If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Conservative)   RAND PAUL: "I'm not a firm believer in democracy. It gave us Jim Crow." Please wait until my huge bucket of popcorn is ready before posting   (theamericanconservative.com) divider line 255
    More: Interesting, Rand Paul, Jim Crow, Kentucky Senators, Mises, New Republic, historically black colleges, Jonathan Chait, Ayn Rand  
•       •       •

2076 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 4:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-24 02:42:59 PM
This statement will hurt him in the South Carolina primary. . .
 
2013-06-24 02:49:07 PM
He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.
 
2013-06-24 02:50:21 PM

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


My parents always used to overrule me in their own form of 'tyranny of the majority' too. All I wanted was to play Nintendo just a little while longer, but nooo! I had to go to bed!

Stupid parents.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 02:50:29 PM

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


I am certain that he meant exactly that.
 
2013-06-24 02:51:46 PM
I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.
 
2013-06-24 02:53:22 PM

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.
 
2013-06-24 02:58:30 PM

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.
 
2013-06-24 03:07:51 PM

Aarontology: I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.


RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights...for example, I can't have a cigar bar any more, and you say, "well, that has nothing to do with race" - the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It's not all about race relations, it's about controlling property, ultimately.

As far as I can tell, the Jim Crow laws were only about Seperate But Equal.  So yes, he is blatantly contradicting himself here
 
2013-06-24 03:08:22 PM
It gave us you, too, you miserable dumbf*ck
 
2013-06-24 03:11:14 PM

HighOnCraic: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.


And it was a majority that allowed it to stay for 100 years.   What's your point?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 03:13:42 PM

Thoguh: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.


The two words mean different things. It's possible to be a non-democratic republic like North Korea or a democratic non-republic like the UK, or a democratic republic like the USA.

"Democracy" refers to the source of political authority and "republic" ref errs to the structure of government.

It's not surprising that people on the right would prefer us to be a non-democratic republic like NK.
 
2013-06-24 03:17:56 PM
Zoning Laws are tyranny!

/this is what these idiots actually believe.
 
2013-06-24 03:19:59 PM

dittybopper: HighOnCraic: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.

And it was a majority that allowed it to stay for 100 years.   What's your point?


Believe me, I know it took far too long, but it worked out eventually.  If anything, it was the fear of a strong, centralized government that held back progress.

Paul's point was that democracy allowed Jim Crow laws to be passed.
Was ending Jim Crow laws somehow not related to democracy?

/How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?
 
2013-06-24 03:25:12 PM
Senator Paul seems to be just aces at taking a solid footing and using it to climb up to a nonsense mountain.  I was impressed that he used an actual filibuster instead of just "threatening" as they do nowadays, and hey he even had what seemed like some legitimate beefs about the drone program.  Then it turns out that all his "questions" had already been answered, officially and firmly, before the filibuster.  And then he comes out vouching for domestic drones.

So, yes, again, one of the hazards of democracy is the tyranny of the majority.  However, Jim Crow had nothing to do with his 1st-world problems of not being able to poison your staff and customers just because you want to.
 
2013-06-24 03:26:11 PM

HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?


He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.
 
2013-06-24 03:26:58 PM
"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically?The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."

http://www.southernstudies.org/2008/02/william-f-buckleys-peculiar-s ou th.html


That's not democracy.
 
2013-06-24 03:28:58 PM

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


This is not what he said. He didn't say "Democracy has vulnerabilities" or "democracy has weaknesses". That would be ok, because while it recognizes the issues in there, it still shows some awareness that every governmental system has some form of abuse possible, but democrac is a pretty good way to handle it.

But he didn't say that. He said he doesn't believe in democracy. That's because he's a Randian (pun not intended). He seems to fundamentally believe in the truth that there is a class of people, the Maker class, which is actually better, and better suited to govern. It's like an inverse Marxism.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 03:32:13 PM
It's kind of odd that he used that example.  He is referring to the constitutional government of the USA so this obviously isn't the "republic not a democracy" stuff.
 
2013-06-24 03:42:31 PM
The GOP's best and brightest...

Heh.
 
2013-06-24 03:50:36 PM

factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.


Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.
Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.
The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/
 
2013-06-24 03:58:40 PM
fc08.deviantart.net
 
2013-06-24 04:03:03 PM

DamnYankees: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

This is not what he said. He didn't say "Democracy has vulnerabilities" or "democracy has weaknesses". That would be ok, because while it recognizes the issues in there, it still shows some awareness that every governmental system has some form of abuse possible, but democrac is a pretty good way to handle it.

But he didn't say that. He said he doesn't believe in democracy. That's because he's a Randian (pun not intended). He seems to fundamentally believe in the truth that there is a class of people, the Maker class, which is actually better, and better suited to govern. It's like an inverse Marxism.


