Issue: Personal Liberty: racial segregation & the repeal of civilil rights? [Archive]

ctindale

06-16-2007, 08:22 AM

Help me out

I have been a supporter of Ron Paul for 4-5 years I really like his policies on almost everything until I tried to rebut an accusation of racism in another forum.

There are good arguments about quota abolishment for employers and universities, but are there good arguments for pinning "whites only" notices to the doors of diners, or even "blacks only" notices.? yes discimination happens anyway government cant stop it but it is ok to ban Blacks or Jews from Microsoft?

Under this system do we go back segregated buses and trains?

Would it be the right of a county or some pther form of collective ban people from entering their area?

The world is a very different place than 1964 , folks arent going to go ok your right lets wind back civil rights, if you did there would be outright civil war.

Lets put aside all the arguments of the civil rights act for a minute.

Are Paul supporters aware that White Nationalists are mobilising behind Ron Paul ? are they are aware that when they join meet up groups to discuss how to support Ron Paul that a good percentage of them are going to be members of the KKK?

Have a read of the 52 page thread at the Stormfront forum, the White Nationalist forum of the KKK.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-one-388512.html

I like allot of Ron Pauls ideas although I am pretty sure that mobilising the KKK is not the best direction for America.

If you think its a one off google this "David Duke" "ron Paul" and you will find Paul utilizes White Supremist web sites to express his view fiarly often.

I serious embrace almost everything the Ron Paul has to say except this .

http://fitnessfortheoccasion.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/ron-paul-vs-the-civil-rights-act/

Reader Craig Tindale brings a very interesting bit of Ron Paul literature to light. Ron Paul takes issue with the Civil Rights Act (emphasis mine):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

As the editor notes:

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

When Ron Paul and his supporters say they are for individual liberty, are they including the ability to discriminate based on group identities such as race? Would President Ron Paul work to undermine or roll back the Civil Rights Act?

ctindale

06-16-2007, 08:24 AM

apologies for the spelling lol its late where I am :)

torchbearer

06-16-2007, 08:24 AM

local governments couldn't enforce segregation. and states that would consider doing such things would suffer economically because their thinking class will move to another state.

beermotor

06-16-2007, 08:48 AM

We need to get the Campaign to read that guy's blog; he makes cogent arguments that Ron Paul would do very well to address in a national forum.

angelatc

06-16-2007, 08:58 AM

Talking about race doesn't make him a racist.

Politics make strange bedfellows.

If the workforce was sufficiently restricted, ie: not letting Mexicans flood in unabated, economic forces would drive the standard of living in the black community to levels never seen.

Time and sensibilities change. Seperate drinking fountains aren't coming back, and I think it's silly to claim that they might. If anything, clinging to outdated notions that the blacks "need" help is insulting and contributes to lingering negative stereotypes.

ARealConservative

06-16-2007, 08:59 AM

Ron Paul follows in Barry Goldwaters shoes in not favoring the most recent "civil rights act". This is because the legislation went to far in that it allowed government to interfer in the private sector too much. It was a huge expansion on government power and even so is ill-equipped to deal with sins of the heart.

Where the KKK is off base though, is in that Ron Paul is not running on a platform to reverse that 1964 legislation, but hey - if they want to vote for our guy - let 'em.

GoRonPaul

06-16-2007, 09:03 AM

So often the best intentions turn counter productive when coersion is involved... The comments on that blog are great.

Why shouldn't an idiot racist be allowed to discriminate and doom himself? I'll take all the talented minorities he turns away and crush him in the marketplace... Racism gets punished by the free-market...

Quantumystic

06-16-2007, 09:04 AM

Again, I think Dr. Paul's position more thoroughly articulated would explain that the Dr.'s point is the (un)Constitutionality of the FEDERAL government assuming and exercising these kinds of powers.

It's a question of the mechanism/venue, not the issue.

Marceline88

06-16-2007, 09:05 AM

Why in the world would we go back to segregation? And what does discrimination have to do with individual liberty? We are at liberty to hold our own opinions, but we can not discriminate against our fellow Americans, that would infringe on their liberties.

So what if a group of mentally disturbed people who gather and converse on an internet forum based around racial supremacy, that's their right to have a debate on who they like as president. I honestly don't care what ignorant racists think and I certainly don't believe that Dr. Paul would care for or seek out their collective endorsement.

The freedom message is powerful enough that it is reaching many different subgroups in the population. Ron Paul's message is also about the rule of law and if you think there are enough of these wacko racial purists to actually get our lawmakers to reinstate segregation and legalized discrimination, I have to ask what state do you live in???? Because I certainly will not live nor travel and spend my money there. This is modern day America, do you seriously think the idea of racial segregation is a popular will of the people???? It's just absurd.

ctindale

06-16-2007, 09:08 AM

I dont think he is a racist either but he might support the right to be racist . You might not think that seperate drinking fountains are coming back but their are parts of the country that would love to bring them back........and toilets, buses, schools.

