Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[TexM3]

Article
Killing someone infringes on their natural rights…get it?

 

[Article 15]

Article
Killing someone infringes on their natural rights…get it?

How are these natural rights determined?

 

[dblack]

I don't think of Ron Paul as a racist. I just think he is too wrapped up in his libertarian values to do what is right. He is perfectly willing to trade away civil rights, gay rights and worker rights if they conflict with his libertarian values

He does his best to avoid "ends justify the means" reasoning. In most cases, we don't need to sacrifice fundamental principles to solve our problems, and we should always do our best to avoid that approach. It's this conviction that is at the core of his ideology. It's what drives him to take on sensitive issues no one else will touch. It's the reason he speaks out against our insane foreign policy, the drug war, the growing police state, corporatism and all the other issues that no one else wants to raise. He knows the demagogues will have a field day with it, but at least it gets us talking (and hopefully thinking) about important issues that other leaders would rather we ignored.

 

[ladyliberal]

He's a racist huh?

Nobody in this thread has called Ron Paul a racist (admittedly, the words "nuts" and "neanderthal" have been bandied about). People have merely noted that he criticized the Civil Rights act. It's perfectly possible for non-racists to facilitate racism. As Michael Gerson put it (Ron Paul’s quest to undo the party of Lincoln - The Washington Post)

"Whatever his personal views, Paul categorically opposes the legal construct that ended state-sanctioned racism."

Are you able to understand that opposing the legislation and it's broad scope, and the wording of the bill, is not the same as opposing civil rights? Honest question.

I understand that a bill with "Civil Rights" in its name does not necessarily advance the cause of civil rights, anymore than a bill with the word "PATRIOT" is necessarily patriotic or a bill with "reform" is necessarily a reform. In this case however, I think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually did advance the cause of civil rights. To oppose the bill, then, amounts to opposing certain civil rights.

It is important to note that the portions of the bill restricting the rights of certain private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race were not motivated by an abstract or speculative concern. They were motivated by centuries of history in which both government and private individuals oppressed an entire race. Ron Paul's ideal version of the bill, which I understand to include those restrictions on public entities but exclude those on private entities, would have been a dramatically weaker half-measure.

 

[TexM3]

Article
Killing someone infringes on their natural rights…get it?

How are these natural rights determined?

logic

 

[Article 15]

Article
Killing someone infringes on their natural rights…get it?

How are these natural rights determined?

logic

Explain the logic.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think of Ron Paul as a racist. I just think he is too wrapped up in his libertarian values to do what is right. He is perfectly willing to trade away civil rights, gay rights and worker rights if they conflict with his libertarian values

He does his best to avoid "ends justify the means" reasoning. In most cases, we don't need to sacrifice fundamental principles to solve our problems, and we should always do our best to avoid that approach. It's this conviction that is at the core of his ideology. It's what drives him to take on sensitive issues no one else will touch. It's the reason he speaks out against our insane foreign policy, the drug war, the growing police state, corporatism and all the other issues that no one else wants to raise. He knows the demagogues will have a field day with it, but at least it gets us talking (and hopefully thinking) about important issues that other leaders would rather we ignored.

I have no problem with that. But sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns when you attack a problem. Pauls hands off, let everything take care of itself viewpoint is not leadership. Government is capable of doing good and government is capable of doing bad. Civil rights is an example of government doing good

 

[TexM3]

How are these natural rights determined?

logic

Explain the logic.

you figure it out

 

[Article 15]

logic

Explain the logic.

you figure it out

I am Jack's lack of surprise that you can't explain it.

 

[ladyliberal]

It was southern conservatives, of which many were democrats, yes.

Northern democrats, no.

No matter how you slice it they were, by and large. Southern & Conservative.

Correct, whether democratic or republican, those opposed to civil rights were conservative, then as today, it was an effort to maintain a social, economic, and political advantage.

(Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

About 80% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats supported the bill. However, when adjusted by region (with the South defined as the old Confederacy and the North as the rest of the country) Democrats were substantially more likely to support the bill. In fact, none of the (relatively few) Southern Republicans supported the bill, and Northern Republicans were more than twice as likely to oppose the bill as were their Democratic counterparts.

