jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (106 posts)

Rand Paul - Shooting the othe foot

  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    from Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/03 … contest%2F

    "As reported by Details magazine, Paul, while campaigning recently in Kentucky's coal country, maintained that there should be no federal regulation of the mining industry: "If you don't live here, it's none of your business." Asked about the Big Branch mining disaster in West Virginia, where an explosion killed 29 miners last April, Paul said,

    'Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are? The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs.'

    I'm not an expert. Don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. Ponder the implications of this. So members of Congress who are not oil industry engineers should not regulate deep off-shore drilling? Actually, by Paul's logic, legislators should not impose any health, safety, or environmental standards on any industry. And the answer to such tragedies as mining disasters is . . . well, nothing. The workers in unsafe facilities can simply quit their jobs -- that is, unless they've already been blown apart due to bad company practices.

    Paul wants to become a senator so he can do nothing. No doubt, that's an attractive notion for some Kentucky voters; he's been leading Democrat Jack Conway in the polls. But when the economy is in the dumps following a crash of free-wheelin' Wall Street, when climate change is a continuing threat, and when U.S. global competitiveness is slipping, doing nothing ought not be a top-priority item. Worse, Paul is celebrating his lack of knowledge, while suggesting that no one in Washington is really capable of governing. As his comments about the BP oil spill suggested, he would have no problem granting corporations free rein -- even after they screw up. His motto could be "BP Knows Best..."

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Scenario:

      You're a congressman. There are problems with the farm industry -- a recent report (http://hubpages.com/hub/Dihydrogen-Mono … own-Killer) released that there is a dangerous chemical in the farm land, and that "we need to do something!"

      You have to write a law determining what to do about DHMO (DiHydride Monoxide). GO. Do it now. The entire country is watching you.

      What's that you say? You know nothing about farming? You have no idea what DHMO is, or what to do with it? you have no idea how much DHMO is appropriate for the situation? You have no idea what the ramifications of your legislation are going to be? You don't know what kind of chemicals are used in farming AT ALL?

      Your expertise is in something COMPLETELY unrelated to this field?

      ... but people like Doug Hughes are demanding you do something, otherwise they won't vote for you?

      What would YOU do in that situation? be the bigger man and admit you know nothing of the situation? or take the sleazy political way out and listen to the lobbyists who want to write the legislation for you (thus giving themselves bonuses)?

      Sounds to me Like RAND PAUL is doing the RIGHT thing in admitting he knows nothing about mining regulation, and that 600 people in Washington shouldn't have such massive control over something like mining regulations because there is simply NO WAY IN HELL that John Kerry, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hilary or Bill Clinton, Obama, Voinovich, Strickland, or any of the other people in Washington know ANYTHING about the mining industry.

      He has a doctorate in Ophthalmology, not mining......

      1. Garrett Mickley profile image80
        Garrett Mickleyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with Evan here.

        However, I think Paul should be able and willing to set common-sense safety regulations.  I mean, how hard is it to get an expert in there to talk to him for an hour about what kind of safety should be in place (if Paul can't figure out common sense safety regulations on his own)?

      2. William R. Wilson profile image61
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I see what you tried to do there.  Lame.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lame but true.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Plenty of the Senators and Congressmen are quite expert on the industries subject to the jurisdiction of the committees on which they serve. And of course they get a lot of help from lobbyists who apparently help write the bills.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          and that would cost money that wouldn't have had to be spent in the first place. And that money would be taken by force from the taxpayers.

          it's money that doesn't have to be stolen or spent. After all, we don't have "sandwich making regulations"...

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Rand Paul isn't a very deep thinker, to put it politely.

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It's always easy to attack a person who cannot respond...

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's always easy to attack somebody who's clueless like Ron Paul and who fires off answers without thinking about the implications.

          1. Sylvie Strong profile image61
            Sylvie Strongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think he means attacking politicians that cannot respond.  He is right, but they also give us license to do that by entering the public eye.  If we cannot talk about people that aren't on this forum...we pretty much can't have a political forum.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ...coming from the guy who would follow Keynes off a cliff...

    3. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      As usual, you don't get the broader implications.  No regulation doesn't mean that there will be no avenues to peruse in the event of something like the WV explosion or the BP oil spill. 