I just want him to state whether or not he plans to repeal the 1964 Civil Right Act.

As much as I like him on a dozen issues if you repeal that ACT it will create a bush fire and probably ruin his chances of implementing other good ideas.

and if he is against collectivism, and racism is a sin of the heart, then why does he publish articles on David Dukes site. (David Duke was a previous Grand Wizard of the KKK).

Isnt utilizing a collectivist group like the White Nationalist movement against his principles because it represents a collectivist group that covet

Marceline88

06-16-2007, 09:16 AM

Wait a minute, wait a minute.... Ron Paul did not PUBLISH AN ARTICLE on David Duke's site. The editor of the site published an article on Ron Paul. Don't try to draw an inference of affiliation with such collectivist idiots as the KKK just because members are discussing him publicly. You are dead wrong.

legion

06-16-2007, 09:18 AM

believe it or not, the civil rights act hasn't killed segregation. i currently live in a town in arkansas where there is a whites only diner and a blacks only bar. they just call them private clubs and charge some inconsequential membership fee. i guess its the only way the old fucks around here can feel superior because god knows they haven't done anything with their lives. thats really all racism is about. if you are a loser, you're probably also a racist or an ultra-nationalist. the rest of us don't have time.

ThePieSwindler

06-16-2007, 09:29 AM

Wait how does Ron Paul's vote against a resolution to celebrate the Civil Rights act mean he wants to repeal the civil rights act? The author of that blog seems to infer that.

legion

06-16-2007, 09:35 AM

Wait how does Ron Paul's vote against a resolution to celebrate the Civil Rights act mean he wants to repeal the civil rights act? The author of that blog seems to infer that.

Ron Paul does want to repeal the civil rights act, but supports its reenactment of it at the state level.

It's part of that whole 10th amendment thing.

ctindale

06-16-2007, 10:10 AM

http://www.davidduke.com/general/i-will-continue-to-oppose-any-bill-that-grants-amnesty-or-undermines-our-liberty-and-sovereignty_2266.html

sorry I post the wrong link Ron Paul regularly publishs articles on the David Duke site

I think we need to look at both the strengths and weakness's of RP carefully.

In my mind I want to understand where he stands on this so that I can defend him in other forums and blogs.

If we cant articulate good arguments and where he stand here we wont be able to handle the blow back when these views become more widely known.

Repealing the 1964 act is going to be one huge issue when it becomes more widely known. It may be used by the other candidates to prick the bubble.

So working out how to defend this weakness (if it is one is just as important as printing bumper stickers)

Carl

06-16-2007, 10:13 AM

coplinger

06-16-2007, 10:26 AM

I'm from South Carolina & I don't think it would be too far fetched to imagine many aspects of the pre-civil rights South coming back in the smaller communities here if there were no laws preventing this. Many South Carolinians are still extremely backwards in their thinking.

Under Ron Paul's system, though, wouldn't you still have rights as an individual not to be discriminated against on the basis of your race, sex, religion, etc? I can't see how this could be unconstitutional.

lucky

06-16-2007, 10:31 AM

I have seen this argument before somewhere else and it is going to get worse. I was listening to Larry Elder talk about this last year. Larry Elder is a black Conservative talk show host on radios all across the country and very popular.

He also had the same views as stated because the reenactment was giving a special privelege to a class of people over others. He was also against quotas and any laws that gave any special rights over others. His argument was that it created resentment and a backlash against the people it was supposed to help. It also created a disincentive to that class of people to succeed on their own merits over others.

For one example was the minority quotas that are imposed on Schools. Universities, Colleges, etc. There was a huge failing rate when they were compared to the ones that got into the same school on their merits alone. The idea is that the ones that most deserve to go to the school will succeed and benefit more. When some that should by merit are bypassed for a quota to someone with inferior grades then that helps no one.

I remember being horrified when Larry Elder was saying that the right to be exclusive to certain races should be legal. He then proceeded to cite examples and I started to see things more his way. He seemed to feel that as an example a restaraunt started to say whites only and that they excluded other races, then the market forces would determine if that restaraunt would survive or not.

In some areas a whites only business may survive for awhile but what happens when the clientele starts to drift away or age? The demographics of the region starts becoming more minority? Then all of a sudden the business will wither and die. It is all about individual rights for sure. I personally would hate to see a racist business in my area but if they did then so what? I would not go and give them my business.

Also any local governments or states try to enact laws that allow segegrated areas would be very limited and minorities would move away to more sane areas. Then the tax base would suffer and the ones that live in that area would pay a lot more for their racist policies. As we should not enforce our Democartic ideas by the gun at the head we should not enforce laws by the threat of being imprisoned.

ARealConservative

06-16-2007, 10:46 AM

Gee

06-16-2007, 10:47 AM

Presidents cannot repeal legislation.

