What Really Divides Us?

How do you feel about this article?

  • I mostly agree

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • I mostly disagree

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • Total voters
    17

Reasoning

Active Member
Apr 15, 2010
403
70
28
What Really Divides Us?

By Rep. Ron Paul, MD

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE @
What Really Divides Us? by Rep. Ron Paul

The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
 
The division has always been here, we've seen it in the ways we've dealt with minorities over the years.

However..........the famous quote after 9/11 "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" just helped to further that divide and put it on steroids.

It's been furthered by the GOP philosophy of no.
 
Same old collectivist/statist argumentation.

Racism is the product of human nature, not political ideology and a good many rugged individualists were quite racist while other rugged individualists were staunch abolitionists and freedom fighters.
 
Historically your country has had 2 entirely different brainwashing techniques to allow you to think you are participating in a 2 plus party system.
Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see that's bullshit. That leaves out 80% of the nation.
 
...

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution....

...

thank you Ron Paul for ignoring the elephant in the room (and most of American history): Most every racist policy/law/asshole in the US, has been hidden behind 'State's Rights'


this kind of stuff is why most reasonable people back away from the Paul family, even when they are making valid points. Their arguments are always laced with other points unspoken.
 
There are tons of things that divide us. Instead of dwelling on them, we should focus on what unites us. Because it's unity that we need.

And we can't be united until individuals take on the responsibility for their own lives. Individuals need to develop the virtues necessary to survive.
 
...

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution....

...

thank you Ron Paul for ignoring the elephant in the room (and most of American history): Most every racist policy/law/asshole in the US, has been hidden behind 'State's Rights'


this kind of stuff is why most reasonable people back away from the Paul family, even when they are making valid points. Their arguments are always laced with other points unspoken.

And those policies are outed as they infringe on INDIVIDUAL rights. What the OP is referring to is the loss of that INDIVIDUAL rights aspect in favor of the group mentality mindset that would sacrifice those right in the name of the whole. In the end that can only lead to bondage.
 
There are tons of things that divide us. Instead of dwelling on them, we should focus on what unites us. Because it's unity that we need.

And we can't be united until individuals take on the responsibility for their own lives. Individuals need to develop the virtues necessary to survive.



QFT.

What really divides us is values. The conflict is between those who value individual liberty and accept individual responsibility vs. collectivist "take care of me" whingers.
 
There are tons of things that divide us. Instead of dwelling on them, we should focus on what unites us. Because it's unity that we need.

And we can't be united until individuals take on the responsibility for their own lives. Individuals need to develop the virtues necessary to survive.



QFT.

What really divides us is values. The conflict is between those who value individual liberty and accept individual responsibility vs. collectivist "take care of me" whingers.

Or, to put it another way (but in the same derogatory vein) - those who value individual selfishness - "what's mine is mine and screw you" and those who feel that the individual, as part of a society, has a responsibility for that society.
 
Or, to put it another way (but in the same derogatory vein) - those who value individual selfishness - "what's mine is mine and screw you" and those who feel that the individual, as part of a society, has a responsibility for that society.

That is an incredibly intellectually flawed argument. Everyone is entitled to what they rightfully earn. That is the very driver that breeds success and innovation. Nobody is going to go the extra mile if they aren't going to reap the rewards for doing so. It's basic human behavior and has been observed and proven time and time again. Collectivism only results in the halting of progress.

Nobody is entitled to take something of someone else's just because they may have more and think it's unfair. That attitude is childish and a trait of somebody emotionally weak who refuses to take responsibility for his own life and instead just blames somebody else for his failures.

If you feel that you have a responsibility to society then nobody is stopping you from helping society. Nobody is stopping you from being charitable to others. That doesn't obligate anybody else to engage in the same level of charity as you just because you think they should. The idea of America is that it is a nation built on individual freedom and liberty. That means that I have the right to spend a day helping build a Habitat house, which I do twice a year. It means the Levines, the wealthiest family here in Charlotte, have the right to donate millions of their personal fortune to public causes around the city. It also means that people like Ebenizer Scrooge have the right to keep every penny they earn and not give it out to anybody if that's their decision. It's not your decision. Your view doesn't promote liberty, it impedes it.
 
What divides us? Simple. Those of us who work for what we want and need divided against those who feel we owe them something. Demoncrats play a war on economics, race, class and of course business. they preach racial hatred and division.
 
In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers.

Jim Crow spent 100 years proving that this is not true. Ron Paul is fantasizing and ignoring reality.
 
There are tons of things that divide us. Instead of dwelling on them, we should focus on what unites us. Because it's unity that we need.

And we can't be united until individuals take on the responsibility for their own lives. Individuals need to develop the virtues necessary to survive.



QFT.

What really divides us is values. The conflict is between those who value individual liberty and accept individual responsibility vs. collectivist "take care of me" whingers.

I think that's overly simplistic. We're divided in many ways. Race, class, religion, gender, education, etc
 
What divides us? Simple. Those of us who work for what we want and need divided against those who feel we owe them something. Demoncrats play a war on economics, race, class and of course business. they preach racial hatred and division.

Give me an example of a Democrat preaching racial hatred.

What divides us is demonizing each other. You've given a great example in your post.
 
There are tons of things that divide us. Instead of dwelling on them, we should focus on what unites us. Because it's unity that we need.

And we can't be united until individuals take on the responsibility for their own lives. Individuals need to develop the virtues necessary to survive.



QFT.

What really divides us is values. The conflict is between those who value individual liberty and accept individual responsibility vs. collectivist "take care of me" whingers.

I think that's overly simplistic. We're divided in many ways. Race, class, religion, gender, education, etc

Only to those who aren't willing to step back far enough to see the big picture.
 
There are tons of things that divide us. Instead of dwelling on them, we should focus on what unites us. Because it's unity that we need.

And we can't be united until individuals take on the responsibility for their own lives. Individuals need to develop the virtues necessary to survive.



QFT.

What really divides us is values. The conflict is between those who value individual liberty and accept individual responsibility vs. collectivist "take care of me" whingers.

Or, to put it another way (but in the same derogatory vein) - those who value individual selfishness - "what's mine is mine and screw you" and those who feel that the individual, as part of a society, has a responsibility for that society.

or put your way, "get out there and work your ass off and give me half of what you make" "You work for yours and you work for mine, you owe me".
 
there are those who want us to dvide up into racial groups, we are easier to control and manipulate that way.
 
...

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution....

...

thank you Ron Paul for ignoring the elephant in the room (and most of American history): Most every racist policy/law/asshole in the US, has been hidden behind 'State's Rights'


this kind of stuff is why most reasonable people back away from the Paul family, even when they are making valid points. Their arguments are always laced with other points unspoken.

And those policies are outed as they infringe on INDIVIDUAL rights. What the OP is referring to is the loss of that INDIVIDUAL rights aspect in favor of the group mentality mindset that would sacrifice those right in the name of the whole. In the end that can only lead to bondage.

Interesting that you use the word "bondage" when speaking out about the individuals rights, are you an S and M freak?

Quick question............does that mean we should take out all the speed limit signs and just let anyone drive any speed they want? After all, speed limits limit the individual's right to get to where they are going as fast as they want, right? I mean, who doesn't mind someone driving 75 mph down their residential street?

While you're at it, let's legalize DUI, because after all, that limits the individuals right to get drunk and make it home, right?
 

Forum List

Back
Top