      Or perhaps you agree with the "no fault" clause of Workman's Compensation or the fact that the government capped the damages that could be sought against BP.  If the government had not interfered in that way:  1) You'd see much more stringent workplace safety rules because liability would be unlimited and 2) BP would have gone out of business due to damages from litigation thus sending a warning to other oil companies that they'd better get serious about safety or the same could happen to them.

      By the by, you are aware that the Clinton Administration encouraged deep oil drilling by offering tax credits to companies that drilled in deep waters, are you not?  Without such credits, oil platforms would have been built much closer to the shoreline, which would have increased the options open to the cleanup operation.

      The problem with most pundits on here is that they've never run a business or been trained in how to run a business.  The things you think about as a business owner are much different than those you think about as a drone employee.  The big thought on most employers' minds is the need to minimize risk.  That need will do more than any regulation to keep risks down.

    4. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Rand Paul is a Libertarian, and a Constitutinionalist like me.   There is NO authority in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate mining.   Certainly the states have that power, and it is very difficult to believe that federal employees are somehow anointed with superior, even super-human abilities, just because they're federal.   Thus, I see no real reason to insist there be federal regulation of mining, except as it crosses state borders.   

      There is nothing holy or superior about federa vs state regulation, even though lots of people TRY, using lots of false logic and flat out lies,  to say there is.   Mostly, these people believe in a false religion of sacredness of Washington DC and actually believe that centralized beaurocrats are morally, intellectually, and spiritually superior - and argue that states would fail to do the job, etc, etc.    In reality, the federal government is by far the most inefficient and most incompetent at pretty much everything the states could or should do.    And that includes administering the land within their borders.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        testify!

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          DARN WELL SAID. Why aren't there more of us?

    5. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The oil and gas industry is HEAVILY regulated and yet accidents happen. I don't think more safety regulations is what the fed should be working on. They should be finding out what's in the healtcare bill and how they are going to pay for it! After all they had to pass it before they could know what's in it!

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    actually, everything he said made a lot of sense.

    Why are politicians - who know nothing about mining - writing legislation about mining?

    That makes a lot of sense. How is he shooting himself in the foot?

    Why do you think that government knows best? Why do you think that government has the RIGHT to do these things? Is the Constitution REALLY dead to you?

    Paul isn't running for congress to do NOTHING - he's running for congress to restore the constitution "thingie" (as you put it). The tenth Amendment PREVENTS Congress from writing legislation of the sort.

    It's mind-boggling to hear people demand that "following the Constitution" and "admitting that you don't know crap about an industry, and thus shouldn't be the one in charge of writing a law about it" are BAD qualities in a candidate!!

    Utterly mind boggling!!

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because those politicians are elected by the public to serve the public interest.  It's their job to regulate the mining industry.

      News flash:  coal mining, especially as practiced in Eastern Kentucky, is devastating to the environment.  The Eastern half of the US basically gets its drinking water from the mountains that the coal industry is destroying.  We get cheap electricity now in exchange for no clean drinking water 10 years down the road. 

      The politicians can hire experts in mine engineering to advise them on the best regulations.  But the coal industry is not going to regulate itself through some magical market. 

      The market supports cheap coal and cheap electricity, not environmental regulation. This is where libertarianism runs into reality.  Market forces will not protect Appalachian forests and watersheds.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        no, their job is to make sure that the Constitution is obeyed, and regulating the Constitution is NOT a part of the Constitution.

        And you're wrong about libertarianism - if a coal mine pollutes another person's land, then they are allowed compensation. Don't bash the ideology until you've actually thought it through.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Who enforces the compensation?  The government maybe?

          And why wait until the damage is done to bring the government in to enforce compensation to the injured party?  Just make sure people follow regulations in the first place.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            if the people get sued after the fact ONCE, then it won't happen again.

            Who's going to enforce it? perhaps the private police force and the system of private courts.

            Ding - ALL DONE... it seems your argument was only half-baked!

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Private police and courts? That's crazy. We have enough trouble now controlling public police and keeping the courts honest.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So... You just argued for my point.

