Chris Matthews Gets Schooled By Ron Paul

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Dude, corporations = evil. Didn't you know?

Yeah.

I'm always amused when people "lump sum" corporations.

Corporations aren't usually the "big evil" companies people think of. They are actually in many cases small businesses. Actually most of them are small businesses.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Yeah.

I'm always amused when people "lump sum" corporations.

Corporations aren't usually the "big evil" companies people think of. They are actually in many cases small businesses. Actually most of them are small businesses.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you believe that private ownership is absolute, then I could at least see why you'd think the argument has merit. However, private ownership, like most of our personal liberties, has its limits. For example, you cannot legally sell your home to only white people. That's discrimination. Now imagine if it were legal, what would happen to neighborhoods? Imagine what would happen if businesses were allowed to discriminate their patrons based on the color of their skin? The repercussions extend beyond your private property. Just think of how that would manifest itself in real life. A black person being turned away by the local drug store because of the color of their skin and they need medication urgently. Or imagine a private hospital turning that some person away, even though they need urgent medical attention. Private ownership isn't absolute any more than your personal liberties, at least in the context of a society full of individuals, each with their own personal liberties. And being able to live free of racial discrimination is a personal liberty.

I've actually never thought about the rights of property ownership until the Pauls brought it up.

I think anybody who would have a whites only business is a pig and their business shouldn't exist. I think the people of the Westboro Baptist Church are pigs and they shouldn't be allowed to do what they do. I find it curious how one is protected and the other isn't.

As to the business, I like the optimism of the Pauls idea. If we allowed the business to exist, then the American people are good enough that almost nobody would enter the racist establishment and it would soon cease to exist because of it's own choices. I like that better than trying to legislate people's thoughts. However, like many of the Paul ideas, I'm not sure they will work in the real world.

Again I'm not supporting their ideas, I'm just looking for a better argument that they are wrong besides the usual one of labeling them as racist.

No offense, but that is incredibly naive. That's like saying we could get rid of laws in general because people will behave and not do harm to others. Racial discrimination violates the "do no harm" rule of Libertarianism, and the argument that private business should have the right to racially discriminate is believing the right of ownership supersedes individual liberties. Libertarianism focuses on individual liberty but then gets tripped up by thinking that property rights is an extension of that personal liberty, even at the expense of another human being's liberties. How those individual liberties get worked out when you've got thousands, millions of individuals living and breathing in an area is where laws are established and framed. A libertarian may argue that speed limits should be abolished because they infringe on their individual liberty, but the logic behind speed limits is to protect others' individual liberties from being literally run over by someone else's. I just don't get the warped logic of Libertarianism when it is applied to real world situations, as it never pans out. The anarcho-libertarian reactionaries will then respond by claiming that if you don't agree with their warped logic, you must be against individual liberties. On the contrary, Liberalism is founded on individual liberties, it's just that those liberties are realized in the context of a society full of millions of individuals who must navigate their individual liberties through one another, and it's never going to be neat or perfect.

[웃 910]

Yeah.

I'm always amused when people "lump sum" corporations.

Corporations aren't usually the "big evil" companies people think of. They are actually in many cases small businesses. Actually most of them are small businesses.

You would love my economics class this summer. We watch a movie every week.

Week 1:

Capitalism: A Love Story

On the 20-year anniversary of his groundbreaking masterpiece "Roger & Me," Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" comes home to the issue he's been examining throughout his career: the disastrous impact of corporate dominance on the everyday lives of Americans. But this time the culprit is much bigger than General Motors, and the crime scene is far wider than Flint, Michigan.

Week 2:

Who Killed the Electric Car? is a 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the mid 1990s. The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.

I'm very excited for week 3! The professor can hardly keep his outbursts under control about global warming....Guy in suit in movie says: "Don't worry, we're gonna recycle these cars" .... Professor: "THAT'S A LIE...SUCH A LIE!"....10 minutes later into the movie the cars are at a junkyard being crushed and shredded for recycling...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You would love my economics class this summer. We watch a movie every week.