I dont think he is a racist either but he might support the right to be racist . You might not think that seperate drinking fountains are coming back but their are parts of the country that would love to bring them back........and toilets, buses, schools.
Uh... I don't think so. Aside from the serious economic reasons not to segregate, anyone who did this would catch horrible amounts of flak from the media.

Do people actually think the government HELPED racism in America? Remember it was the government that enforced slavery, and instituted public segregation in the first place. Much of the civil rights progress in this country was getting rid of legistlation which required segregation in schools and the like.

If anything helps ease the relationship between cultures and races its voluntary association, not the government forcing one race on another. Common sense tells us that could just have the opposite effect.

Besides, voluntary segregation is already rampant. Harlem, China Town, etc. People should have the right to live and work how they want, and if that means they don't want to associate with certain races or cultures, who cares?

ctindale

06-16-2007, 10:55 AM

Racism has a geographic topology with well known distribution in the southern states but can occur everywhere and anywhere.

My fear (and I am not closed on the issue) is that Paul’s view of personal rights allows for any personal rights to be enacted as far as they apply to your personal property. If you for instance own a diner, gas station, bathroom or school , then that is your property and you may exercise your right to control what happens on that property as long as it doesn’t harm another human being. He believes (I think but I am not sure) that you do have a right to racially discriminate if that is your belief and the government has no right to impose what he calls “color blindness” upon you. He defends everyone’s rights to discriminate or hold any views as long as they don’t impact on the freedom of others.

I agree with Paul on nearly everything, but I agree with Colbert the constitution is not a suicide pact” I support the constitution because I believe that people like Jefferson and Adams were the modern equivalents Socrates and Plato, but even Jefferson said that the constitution should be a living evolving document, maybe this is an area that does need to break with the constitution ?. A move to repeal it I believe will destroy Pauls chances and hand it the Democrats.

Stormfront.com the white race nationalist site, an example of racially based collectivism , a collectivist group that by Pauls own logic is an organization that is organized around racism , which Paul calls a sin of the heart is mobilizing it members through the internet to support Paul. If you troll through the forum you will see 1000’s of posts about Paul. I have never been to this site before but these folk are organizing in similar ways to the folk here. They are constantly publishing ideas to join Meetup groups etc, the are swarming to online polls and this troubling me.

Should I be troubled if I know that I will probably attend a meet up group with members of the KKK?

Its fine to have theories about how the free market will destroy racism, theoretically these ideas might be correct, but lets be pragmatic , this is about getting him elected and while I believe he can get elected on the rest of the issues this one is his Achilles heal.

Think about it this way, when he does become a bigger threat to the mainstream candidates and the gloves come off how will positions be twisted and used by his opposition.

At the next debate in August what how will he answer this question?. Mr Paul you made a lone dissenting speech on the anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights do you support the right of individuals to discriminate on the basis of color and would you repeal that act?

How is he going to sell free market ideas on racism in thirty seconds and will the feeding frenzy after his answer destroy his campaign ?

ctindale

06-16-2007, 11:00 AM

lol im not stupid or dishonest just pragmatic

ive spent allot of time like allot of you out there raising hell for the guy.

I hit a road block and identified a risk that I have had a bit of trouble countering , I have been on this bandwagon for a long time and I thought it would be useful to raise it in this forum to get some discussion going so I could better develop my arguments.

So lets not react defensivly lets work out a way around this (potential) land mine.

ThePieSwindler

06-16-2007, 11:03 AM

How is he going to sell free market ideas on racism in thirty seconds and will the feeding frenzy after his answer destroy his campaign ?

All he has to do is explain how forced integration has actually hurt the cause for civil rights in america, and that it was actually the government that encouraged and mandated segregation prior to the civil rights movement. He can cite that the war on drugs is much worse for blacks and hispanics and their liberty than forced integration, affirmative action, etc.

lucky

06-16-2007, 11:08 AM

When any law is made that empowers any races over others than you have just segregated.

Carl

06-16-2007, 11:10 AM

ctindale, you shouldn't live in fear of Liberty.

People make choices, some good some bad, that's the way life works and the great leveler between the two is not government but consequence.

The racial fears that have separated us have been driven out for the most part; give liberty the opportunity to do the rest.

.

lucky

06-16-2007, 11:15 AM

I should clarify a tad. The voting rights act was a huge thing because in the south there may have been a larger population of blacks but since they had roadblocks thrown up in front of them to get registered to vote they had to abide by the laws made by a minority. The main things about our constitution was it allowed one man (Or Woman) one vote.

The voting rights act allowed the roadblocks to be removed that allowed the blacks to vote and then their superior numbers allowed them to vote in who or what they wanted. We are all now equal in this regard.