                The reason that public courts and police are corrupt is because there's no comptition.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Private" police have an unsavory history of lynchings, brutality and discrimination. Did you ever happen to see the "Ox-Bow Incident." It's one of the greatest American movies, a tale about a lynching in the wild west of the 1800s. It starred Henry Fonda and may have been Anthony Quinn's first movie role.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    so you equate mob rule with private police?

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        oh, and one other thing.

        I'm afraid the idea that "politicians can save us from ourselves" is a fairly ill-conceived doctrine.

        Do you believe that they can actually properly regulate every industry there is? it's hopeless.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Senators don't have much opportunity to "restore the Constitution," whatever that means, other than approving Supreme Court appointments.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        that's because everyone's given up on the Constitution.

  3. SaMcNutt profile image61
    SaMcNuttposted 6 years ago

    I also agree with Paul to a point. Trying to Federalize everything is not a solution but away to create distance from the problem. If everyone looks to a Federal government to fix everything then apathy ensues. The government should be no more than the people it serves and if mining, or other industries are confined to an area you would hope they would be the experts at running mines, or whatever. Why are their mines there if they don't know how to run them safely and efficiently. Why would anyone work there if they didn't trust their safety to the guidelines.

    The problem with the analogy of the off shore drilling is that it has international issues and the Federal governement as well as the surounding state governments should protect our borders from any issue, like off shore drilling. It isn't even a enviromental issue but a security one as well, which concerns the whole nation.

    If it is important to us than we should do something about it. We are the goverment, i.e. "We the people of the United States of America..."

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      really quickly, about the Offshore drilling:

      The BP oil spill was A DIRECT RESULT OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE!!!

      http://mises.org/daily/4488
      http://mises.org/daily/4579

      The federal and state governments ACTUALLY paid the oil industry MORE MONEY to drill in MORE DANGEROUS areas!!!

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who's trying to "federalize everything?"

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Who's trying to "federalize everything?"

    3. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

      Excuse me???? Miners die in an explosion. The owner is notorious for ignoring the law and regulations regarding safety, disabling devices that would shut down equipment when explosive methane gas builds up.

      Rand Paul suggests that NO laws are a good idea, because if things are dangerous enough, workers will refuse to work. This is stupidity at its worst. Every day, we put our lives on the line, depending on devices to  be safe, built to some standard. Elevators, automobiles, bridges, food are constructed and harvested to standards which reduce the risk to the consumer. It's not perfect or absolute, but it's better than the alternative.

      Libertarians like Paul live in a  fantasy world where the rich can do as they wish, including deceiving and killing the worker and/or consumer with the expectation that market forces would even things out eventually. If you spend a little time asking yourself with every product you consume - could this kill me if the producer used to much pesticide (to bost the yield & profit). Will my car (or some other car) fail because of a manufacturing defect which the government had no authority to force a recall and fix on? Without the requirment of a safe workplace, will my employer demand I work in conditions of extreme heat or cold?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        if the guy was "notorious for ignoring the law and regulations" then why was the government so inept at getting him in jail?

        what's that, you say? because government CAN'T regulate everyone everywhere all the time?

        If the guy doesn't follow regulations, and the government can't seem to arrest him... then what makes you think that MORE regulations will get him to pay attention?

        "The owner ignored X completely, and thus we should have more X to make him stop ignoring X." ... not a sound argument.

        And you're grossly misrepresenting libertarianism, so i'll grossly misrepresent the Republicrat position: All y'all think that stealing money from your neighbor, and then building bombs to nuke Iraqi children is a good idea!!

    4. Arthur Fontes profile image91
      Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

      Will the flouride the government puts in our water help our teeth?  Or does the consumption of flouride lower our intelligence over a period of time.


      Why are they dumping a toxic chemical in our drinking water and telling us not to worry.  "It is just peachy"

      1. William R. Wilson profile image61
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Americans have been drinking fluoride in their tap water for three generations now.  I doubt there's some communist conspiracy afoot Arthur.

        1. Sylvie Strong profile image61
          Sylvie Strongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I am suddenly tempted to watch Dr. Strangelove again.

