Friday, May 21, 2010

John Stossel is a Douchebag who Agrees with Rand Paul

Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right.

Wow!  That really makes sense except for one little thing:  NOBODY EVER FUCKING REFUSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH BLOND ANCHORWOMEN OR MUSTACHED GUYS!  John Stossel never had to walk two miles to take a shit just because that was the closest toilet open to mustached guys.  Moreover, if such discrimination ever became common, Stossel could just SHAVE HIS FUCKING MUSTACHE!

What an asshole.


  1. I'm not sure what to think of people who strive to be consistent, but based on erroneous initial premises end up reaching reprehensible conclusions. There may be some of that going on here. I like Rand Paul based on what I know of him. I think I'm drifting away from some of the type of thinking he holds to, but I used to be able to say that I agree with his position entirely. I'm a radical freedom lover, so why shouldn't a business owner be free to be a prick?

    You must agree that racism should be legal. That's Stossel's view as well. So should a racist be able to serve whoever he wants? It's kind of like inviting into your home whoever you want. Stossel sees it that way. Now, you can be a liberterian and feel like you don't like that result, but you feel morally obligated to follow your conclusions to their logical end.

    I see some of this in Christians as well. So here's James White treating people rudely since they aren't chosen by God and God is kind of rude to them. He feels morally obligated to follow his beliefs to the logical endpoint. Would you respect more a person that is inconsistent? Maybe you would. Maybe we should. I'm not sure what to think of that.

    Where I'm coming to disagree with Stossel is you must distinguish between an individual's ability to express himself and a business. A business is not a person, so the public has a right to regulate things regarding these non-persons. Do we want to live in a country where blacks have to go from restaurant to restaurant in order to find a place where they can get fed as they travel across the country? No. So we have every right to pass such laws. You can be a racist in your private capacity.

    Is there room in the Constitution for that? Maybe not. But most of the laws in this country are unconstitutional by the liberterian standard. There's a sense where you kind of have to work within the framework that actually exists rather than the theoretical framework. Actually I think Rand Paul would agree, which is why he has no intention of repealing the Civil Rights Act.

    If you don't permit public control of business you end up with our ridiculous crony capitalist government where we go to war for reasons of profit and perhaps destroy the species, either by motivating massive retaliatory violence or environmental destruction. Public control is not as bad as a lot of liberterians think (and I used to think).

    Sorry, I think I'm kind of rambling here. I struggle with this a little myself in efforts to be consistent.

  2. Stossel reminds me of Christians who attempt to justify their belief in a God who would consign the vast majority of his creation to an eternity of suffering in a fiery pit. Like you, I believe that a person should rethink his premises if he finds his conclusions to be reprehensible.

    I am not sure that your distinction between a business and an individual solves the dilemma, particularly in those cases where a person conducts his business as a sole proprietor. If the restaurant owner has the absolute right to dispose of his personal property as he sees fit, then what would be the justification for compelling him to sell his steak dinner to a black man on the same terms as any other person? I think it is the libertarian notion of the primacy of property rights that is flawed.

  3. Obviously when it comes to restrooms and water fountains, these guys are being total idiots and come off as racist. The government forcing businesses to let people of all races use their public restrooms is necessary. Now if they could also force businesses to let you use the restroom without buying anything, that would be wonderful.

    But Stossel has a point when he says:

    "are we gonna say to the black student's association they have to take white people? the the gay softball association they have to take straight people?"

    But this is not a problem with the civil right act, however, but with moronic lawyers and judges twisting it far beyond its intent. The purpose of the civil rights act was never about forcing the Boy Scouts to have gay scout masters. Gay isn't even a race and private groups even with "public accommodation" ought to be able to discriminate against fags especially when they are groups relating to children.

    Transexuals also bring up an interesting question on the restroom issue, but since a business has no real way of knowing who is one and who isn't, its a wholly esoteric issue.

    If a scanner is ever invented to detect what sex you were born as then businesses should have the right to ban you from both restrooms if you are a tranny and the government should not force you to build a 3rd restroom for freaks. That's the price you should pay for mutilating your body for sick sexual depravity.

    But absolutely the government is right to force a business to let people of all colors to use the public restroom.