If businesses are wanting to be racist then a law making them conform just causes resentment ancd restraint of trade. If the business wants to be racist and then exclude a big part of their population that spends money then it is risking going bankrupt. If that business owner then realizes that he is wrong and changes his policy then we have made real progress.

ctindale

06-16-2007, 11:17 AM

carl, the only thing i fear is that liberty wont get elected, because fear driven by political spin will stop it, after that I have little fear, fear got us into Iraq in the first place.

lucky

06-16-2007, 11:19 AM

If Liberty will not get us elected then we do not deserve Liberty.

LibertyForever

06-16-2007, 11:33 AM

legion

06-16-2007, 11:54 AM

I consider myself a White Nationalist, we are NOT nazis or in the KKK. I dislike greatly the KKK and NAZI's because they give us a bad image. Most of the people on STormfront(which is not a KKK forum, althought there is a very small minority of people in it, who use the forums):mad:

I hate when people slander us, we are just regular people looking out for OUR race. If you actually read some of the stuff maybe you'd realise that we are right?
Double standard against whites in the media? YES. Affirmitive action is anti white discrimination? YES.

I support Ron Paul because he embodies everything that i wholeheartedly believe in. Not because i want racial segregation.

fuck you and leave forever

LibertyForever

06-16-2007, 11:59 AM

fuck you! i havent done anything to anyone im a white nationalist. So? get over it, and im not leaving.

CJLauderdale4

06-16-2007, 12:02 PM

Personally, I think Ron Paul says it best when he says that when we look through the logic and agendas of groups, we do it at the detriment of individual liberty.

If we show up to any Ron Paul events, we should show up as an individual, expressing our concerns on liberty together. I may not agree with the person next to me on a lot of things, but we do agree on one thing: Ron Paul will ensure that our abilities to express our ideas responsibly without government intervention will not be infringed.

We may be members of particular groups, but when we vote, we vote individually based on principle and ideas (at least we should).

Gee

06-16-2007, 12:03 PM

fuck you and leave forever
I suppose one problem with organizations based around a concept as pervasive as individual liberty will inevitably attract people so diverse that they hate each other for reasons outside the scope of the organization.

White Nationalism is a perfect example of why force-backed integration of races and cultures does NOT work. It creates animosity. I don't know any white nationalists, but I don't think they would be completely off target if they suggested our media and culture demonize whites, to a degree.

LibertyForever

06-16-2007, 12:05 PM

austinphish

06-16-2007, 12:13 PM

fuck you and leave forever

Legion, aren't you discriminating against him. I don't agree with that movement, but this is a big tent. I don't agree with a lot of the special interest groups that occupy this forum, but I ask no one to leave, because if they are for Ron Paul then the belong on here.

I am starting to think this movement is being weakened by people saying: no 911 truthers, and no God lovers, no anti-affirmative action people. How about we just worry about doing things out there that get Ron Paul votes?

Seriously you guys can be so assinine. I am off to go call delegates in Iowa...What are you doing for Ron Paul today?

legion

06-16-2007, 12:19 PM

liberty is tied to reason, it is an essential dependency

how can you trust someone to be any sort of friend in liberty when he tells you up front that he rejects reason outright?

angelatc

06-16-2007, 12:30 PM

You know, I'm finding it hard to believe that the same person who wrote post #21 is the same person who wrote the other posts, all which read more like #22.

LibertyForever, I'll fight for your right to believe whatever you want, but personally I'd rather see the races all intermarry and reproduce so we can move past this whole "racial pride" thing. I find it annoying no matter which race is spouting off about it.

ctindale

06-16-2007, 12:36 PM

Carbine556

06-16-2007, 12:38 PM

This is the basic gist of it. Ron Paul has universal appeal all across the political spectrum. There are even some democrats that are jumping ship to the Republican party to vote for him. Also, there are members of the right side of the political spectrum that also support him. And a lot of people in the middle. A candidate with universal appeal symbolizes freedom for everyone.

My fear (and I am not closed on the issue) is that Paul’s view of personal rights allows for any personal rights to be enacted as far as they apply to your personal property.

You disagree with this? Someone's point of view that they hold should not be infringed upon by legislation. That's in the Bill of Rights somewhere. I think Amendment 1.

If you for instance own a diner, gas station, bathroom or school , then that is your property and you may exercise your right to control what happens on that property as long as it doesn’t harm another human being.

Isn't it beautiful? Although I'm sure a diner, gas station, or bathroom that are for public use would still be for public use and would get someone slapped in the head with a lawsuit if you discriminate against someone there. You are not going to have 1960's style discrimination anywhere when Ron Paul is elected.

He believes (I think but I am not sure) that you do have a right to racially discriminate if that is your belief and the government has no right to impose what he calls “color blindness” upon you. He defends everyone’s rights to discriminate or hold any views as long as they don’t impact on the freedom of others.

Exactly. The government doesn't have the right to impose "color blindness" on you. You are allowed in this country to hold any unpopular view that you want. Using them to deny someone else the freedom to eat in a diner or get gas at a particular gas station impacts the other person's freedom. So do you see where you have just invalidated your whole argument here? Would you rather him lock up "Nazis" and "klansmen" because they discriminate? Don't you see that that is, in itself, discrimination?