          1. William R. Wilson profile image61
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ripper: Mandrake?
            Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
            Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
            Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have.
            Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
            Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
            Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
            Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
            Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
            Mandrake: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
            Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
            Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
            Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
            Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
            Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?
            Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
            Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
            Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
            Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
            Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
            Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Boy, I thought we were done with that crazy stuff years ago.

              But, I suppose there will always be somebody to carry the torch.   I like the intelligence lowering theory - it explains why most people disagree with me :-)

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Dr. Strangelove is my all time favorite movie.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        My dentist whom I trust thinks fluoride has virtually eliminated tooth loss due to decay. Gum issues are now the big problem.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph, didn't you know all Dentists are part of a union and trying to undermine our American way of life?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'll have to ask the good doctor about that.

    5. rlaframboise profile image60
      rlaframboiseposted 6 years ago

      "I'm not an expert. Don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules."

      As per your advice, I pondered the implications of this and realized you are absolutely ignorant as to how our government functions. Obviously the people within the state and closer to the coal mining industry should make the rules pertaining to their own industry and not bureacrats in Washington who are neither close to the industry, nor educated on the subject. The federal govt is far too inefficient to handle these issues effectively and thus Rand believes it should be left to state officials who have experience on the matter.

      Obviously you believe everyone in Washington is some kind of all seeing, all knowing oracle who can decide for the lives of all citizens and all industries more effectively than the people that actually are living and working in these environments and their closest representatives respectively.

      Perhaps you are advocating for communism where the state power and govt and are the all knowing all seeing entities that you believe the federal govt should be? For those of us who have actually read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as our Founding Fathers views on the proper role of Government, this statement is abundantly clear and your Government worshiping philosophy is anti-American and inefficient when handling such matters.

      1. Sylvie Strong profile image61
        Sylvie Strongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am not sure why so many people believe that you need to be an expert in an industry to have any say in regulating it.  You can rely on experts.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's one reason why Congress has hearings - to question authorities on different sides of an issue the Congress must decide.

          1. Sylvie Strong profile image61
            Sylvie Strongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That is exactly right.  Actually, all three branches of government rely heavily on experts to function.

            1. rlaframboise profile image60
              rlaframboiseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              all three branches rely on incompetence both in their ranks and in the electorate to function.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          sylvie, where are those "experts" going to come from? will they be angels with halos over their head, trying selflessly to make life better for everyone?

          or will they be humans from the industry in question -- who've been working at a company for 20+ years -- who will pass regulations which SEEM good, but will likely benefit their type of company more than others?

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Obviously he's a commie prevert. Where's Joe McCarthy when we need him?

    6. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

      rlaframboise wrote -

      "Obviously the people within the state and closer to the coal mining industry should make the rules pertaining to their own industry and not bureacrats in Washington who are neither close to the industry, nor educated on the subject. The federal govt is far too inefficient to handle these issues effectively and thus Rand believes it should be left to state officials who have experience on the matter."

      So you think that the states with the highest concentrations of blacks should have written civil rights legislation in the 60's (on a state-by-state basis). They were going to be the most affected, and they had the most experience.

      What you don't know - or don't want others to consider is how money talks. In a state like West Virginia, the coal companies can BUY the state legislatures. Then the coal companies can write the legislation they want.

      I am not suggesting that Congress is above corruption. But on the topic Rand was speaking to - a perfect example - local legislation of mine safety is a plan for disaster. Suggesting that the 'free market' will fix it - because workers will elect to not go to work in the mines - suggests that they will let their families starve.

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You don't get it.  Southern states were losing business and people because of the Jim Crow laws.  Do you have any idea who was most against the "blacks have to get up and give a white person their seat" law?  Bus companies.  They weren't stupid.  By discriminating against paying customers, the knew they'd lose said customers.  It was the politicians, once again trying to engineer society to their liking, that forced bus companies to adopt racist, job killing policies.

        That's what Rand Paul was talking about.  Getting the feds involved has exacerbated the situation because of the policies like affirmative action and the furor over quotas we've had since the 1960's.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So  - let me get this straight - you Do think that  amending the civil rights did not have to be done by the Federal Government. We could have relied on the states to integrate on their own.

          Let me guess - your state allows medical marijuana.

