Rand Paul wins KY Senate primary

[BigDH01]

The postmodernist opposition's ears are ringing. For their tone-deafness, they cannot hear either of these two. But from what I can tell in the short introduction that I had in the past day to Paul, these two are playing much off the same sheet of music. Palin has the melody down pat. Paul is adept at contratempo, as well as knowing much more about the composer and the school, should it come to that.

Why do you keep throwing around the term postmodernist? Do you just assume postmodernist = liberal?

 

[BigDH01]

I pretty much agree. Of course it's a gotcha question, as Maddow wants to minimize chances of Paul being elected, but it's a reasonable gotcha question. It's not "Do you still beat your wife"? but rather a question that strikes at the conflict between libertarianism and the civil rights movement, and Paul just bombed. (Not that big a deal, it's on MSNBC so about as many people saw it as travel in the typical illegal alien's pickup.) And it's a hard question, too. I have the same libertarian core beliefs, but I've also worked two jobs where I've heard the owner ask "You didn't hire that ni@@er did you?" In this economy especially it's not hard to imagine that such a place might be the only place hiring your particular skill set. If we accept that the government has the moral right to license and regulate a business, is it such a stretch to say the government cannot set certain broad restrictions on hiring practices to protect some individuals? On the other hand, the only way these things can be enforced is by head counts as they are today, with non-representative numbers of each identifiable group taken as proof of discrimination - which it manifestly is NOT. There's a legitimate argument on both sides.

The libertarian would say that the government has the right to do neither. A more pragmatic view is that no market is perfectly efficient and that private actors acting independently can limit or materially harm one's opportunities.

On the other hand I don't think there is a legitimate argument that a business should be able to refuse service based on factors beyond one's control. Any business has an affect on like businesses in the same market; if there are three fried chicken places in an area that would normally have two, then it's unlikely that a fourth will open, so discrimination by a business materially affects the possibility that an individual can access a particular good or service. Paul should have concentrated on that - or just reiterated that he supports civil rights. You don't have to jump into a trap just because it's there.

And the fried chicken place exists in a relatively efficient market. What happens when a private hospital or utility company refuses service? This is why I hold my belief. The more efficient the market, the less the need for anti-discrimination laws.

 

[sandorski]

Why do you keep throwing around the term postmodernist? Do you just assume postmodernist = liberal?

I think he thinks that the Tea Party is going to succeed in marshaling in a new Dark Age where God reigns supreme, Elitists are gone forever, and people wander "freely" in search of sustenance.

 

[PJABBER]

Why do you keep throwing around the term postmodernist? Do you just assume postmodernist = liberal?

Not at all.

Postmodernism is the latest apologetic extension of the communist/socialist ideals that have always proved to bankrupt in application. It is actually a label for ignorance. Postmodernists are afloat in a boat without sails, yet, to their mind, should control everyone's destiny. All the way down to Davy Jone's locker.

Welfare liberalism, or plain "liberalism" as described in the U.S., is the choice of class over the individual. It could be racial, economic, national origin, whatever, but the group definition is always more important than the individual in all aspects of life as they see it. It is, by definition, the choice of dependencies over individualism. They cannot be post-racial as they define everything in terms of classes, including those of race.

I don't use them interchangeably, but, for all practical effect, the modern American liberal's roots derive almost entirely from the emptiness of postmodernism.

Conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism as it is defined here. Libertarianism as used here is a purer definition of the opposite of welfare liberalism.

Dr. Paul advocates a form of libertarianism, but I am not familiar enough with his version to comment more without reading his position documents. Which I might attempt to include in my busy schedule after I get back from a long overdue bike ride this evening!

Of all the choices in definition, I prefer classical liberalism, which provides more of a balance between the real and the ideal. It is too bad that the use of that word has been co-opted.

 

[sandorski]

Not at all.

Postmodernism is the latest apologetic extension of the communist/socialist ideals that have always proved to bankrupt in application. It is actually a label for ignorance. Postmodernists are afloat in a boat without sails, yet, to their mind, should control everyone's destiny. All the way down to Davy Jone's locker.

