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 40
    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 (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-24 04:28:59 PM
8 votes:

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


You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated. They couldn't act, they couldn't organize, they couldn't revolt and they couldn't obtain power because they lacked the accessibility to achieve those aims.

For its not guns that make a people free, but education. Guns mean absolutely jack squat in terms of freedom. What use is freedom if you have not the knowledge or the understanding to use it properly (and you're too ignorant to know when it's being taken away)?

Only one thing can prevent tyranny: Education.

A highly informed and educated citizenry always demands more out of its government and is the best safeguard against tyranny. All dictatorships, once they obtain power, immediately seize all communications and education channels. If you can control what the people read or hear, you can control what they say or think. Keep the populace distant, ignorant and separated, and you never have to fear counter-revolution.

This is how societies in the past maintained slave populations that often numbered more than citizens.

So forget guns. Be more afraid of anyone taking away your access to high education. That's what totalitarianisms do. Whosoever tries to restrict your access to knowledge and information wants to control you.
2013-06-24 04:17:14 PM
5 votes:

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 02:51:46 PM
5 votes:
I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.
2013-06-24 02:49:07 PM
4 votes:
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 03:58:40 PM
3 votes:
fc08.deviantart.net
2013-06-24 03:08:22 PM
3 votes:
It gave us you, too, you miserable dumbf*ck
2013-06-24 02:58:30 PM
3 votes:

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 06:45:25 PM
2 votes:
Heh...

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.

It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.


- Frederick Douglass

... and he was right.
2013-06-24 06:21:57 PM
2 votes:

netgamer7k: (a. We threw Christianity out the window and embraced the Dollar,


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

We threw Christianity at the Dollar in order to embrace it shamelessly.
2013-06-24 05:05:32 PM
2 votes:

Heraclitus: Wow, the butthurt in that article was palpable.

" We lost two elections to a Black Guy, so Democracy is Racist and we should never hold elections again (if theres a possibility we might lose)."

Sounds like someone is afraid of getting their arses handed to them in the next election cycle...

/ If you think Democracy is Evil, dont vote!


The modern Republican Party is a party that claims to love democracy so much that they do everything in their power to ensure the smallest number of people possible get to vote.
2013-06-24 05:04:05 PM
2 votes:
Wow, the butthurt in that article was palpable.

" We lost two elections to a Black Guy, so Democracy is Racist and we should never hold elections again (if theres a possibility we might lose)."

Sounds like someone is afraid of getting their arses handed to them in the next election cycle...

/ If you think Democracy is Evil, dont vote!
2013-06-24 04:28:11 PM
2 votes:

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
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 03:13:42 PM
2 votes:

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 02:50:21 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-06-25 06:56:41 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: o5iiawah:  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

.

Amazing. How many times do I have to report this guy? I behaved civilly in this exchange.


He probably finds being called "naive" FAR more insulting, since part of the libertarian ego foundation is being smarter than all the "sheeple."
2013-06-25 12:21:36 AM
1 votes:
GO fark YOURSELF, KENTUCKY.


You incredible ignoramuses.
2013-06-24 10:07:31 PM
1 votes:

animal color: Who let the farkin' Freepers in here FREEPS OUT?


content.internetvideoarchive.com

DERP DERP HERP DERP
2013-06-24 06:55:22 PM
1 votes:
Not surprising that a libertarian is not a fan of democracy.

I use the sane test for Democracy that I do for and political movement: Are there any modern, fairly large size  Democratic countries that I wouldn't mind living in?
Answer: Yes, there are in fact many Democratic countries I think I would have a good life in.

Now as the same question to libertarians like Rand Paul: Are there any modern, large countries you wouldn't mind living in that are not Democracies?


Answer: Modern, large non-democracies are Hell-holes.Democracy is not perfect, but it beats the alternatives.
2013-06-24 06:27:13 PM
1 votes:
2013-06-24 06:19:13 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: Silly_Sot: Exactly. If "democracy" is "majority rule", and the majority "rules" that minority races should not be allowed to have certain jobs, shop in certain places, or live in certain neighborhoods, then such a democracy easily leads to injustice. However, we are not allowed to admit to that, since it would violate the dogma of "democracy is an unmixed blessing, majority rule is always right". There are times when the majority is wrong. This is why we need to enshrine fundamental individual rights in such a way that it is very inconvenient to legally mess with them--even if the majority doesn't want to respect the rights of the minority.
Unconstrained democracy is simply another way to say "mob rule".


What you are really talking about is Direct Democracy, which is not in practice in any nation in the world for exactly the reasons you describe.

