Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[Dragon]

I've seen Paul on this subject before. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that his is a racist position, but I don't believe that to be the case. I think it's a radical-libertarian, radical-free-market position. Paul was all for striking down the Jim Crow laws, but thought that was as far as the federal government could or should go. Where he had a problem was in prohibiting a private business from discriminating on the basis of race. He believes in an absolute right of a business owner to conduct his business as he sees fit, no matter how wrong and appalling the basis for his decisions.

I disagree with him, of course. A business does not have any such absolute right, something which follows inevitably from the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. As an entity dealing with the public in consequential ways, a business is not in the same category as private behavior engaged in at home. Businesses employ people and so impact people's livelihoods; they sell products and so impact public safety; they conduct operations that impact the environment. In all of these areas they potentially infringe the rights of others more than people do when engaging in purely private behavior. As such, they are subject to a greater degree of scrutiny and restraint. Or at least that is how I see it, and why I believe that Paul and other free-market purists are wrong.

A right of business owners to discriminate on the basis of race is inconsistent with the right of people to employment and housing regardless of race; both rights cannot simultaneously exist. The Civil Rights Act restrains private business as well as state governments for good reason.

 

[Paulie]

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.

I disagree about hanging. Playing God and deciding who lives and who dies is, in fact, morally wrong.

Even Paul has changed his views on capital punishment.

 

[WatertheTree]

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.

I disagree about hanging. Playing God and deciding who lives and who dies is, in fact, morally wrong.

Even Paul has changed his views on capital punishment.

I dont agree with Ron Paul on everything, thank god we have 50 different states and he plans to return the power to them.

Im not indifferent to hanging I suppose. But if 12 people convict you of murder then I think you should die a public violent death. Im open to a firing squad, beheading, stoning, or quartering.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

But you can't.

You choose to protect the right to discriminate

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Republitards think the right to discriminate is a constitutional right, let the racists discriminate, just don't let my tax payer dollars go to such trash.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I disagree about hanging. Playing God and deciding who lives and who dies is, in fact, morally wrong.

Even Paul has changed his views on capital punishment.

I dont agree with Ron Paul on everything, thank god we have 50 different states and he plans to return the power to them.

Im not indifferent to hanging I suppose. But if 12 people convict you of murder then I think you should die a public violent death. Im open to a firing squad, beheading, stoning, or quartering.

Yea...we saw what happened when we allowed states to decide how they would treat their citizens

They decided certain citizens were second rate and not worthy of the full rights as citizens.

 

[dblack]

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.

That's not what is meant by the phrase 'legislate morality'.

Legislating morality is when we use government to enforce 'righteous living'. Some people think the purpose of government is to define the good life and then push all of us toward it via whatever means necessary, and I reject that. Government should be there to protect our freedoms and make it possible for us all to get along, pursuing whatever 'good life' we prefer - not to tell us how to live.

 

[WatertheTree]

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.

But you can't.

You choose to protect the right to discriminate

No, he chooses to protect the rights of the majority against the will of the minority. Will expressed in the form of a bureaucratic mandate coming from a bloated federal government.

 

[paperview]

And I prefer to protect freedom and liberty for all.

But you can't.

You choose to protect the right to discriminate

No, he chooses to protect the rights of the majority against the will of the minority. Will expressed in the form of a bureaucratic mandate coming from a bloated federal government.

[SIZE=+1]"The first measure of a free society is not that its government performs the will of the majority. We had that in 1930s Germany and in the South until the '60s. The first measure of a free society is that its government protects the just freedoms of its minorities.
The majority is quite capable of protecting itself."
-- Jim Warren[/SIZE]

 

[Paulie]

I've seen Paul on this subject before. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that his is a racist position, but I don't believe that to be the case. I think it's a radical-libertarian, radical-free-market position. Paul was all for striking down the Jim Crow laws, but thought that was as far as the federal government could or should go. Where he had a problem was in prohibiting a private business from discriminating on the basis of race. He believes in an absolute right of a business owner to conduct his business as he sees fit, no matter how wrong and appalling the basis for his decisions.

I disagree with him, of course. A business does not have any such absolute right, something which follows inevitably from the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. As an entity dealing with the public in consequential ways, a business is not in the same category as private behavior engaged in at home. Businesses employ people and so impact people's livelihoods; they sell products and so impact public safety; they conduct operations that impact the environment. In all of these areas they potentially infringe the rights of others more than people do when engaging in purely private behavior. As such, they are subject to a greater degree of scrutiny and restraint. Or at least that is how I see it, and why I believe that Paul and other free-market purists are wrong.

A right of business owners to discriminate on the basis of race is inconsistent with the right of people to employment and housing regardless of race; both rights cannot simultaneously exist. The Civil Rights Act restrains private business as well as state governments for good reason.

I respect this position, as laid out, and will honestly give it more thought as to whether I think I would change my position.