Should I be troubled if I know that I will probably attend a meet up group with members of the KKK?

Why? I can say with...oh...99.9% certainty that they aren't going to burn any crosses there. They aren't going to lynch anyone. I'm also 99.9% sure that everyone at a Ron Paul meetup would have the same agenda anyway. And that is restoring the nation to it's former greatness as a Constitutional Republic.

Think about it this way, when he does become a bigger threat to the mainstream candidates and the gloves come off how will positions be twisted and used by his opposition.

Incorrectly. Ron Paul is not a racist.

At the next debate in August what how will he answer this question?. Mr Paul you made a lone dissenting speech on the anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights do you support the right of individuals to discriminate on the basis of color and would you repeal that act?

It would probably be something like this...

ahem...

I support the First Amendment right of every individual in this nation to hold whatever beliefs they choose. The Constitution expressly forbids the federal government to disarage any rights which are maintained by the people in the Ninth Amendment. To attempt to enforce a thought control legislation on Americans is the height of treason to the Constitution and Liberty and the Spirit of America itself. This country was founded upon the idea of freedom, in direct contravention to the beliefs of a tyrannical government. And in answer to the second part of your question, I would just be the President of the United States. A lowly public servant who couldn't do anything without Congressional approval. I wouldn't presume to have the power to repeal a law.

That's how I would answer it, anyway. And I don't know nearly as much about the Constitution as Ron Paul does. Everyone who supports Ron Paul (even klansmen and Nazis and White Nationalists) do so because they love individual freedom. You can't cut huge slices off of Patriot Pie and throw them in the garbage because they have different viewpoints. If that is someone's idea of what a great president should do, Hillary's name will be on the other side of the ballot.

Nothing personal, ctindale. Besides, even if the 1964 Civil Rights Law was repealed, minorities would still have Civil Rights.:)

Revolution9

06-16-2007, 12:49 PM

fuck you and leave forever

I am white too and proud of it.. Should I leave? I belong to no roganisation and never will as I have no need to bolster what I know in my heart.. I respect my ancestors. They are why I am here. Discrimination makes sure I don't drink motor oil. Discrimination makes sure i judge people by the value they bring or do not bring to my life. I have full right of associaition and siassociation. I have learned in my fifty years that this ability to discern the good and the bad has gotten me in trouble when ignoring it and safe when paying attention to it. For the most part.

Frankly pal..you are way the eff out of line and a knee jerk.. WTF are you doing here? Explain EXACTLY why he should leave? Because he is proud of his race [black power, jewish exceptionalism].? Should Rasta then, by the same token get the eff gone from here? Jeesh..

Best Regards
Randy

angrydragon

06-16-2007, 01:51 PM

Try and watch Penn and Teller's BullShit show on college and diversity. I think they're right. What they say, is that diversity just enforces people together who are incompatible and leaves less individual freedom. It's also profitable with the "cultural audits" thing, where some person determines whether there's racism. Freedom comes with being offended, if you aren't being offended by something today, then people are not free. Somewhere, people are offended, and that's fine, they just go elsewhere or change the channel, etc...this is the essence of the first amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRIZjDftFSE

It doesn't show here, but this girl towards the end of show she says, "When you have all these different diversities, people with different ethnicities, cultures, grew up in different places, different opinions, different political groups, there's going to be conflict. There's going to be controversy. That's what makes college worth it."

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s3/college

And if a private business were to sell or serve a certain race, yah the place wouldn't get much business or the media would be all over them, but it's their property and right to serve whoever they want. The market will determine if that business fails or succeeds.

coplinger

06-16-2007, 02:44 PM

So Liberty Forever, excuse my ignorance, but what is a White Nationalist & how is that different than a white supremacist or KKK member?

ThePieSwindler

06-16-2007, 02:58 PM

So Liberty Forever, excuse my ignorance, but what is a White Nationalist & how is that different than a white supremacist or KKK member?
White nationalism is more pro-white than anti-black or any other race. Many within the white nationalist movement are racist, but many are simply white people who are proud of their heritage and race. Think of all the black nationalist and black-agenda oriented groups, like the NAACP. They don't necessarily disparage white people, they simply want to work for the advancement of their own race. In fact, many white nationalist groups are allied with hispanic and black nationalist groups to help promote "racial purity". Now personally, i don't believe "racial purity" matters that much since race doesn't really even exist outside of slight genetic variations - yet my genetic ancestry might be more related to a black person than a Basque or a Bulgarian - yet i would still be considered "white" like the basques and bulgarians, rather than a black. But white nationalism is not necessarily a racist movement (Though hthere are plenty of racists, KKK members, etc associated with them.)