What most European countries (and Canada and Australia) have is a Parliamentary Democracy: They vote for representatives, and the representatives come together to form parties and coalitions. But the mob does not -- and can not -- decide anything. It does not vote on specific bills or legislation and it does not elect the leader of the country (the majority party does that). Theoretically, the party in power ought to represent the mob's interests, but that's not guaranteed as the party in power rarely ever speaks for the mob or passes legislation in the mob's favor (at least, not all the time). It is an interesting buffer zone -- separation of the people from the powers -- that seems to work as a safeguard, however it can also produce tyranny of one-party rule (ie: Particracy, like in Mexico) if the party in power feels it is not beholden to anyone.

What America has is a Representative Republic which is closer to a Direct Democracy but not quite. The mob votes on specific legislation and the mob elects the leader of the country. By having a more direct link to the seats of power, the people have more control over the pr ...


I'm a big fan of so-called "fluid democracy" which wouldn't have been possible before the advent of high-speed, widespread telecommunications, but would be now.

Basically, it works like this:
Each Representative represents, say, 100,000 people (it would be more, but that's a nice round number for explanatory purposes).
Each person in that Representative's district gets one vote on everything that comes up in Congress.
Every vote in Congress is open for a full 24 hours or something. Every registered voter in the country gets to vote on everything.
When a Representative votes, anyone in his/her district who didn't cast a vote has their vote default to that of the Representative - in other words, you trust your Representative to vote the right way on most things for you, but you can always override his/her vote if you want.

There are practical issues like national secrets and such and the infrastructure needed to do it, but the principle itself could work.
2013-06-24 06:17:13 PM
1 votes:
So let's skip to the good part:

Who's voting for Paul in 2016? Or is that also democracy he doesn't support?
2013-06-24 06:02:49 PM
1 votes:
You know what else democracy gave us?

flcenterlitarts.files.wordpress.com

upload.wikimedia.org

Apparently, that product of democracy didn't bother Mr. Paul at all. In fact, I bet he longs to return to those days.

/Look at those mighty flag lapel pins. Those two are super patriots. I bet they went off and fought in Vietnam just for shiats and giggles....oh wait...
2013-06-24 05:46:34 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 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.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.

Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.


If the President ruled like a monarch, that would be an Autocracy. But he doesn't, so it's not.


Good point.  And other good point.

OK, fun's over:  I should point out that my original statement is a more or less word for word quote from an American "Thinker" article posted on here the other day.  Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read.  I was curious to see how it would fare in the wild.
2013-06-24 05:46:25 PM
1 votes:
Rand Pauls best friends
i.imgur.com
2013-06-24 05:30:54 PM
1 votes:
That article was painful to read.

Rand Paul is the best politician to come along in my generation. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's a critical thinker and, I believe, an honest and moral man. We have three co-equal branches of government so Rand couldn't go running roughshod over existing bureaucracies.

He's brave for having said that to an all black audience. That's probably why most people cringe when he opens his pie hole - they cringe because they're scared on him.
2013-06-24 05:14:03 PM
1 votes:

jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.


It's not a conspiracy, it's their stated goals.
2013-06-24 05:12:01 PM
1 votes:
Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.
2013-06-24 05:11:25 PM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.


Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.
2013-06-24 05:09:02 PM
1 votes:
In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them. Laws and the republic get in the way with that, especially with all these Constitutional "protections" and "rights" and other nonsense, like checks and balances, when inherently, we realize that true liberty comes from the heel of the boot of our betters who are free to do as they will with us, so long as we have the opportunity to do the same to others as long as it doesn't challenge their hegemony...

At least he's honest about it.
2013-06-24 05:08:26 PM
1 votes:
I would love to have people ask him why thinks it was so wonderful for the federal government to step in against discrimination against blacks in state laws then but now he thinks that is federal over reach now for gays?

Answer: because he is full of shiat. If it wasn't political suicide today he would be supporting those segregation laws of the states still.
2013-06-24 05:08:13 PM
1 votes:

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.


I really wish people would stop making this dumb claim. You do realize that republic and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, right? The definition of republic is simply that the right to rule isn't hereditary (ie. not a monarchy). Therefore, all democracies are, by definition, also republics.

In my own personal experience, it is almost exclusively republicans that make this uninformed claim. My guess is because they like that republic is the root word for the name of their party, as opposed to democracy which sounds too much like dem libruls.
2013-06-24 04:46:20 PM
1 votes:

physt: 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 image 850x884]


Neither of the Pauls are stopped clocks, right twice a day.  They're both clocks running backwards at irregular speeds which change at random intervals.  They're right on very random occasion one every few blue moons - but never for longer than one unit of Planck time.
2013-06-24 04:44:29 PM
1 votes:

ArkPanda: dittybopper: 
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.


^^^THIS.

See: Tulsa Race Riot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
2013-06-24 04:31:59 PM
1 votes:

Hollie Maea: 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.


i1.ytimg.com
2013-06-24 04:29:42 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: 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.


I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?
2013-06-24 04:15:31 PM
1 votes:

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 04:14:21 PM
1 votes:

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 04:13:06 PM
1 votes:
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 03:26:58 PM
1 votes:
"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 03:19:59 PM
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report