of the Civil War and the 1964 CRA? It seems if anything the market reinforced the practice of racial discrimination. Believing that the market will automatically lead to the best moral result even in the long run is not supported by facts in this case.

You're making the free marketers' case for them.

Compare the North to the South during that period. With respect to racial stuff, markets were somewhat free in the North. Markets were not at all free in the South, where governments required segregation.

So in the period you're talking about, it seems that markets did a whole lot better than governments when it came to eliminating racial discrimination.

Not everything is a matter of economics. The Jim Crow laws were a result of racial bigotry not the cause of it. The level of racial bigotry in the North was nothing to be proud of but it did not approach the level Southern whites displayed from the end of the Civil War until well after the 1964 CRA. In the "more advanced" North it wasn't until after WWII that black players were allowed in pro sports, an area that seems easier to integrate than most. Even if we credit the free market with inspiring Branch Rickey to sign black players so his team would win more games and sell more tickets it took over 80 years to get to that meager level of progress.

In the South the level of bigotry was much greater. They wouldn't even allow blacks to play on their college football teams until ~1970. For a long time most of the Southern team wouldn't even play games against integrated teams. No laws were needed in the South to prevent hotels, restaurants and other businesses from banning blacks. It is very likely that any business that did allow blacks would lose all their white customers. Without the laws that stopped these practices it is likely IMO that things would be much the same in the South as it was in 1963.

The free market seemed to reinforce prejudice more than it changed it. IMO there isn't much evidence that the free market was a major factor in the Civil Rights movement in the North or South.

You can't say that markets are bad at something, and then as your supporting example, point to something that markets had no part of. In the North, racial matters were largely subject to market forces. Things weren't perfect by any stretch, but they were a heck of a lot better than they were in the South, where racial matters were largely shielded from market forces.

If you want to argue that we'd get better results by shielding racial matters from market forces than we would by subjecting them to market forces, the American experience between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act is not the example you want to use.

Blaming market forces for failing to fix something that market forces were forbidden by law to fix is not persuasive. You can argue that market forces wouldn't have fixed things even if they'd been allowed to. But that doesn't count as a historical example; it counts only as speculation.

 

[moleculo]

saw Rand Paul speak tonight at a fundraiser for Mick Mulvaney. I shook his hand while he stood in line for BBQ right behind me. He struck me as droopy, uninterested, tired. Not particularly social. Not the kind of guy who can light up a room. Not much of a smiler.

When he was talking, it seemed like he was holding the good stuff back - this is South Carolina, in the middle of the Bible belt, so it felt like he was dancing around some things. The jist of the message was big-tent, find ways to deliver conservative message to non-typical republicans, so he had to tread lightly. He mentioned things like lighter sentences for drug offenders and 4th amendment support to win the youth vote. He wants to set up economic zones around areas like Detroit where companies within that zone pay little to no taxes for a decade or so. It's a shame that this area is so socially conservative, it seemed like that's what he was dancing around.

Anyways, I liked his speech and agreed with pretty much everything he had to say.

 

[tom22406]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/rand-paul-nsa-reform-bill_n_6182204.html

 

[Fennis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/rand-paul-nsa-reform-bill_n_6182204.html

what a doosh

 

[timschochet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/rand-paul-nsa-reform-bill_n_6182204.html

what a doosh

Agreed. He needs to keep this as an issue so that he can attract young and naive voters.

 

[tom22406]

Didn't see this covered in this thread but he laid out his foreign policy a little over a month ago in a speech

Rand Paul's foreign policy grows up
Finally, a politician who can change the post-Cold War trajectory of American foreign policy

Rand Paul's foreign policy grew up. In a major speech in New York last week, Paul laid out a case for conservative realism. "We need a foreign policy that recognizes our limits and preserves our might, a common-sense conservative realism of strength and action. We can't retreat from the world, but we can't remake it in our own image either," he said.

Zack Beauchamp at Vox called it one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades, saying that if Paul runs in 2016 "he isn't going to move toward the Republican foreign policy consensus; he's going to run at it, with a battering ram."

Paul's vision of "limits" is a far cry from George W. Bush's second inaugural, where the president declaimed, "By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well — a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."

