A. I am against Federal Government regulations.  States could do whatever they want.

Q. Why are you against the federal regulations?

A. Because if they are wrong (and they often if not always are) they can bring the entire country down.

Q. What is wrong with the current regulation of banks?

A. Money is a product that can be saved, created, bought and sold, the same as potato. We created federal monopoly on production of this particular product and we regulate its price. This way money could be passed to the special interest under the disguise of a loan. If the true price, the market price of the loan is much higher, it’s not as apparent but is equivalent to passing money from taxpayers to special interest for help in reelection, future jobs, and consulting fees for politicians and members of their families. Such practice of legalized theft of taxpayers money  is the main source of politicians power.

Q. But everybody agrees that current regulation will decrease systemic risk?

A. Not everybody. I coauthored a paper that proves that any regulation of risk increases risk.

Q. Maybe we just need global financial regulation?

A. No, global regulation just increases the risk, the same way as federal regulation increased the risk compared to the state regulation. And it also helps politicians to redistribute money from taxpayers to politicians global special interests. This is often done not as a loan but as a swap. We’re making swaps in trillions of dollars for euros. The word “swap”sounds innocently enough, as if it is a fair exchange. Only few people understand that any swap has a price, and because our counterparty enters in a swap with us, it means we offer it for a cheaper price. With this swaps and loans from IMF we are channeling American taxpayers money in 100’s of billions to special interests around the Globe.

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

PAUL: I am not in favor of any discrimination of any form. …

…In the totality of it, I’m in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights and that’s, you know, mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about. And that was ending institutional racism.

Right answer:

The Civil Rights Act should have been passed by the states.If you believe that the Constitution allows the federal government to pass  the laws that you are passionately for, you should be prepared to accept the laws that you are passionately against. By passing this law we created a precedent to pass racial laws. All it needs is a combination of a bad president and a bad Congress, and, maybe, a bad Supreme Court.

If you don’t like a state law you can move to another state. Where will you move when your race or your nationality is outlawed?

Depending on a state, a private business may or may not have the state right to say we don’t serve black people or KKK members. But this question should not be a business of the federal government.

Other questions

Rand Paul should answer similarly to most of other “Got Ya” issues, such as abortion and gay weddings. “I am running for a position in federal government and according to the Constitution this issue shouldn’t be the federal government business.”

Why this is the right answer?

This is not only a correct legal position, but also moral – because it protects other individuals with whom you disagree. This is also the right practical position – it’s often hard to predict all, intended or unintended consequences of a law. So, the same way as in evolution, it’s great to be able to test new laws in smaller population size. such as states. if the law is good – all other states will accept it. If the law is bad – the damage will be not be done to the entire country.