Week 1:

Capitalism: A Love Story

On the 20-year anniversary of his groundbreaking masterpiece "Roger & Me," Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" comes home to the issue he's been examining throughout his career: the disastrous impact of corporate dominance on the everyday lives of Americans. But this time the culprit is much bigger than General Motors, and the crime scene is far wider than Flint, Michigan.

Week 2:

Who Killed the Electric Car? is a 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the mid 1990s. The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.

I'm very excited for week 3! The professor can hardly keep his outbursts under control about global warming....Guy in suit in movie says: "Don't worry, we're gonna recycle these cars" .... Professor: "THAT'S A LIE...SUCH A LIE!"....10 minutes later into the movie the cars are at a junkyard being crushed and shredded for recycling...

is this an economic class or a political hack class?

Someone should have some balls and call the professor out. That's just sad.

Just to test the professor, you should ask him if he knows who Brooksley Born is. If he says no, that will tell all you ever need to know from that class.

[B_J 2,752]

No offense, but that is incredibly naive. That's like saying we could get rid of laws in general because people will behave and not do harm to others. Racial discrimination violates the "do no harm" rule of Libertarianism, and the argument that private business should have the right to racially discriminate is believing the right of ownership supersedes individual liberties. Libertarianism focuses on individual liberty but then gets tripped up by thinking that property rights is an extension of that personal liberty, even at the expense of another human being's liberties. How those individual liberties get worked out when you've got thousands, millions of individuals living and breathing in an area is where laws are established and framed. A libertarian may argue that speed limits should be abolished because they infringe on their individual liberty, but the logic behind speed limits is to protect others' individual liberties from being literally run over by someone else's. I just don't get the warped logic of Libertarianism when it is applied to real world situations, as it never pans out. The anarcho-libertarian reactionaries will then respond by claiming that if you don't agree with their warped logic, you must be against individual liberties. On the contrary, Liberalism is founded on individual liberties, it's just that those liberties are realized in the context of a society full of millions of individuals who must navigate their individual liberties through one another, and it's never going to be neat or perfect.

That is probably the best counter argument I've seen to the Pauls argument.

[웃 910]

is this an economic class or a political hack class?

Someone should have some balls and call the professor out. That's just sad.

Just to test the professor, you should ask him if he knows who Brooksley Born is. If he says no, that will tell all you ever need to know from that class.

Graduate Course: Economics of Multinational Enterprise

About the professor:

"Why study economics? Economic disputes and conflicts must be resolved if humans are ever to achieve peace, social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability. Ultimately, human survival in a world with prosperity and freedom depends on getting the economics right. Sadly, at the moment we are not even close.

My academic interests include the process of globalization, sustainable development, and the social and economic costs of maintaining American global dominance and supporting the American military empire."

http://www.emich.edu/economics/hayworth.html

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No offense, but that is incredibly naive. That's like saying we could get rid of laws in general because people will behave and not do harm to others. Racial discrimination violates the "do no harm" rule of Libertarianism, and the argument that private business should have the right to racially discriminate is believing the right of ownership supersedes individual liberties. Libertarianism focuses on individual liberty but then gets tripped up by thinking that property rights is an extension of that personal liberty, even at the expense of another human being's liberties. How those individual liberties get worked out when you've got thousands, millions of individuals living and breathing in an area is where laws are established and framed. A libertarian may argue that speed limits should be abolished because they infringe on their individual liberty, but the logic behind speed limits is to protect others' individual liberties from being literally run over by someone else's. I just don't get the warped logic of Libertarianism when it is applied to real world situations, as it never pans out. The anarcho-libertarian reactionaries will then respond by claiming that if you don't agree with their warped logic, you must be against individual liberties. On the contrary, Liberalism is founded on individual liberties, it's just that those liberties are realized in the context of a society full of millions of individuals who must navigate their individual liberties through one another, and it's never going to be neat or perfect.

\

first off, bringing up speed limits are silly. Roads aren't privately owned, they are publicly owned and they are for everyone to use, so certain boundaries need to be set.

The idea that a private business violates an individual's liberty by not serving them is absurd. You have no right to patron a business. You have no right to force another individual to do someething for you. If you do, then you are violating that person's individual liberty because you are making them do something for you.