Point being, its offensive to many white nationalists to be labeled as racist, and their activies more often than not do not have anything to do with racism or hatred toward blacks. Thus, they certainly should not be disparaged the way an out and out KKK member usually would be. Either way, you become the very thing you hate when you discriminate against white nationalists.

Danny

06-16-2007, 03:04 PM

I think RP articulates his position pretty well in his speech referenced by the OP.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Danny

Bradley in DC

06-16-2007, 03:20 PM

I just scanned the post and thread but wanted to give some quick information.

One, these are not generally federal issues. On this Goldwater was right (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28337.html). Trying to solve them the way we have has created more problems.

Two, government-imposed segregation is the antithesis of what we believe in: the use of government force to stop voluntary association. There were businesses that wanted to serve minorities that were prohibited from doing business (making money) by government restrictions.

In addition, Dr. Paul supports a dynamic capitalist system that evolves in ways that better incorporates the talents of our society and better matches them to our wants and needs. Online banking knows no race. Our federal race-based policies to fight discrimination make no sense (no matter how well-intentioned). Under simultaneaous and current federal banking laws, bankers are required to determine your race on a home loan applications (under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act) and are trained on how to identify race by surname, appearance, voice, etc., and the bankers are prohibited from noting race on credit card applications--just for fun, go to your bank and ask for both applications!

ctindale

06-16-2007, 06:07 PM

legion :)

BRAVO

9/11 is based on reason almost all the other people in the tent are reason based.

and there will be more of them here if you go back to my original post and follow the url to the stormfront forum and read through the posts and there are many more than here I am extremely worried about the white nationalists hijacking the Ron Paul movement.

Liberty forever

I believe that White Nationalism is the worst form of collectivism that exists. We all have the right to our views as individuals but when we form collectives purposely designed to promote our individual rights over another then we harm another persons liberty.

To some extent collectivism in the form positive discrimination has made white people feel discriminated against and has bred resentment, in essence the liberals have tried to socially engineer racial equality and while it hasn’t been completely successful it has promoted racial harmony when compared how things were. This nation is a big tent and we need to fit everyone in it but it isn’t much good if you folk pull down the tent poles on top of the rest of us.

The reality is this country isn’t a “white nation” it’s a racially diverse nation and I want freedom and liberty for everyone inside and outside this nation. White Nationalism is a collect

Austinphish

I appreciate what your saying and Ive been active from the start but I think you should think through all aspects of a campaign this alignment with White Nationalism to me is major weakness that may bring undone everything all of us have done. What are you going to say

Angel

Exactly lets get it all mixed and over with its going to happen anyway

How come the conflict between 21 and 22

Carbine excellent post

I also thought he might add “in any case I would rely on the congress to decide and guide me as President on such matters”

That might be the out, in that he would have to have both houses debate and repeal it and that’s unlikely to happen.

For those who aren’t sure of what White Nationalism stands we have this from Wikipedia

White nationalism (WN) advocates a racial definition (or redefinition) of national identity, as opposed to multiculturalism. The contemporary movement in the United States is a reaction to a perceived decline in white demographics, politics and culture.[1] According to Samuel Francis, a key WN writer, it is "a movement that rejects equality as an ideal and insists on an enduring core of human nature transmitted by heredity.".[2]
Supporters see themselves defending the legitimate civil rights of white people against society's racial double standards.[3] Jared Taylor, another key writer in the movement, says their racial views were held by mainstream American leaders before the 1950s.[4] Critics accuse them of hatred, racial bigotry and destructive identity politics.[5][6]
According to Samuel P. Huntington, the modern movement is increasingly cultured, intellectual and academically-trained.[7] Rather than espouse violence, they use statistics and social science data to argue for a self-conscious white identity.[8] They say a natural hierarchy should triumph over the "false promise of egalitarianism"[9] - and that the downfall of white dominance spells doom for representative government, the rule of law and freedom of speech.[10]
Supporters say they stand for racial self-preservation and claim culture itself is a product of race.[11] As a result, according to Huntington, they say the demographic shift in the US towards non-whites brings a new culture that is intellectually and morally inferior.[12] With it comes affirmative action, immigrant ghettos and declining educational standards.[13] By challenging established policy on immigration, civil rights and racial integration, they seek to build bridges with moderately conservative white citizens.[14]
White separationism and supremacism are two smaller subgroups within white nationalism.[15] The former seek a separate white nation-state, while the latter add ideas from social Darwinism and national socialism to their ideology.[16] Some white nationalists are in neither category, however.[17] They avoid the term "supremacy," saying it has ugly connotations.[18]

mikelovesgod

06-18-2007, 04:14 AM

As a business owner myself the question is very sticky...

The gov't requires that after you have so many people working for you there has to be representation from other races with ratios depending on where you live. If you live in a 99% white area and you have 50 white people working you might have to hire someone of another race if they are qualified or not or face the threat of litigation for discrimination. Now let's say you live in an area like most of TX where there are many Hispanics. If you have 50 employees and there are not at least 10 Hispanics it may be considered discrimination based on the ratios. Now if no people in a certain demographic was qualified to work at the position I have open I can honestly say they are discriminating against business owners to hire people to stay solvent for the good of the business.