It took you one post to open my mind, where the rest in here have been failing for pages upon pages throughout the thread.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I haven't read this entire thread but has anyone mentioned that Al Gore Sr. and JFK voted against the Civil Rights Act?

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy​, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

Facts are stubborn things.

 

[WatertheTree]

But you can't.

You choose to protect the right to discriminate

No, he chooses to protect the rights of the majority against the will of the minority. Will expressed in the form of a bureaucratic mandate coming from a bloated federal government.

[SIZE=+1]"The first measure of a free society is not that its government performs the will of the majority. We had that in 1930s Germany and in the South until the '60s. The first measure of a free society is that its government protects the just freedoms of its minorities.
The majority is quite capable of protecting itself."
-- Jim Warren[/SIZE]

None is being violated of ANY rights, except for the majority who now have to conform to a federal bureaucracy and mandates. Now if we were locking the minority up in gulags then that argument would stick, but here is holds zero relevance.

 

[rightwinger]

I haven't read this entire thread but has anyone mentioned that Al Gore Sr. and JFK voted against the Civil Rights Act?

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy​, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

Facts are stubborn things.

They are both dead and Ron Paul is running for president

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Ok, so tell us exactly what was the right way to do it.

 

[paperview]

I haven't read this entire thread but has anyone mentioned that Al Gore Sr. and JFK voted against the Civil Rights Act?

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy​, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

Facts are stubborn things.

Half the story.

<snip>

The Election of 1960

By the 1960 presidential campaign, civil rights had emerged as a crucial issue. Just a few weeks before the election, Martin Luther King, Jr., was arrested while leading a protest in Atlanta, Georgia. John Kennedy phoned Coretta Scott King to express his concern while a call from Robert Kennedy to the judge helped secure her husband's safe release. The Kennedys' personal intervention led to a public endorsement by Martin Luther King, Sr., the influential father of the civil rights leader.

Across the nation, more than 70 percent of African Americans voted for Kennedy, and these votes provided the winning edge in several key states. When President Kennedy took office in January 1961, African Americans had high expectations for the new administration.

But Kennedy's narrow election victory and small working margin in Congress left him cautious. He was reluctant to lose southern support for legislation on many fronts by pushing too hard on civil rights legislation. Instead, he appointed unprecedented numbers of African Americans to high-level positions in the administration and strengthened the Civil Rights Commission. He spoke out in favor of school desegregation, praised a number of cities for integrating their schools, and put Vice President Lyndon Johnson in charge of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Attorney General Robert Kennedy turned his attention to voting rights, initiating five times the number of suits brought during the previous administration.

More: Civil Rights Movement - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

 

[paperview]

No, he chooses to protect the rights of the majority against the will of the minority. Will expressed in the form of a bureaucratic mandate coming from a bloated federal government.

[SIZE=+1]"The first measure of a free society is not that its government performs the will of the majority. We had that in 1930s Germany and in the South until the '60s. The first measure of a free society is that its government protects the just freedoms of its minorities.
The majority is quite capable of protecting itself."
-- Jim Warren[/SIZE]

None is being violated of ANY rights, except for the majority who now have to conform to a federal bureaucracy and mandates. Now if we were locking the minority up in gulags then that argument would stick, but here is holds zero relevance.

So rights are only violated if people are being locked up in gulags?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

So the Americans do not have the 'right' to self-defense, i.e., the federal government defending us,

because that right would abridge the rights of others by making them pay taxes for defense even though they might not wish to???

Really???

 

[Paulie]

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.

Ok, so tell us exactly what was the right way to do it.

Brown v. Board started things off nicely, and that set a precedent that could have easily led to the removal of the rest of the jim crow laws.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Ok, so tell us exactly what was the right way to do it.

Brown v. Board started things off nicely, and that set a precedent that could have easily led to the removal of the rest of the jim crow laws.

Brown vs Board of Education decisions required armed US Troops to force school integration. Little kids were spat upon and threatened as they tried to integrate white schools. It was not a done deal once Brown passed

 

[paperview]

And this...

On September 30, 1962, riots erupted on the campus of the University of Mississippi in Oxford where locals, students, and committed segregationists had gathered to protest the enrollment of James Meredith, a black Air Force veteran attempting to integrate the all-white school. Despite the presence of more than 120 federal marshals who were on hand to protect Meredith from harm, the crowd turned violent after nightfall, and authorities struggled to maintain order. When the smoke cleared the following morning, two civilians were dead and scores more were reported injured.

For Meredith, the riot was perhaps a fitting coda to a process that began almost two years earlier when he brought suit against the school, alleging that he was denied admission on the basis of race. Although a lower court sided with the university, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in June 1962 ordering the school to admit Meredith the following fall, thereby ensuring a showdown between the federal government and Mississippi's segregationist state government. After spending the night of September 30 under federal protection, Meredith was allowed to register for classes the following morning, and became the first black graduate from the university in August 1963.