RTFA:
As I implied earlier, however, I don't want to make too much of this: whether from intellectual mellowing or political calculation, Rand Paul seems to be coming to grips with the limits of libertarian thinking on civil rights. He is behaving less like an ideological android and more like a politician.
I say, good for him.


In other words, it's a good thing.  What he said wasn't wrong:  A majority unchecked can indeed oppress a minority when insufficient protections for the individual exist.   Those protections don't have to be governmental, though generally we think of them as such.

Actually, Jim Crow was *WORSE*, in that an actual minority was able to oppress a majority.  Eventually we straightened it all out, but it's a conversation that was avoided for a century.  Of course, in a libertarian sense, had the blacks in the deep south had good access to firearms, it never would have happened in the first place.  It's hard to lynch a person with a .38.

In fact, gun control is the last vestige of Jim Crow in the United States.

"Never Intended to be Applied to the White Population": Firearms Regulation and Racial Disparity--The Redeemed South's Legacy to a National Jurisprudence?

The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration

The Racist Roots of Gun Control
 
2013-06-24 04:04:47 PM

HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.
Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.
The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/


And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.
 
2013-06-24 04:07:06 PM
democracy didn't give us that, a representative republic gave us that.
 
2013-06-24 04:12:13 PM

Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]


Wake up, sheeple!!
 
2013-06-24 04:13:03 PM

Aarontology: I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.


He and his dad.

Federal laws restricting the abuse of civil rights are oppression of the worst kind because they were enacted by our duly elected federal representatives and senators.  State laws on the other hand abusing civil rights are 100% A-OK because they were enacted by our duly elected state representatives and senators.

QED.
 
2013-06-24 04:13:06 PM
Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.
 
2013-06-24 04:14:03 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.


would you? No? QED then.
 
2013-06-24 04:14:21 PM

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


static8.depositphotos.com
 
2013-06-24 04:15:31 PM

dittybopper: HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.
Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.
The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/

And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


Because all the blacks would have been shot, and there would have been no need for either.
 
2013-06-24 04:15:42 PM
But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.
 
2013-06-24 04:16:02 PM

SlothB77: democracy didn't give us that, a representative republic gave us that.


I'll never under why it's so popular on Fark to act like democracy and republic are mutually exclusive terms.
 
2013-06-24 04:17:01 PM
Alas, the US is no longer a Republic but has become a Democracy.  The two reasons for this are: 1. With the House of Representatives membership capped at 435, each member represents many thousands of people.  2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.
 
2013-06-24 04:17:14 PM

Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]


Actually it's one wolf and four sheep; but two of the sheep have voted for mutton because the wolf has convinced them that they can become wolves someday.
 
2013-06-24 04:17:24 PM

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Yeah, Democracy is bad because it upheld segregation laws.

Every other political system simply enslaved its minorities.
 
2013-06-24 04:18:00 PM

Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.


I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.
 
2013-06-24 04:18:37 PM

Hetfield: SlothB77: democracy didn't give us that, a representative republic gave us that.

I'll never under why it's so popular on Fark to act like democracy and republic are mutually exclusive terms.


cuz people like to think they're smart by saying shiat that everyone already knows
 
2013-06-24 04:18:40 PM
Democracy gave us Jim Crow?

[quizzicaldog.jpg]
 
2013-06-24 04:19:40 PM

Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.


You wouldn't make such a claim without proof, would you?
 
2013-06-24 04:20:14 PM

dittybopper: Of course, in a libertarian sense, had the blacks in the deep south had good access to firearms, it never would have happened in the first place. It's hard to lynch a person with a .38.


And if only the Jews had been armed, they would have defeated the Wermacht single-handedly.
 
2013-06-24 04:21:08 PM
i519.photobucket.com


/Is there a term or word for a group of people who consistently put their foot in their mouths?
//"Farkers" not acceptable
 
2013-06-24 04:21:31 PM

Thoguh: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.


Which is not the argument he was making.
 
2013-06-24 04:21:39 PM

ObamaTheOmnipotent: [i519.photobucket.com image 315x450]


/Is there a term or word for a group of people who consistently put their foot in their mouths?
//"Farkers" not acceptable


babies? They're really farking weird like that.
 
2013-06-24 04:24:34 PM

Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.


Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.
 
2013-06-24 04:25:13 PM

skullkrusher: babies? They're really farking weird like that.


Goddamn babies.
 
2013-06-24 04:25:13 PM

skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.


No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.
 
2013-06-24 04:26:58 PM

Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.


you have a cite? I know that's a neo-confederate sort of position to take but I have never seen him actually take it
 
2013-06-24 04:27:15 PM

skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.

I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.


So he is fine with the federal government forcing laws onto states?
 
2013-06-24 04:28:01 PM

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


Empty-suit evil genius Obama can't do anything right but has usurped power from the other branches and will rule with an iron fist for life.
 
2013-06-24 04:28:11 PM

Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.


Rand Paul has always held the same position on this, and every other issue: he stands for the side of the issue that will give him the most media coverage.


/American Randstand
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report