Welfare liberalism, or plain "liberalism" as described in the U.S., is the choice of class over the individual. It could be racial, economic, national origin, whatever, but the group definition is always more important than the individual in all aspects of life as they see it. It is, by definition, the choice of dependencies over individualism. They cannot be post-racial as they define everything in terms of classes, including those of race.

I don't use them interchangeably, but, for all practical effect, the modern American liberal's roots derive almost entirely from the emptiness of postmodernism.

Conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism as it is defined here. Libertarianism as used here is a purer definition of the opposite of welfare liberalism.

Dr. Paul advocates a form of libertarianism, but I am not familiar enough with his version to comment more without reading his position documents. Which i shall attempt to include in my busy schedule after I get back from a long overdue bike ride this evening!

Of all the choices in definition, I prefer classical liberalism, which provides more of a balance between the real and the ideal. It is too bad that the use of that word has been co-opted.

Like Paul, you should have just said "Yes" and come off looking less kooky afterwards.

 

[PJABBER]

Like Paul, you should have just said "Yes" and come off looking less kooky afterwards.

I will leave the one word answers to you and yours as your kookiness is not disputed.

:awe:

 

[werepossum]

The libertarian would say that the government has the right to do neither. A more pragmatic view is that no market is perfectly efficient and that private actors acting independently can limit or materially harm one's opportunities.



And the fried chicken place exists in a relatively efficient market. What happens when a private hospital or utility company refuses service? This is why I hold my belief. The more efficient the market, the less the need for anti-discrimination laws.

True. I don't think any reasonable person would support an unabridged right to deny service, except based on behavior that a reasonable person would find abhorrent. Also, denial of service is rare today in part because everyone agrees it is unacceptable. If we all agreed that an owner has an absolute moral right to deny service based on his own preferences, then I suspect this would be much more widespread. While I hold the same core libertarian beliefs as Dr. Paul, I can also see the problems with implementing them completely. And in all fairness he probably sees the same problems, he just got caught up with defending and expounding on his beliefs when he probably should have been delineating their limitations.

Libertarianism assumes that everyone is on a more or less equal playing field. That argument gets stretched even among citizens - the most we can legitimately say is that every citizen has roughly the same theoretical opportunities. When you throw in illegal aliens it becomes manifestly untrue, as earning only enough money to live four people per room looks pretty good if your alternative is four people per tar paper shack in the slums of Mexico City. And it falls apart completely when you include other countries, in many of which the populace is not free to negotiate wages or to leave. I always try to default to as much freedom as possible, but I have to recognize that unrestrained freedom can sometimes bite us in the ass just like anything else.

 

[werepossum]

Not at all.

Postmodernism is the latest apologetic extension of the communist/socialist ideals that have always proved to bankrupt in application. It is actually a label for ignorance. Postmodernists are afloat in a boat without sails, yet, to their mind, should control everyone's destiny. All the way down to Davy Jone's locker.

Welfare liberalism, or plain "liberalism" as described in the U.S., is the choice of class over the individual. It could be racial, economic, national origin, whatever, but the group definition is always more important than the individual in all aspects of life as they see it. It is, by definition, the choice of dependencies over individualism. They cannot be post-racial as they define everything in terms of classes, including those of race.

I don't use them interchangeably, but, for all practical effect, the modern American liberal's roots derive almost entirely from the emptiness of postmodernism.

Conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism as it is defined here. Libertarianism as used here is a purer definition of the opposite of welfare liberalism.

Dr. Paul advocates a form of libertarianism, but I am not familiar enough with his version to comment more without reading his position documents. Which I might attempt to include in my busy schedule after I get back from a long overdue bike ride this evening!

Of all the choices in definition, I prefer classical liberalism, which provides more of a balance between the real and the ideal. It is too bad that the use of that word has been co-opted.

Unlike Sandorski I find this mildly profound. At least in modern American politics libertarianism is indeed the opposite of liberalism, or at least progressive-ism, as the conservative movement also seeks to control people's behavior and use the power of government to reward and punish.

Classical liberalism is difficult to maintain, though, with government so large and intrusive. And libertarianism has a difficult time gaining strength because both sides are pulling against it (albeit in different directions) and because when you come right down to it, comparatively few of us wish for government to abandon ALL unconstitutional and/or unnecessary activities. We all have a few people we wish government to help (or punish) even though to do so is clearly unconstitutional, a few programs we think are worthy. It would be nice to move these things to the state level though.

