Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (43377)	5/24/2010 1:21:52 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

his comments about believing that the Civil Rights Act was not constitutional --- thus that it should be perfectly legal for private business to discriminate in public accommodations if it wanted to... the old Woolsworth diner thing all over again, black and white water faucets... and his comments that the administration's public criticism of BP over the Gulf oil spill mess was "un-American", betraying a bit of a big-business bias I think The first isn't big business bias, its a bias for liberty. The 2nd may or may not be a big business bias. Personally I share his dislike of the administrations comments about keeping a “boot on the neck” of BP. That comment strikes a fascist tone, and recognizing that has nothing to do with a bias for big business. 1) Are minimum wage laws unconstitutional? Clearly not unconstitutional at the state level. Local minimum wages would be allowed or disallowed based on the state's constitution or statute law. A national level minimum wage, is of dubious constitutionality if it applies to firms and individuals that do no interstate business. It also like other forms of price controls, probably does more harm than good. 2) Are CHILD LABOR laws also unconstitutional? I'd say the same as above, with the possible exception of the "more harm than good" comment. But the good is greatly exaggerated by many. Getting children out of the work force has more to do with changes in the economy than it does with the law. Countries that aren't ready for such a change in employment patterns will probably find the laws ineffective, and likely harmful. Wealthier more developed countries like the US are unlikely to use a lot of child labor (at least for real children, the nine year olds you are talking about or younger kids, not everyone under 18), both for economic and PR reasons. Etc. Could I, (in my business), refuse to serve you if I didn't like your religion? Your accent? Could you do so in your house? Yes. I would apply the same principle to business associations.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (43377)	5/26/2010 2:12:11 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I don't think he's gets hurt that much on the Civil Rights stuff unless the African American community comes out in force. I think where he gets hurt is on stuff like Social Security. I think where he gets hurt is on farm subsidies. A guy running against Rand Paul doesn't have to just run against Rand Paul. They can run against Ron Paul too. There's enough youtube stuff on BOTH those guys to make a LOT of commercials.. I think he'll probably still win though and be pretty much NON EXISTENT in the Senate.