Now let's take the racially biased view... I only want to hire blacks, or whites, or whatever for the sake of argument. Now the laws have been repealed and I have the right to do this. Would my business suffer if I only hired whites when 10 blacks who applied are more qualified? Oh yes it would and I would be foolish not to hire them, the same would be if I hired all blacks and that was my policy and a white person who applied to my job I turned down on the merits of race. Based on a free market I'm working against the viability of my company on the merit of race.

That's basically the Mises principle I listed above, namely that the free market, a true free market determines who is hired based on merit alone. Discriminating against businesses success is very detrimental to the long-term viability of our economy. The employees of the world look at discrimination from a hiring perspective, a business looks at discrimination from a profitable perspective. Free market un-biased approach is the best way, although in reality we know racial discrimination will happen but who does it hurt? Both the business owner and the employee.

Both positions of being pro-employee and pro-business can be discrimination. Economics is never a perfect science because we don't have a perfect society. My recommendation is to look at both perspectives before getting locked into your position without thinking all the way through. The best solution is based on merit alone and not on entitlements, yet I can say as an employer that I know people who don't hire outside their race, which I find repulsive personally and ethically, yet I still feel it's their right as a business to do so because it really hurts them too and their pig-headedness will eventually cause their own down-fall.

beermotor

06-18-2007, 05:21 AM

c10h14n2

06-24-2007, 07:57 PM

So what happens if at the state level discrimination is legalized? Is that really ok? Is it really okay for the state of NH to say, we are now becoming a white only state. All others must leave now.

Is it ok, for a small diner owner to say, not blacks can work or eat here.

Is it ok for a big corporation like General Electric to say, only whites, no others can work here.

If the federal level doesn't "protect" rights of all by force, who is to say that over the next 25 years we see segregation come back in a new and totally different way?

Mass can be the Gay state
Vermont the White male state.
Utah the Morman state.
Alabama the White Nationalist State.'

If private businesses start discriminating because it is there right to do so, isn't it possible that whole groups of people would have to struggle even harder than they do now to find a job?

Just thinking out loud here...

Man from La Mancha

06-24-2007, 08:14 PM

Did you read all the posts previous to this one on this thread, it seems to me it was discussed very well? I hope you find your answer so you can vote for Ron. Good luck with your search.

c10h14n2

06-24-2007, 10:29 PM

Grrr, my bad. I replied to a post on page 3 thinking it was the end of the thread, so, no <nods head in embarrassment> I did not read the well written thread above.

I do have concerns. I love Ron Pauls message. I live in one of the most liberal states (MA) and I think that we are losing our liberties because of it. But being gay, I completely understand and live through discrimination every day. When I was younger, I studied up on White Supremacy - specifically, that skinhead faction. One of the things I learned, was that when they formed in England in the 60's, they initially aligned themselves with the Black West Indian Culture through music, clothes, ideology, etc. They were young kids...just starting out in the work force - blue color kids. Then an influx of Indian immigration began and this skinhead group started to develop "white pride" and blamed the Indians for their financial decline (The Indians took there jobs for less money). It took years, but they did become racist. They were still kids, so it was largely a music-based culture, but racist and violent all the same.

When the movement entered the United States, this skinhead faction was full on racist. (*note, not all skinheads are racist - I am only referencing the ones who are)

Anyways, people can be susceptible to discriminate at an extremist level. The Federal Governments does "protect" those who may be targets to these extremist. If we take that protection out of the Feds hands and give it to the states, what would stop a state, if the majority of constituents are racist, from becoming a separatist state which supports the ideology of the majority. Now lets say this majority is White Supremacists? Far fetched, yes, but could it be possible for an entire locality to literally "push out" a population? Lets start small - maybe a town. Lets say a county in MA didn't want blacks and the poor in there town. they could push them out in a variety of ways. If the majority of people in this hypothetical town were of like minds, they could all agree to stop hiring and selling to blacks. They could get rid of subsidized housing or other low income housing to get rid of the poor. Without legal protection, theres nothing anybody could do. Yes, the media would be terrible. But what if this town could withstand it? What if it spread? What if our "ideas" change so much in the next generation that racism comes back into vogue?

I dunno. Its a stretch and past my normal bedtime. I've just seen some of this in action - not in a hateful way, but which one of us hasn't seen a previously undesirable neighborhood become gentrified as a result of a great free market? And when that happens, it prices out the poor people, usually black) out. I know I have been made uncomfortable enough to leave an establishment. Who says that a whole town couldn't make me feel so uncomfortable that I would leave the whole town behind?

I guess I have concerns. I can see how "no law" could get abused and taken into extremes. Affirmative action is bad. But I do see a need to protect someone from blatant racism when they are an equal candidate.