 

[BigDH01]

Not at all.

Postmodernism is the latest apologetic extension of the communist/socialist ideals that have always proved to bankrupt in application. It is actually a label for ignorance. Postmodernists are afloat in a boat without sails, yet, to their mind, should be control of everyone's destiny. All the way down to Davy Jone's locker.

Welfare liberalism, or plain "liberalism" as described in the U.S., is the choice of class over the individual. It could be racial, economic, national origin, whatever, but the group definition is always more important than the individual in all aspects of life as they see it. It is, by definition, the choice of dependencies over individualism. They cannot be post-racial as they define everything in terms of classes, including those of race.

I don't use them interchangeably, but, for all practical effect, the modern American liberal's roots derive almost entirely from the emptiness of postmodernism.

What the hell are you talking about? Postmodern sociology and philosophy appears after what you would call "modern liberalism." Certainly after The New Deal and only around the same time as the Great Society. But it wouldn't really matter, because postmodernism is about decentralization and empowerment for communities. It is anti-Marxism and state Socialism. It is anti-grand narrative.

Modern welfare liberalism appeared in the height of modernism, not postmodernism.

Listen, I don't particularly care for postmodernism because of its rejection of Enlightenment ideals, but I don't falsely attribute things to it.... like modern liberalism.

 

[PJABBER]

Listen, I don't particularly care for postmodernism because of its rejection of Enlightenment ideals, but I don't falsely attribute things to it.... like modern liberalism.

Epistemological Subjectivism: The doctrine that objective truth is impossible; truth is completely relative.

+

Moral Relativism: The doctrine that objective moral principles don't exist; moral principles are always relative. There is nothing basically moral or immoral.

+

Social Collectivism: The doctrine that human individuals live only for the benefit of the state or society, from which all rights are derived.

=

Modern Liberalism/Progressivism

 

[sandorski]

Fail again, where exactly does Big Ass Assumptionism fit into it?

 

[HomerJS]

1. When Obama the marxist got elected and started appointing czars and taking over private industry and demonizing our very way of life - capitalism. "You've made enough money already"
2. Obama and the radicals he surrounds himself with

This is why rhetoric falls flat.

1. Answer to first question the country was taken on Nov 4 2008. Got it.

2. If you believe your first answer the second is impossible. Those so called radicals Obama surrounds himself with have not changed for many years. He was elected knowing who his close confidants are. These are the same known people before and after the election. Seems you have more of a problem with the majority of the electorate who elected Obama or the electoral process in general.

This is why "taking our country back" is just a lot of hot air. It was taken back from the guy/party who fucked it up over the last 8 years.

 

[HomerJS]

Picture this. 1964 small town in Mississippi 2-3 thousand people. The only two pharmacies in town decide we don't want to serve those darkies. Let them drive 100 miles to the big city for their medicine where they tolerate that sort of thing.

According to Rand Paul the federal government has no place outlawing this kind of discrimination.

Sounds like a winning position to me.

 

[RU482]

sheep. democrat, republican, libertarian, tea party......marketing

 

[Vette73]

Picture this. 1964 small town in Mississippi 2-3 thousand people. The only two pharmacies in town decide we don't want to serve those darkies. Let them drive 100 miles to the big city for their medicine where they tolerate that sort of thing.

According to Rand Paul the federal government has no place outlawing this kind of discrimination.

Sounds like a winning position to me.

Yea I just saw the story of him back peddling as fast as he can.
Right now his comments on Civil rights, and other things, may cause KY to go Dem. Worse or best case depdning on how you see it. He gets elected and turns out to be one of those people that every time he opens his mouth it causes another 1000people to vote Obama/Dem in 2012 and more money to be donated to the Dems. :awe: Think Jessi Helms in a time of the internet and everything you say getting posted.

 

[Vette73]

"And yet Paul's view that the federal government should not have the power to force integration on private businesses — part of 1964's landmark Civil Rights Act — didn't get the attention of the national press until Wednesday, following interviews with NPR's Robert Siegel and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. (Watch the exchange with Maddow below. Paul subsequently changed his position Thursday, after an intense 24 hours of media fallout.)"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2167

Yep, already flip flopping, this should be good.

