Question: Have any of you heard this argument?

[flames2dust77]

So, I'm cruising through the comments on We the People 2.0 on youtube. There is a guy there who goes by: Jason2520 (I'm giving that out so it will be easy to find:D) He's spinning, spinning, spinning all over the comments. Comments like this:

"There is a thing called the Civil Rights Act. It makes discrimination illegal. Paul opposes this law, and believes that discrimination by private businesses ought not to be illegal.

In other words, if you get fired because your employer doesn't like your race, in Ron Paul's world you would have no legal recourse."

Just wondering....if any of you have heard stuff like this before and how you responded. BTW, the link is in my sig. You know...if you would like to serve him a nice hot plate of "shut yo' mouth"; open up a can of verbal whoop ass on him :D and make him look silly.:cool:

[pinkmandy]

My response to that stuff tends to go like this:

So...you think certain groups deserve special rights? Isn't that itself racist? You seem to think some people aren't as good as others and thus need extra special treatment to level the playing field? Imo, that's insulting. In contrast, I agree w/Ron Paul. I think all people are EQUAL and deserve EQUAL protection as individuals.

[acptulsa]

This is from Meet the Press:

Q: In a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, you said: "Contrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
A: Well, we should do this at a federal level, it'd be OK for the military. Just think of how the government caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.

Q: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act, if it was today?

A: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

In other words, he's against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it interferes with property rights, but he's for civil rights and would support a guarantee of equal protection similar to what enlistees in the Armed Forces enjoy.

[ClayTrainor]

My response to that stuff tends to go like this:

So...you think certain groups deserve special rights? Isn't that itself racist? You seem to think some people aren't as good as others and thus need extra special treatment to level the playing field? Imo, that's insulting. In contrast, I agree w/Ron Paul. I think all people are EQUAL and deserve EQUAL protection as individuals.

This was an excellent explanation of the how to think like a libertarian

Thanks

[MGreen]

An employer has no legal recourse if forced to hire an underqualified person because of a race quota.

Personally, I think people have a right to be racist, just as I have a right to disassociate myself from those racists.

[flames2dust77]

An employer has no legal recourse if forced to hire an underqualified person because of a race quota.

Personally, I think people have a right to be racist, just as I have a right to disassociate myself from those racists.

aha...indeed. I couldn't agree with that more.

[jointhefightforfreedom]

An employer has no legal recourse if forced to hire an underqualified person because of a race quota.

Personally, I think people have a right to be racist, just as I have a right to disassociate myself from those racists.

Totally agree with this that is what freedom is all about. If you aren't free to choose to be racist or not how are you truely Free?