walkitout (walkitout) wrote,

Rand Paul on Maddow et al

Rachel's going after Paul's remarks about the Civil Rights Act and the ADA and how he doesn't like that the rules applies to private businesses that don't receive federal money. Totally justified and it wouldn't be any more fun to watch Jon Stewart do it because Stewart isn't funny when he's doing this either.

In any event, the meat of the nut is straightforward: Paul is ideologically opposed to any rules being imposed on business. He'll use any available argument to that goal. He brought up gun control, believe it or not. That went like this:

If a bar is publicly owned because of ADA/Civil Rights Act (!!! let's assume he meant public space?), and if there are laws saying that people have the right to carry guns in public space (!!! bars and guns are a legal not happening in many places. I know there are efforts to over turn this, but that would be a very different world) then a bar owner wouldn't be able to tell people they couldn't have guns in the bar. Words fail. But never mind that now.

He also argued that the ADA rules, because it's a federal law, don't work well and his specific example was a two story office that hired a person who couldn't use the stairs. He felt that a reasonable accommodation would be to let the person have an office on the first floor, rather than have to spend $100K on an elevator. You can tell he didn't even bother to read the least little thing about the actual ADA, because in a lot of situations, that would indeed be a perfectly acceptable accommodation (particularly if the company in question employed fewer than 15 or whatever employees). It is amazing to me that he thinks having a zillion different local rules and regulations would lead to more flexible outcomes; it would more likely lead to regulatory arbitrage and be yet another race-to-the-bottom in which stupid management relocated to lightly regulated areas and only figured out later on what the problems with that were.

For your further edification:


FWIW, I've been through my anarcho-capitalist phase. I have a lot of sympathy for the no-government position, and I've been through the theory about how wonderful things could happen without the legitimized coercion and police powers of government. Even then, however, I recognized there was a really tough transition problem and, furthermore, I also recognized that while wonderful things _could_ happen that did not in any way guarantee they _would_ happen. Rand Paul, like his father, embodies one of the many worse worlds: he's a "libertarian" who's anti-reproductive choice:


"I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue."

There's no health or life of the mother exception there. Some libertarian, some small-government there, right?

I also used to be a JW: totally opposed to abortion, believed homosexuality, like sex before and outside marriage in general, was wrong. But _even when I was a JW_, I recognized that laws against abortion were bad public policy (and as a good JW, I had no involvement in politics, either -- this was purely an academic question for me). And since scripture treated homosexuality as _exactly_ like sex outside of marriage, I frequently laid into people who acted like homosexuality was somehow worse than other forms of sexual activity outside marriage. Needless to say, bailing on the religious cult I was raised in was the best single decision of my life (yes, even better than any of my job choices).

I actually understand exactly where these idiots are coming from. Trust me on this. This is the work of the Devil. And not the fun one, either.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.