 

[Tristicus]

Flip flopping on a point that is null and would never be changed anyways? His point is that government should stay out of every private business in every way.

 

[BigDH01]

Epistemological Subjectivism: The doctrine that objective truth is impossible; truth is completely relative.

+

Moral Relativism: The doctrine that objective moral principles don't exist; moral principles are always relative. There is nothing basically moral or immoral.

+

Social Collectivism: The doctrine that human individuals live only for the benefit of the state or society, from which all rights are derived.

=

Modern Liberalism/Progressivism

Why don't you try being a little honest? That chart is from here:

http://radicalacademy.com/adiphidiagrams.htm

It doesn't say what you quoted are the tenets of postmodernism.

I know you picked up the word on some blog or website decrying the evils of liberalism, but it's a shame that neither you or the author of that article actually looked into what it meant.

Postmodernists may believe in moral relativism, but they are also poststructuralists. They don't have any grand plans for the state. They are into fragmentation and micropolitics. In other words, they share many ideals with Conservatives as well.

Hell, just do one of your Google searches for "postmodern Conservative." I even found a very simple definition for you:

http://www.thepostmodernconservative.com/about/

I suggest that the next time you read a blog that attempts to sound intelligent by throwing in words like humanist, modern, postmodern, that you at least take the time to look them up before parroting them.

Here's another:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/26/combining-postmodern-conservative-philosophies/

Postmodernism is not a political movement.

 

[Vette73]

Flip flopping on a point that is null and would never be changed anyways? His point is that government should stay out of every private business in every way.

No his point is that if you don;t like blacks you should be able to put signs up that say "no negros allowed" and the Gov should do nothing.

Or "Negros sit in the back of the bus" etc...

So you would vote for someone that said "all jews should be put in a oven and cooked..." even though he could never get that to happen?

 

[chowderhead]

Rand Paul is the media's wetdream for quotes. He will be vilified by the press.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul
In an interview Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Paul says the president's response is part of the "blame game" that's played in the U.S. Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are "always someone's fault" and added, sometimes accidents just happen.

Sometimes accidents just happen? Good to know. BP was just an bystander in all of this. Nothing to see here.

 

[Thump553]

Wait till he starts talking about Social Security-he wants to abolish it. Wonder how that will sit with the retirees?

 

[nick1985]

Wait till he starts talking about Social Security-he wants to abolish it. Wonder how that will sit with the retirees?

I'm all for abolishing Social Security.

1) Let current retirees stay on it.

2) Give every citizen a refund check for everything they contributed.

3) Bye bye Social Security

 

[Vette73]

Wait till he starts talking about Social Security-he wants to abolish it. Wonder how that will sit with the retirees?

national level that may play well in the press, but what is the average age and also how many people in KY would that directly affect?

It may be a big thing, may not. States that have a lot of retires, like FL, that would be a political death.

 

[Thump553]

I'm all for abolishing Social Security.

1) Let current retirees stay on it.

2) Give every citizen a refund check for everything they contributed.

3) Bye bye Social Security

So you want completely unfunded Social Security obligations falling upon the taxpayers for the next 30+ years? What a budget buster that would be, not to mention the cost of immediately distributing the refund checks for the rest of us. What about SS Disability? I see a scheme like this rapidly leading to hyperinflation, especially considering the amount of cash you would infuse into the economy. The type of plan that sounds good in a late night bull session with a couple of beers in you, but ridiculous upon even a cursory examination.

Marlin: a quick Google search didn't turn up anything leading to the number of SS recipients or retirees in VA, but I did come across a chart that indicated in 2005 SS recipients were roughly 16% of the population nationally (including kids). That's a huge chunk of the voting population to turn against you-and anyone who ever worked the polls will tell that the elderly certain do vote in big numbers.

 

[ayabe]

I'm all for abolishing Social Security.

1) Let current retirees stay on it.

2) Give every citizen a refund check for everything they contributed.

3) Bye bye Social Security

More simplistic bullshit from the under-informed. Atlas' teabag is cutting off your oxygen supply.