No it doesn't. And for exactly this reason, an amendment is difficult to achieve. The idea being that if an amendment can pass, we can have high confidence that it's the right thing to do (but sometimes we are wrong, so amendments can be reversed - like prohibition).

And we started down the road away from small government when we accepted the idea that we can pass laws without questioning it's constitutionality (eg. Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Yes! And his objection to it has nothing to do with racism as you like to think it does. The federal government certainly doesn't have that right. If you can find me the clause in the constitution that suggests that they do have that right to tell private businesses who they must serve, I would retract that statement.

Understand that the Civil Rights Act was put in place in response to other government involvement in private enterprise which forced a lot of businesses to be segregated against their will (The transit system in Montgomery Alabama is a good example). All Dr. Paul said was that government should not be in the business of telling private enterprises which customers they need to or need not to serve. Let the free market prove to business owners that attempting segregation is a guaranteed loss.

If you think the Federal Government SHOULD have that right, then you should favor a constitutional amendment to take care of that.

This is why Ron/Rand Paul are difficult to connect with. Libertarianism requires greater intellectual vigour and deeper analysis to understand.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to buy a handful of cheap hdmi cables instead of just one pricy one?

His official name is Randall. Randall shortened it to Rand much like a Steven would shorten his name to Steve.

a) examples?
b) try looking for it. Start at http://mises.org/ which is dedicated to offering solutions to getting out of this crisis.

Damn straight. That's what I was saying.

Yes, they are legally bound to pay their shareholders in accordance with the agreed upon terms. But the agreed terms are never "make as much money as possible"

No they don't. They have a responsibility to do whatever they want to do. If they say shareholders be damned, then shareholders be damned.

You can't invest in an "environmentally friendly" company and sue them because they aren't being as profitable as you think they could be. They might have other priorities.

This is still socialism in action. Where's the competing fire department?

What about the danger to the fire fighters?

You'd suggest if I refuse to pay for car insurance, Geico should pay me for a new car after I smash mine up because I begged them to.

The article didn't seem to indicate there was any risk to life here, just property. But IF there were people trapped inside, I would suggest accepting the risk to save a life and billing him after the fact much like a call for an ambulance would.

I don't think he's invented Hamburger Earmuffs (TM) yet. He's likely still struggling with the pickle matrix.

Why not build a high speed train that transports cars (electric or otherwise)? Kind of like a ferry. That way people don't need to worry about renting a car once they've reached their destination.

Cars should be for cities only. City to city transportation could use high speed bullet trains/"ferries", not freeways.