In a society of millions, that means you have millions of opportunities to have your own establishment that caters to like-minded people.

So the flower shop down the street doesn't serve people with red hair? Well open your own red-head flower shop and be better than them by letting everyone patron. That's the beautiful part about a free market system, is there is opporrunity to do and establish what you want/desire. There are no guarantees of success, but there is opportunity to try.

The American entitlement mentality has corrupted the mind set by making people feel like they have a right to do whatever they want to another individual so long as that person is a business owner. After all, they must be evil since they own a business. The hypocrisy is astounding really for anyone who claims to live on a basis of liberty, but that liberty ends the moment they want to have a business? I don't think so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is it BS?

Does a business not decide what brand or non-brand of products to sell?

Does a business not decide what price to sell their products at to be competitive?

Why should they not decide what customer base they wish to serve to be competitive? A lot of them actually do that already in case you didn't know. Men's stores, Women's stores, Stores geared towards certain 'ethnic' communities, etc..

I know it's hard being from the UK and understanding the functions of a business and what it takes, but let me explain something to you clear as day. Without customers, you won't be in business. If you do someething that offends the hell out of people and word gets out, you won't be in business or you will suffer greatly. If you give poor customer service to a person, they'll tell all of their friends, etc. If you give them GREAT customer service, you are LUCKY if they tell all of their friends, etc.

I know people have this idea that businesses are just there to screw random people over and not care about people, but you would be dead wrong to think that. Absolutely wrong.

Well first off Paul - I think you need to clarify what you're talking about. Are you talking about the rights pertaining to private property or the morality of businesses? These are quite different things. See the post below and compare it to the one above - the focus of your argument is rather vague, no?

Business aren't run for reasons of spurious ideology, they are run for profit. We all know this. However, beyond the ethics inherent to some professions (doctors for instance) and accepting the fact that some businesses do things that are decidedly immoral, the fairest thing that can be said is that business is amoral. This article illustrates the point pretty well.

Bull.

What you're essentially saying if that you can have all the liberty you want, so long as you obey all the rules that take your personal liberty away.

You live under the assumption of that idiot Chris Matthews that all of a sudden the world is going to turn into race wars with proper property rights being kept. You're living in a delusional fantasy that all of a sudden we're all going to become big racist bastards and not give a damn about our fellow man.

I know this may come as a shock to you Steven, but the majority of people didn't even own slaves back in the day and a lot more people believe in equal rights for all mankind that you'd like to think.

So WHAT is there's bigots and racists in this country. Good, let them have their own town or city or state. That's what this country was made for. It was made so evil bigots can live their way of life and those who love all men can live their way of life as well. If a bigot doesn't want to serve a black man, a white man, a green martian man, then so be it. It's his problem.

Honestly, I wouldn't want a doctor or hospital treating me that I knew of the staff having an 'issue' with my skin tone or my beliefs and whatnot.

This delusional idea that everyone is going to become segregated worse than we already are today is absurd. Even if more people were out of the woodwork again, then so bit it as I said. Let them have their day and others can discriminate too. Boo-fvcking-hoo. Why should you care, why should anyone care.

You want liberty, that is liberty my friend. The free to live your life as you see fit, so long as you do not steal liberty from another, just as they cannot steal liberty from you.

You want to own land? - Go for it.

They want to own land? - Go for it.

You don't want to allow whites on your land? - Go for it.

You don't want to allow smoking in your business - Go for it.

However don't expect me to conform to you and your rules. Don't expect me to live the way you think I should live.

We have become so politically correct, we have become so lame as a society that we have forgotten in many ways what it is to be human. We think we can write and create laws that will end discrimination, that will cool attitudes and change the world. It doesn't work that way one bit. Human nature dictates that we ultimately will always have our fears, our disgust, our bigotry as a species towards those things we don't like. We are "SHOCKED" when these big cults or groups are uncovered full of racists/bigots, but the truth is, they never went away. They just went into hiding. They are your brother, they are your neighbor and they are your co-worker and you don't even know it.

