Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[rightwinger]

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...

Is it morally wrong to violate....All men are created equal?
Is it morally wrong to deny someone their liberty and freedom because you do not like the color of their skin?

 

[PredFan]

Why did they pass a law against it?

How should I know? I wasn't involved in the legislation.

Do you agree with the law?

Sure.

 

[uptownlivin90]

As an African American who was born and raised in Mississippi, and as a republican who plans on voting for Ron Paul in the primary, I'll say this:

I understand Paul's view of the world. I understand Paul's reasoning behind not supporting civil rights legislation. He does not believe that government should intervene in the practices of private businesses. If you don't wish to hire "African Americans" then you shouldn't have too.

I also want to say, though I agree with Paul on many issues (anti-gun control, less regulation, audit the fed, prohibition, freedom of speech, less taxes, control the border, no U.N., end the EPA, smaller government, bring troops home, etc) I completely disagree with him on this issue. I believe that every business has it's own right to govern itself, I also believe I have the fundamental right as a human being to be treated and looked upon as a human being and not as an "African American". No matter how flawed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may or may not have been, THIS was it's major accomplishment, the assurance that when it came to both the private and public sector my right to be considered "human" rather than "black" was protected.

When I send my application into a job, I should not have to worry about whether or not this job hires "coloreds", neither should anyone else have to worry about whether this job hires their particular shade of color, race, or ethnicity. I should only have to worry about whether or not I am qualified for this particular job (Mind you all that I am NOT arguing the merits of AA, just the idea that individual liberties should be protected). The big difference between myself and Paul here is that I believe I have a right not to be discriminated against because of the color of my skin, while he does not see this as a right, but theorizes that the free market will take care of itself when it comes to discrimination (ie when people see that businesses are racist, they won't go and those businesses will be boycotted/abandoned and either have to close or change their business policies).

There's a fundamental flaw in this theory, and history has shown this from the simple fact that there were thousands of business that had racist practices during Jim Crow that thrived. The flaw is, requiring businesses to treat HUMANITY with equal respect and dignity is not a concept opposed to individual freedoms. Quite the opposite. It protects individual freedoms.

With that said, though I don't agree with Paul on THIS, I still believe he's the best choice for this nation at this present time, and I do not believe his stance on this issue comes from his being prejudice or racist, but because he has a fundamentally different understanding of the issue than I do and many others do. I disagree with his understanding. But I disagree respectfully, seeing the merit in his arguments. The fact is nobody is talking about repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I don't even believe that's possible considering that nobody in congress would vote for such a repeal. If you really want to talk about Paul's record on issues regarding race, let's talk about addressing the government run drug war which Paul understands is statistically detrimental to the African American community.

 

[PredFan]

Ron Paul does not stand up for peoples who's liberty is being denied because of skin color

Garbage.

Ron Paul has a corrupt view of Liberty

There is no time in American history where liberty has been denied to the extent of the way we treated our black citizens. We had state sponsored, open terrorism against our black population

Ron Paul does not see that as a violation of liberty?

Ron Paul is not against blacks having the same rights as whites. That is your assumption and your mistake. The Civil Rights Act was not the one and only way blacks could have been freed from that kind of abuse.

 

[PredFan]

The Civil Rights period was the biggest defense of Liberty and Freedom in our lifetimes. Ron Paul should be ashamed of himself

He isn't. Because unlike you, he knows what he's talking about.

 

[PredFan]

Because they passed a law against it.

Why did they pass a law against it?

Do you agree with the law?

Answer both questions, please.

Cat got your tongue?

Why did they pass a law against it?

Do you agree with the law?

Answer both questions, please.

I don't have all day to spend at the computer.

 

[Article 15]

Do you agree with the law?

Sure.

Why?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The circle of rights around every man extends as far as it may without intruding on the rights of other men.

Rights are not absolute, however, the Constitution authorizes the state to limit rights per a compelling governmental interest, in accordance with the nature of that right and the level of scrutiny.

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.

Although there is no ‘right’ to welfare, there is a right to have equal access to the laws which regulate its policy, and a right to not have a specific group of persons excluded from such laws and policies; this also applies to the right to vote, to marry, and how or whether or not to raise a family.

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?

Which goes to the fact the Civil Rights Act was not designed to end racism, it was designed to end segregation and enforce the principles enshrined in the 14th Amendment. It addressed the states’ failure to abide by the Constitution and rule of law – it addressed legal, not social, issues.

 

[PredFan]

except paul isn't a libertarian... libertarians don't think you should interfere with reproductive choice.

he's just a nutbar... and a racist/anti-semitic one, to boot.