Of course, both parties have changed substantially in the time between then and now.

 

[TexM3]

Explain the logic.

you figure it out

I am Jack's lack of surprise that you can't explain it.

Ronald explains it much better than I...

Natural rights are every man’s at birth and are not State-granted. If each man has an equal claim to liberty, that is, the use of his rights, he can be limited in his freedom only by the claims of other men to an equal share of liberty. The circle of rights around every man extends as far as it may without intruding on the rights of other men. For this reason are the “rights” granted by the State bogus rights. A right to receive welfare, for example, is invalid since it requires the abridgement, however partial, of the rights of the citizen who is compelled to pay for the welfare benefits given to someone else. Natural rights, by contrast, require no abridgment of another individual’s rights to exist, but are limited only by the same natural rights of another person.

— Ronald Cooney, The Freeman [October 1972]

 

[dblack]

I have no problem with that. But sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns when you attack a problem. Pauls hands off, let everything take care of itself viewpoint is not leadership. Government is capable of doing good and government is capable of doing bad. Civil rights is an example of government doing good

Certainly in abolishing state-sanctioned racism it was good and necessary. But I think it's reasonable to question whether the thoughcrime aspect was worth it, or even that effective in the long run. Racism is still with us, and much of it is fueled by resentment of intrusive government policy. If would could have found another way, a way that didn't inject government into hiring decisions (for example), and in a way that didn't sacrifice property rights, don't you think that would have been better in the long run?

 

[Zoom]

By Laura Bassett

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

More: Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy

"undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices." I wonder if he was speaking on the behalf of blacks or whites when he said this?

 

[Article 15]

you figure it out

I am Jack's lack of surprise that you can't explain it.

Ronald explains it much better than I...

Natural rights are every man’s at birth and are not State-granted. If each man has an equal claim to liberty, that is, the use of his rights, he can be limited in his freedom only by the claims of other men to an equal share of liberty. The circle of rights around every man extends as far as it may without intruding on the rights of other men. For this reason are the “rights” granted by the State bogus rights. A right to receive welfare, for example, is invalid since it requires the abridgement, however partial, of the rights of the citizen who is compelled to pay for the welfare benefits given to someone else. Natural rights, by contrast, require no abridgment of another individual’s rights to exist, but are limited only by the same natural rights of another person.

— Ronald Cooney, The Freeman [October 1972]

And without a government and laws to enforce these alleged natural rights you have nothing.

Face it, there are laws against murder because murder is morally wrong.

 

[dblack]

"undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices." I wonder if he was speaking on the behalf of blacks or whites when he said this?

Both. It affects all of us.

 

[rightwinger]

I have no problem with that. But sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns when you attack a problem. Pauls hands off, let everything take care of itself viewpoint is not leadership. Government is capable of doing good and government is capable of doing bad. Civil rights is an example of government doing good

Certainly in abolishing state-sanctioned racism it was good and necessary. But I think it's reasonable to question whether the thoughcrime aspect was worth it, or even that effective in the long run. Racism is still with us, and much of it is fueled by resentment of intrusive government policy. If would could have found another way, a way that didn't inject government into hiring decisions (for example), and in a way that didn't sacrifice property rights, don't you think that would have been better in the long run?

No I don't

Racism was too embedded in our culture to go away by itself. States rights advocates were clear they were not going to lift a finger to end official racist policies and the cultural racism that supported it

You can't legislate hatred away, but you can make sure that government does not do anything to support that hatred.

Programs like desegregation, busing of students and affirmative action were necessary to end the culture of racism that was unofficially enforcing the old codes

 

[dblack]

I have no problem with that. But sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns when you attack a problem. Pauls hands off, let everything take care of itself viewpoint is not leadership. Government is capable of doing good and government is capable of doing bad. Civil rights is an example of government doing good

Certainly in abolishing state-sanctioned racism it was good and necessary. But I think it's reasonable to question whether the thoughcrime aspect was worth it, or even that effective in the long run. Racism is still with us, and much of it is fueled by resentment of intrusive government policy. If would could have found another way, a way that didn't inject government into hiring decisions (for example), and in a way that didn't sacrifice property rights, don't you think that would have been better in the long run?