As I said, I'd much rather know than not know. At least then I have that choice of who I want to associate with.

Taking away property rights from a business is stealing away liberty not only from the owners, but also from the patrons as well. You're giving them a cardboard product without even having the choice to know that the guy in the back spit in their food because they really don't want to serve black people, but they will get theirs on them regardless. Congratulations!

\

first off, bringing up speed limits are silly. Roads aren't privately owned, they are publicly owned and they are for everyone to use, so certain boundaries need to be set.

The idea that a private business violates an individual's liberty by not serving them is absurd. You have no right to patron a business. You have no right to force another individual to do someething for you. If you do, then you are violating that person's individual liberty because you are making them do something for you.

In a society of millions, that means you have millions of opportunities to have your own establishment that caters to like-minded people.

So the flower shop down the street doesn't serve people with red hair? Well open your own red-head flower shop and be better than them by letting everyone patron. That's the beautiful part about a free market system, is there is opporrunity to do and establish what you want/desire. There are no guarantees of success, but there is opportunity to try.

The American entitlement mentality has corrupted the mind set by making people feel like they have a right to do whatever they want to another individual so long as that person is a business owner. After all, they must be evil since they own a business. The hypocrisy is astounding really for anyone who claims to live on a basis of liberty, but that liberty ends the moment they want to have a business? I don't think so.

You can't be successful in business and hold to personal biases. It's simply incompatible.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The idea that a private business violates an individual's liberty by not serving them is absurd. You have no right to patron a business. You have no right to force another individual to do someething for you. If you do, then you are violating that person's individual liberty because you are making them do something for you.

In a society of millions, that means you have millions of opportunities to have your own establishment that caters to like-minded people.

So the flower shop down the street doesn't serve people with red hair? Well open your own red-head flower shop and be better than them by letting everyone patron. That's the beautiful part about a free market system, is there is opporrunity to do and establish what you want/desire. There are no guarantees of success, but there is opportunity to try.

Notice I didn't use the word 'right'. You don't have a right to patron a business, but the business has no right to discriminate based on race because that infringes on individual liberties. Liberties intersect or overlap in a society and deciding which liberty supersedes the other when they both can't be fully expressed, is what gets anarcho-libertarian fanboys all tripped up. The right to private property shouldn't supersede individual liberty if you in fact espouse individual liberties as being the utmost expression of the individual. Property is not an extension of one's personhood. It is a contractual realty that only exists within the framework of society. In other words, you can go to some uninhabited island in the Pacific and claim it as your own, but until you get a social entity to validate that claim, it is meaningless. There is no universal understanding of what makes something your property outside of society. Go back a few centuries and women and children were regarded as property. Slaves were also regarded as property. The Southern States made similar arguments that because slaves were their property, the Federal Government must recognize that legal definition.

Edited May 21, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[slim 1,525]

You can't be successful in business and hold to personal biases. It's simply incompatible.

So all those restaurants with "jacket" rules are protected but those who refuse service to say, students with bookbags, are not?

What gets me about the "across the board" anti-discrimination laws that hold private business to certain standards are they, more often than not, come at the expense of small businesses while doing nothing to combat the overall discrimination that lead to their passage in the first place.

We hear business owners' rights and we think lunch counters and sit-ins. What we should be thinking is country clubs and large corporations.

the Federal Government must recognize that legal definition.

It does.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point raised earlier was racism, that's what i was referring to.

[slim 1,525]

And the counterpoint was that an absence of restrictions doesn't automatically equal racism.

The problem now is people have been conditioned to think that things will go awry in the absence of government. We NEED government or else things will fall apart.

Is that true?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And the counterpoint was that an absence of restrictions doesn't automatically equal racism.

The problem now is people have been conditioned to think that things will go awry in the absence of government. We NEED government or else things will fall apart.

Is that true?

No, that is not the counterpoint to my post.

[웃 910]

And the counterpoint was that an absence of restrictions doesn't automatically equal racism.

The problem now is people have been conditioned to think that things will go awry in the absence of government. We NEED government or else things will fall apart.

Is that true?

Yes