Whatever you may think of Rand Paul...

[reverendjeremiah]

Every decision taken by government on social matters is at some level enforcing morality, and even this situation doesn't sit well with me.

It doesnt sit well with me either, but all legislation is merely an opinion being enforced. All morality is an opinion. Sure, there are some social urges that we, as an evolved animal, have gained through the millenia. This is far from morality.
Example: Government legislates that capitalism is the economic system. You claim it is fine. I claim that economics are also a social matter and enforcing the concepts of "rich" and "poor" are oppressive. Which one of us are correct? Neither. Why? Because it is merely opinion and not inherent systems in the universe. If one of us were correct, then why has capitalism and those who oppose it fight and fight and fight and still fight over it. They are merely opinions, neither right nor wrong universally. As a nihilist, you should understand and openly admit this. As a nihilist you should be openly opposed to any type of government or any type of system period.

I don't want the government to be enforcing morality, but at the same time I understand that if we didn't have this to some degree, society wouldn't function.

Citation needed on the claim that "morality" is needed "to some degree" for society to function.

Abortion is a complicated case, because it involves the lives of two beings (I think we can both agree on that). What bothers me with abortion is where you'd draw the line, and I think I showed how indefensible your position gets when you say that line is at birth. To myself, and the rest of the medical community, there is little difference between a baby who has just been born, and a baby who is due to be born in 2 weeks. Abortion ultimately boils down to what makes us human, because we oppose the killing of humans, but not many other things. It is a double standard to oppose the killing of humans but also support abortions where the mother can abort her pregnancy any time before birth.

I challenge you to a formal debate on this. In no way have you shown that my position is indefensible

I think since abortion is such a hot topic, it is easy to simply pick a side without thinking things through properly. I disagree with such actions; if anything, the hot topics are the ones where you must think the most, which is why I'm still not decided on where I stand on abortion. In some aspects, I agree with it, in others, I don't. Whatever I do, I can't reconcile abortion completely with what I regard as "logically moral", because at some point, someone loses out.

Oh, I have thought my system through all right, and I can see that you have thought yours through. In no way would I suggest on this topic that you have done no less. I merely disagree with your conclusions. There is no need to be accusing me, or me accusing you, of not thinking things deeply... I believe we have gone beyond that point in our current friendly relations, or at least I would hope so.

Not at all. It means I support freedom of expression; the freedom to express any idea, even if it is offensive. I say that Muslims should be free to build mosques wherever they can, but that doesn't mean I support Islam; on the contrary, I find Islam to be absurd and in some places downright evil. I hold the same view of most religions, and I find racism to be entirely evil. Part of being a libertarian is accepting that we have no right over other people's ideas..

Noted. I disagree a bit on your notion of libertarianism if you are speaking of libertarianism in general.

That is up to you, but you would be arrested for destroying someone else's property, just as you would if you destroyed any sign. Being vocal about the owners is free speech, so I have no problem with that (in fact I encourage it).

Okay, so now you have thrown an anti-racism activist in jail. Sure, it was the mans property according to legislation and if the laws are made that way then I go to jail. There is neither right nor wrong in this part of the discussion, merely clarifying the extent to which you will go to legislate this. Step one, if someone destroys a racist sign, you support them going to jail.

No, it would be the enforcement of property rights through government. It boils down to this: if you own / control a property, you have the last say on who gets to use this property.

Careful..You are about to slip down the slope.

Shops today even do it; they have the ability to ban individuals from their premises for whatever reason they want.

Wrong. Dead wrong. A shop cannot turn away someones business or purchases merely for the color of their skin. There is legislation that can be shown to prove this. They have to have a legitimate reason other than prejudice.

At the end of the day, you have no right to go onto their property if they don't like it. The government should ideally be blind to any social reasons behind such a ban, and instead focus on the violation of the law (i.e. trespassing). Of course, this means that black people are free to open up stores and put up "blacks only" signs or "non-racists only" signs, etc. As I said before, I doubt very many black people would want to go inside a store with a sign saying "whites only", unless as you pointed out they were there to cause trouble.

And when the mass majority of societys whites come together, not through the government, but by their mere property rights, they will oppress the minorities. By allowing the racism, and enforcing laws against those who actively oppose this, you have allowed racism to florish. Dont tell me that it will not happen. What you are describing is EXACTLY how America was for the longest time.
Step two: enforce racism through the back door through the government. By not SPECIFICALLY legislating racism, but instead calling it another, you have now supported racism in suberterfuge.

I doubt very much that would happen, but then it really depends on how violent the group of blacks is. Nobody should be above the law.

Its shit like this that gives libertarians a bad name. This isnt civil libertarianism. This is support of the destruction of civil liberties through the back door. It can be compared to the creationism/Intelligent design afront to science. By changing the name, and removing any mention of racism, you have allowed it to to flourish socially and economically...over something as idiotic as skin tone.

I've thought about this issue many times, and whilst I would personally object to such stores or businesses, I accept that I have no right whatsoever to support freedom of expression and then say "Oh, but apart from you guys, because we all think your ideas are evil". Only a moral absolutist could be in support of such a statement, and I am a moral relativist.

And you would passively sit back and allow such racism to flourish? That isnt true. You said yourself you would have no problem with the police breaking out the dogs and the firehoses on a group of blacks trying to enter such an establishment veiling it in a slightly racist remark of " depends on how violent the group of blacks is". So if the group is non violent, then you would let them in the "whites only" building, or you would still support them being arrested? And if they refused to leave because they are starving and all the other shops refuse to serve them food then what? Yup, out come the dogs and the firehoses.
This is NOT libertarianism. This is NOT civil libertarianism.
And when all of the food stores have "whites only" signs up, what are the blacks to do? Starve or leave the city? Honestly dude, you are supporting racism through the back door, which means you support racism without wanting to be called a racist. America is FULL of people who make these same arguments you do. When sober and in public they are very careful of letting their thoughts be known. After getting a few beers in them, they start railing "nigger this...nigger that...I wish this bar was whites only..." Now, Im not saying that YOU go off saying "nigger this or that" but you have DEFINITELY put the side of the law in their favor all in the name of greedy property rights above all else.

Someone owning a peice of paper saying they own land, to you, is justification for them to be the biggest prick in the world.

There are no inherent positive human rights, but I would argue that form a logical standpoint, there are inherent negative human rights.

What? Sure. Have at it. Please show me the evidence that inherent negative rights exist in the cosmos and NOT merely in the opinions of the human who holds them.

An inherent negative right would be that nobody has the right to interfere with what restrictions someone puts on their own property. Moral Nihilism means there are no objective morals. I'm not arguing that there are objective morals. The concept of negative rights and nihilism are perfectly compatible.

I await your explanation on this.