          1. ledefensetech profile image79
            ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No what I'm saying is that those states which chose to enshrine racist laws would have lost population and businesses.  If there was anything the Civil Rights movement demonstrated, it was the fact that people cannot handle having inconsistencies like laws that create a group of second class citizens thrown in their face.  If the various state governments that allowed Jim Crow laws on the books kept them, people would have voted with their feet and those racist states would have suffered economically for it.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't take history in school, I suppose.  Let me educate you about the 60's. People were murdered for registering blacks to vote. The racist states were run by racists who profied enormously from the double standard and they weren't about to change anything. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

              1. ledefensetech profile image79
                ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah I saw Mississippi Burning, I know people were killed for registering people to vote.  What you don't seem to get is the idea of voting with your feet.  Plenty of blacks did that in the 1920's.  They went to the growing industrial centers of the North and West.  Jim Crow laws were a big reason industry didn't grow in the South like it did the North and West.  It's also a reason why the South was so backward compared to the rest of the US.  Like I said, there are economic disadvantages to racism.

                1. William R. Wilson profile image61
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL.  You watched Mississippi Burning and consider that an education in the history of the civil rights movement?

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That's right, the market will take care of everything! Baloney!

                3. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Let's look at this shining example of libertarian thinking. Here's what was proposed.

                  When states were in violation of the US Constitution, it was NOT the role  of the federal government to intervene. The poorest people in these impoverished states should have moved to where the oppression was more tolerable. At some point in time the stupid, bigoted white crackers running the racist states would have become enlightened and progressive and implemented racial equalty on their own.

                  ONE HUNDRED YEARS after the civil war, the South hadn't budged from  a policy of oppressing the black minority. And in classic wingnut - 'blame-the-victim' thinking - it's the fault of the BLACK  MINORITY for not leaving en masse.  Do a reality check here. Had millions of blacks left the South suddenly and together, would they have been welcome anywhere in the US - when there was neither housing nor jobs for such a sudden exodus?

                  Suppose such an exodus had caused an economic collapse in the South. Do you think that the white crackers would have offered EQUALITY as an inducement for the working class they needed? Or would they have offered to turn down the temperature in hell and gone back to business as usual when the negros were back in place.

                  The philosophy of Rand Paul and the libertarians who post here is proof why libertarians should not be elected to positions of authority.

                  1. ledefensetech profile image79
                    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I believe the basis of most Jim Crow laws were due to Plessy v. Ferguson.  You never did mention that one did you.  In that case the Supreme Court basically gave the go ahead for states to enact laws that created second-class citizens.  Not every state went that way though.  Much like the difference in the standard of living between the free and slave states, those states which enacted Jim Crow laws, like the South, ended up much poorer and much more backward than those states which allowed more freedom.  I think there is a lesson there, I wonder if you can understand it.

                    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      I understand that if we did it the libertarian way - there would still be segregation in the South.  There would still be white terrorism against the black minority.  And your idea is that because the racist economic model is less efficiant than one which promotes racial equality - things would change naturally.   Racism is not rational -  it took an external force to mandate change. 

                      You hate the idea of an external force so much that you would prefer centuries of terrorism and injustice to a federal mandate for justice.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              There's a shred of truth to what you say. Mississippi was a bastion of de jure segregation and the poorest state in the union. And many blacks did move to the north to work in auto and defense plants. However, there was no mass exodus from the southern states. Besides there was and, still is, plenty of discrimination in the Midwest. One of the largest KKK klaverns, last I heard was in Indiana. In the 1950s I was in the Army and stationed at Ft. Benjamin Harrison near Indianapolis. Some S. Korean army visitors came to Ft. Harrison and I was delegated to entertain a couple of them on a weekend. I took them to a big amusement park nearby and what did we encounter at the gate? A huge sign which said "WHITES ONLY." The Koreans saw the sign and asked me about it. I said it didn't apply to them, and we went in without incident. It was very embarrassing. Later in Detroit in the 1960s housing and job discrimination was the rule.