Can you quote me something, ANYTHING, where Paul thinks government should "interfere with reproductive choice"?

for delusional paulians who think this idiot is a libertarian:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

Abortion

you're welcome...

You do realize that Paul's objection to RvW is on the grounds that it infringes on state's rights right? His pro-life stand is his personal view.

Of course you don't, it would ruin your made up view of him.

 

[TexM3]

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...

Is it morally wrong to violate....All men are created equal?
Is it morally wrong to deny someone their liberty and freedom because you do not like the color of their skin?

It's morally wrong to deny someone their liberty and freedom period. That includes private property owners.

 

[rightwinger]

Garbage.

Ron Paul has a corrupt view of Liberty

There is no time in American history where liberty has been denied to the extent of the way we treated our black citizens. We had state sponsored, open terrorism against our black population

Ron Paul does not see that as a violation of liberty?

Ron Paul is not against blacks having the same rights as whites. That is your assumption and your mistake. The Civil Rights Act was not the one and only way blacks could have been freed from that kind of abuse.

It was long overdue.

We went 100 years waiting for society to "fix itself" with no real improvement. Look at how racial relations and opportunities have improved over the last 50 years compared to the hundred years after the civil war.

 

[PredFan]

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.

rightwingnuts hate to admit that southern dems ran to the repubs after civil rights.

which is why the southern strategy has been so successful.

I always get a kick out of it when they try to pull the "but it was the Democrats who opposed the Civil Right Act" card.

No, nutjobs, it was southern racists and they fled to the GOP after it was passed.

You lack of knowledge of history is astounding.

 

[PredFan]

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.

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.

I believe that Paul and his supporters truly believe that libertarian ‘values,’ once implemented, will result in a kind of ‘civil rights utopia,’ that state regulation, no matter how well-intended, has an inadvertently adverse effect on civil liberties.

This fails to take into consideration, however, the inherent imperfection of the various market forces libertarians would depend upon once the Constitution and its case law are removed from the equation.

To assume, for example, that the market would address the problem of a racist hotel owner who refuses to accommodate blacks by being put out of business by outraged consumers who refuse to do business with a racist business, is naïve and unrealistic. Markets were not designed to ensure the consistent application of the fundamental principles expressed by the Constitution, that the laws be applied equally.

Absolute ignorant partisan hack garbage. there is nothing conservative about racism.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Is it morally wrong to violate....All men are created equal?
Is it morally wrong to deny someone their liberty and freedom because you do not like the color of their skin?

It's morally wrong to deny someone their liberty and freedom period. That includes private property owners.

I prefer to protect the liberty and freedom of those who are not being treated as human beings over the liberty and freedom of someone to act as a racist

 

[PredFan]

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.

A sensible and thoughtful post. Thanks. I don't agree on all points but I do believe you understand the issue better than most.

 

[Article 15]

So anyway, murder is morally wrong no matter how someone tries to spin to and to make a law against it is to legislate that morality.

 

[Paulie]

except paul isn't a libertarian... libertarians don't think you should interfere with reproductive choice.

he's just a nutbar... and a racist/anti-semitic one, to boot.

Can you quote me something, ANYTHING, where Paul thinks government should "interfere with reproductive choice"?

for delusional paulians who think this idiot is a libertarian:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

Abortion

you're welcome...

Yes, those are HIS views.

Now, would you care to point out where he believes the GOVERNMENT should interfere with the issue?

By wanting to overturn RvW, he wants the government NOT to interfere. It was never an issue enumerated to congress in the first place.

He wants the government OUT of the issue.

I know you aren't this stupid, jillian.

 

[Paulie]

So anyway, murder is morally wrong no matter how someone tries to spin to and to make a law against it is to legislate that morality.

I think it's got more to do with the fact that the right to life was deemed an inalienable right granted by our creator, so it is a basic right that has a necessity for government to create a law to protect.

 

[TexM3]

Is it morally wrong to violate....All men are created equal?
Is it morally wrong to deny someone their liberty and freedom because you do not like the color of their skin?

It's morally wrong to deny someone their liberty and freedom period. That includes private property owners.

I prefer to protect the liberty and freedom of those who are not being treated as human beings over the liberty and freedom of someone to act as a racist

And I prefer to protect freedom and liberty for all.

 

[WatertheTree]

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.

I actually pondered this bull shit murder trap you have laid while I was at the gym. You are wrong.

There are laws agianst murder, and we punish them by sending them to prison (I wish we would bring back hanging, see how cool it is to be a criminal when real justice is dispensed) not because it is morally wrong, but to protect the other citizens from a predator. It has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with survival and safety of the community.