Man from La Mancha

06-24-2007, 11:17 PM

Interesting point c10h14n2. If someone passing thru a small desert town with one store, restaurant and gas station, thus no choice for water, food and gas and they only allowed one race to buy there it could be life threatening to other races. But that same area could be shut down everyday for 12 hours and nobody could buy. Net result is you don't go there at night or you don't depend to stop there at all thus the owner is losing money punishing himself.

I could guess that if everybody in that town denied the poor or a certain race vital services needed for life then the US gov could come in and say this town is denying these people their right to life and liberty which is mandated to do. Please note that this could a be all black, chinese, hispanic, jewish or gay community.
But realize that on all coasts of this country the price of real state has gone up that the poor can never live there unless they owned homes for many years do you think that all the coasts should be forced to subsidize everybody that can't live there?

As far as the Main Stream Media they have always controlled the sheeple in the past. Look at their support for slavery, killing Indians, black discrimination in the the last century and now making the white people the cause for all society's problem. You really have to look who runs the MSM for they are the ones that tell the sheeple who to hate.

A house divided against itself can never figure out who is screwing them

c10h14n2

06-24-2007, 11:37 PM

I'm really feeling Ron Paul's message. I just don't want to jump in the boat too quickly without a life jacket.

I work in technology. We have a cycle that we run through...usually about 7 years of centralized services and then another 7 years of decentralization. I see America going through the same cycle now. I think Paul is leading the effort. For the most part, I think its great. Smaller Federal government, more liberty. But I also fear that the size of State government will skyrocket. Right now, most states are fairly congruent in structure and policy with one another. If states become too powerful in the process of decentralization, how will we remedy it? The last time they were grossly incongruent, we had a civil war to even things out.

eh, you know what they say about history repeating itself...

Bradley in DC

06-24-2007, 11:39 PM

Smaller Federal government, more liberty. But I also fear that the size of State government will skyrocket. Right now, most states are fairly congruent in structure and policy with one another. If states become too powerful in the process of decentralization, how will we remedy it? The last time they were grossly incongruent, we had a civil war to even things out.

eh, you know what they say about history repeating itself...

Remember, constitutionally all non-enumerated rights are reserved to the states and the people!

Shmuel Spade

06-25-2007, 10:04 PM

But I also fear that the size of State government will skyrocket. Right now, most states are fairly congruent in structure and policy with one another. If states become too powerful in the process of decentralization, how will we remedy it?

Yes, you should definitely fear the rise of the individual states' powers. Unfortunately it's been going on while we haven't been paying attention.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3020881.html

http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/ClintBolick.asp

(audio) http://www.fee.org/!UserFiles/events/CBolick.mp3

Our remedy? Amendment XIV, Section 1.

Man from La Mancha

06-25-2007, 11:14 PM

Thank you for those links. It's points out the abuse of state government. But it is easier to change something in your own back yard. If Dr. No get's big there will now be an army of informed people about how governments should work. Dr. Pauls #1 intent was to run was to teach people about the constitution. Well now you have millions of informed citizens that could bring similar constitutions to their own states and rid themselves of corruption.

SeanEdwards

06-26-2007, 10:39 AM

I think personal liberty means the liberty to like or dislike whoever you want. Using the power of government to try and force people like each other seems misguided. As such, if a private business owner doesn't want to serve blacks, or whites, or short people... then I tend to think they should have the freedom to do that.

The only place where I see a role for specific non-discrimination rules is in the area of employment that is funded by taxes, such as government jobs. Anything receiving public funds must benefit all citizens, it can't be exclusive.

Basically, I think public/consumer action is quite sufficient to keep rampant discrimination in check and we don't need thought crime laws.

Swmorgan77

06-26-2007, 12:04 PM

Does Ron Paul suppor racial segregation and the repeal of civilil rights?

There is a fundamental problem here in that you have equated the lack of "civil rights' legislation in the form we currently have it with "racial segregation".

There is a tendency that we must be wary of to view, in hindsight, the way in which history has addressed a problem as the only way or the best way that it could have been done.

The idea of "civil rights" is, in my opinion, very bad. When we are focused on "civil rights" (or rights that are bestowed by government, or exist only withing the framework of government) then we have a problem.

I tend to take the view that Malcom X did, that the idea of going to another man, or a group of men in governemnt and beggin for "civil rights" is not freedom at all.

I think intrinsic, unalienable rights would have been much better and the approach to freeing the slaves and ending segragation would have been much better to simply have a Constituitonal amendment stating "All americans of all nationalities and ethnicities shall be considered "persons" under the Bill of Rights".

Then the reset would follow. Instead what he have done is create notions such as "civil rights" and "equal protection" which are not the same. "Equal protection" means as long as everyone is just as oppressed as you, or has the same bestowed rights (or lack thereof) as you, then you are protected.