But Rand's speech is also a step away from his father's ideals. After this speech, it's easy to imagine Ron and Rand debating each other on foreign policy. Rand says that we ought to bomb ISIS but not arm Syrian rebels. His father would reply that bombing ISIS would invite another 9/11 in response. When it comes to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, Rand says let's negotiate. Ron would say nuclear arms are Iran's business not ours, and let's investigate the CIA for its role in Iran in the 1970s.

Ultimately, the senior Paul did not have a foreign policy. Instead, he had a series of protests against the federal government. They were often richly deserved, but rarely did they constitute a genuine alternative to the status quo.

Rand could have gone in this direction. And he has shown that he's willing to take a protest to great lengths. Recall his popular filibuster against the use of drones in the United States, into which he folded criticisms of the Patriot Act and the presidential "kill list" that includes American citizens. But the younger Paul has decided that if he wants to be president, he better have a substantive foreign policy.

From both a political and policy perspective, it's interesting that Paul in his speech leaned into criticism of the intervention in Libya. It is a conflict that many people have forgotten about, and one that has resulted in little cost to the United States. Paul criticized the baleful result: a country plunged into even more violence and chaos, where its own government cannot even meet in the capital city. But Paul also went on to say that the war was illegal under the Constitution, as it received no authorization from Congress. Focusing on Libya may have a political purpose, too, as it was an intervention spearheaded by Hillary Clinton, and for which she took enormous credit when the results looked good.

Paul's step toward realism is also necessary considering the foreign policy dynamics within his own party. There are three intellectual camps in the Republican foreign policy tent: the neoconservatives, realists, and the various anti-interventionists. Since the end of the Cold War, realists have tended to defer to neoconservative and liberal hawks at the beginning of an intervention, then gravely furrow their brows later; think Condoleezza Rice, Chuck Hagel, or Jon Huntsman. By leading anti-interventionists toward realism, Paul is creating conditions within his own party, and within the world of policy expertise, for an American foreign policy that really does look different than the post-Cold War consensus.

Along the way, Paul's made some odd compromises. His speech was probably too hawkish on Russia, and too bullish on the power of sanctions. (What exactly did sanctions achieve in Cuba, Iraq, or in Moscow short of expressing hostility short of war?) But if Hillary Clinton does decide to run, Paul has probably found the sweet spot for advocating the foreign policy of restraint he believes in, while satisfying a partisan desire for contrast. This is good news for anyone interested in not repeating the disasters America has experienced in Iraq or Libya.

 

[Bojang0301]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/rand-paul-nsa-reform-bill_n_6182204.html

what a doosh

Agreed. He needs to keep this as an issue so that he can attract young and naive voters.

This is the structure of our politics. Should he turn his back on the Senate he needs the support of to make a Presidential bid, to get things done if he is the President? Taking small shortcuts to mask a problem doesn't get rid of it or fix it. The NSA needs to be cut out like a cancer.

 

[Rayderr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/rand-paul-nsa-reform-bill_n_6182204.html

what a doosh

Agreed. He needs to keep this as an issue so that he can attract young and naive voters.

Paul said he voted against the bill because it would have extended the Patriot Act provision that allows the NSA to search Americans’ phone records. He has consistently opposed the Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Not sure what's dooshy about that.

 

[Fennis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/rand-paul-nsa-reform-bill_n_6182204.html

what a doosh

Agreed. He needs to keep this as an issue so that he can attract young and naive voters.

This is the structure of our politics. Should he turn his back on the Senate he needs the support of to make a Presidential bid, to get things done if he is the President? Taking small shortcuts to mask a problem doesn't get rid of it or fix it. The NSA needs to be cut out like a cancer.

yes we all agree he violated his own principals and put a potential presidential bid in front of doing the right thing for the country. This was an important piece of legislation.

 

[Fennis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/rand-paul-nsa-reform-bill_n_6182204.html

what a doosh

Agreed. He needs to keep this as an issue so that he can attract young and naive voters.

Paul said he voted against the bill because it would have extended the Patriot Act provision that allows the NSA to search Americans’ phone records. He has consistently opposed the Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Not sure what's dooshy about that.

he voted against it to stay aligned with the republican party. no other reason.