              1. ledefensetech profile image79
                ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You don't consider the migration of 1.7 million blacks from the South to the North a mass migration?  Or the Second Great Migration after World War II?  5 million in that one.  But that was, what, only 5-6% of the population?  Wouldn't that be about 50% of the black population?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migr … merican%29

                What's really funny, funny strange not funny haha, is that there is now a reverse migration back to the South.  One would imagine that if Jim Crow laws were still in effect, you'd not see such a reverse migration.

                Now I'll grant that you did see some Jim Crow-like laws enacted in the North and West due to the Great Migration, but that was due more to cultural differences and fear of change brought about by migration.  Heck you see that with Hispanics today.  Even today many descendants of the Great Migration exhibit Southern cultural norms.

              2. Tom Cornett profile image57
                Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                In the mid 60s...I was a boy.  The KKK marched in our town, giving out pamphlets and candy.  I went home and gave the pamphlet to my dad.  He read the first few lines and tossed it in the trash. He ranted something about ignorant hatred.  Strange...I can still see that moment in my mind....the white pamphlet floating into the trash can.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Your father was a good man. So was mine.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Leaving coal mining and other industrial regulating up to the states would drive the companies crazy. The auto companies resisted the California emissions regulations and lobbied for federal regulation. It simply wouldn't work for a company to have to meet differing regulations in 50 states.

        1. ledefensetech profile image79
          ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not entirely true, Ralph.  If every state had their own standards, a company would be forced to adopt the most restrictive standard of whatever states they wanted to do business in.  Automakers really wanted federal guidelines because it would be much, much easier to influence the feds to change their guidelines than it would trying to do it with all 50 states.

    7. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

      I"m actually shocked that this forum is getting so much attention... mostly because the person insulting Rand Paul couldn't even spell the forum title properly.

      Paul's arguments make sense and are the only opinions that actually use that "thingie" -- as Hughes put it -- known as the Constitution.

      It's not hard to realize that every industry is capable of regulating itself, and Paul is right when he says he knows little about the industry.

      Everyone argues that "he should just hire people to explain it to him"... but they fail to think one step beyond that: where do these "experts" come from? -- THE MINING INDUSTRY, duh!! Letting Washington, instead of the market, regulate the industry would simply allow the larger companies to hire "experts" to go to Washington and get the competition-destroying laws they need.

      How bout the right-wing lunatics, the left-wing whackos meet up in the middle: FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. Article 1 Section 8 + the Tenth Amendment clearly indicate that it's a STATE issue at best.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Let the industry compete without regulation and let competition bring out the best. Sounds great. Until reality comes along.

        Comapny A is run guy an ethical CEO who spends money to make sure his mines don't blow up workers. His 'experts' are avaialble to Congress to explain what restrictions should be in place.

        Copany B is fun by a sleeze-bag who cuts corners on worker safety, disconnecting safety devices and shutting down ventilation equipment if it interferes with production. Since he saves money he can undercut the prices of Company A, sell more coal, buy the mines of the competitors who DID implement safety

        This is referred to as a race to the bottom. The competitive aspect of a free-market kills workers in this example. Thousands die each year in China under this kind of formula. That libertarians argue for this system is an example WHY they aren't capable.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds like Massey Energy - the biggest, richest Coal Company in West Virginia. 

          Wonder why they are so successful?

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Let's think about your argument for a few seconds:

          ... Because company A's place of work is safer, many people WANT to work there. most people who work at B hear regularly of what a safe and great place A's workplace is! Many B workers want to work at A, and are generally worried about their work place. They are constantly looking for different jobs.

          ... Because B's workplace is more dangerous, and thus less people want to work there, he has to pay his workers more compensation.... then company B's mine implodes, killing his workers. The mine is shut down, it is unable to get any work done, the workers families sue the sleeze-bag, and get billions out of him. Sleaze-bag is broke, his company goes under, and Company A is still working properly.

          ...hmmmm...

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The problem with your scenario is that it can take many years to play out.  By then, Company A is either out of business or has been sold to another sleazebag who competes at the same level as Company B.

            This is the real world.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Also, in the real world, accurate information isn't available. Until OSHA was passed employers didn't keep accurate accident records. And even with OSHA there's a whole lotta' fudgin' goin' on.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                OSHA hurts the small business. Aren't liberals for small businesses? The history of the OSHA is quite interesting, and it illustrates that the two parties are actually the same party.