No I don't

Racism was too embedded in our culture to go away by itself. States rights advocates were clear they were not going to lift a finger to end official racist policies and the cultural racism that supported it

You can't legislate hatred away, but you can make sure that government does not do anything to support that hatred.

Programs like desegregation, busing of students and affirmative action were necessary to end the culture of racism that was unofficially enforcing the old codes

Wait.. I think maybe you misread my question. I was asking IF we were able to do it without sacrificing the principles Paul is speaking up for, don't you think it would have been better?

 

[TexM3]

I am Jack's lack of surprise that you can't explain it.

Ronald explains it much better than I...

Natural rights are every man’s at birth and are not State-granted. If each man has an equal claim to liberty, that is, the use of his rights, he can be limited in his freedom only by the claims of other men to an equal share of liberty. The circle of rights around every man extends as far as it may without intruding on the rights of other men. For this reason are the “rights” granted by the State bogus rights. A right to receive welfare, for example, is invalid since it requires the abridgement, however partial, of the rights of the citizen who is compelled to pay for the welfare benefits given to someone else. Natural rights, by contrast, require no abridgment of another individual’s rights to exist, but are limited only by the same natural rights of another person.

— Ronald Cooney, The Freeman [October 1972]

And without a government and laws to enforce these alleged natural rights you have nothing.

Face it, there are laws against murder because murder is morally wrong.

It's morally wrong because it violates a persons natural right to life...

 

[rightwinger]

Certainly in abolishing state-sanctioned racism it was good and necessary. But I think it's reasonable to question whether the thoughcrime aspect was worth it, or even that effective in the long run. Racism is still with us, and much of it is fueled by resentment of intrusive government policy. If would could have found another way, a way that didn't inject government into hiring decisions (for example), and in a way that didn't sacrifice property rights, don't you think that would have been better in the long run?

No I don't

Racism was too embedded in our culture to go away by itself. States rights advocates were clear they were not going to lift a finger to end official racist policies and the cultural racism that supported it

You can't legislate hatred away, but you can make sure that government does not do anything to support that hatred.

Programs like desegregation, busing of students and affirmative action were necessary to end the culture of racism that was unofficially enforcing the old codes

Wait.. I think maybe you misread my question. I was asking IF we were able to do it without sacrificing the principles Paul is speaking up for, don't you think it would have been better?

You mean if we were able to wish away the overt racism that existed in this country? Paul is showing why he is unfit to lead this country. He has never accomplished anything as a Congressman. All he does is stand by his simplistic principles and vote No.

That is not leadership. The President of the United States as substantial power both at home and abroad. Great Presidents know how to use it. Paul's view of the presidency is to use his veto power to enforce his principles whether it is good for the country or not.

That is why Paul will never be elected. He allows idealism to overturn practicality

 

[Article 15]

Ronald explains it much better than I...

Natural rights are every man’s at birth and are not State-granted. If each man has an equal claim to liberty, that is, the use of his rights, he can be limited in his freedom only by the claims of other men to an equal share of liberty. The circle of rights around every man extends as far as it may without intruding on the rights of other men. For this reason are the “rights” granted by the State bogus rights. A right to receive welfare, for example, is invalid since it requires the abridgement, however partial, of the rights of the citizen who is compelled to pay for the welfare benefits given to someone else. Natural rights, by contrast, require no abridgment of another individual’s rights to exist, but are limited only by the same natural rights of another person.

— Ronald Cooney, The Freeman [October 1972]

And without a government and laws to enforce these alleged natural rights you have nothing.

Face it, there are laws against murder because murder is morally wrong.

It's morally wrong because it violates a persons natural right to life...

"Natural rights" are a concept created by man for man.

But I agree that to violate these so called natural rights is morally wrong therefore any laws to enforce these violations would be legislating morality.

Thank you.

Welcome to the board, and have a nice day.