                During the Carter administration, he wanted an OSHA thing going on, and all the Republicans demanded it would severely hurt the local businesses and all that good stuff.

                Then Nixon got in... And it got passed...

                ... hmmm

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "OSHA hurts the small business."

                  How does OSHA hurt small businesses? Whatever small cost to small businesses resulting from OSHA must be balanced against improved workplace safety which benefits workers and reduces workers's compensation costs.

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Obviously, you dont' run a small business.   OSHA is one of the most absurd, beaurocratic, autocratic, and ineffective bunch around.   The problem with OSHA, is that they have the God complex, and believe they are superior and wiser than ALL other life forms.   Which results in them mandating all kinds of expensive and absurd "safety" actions or conditions or procedures or whatever you might call them, that have little or no effective safety improvement for small business.

    8. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

      Occupational Safety and Health are bad for small business - that's the libertarian theme. Maybe but it's good for employees who want to live to retirment age.

      Actually - OSHA levels the playing field so that ethical employers aren't put out of business by companies with no scruples whatsoever. Anyone who trusts business to look for for the interests of employees or customers on their own - is living in a fantasy. (that's why they become libertarians.)

      1. rlaframboise profile image60
        rlaframboiseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You obviously must live in academia like most liberals, businesses do look out for their customers, it is in their best interest.

        As for their employees, what's really looking out for them? If these companies weren't being taxed to death for foreign entanglements overseas, ridiculous programs at home, hundreds of agencies that don't need to exist, creating dependency in future generations who are not bred on hard work perhaps they would have the ability to provide more effectively for their employees? And perhaps they would have the incentive to do so by competing with more ethical competitors, and perhaps the media could do its job and play watch dog?

        You like most liberals believe that this benevolent government can be given the controls to regulate everything in our lives, I can take one look at what we do over seas and decide I don't want the government increasing their grip on anything.

        This debate will go on forever, you don't believe in the honesty, integrity and ability of average people yet you foolishly believe in the honesty, integrity and ability of the federal government?

        What do you think about states rights' Mr. Hughes? What is your opinion of the U.S. Constitution?

        Honest businesses FAR outnumber corrupt ones, turn off MSNBC.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My opinion of the US Constitution is that it was created by man to serve man. Business should serve the same function and so should government. But a strong central government is the only force strong enough to to do battle for the average man against gobal economic cartels that have more clout than most countries. The idea that the US Constitution is a static force we must all worship (strictly according to the wingnut interpretation) without change is bunk. This isn't 1787 - the world changes and we must change with it.

          Honest businesses do FAR outnumber dishonest ones - and the only way they can stay honest to the employee and customer is if there is a level playing field in terms of worker safety and product safety. Without the government operating as a referee, business becomes a race to the bottom - with workplace safety and product safety disintegrating as success in the business world is the prize for the most ruthless - not the most talented.

          I'm flattered that you think I'm in academia. Nobody told you that you're supposed to mock me for misspellings since I'm notorious for not proofing my comments? Actually, I'm a mailman in Florida, very much a real-world, middle-class working stiff.

        2. Sylvie Strong profile image61
          Sylvie Strongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Your deep distrust of the federal government is inconsistent with your strange faith in state governments.  Why not hate them all?  Not sure what point you are trying to make with states rights.  Most of the statements made about "states rights" on these forums reflect a deep misunderstanding of federalism under our Constitution.  But you haven't really said anything about it.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Conservatives do not "trust" government at any level.   Government by itself, in abstract, is just a collection of beaurocracies, or maybe a system of beaurocracies.   When you populate it with people, then you introduce the very reasons it can't be trusted.   Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.    State governments are not inherently more or less capable.   The difference is that the state government is SMALLER and MORE ACCOUNTABLE to the people it is to serve.   Our city governments are the closest, counties next, states next, and lastly, and most distant and least accountable and least responsible... the federal.   

            Of course it's illogical to "trust" any government.  But when conservatives advocate for moving power and authority from the federal to the state, we're advocating for the movement of power closer to, and more responsive to, and more easily fixed when gone wrong by, the people themselves.

     
    working