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?

Advertisements

87 Responses

  1. I think the point is the same as “You cannot spread liberty on the point of a sword.” Neither can you spread tolerance through Federal Mandate. This should be GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to anyone of color who lives in America. I.e., segregation still exists, racism still exists, and SLAVERY (in the form of federal minimum wages) still exists.

    The simple fact is that government is not capable of solving problems, only people are. Government only complicates the problems and make them worse. CF Ron’s statement on the first Bill Maher show, about how every other country in the world eliminated slavery without having to fight a civil war . . .

    This is a philosophical point, an ideological point. At any rate the President has no ability to abolish active legislation, and it certainly would be low on his priority list. We must first remove the troops from foreign lands and harms way (which, by the way, are filled with minorities/poor/immigrants – how’s that for fair and equal treatment?) and alleviate the ridiculous attack on poor people that is our nation’s economic “policy.”

  2. Bret, Walter Williams, a person of color and Ron Paul’s likely VP pick, does not believe segregation, racism, and slavery still exist and are a problem:

    Like the March of Dimes’ victory against polio in the U.S., civil rights organizations can claim victory as well. At one time, black Americans did not enjoy the same constitutional guarantees as other Americans. Now we do.

    Government can solve problems. If it can punish people for committing crimes like murder, it can punish companies that only hire white people. To say it is up to people is to ignore the possibility of law playing a role in society.

    Ron Paul’s point is a practical one, and a painful one. He could certainly advocate for legislation that would turn it back, and nominate judges who are anti-civil rights. Just look at Bush and reproductive rights.

    Saying the President would put abolishing the Civil Rights Act low on his priority list is not very reassuring.

  3. With all due respect to Mr. Williams, there’s a vast difference between Constitutional guarantees and the concrete reality on the ground. I’m sure Ron Paul would point that fact out.

    We’ve had over 5,000 years of government, and it has consistently shown it is a poor steward of money, materials, and men. Government cannot end racism, but it can punish racists, you say? But then what of Freedom of Speech? Do you outlaw white people saying “nigger”, but allow others to say it? How is that fair? Same re: businesses, “public education”, etc – forcing so-called fair treatment results in “blowback” – such a catchy term – and the complete opposite of what was intended. What’s that quote, “the road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions.”

    I don’t think racism is ever going to be eliminated. However, I also think that it is not the critical moral issue of our time, either – ending war and aggression is. Remember, it’s brown people we are killing all over the world, and brown people dying the white man’s army.

    The same thing for the reproductive rights issue. The simple fact is this is something that touches the lives of an extremely small proportion of the population on a daily basis, whereas war, taxation, etc affects us constantly.

    Finally, to say that Ron Paul is “anti-civil rights” is ludicrous, as if civil rights were somehow created by that piece of legislation.

    We must take back our country. I hope you’ll come around.

  4. fitness:

    If you are going to cite Walter Williams, it might interest you to know what Dr. Williams believes when it comes to freedom of association:

    Freedom of Association

    Freedom of association is what both Dr. Paul and Dr. Williams support. Just because the gov’t. legislates in certain areas, punishes people, and calls it “justice”, does not necessarily make it so, nor does it usually solve the problem.

  5. You apparently don’t understand that in order to be free, everyone must be free… including jerks. The moment you start to legislate what people can think in their own heads is the moment you destroy freedom.

  6. “Would President Ron Paul work to undermine or roll back the Civil Rights Act?”
    He supports all the provisions of the act that forbid any government discrimination based on race.
    What he does not support are restrictions on individual freedom of association, which that act infringes.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

  7. Ron Paul overturning the war on drugs would do as much or more to help minorities in this country as the civil rights movement. Are Hillary and Obama racist because they don’t speak out against the war on drugs? I would much rather live under a cranky old white bigot who respect peace liberty, freedom, privacy, then a feel good democrat who will continue imperialistic domination. What hurt speople more is war, invasions of iran, darfur, lebanon, somolia etc..maybe a draft. I am a hardcore liberal supporting Dr Paul, because he sees the big picture. Don’t be fooled by disinfo do the research yourself.

  8. Asian American is discriminated by the so called Civil Rights Act.
    the so call Civil Rights Act introduce hate between people.
    We should get rid of it

  9. 3. Bret,
    I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to limit speech.
    I would start with upholding the civil rights act though.
    That means keeping discrimination illegal with regards to businesses
    and schools. Why should my kids have limited options for education?
    That severely limits their freedom! What if the better schools decided people who look like me, or share my beliefs in God, are no longer allowed to attend at all?

    I think it always comes down to hatred, ignorance and violence. You don;t need a “critical issue”, they are often related, and working on one intelligently can help make progress on another.

    The civil rights act was a monumental step, and provides active recognition of civil rights in this country. How is opposing it, and advocating for the right to discriminate a pro-civil rights position?

    We must take back our country to be sure, and while I will keep calling out problems as I see them, I’ll keep my mind open right up to the voting booth.

    4. Free Acadien,
    That is a very interesting article, thanks!
    The problem is free association does not occur in a vacuum, and an economist should really understand that. If you allow discrimination with regards to jobs or education, you create conditions that allow certain groups to be held down. It also becomes a viscious cycle, since if you deny group X quality education and job experience, then companies that don’t discriminate still won’t hire people from group X because of lacking education/experience.

    There is a fundamental difference between the examples of interracial marriage law Williams gives, and he is being disingenuous in his argument. We should restrict discriminatory practices, not only for the practical reasons above but for the ethical reasons. Many freedoms are restricted to avoid infringing on the freedoms of others. This fits firmly in that category.

    5. tsoldrin,
    This isn’t a matter of thought control, or even speech.
    It is a question of whether or not a presidential candidate supports
    a specific law governing civil rights. From his own words, it appears he does not. This raises questions about his actions in office.

    6. Westmiller,
    So he would just attack anti-discrimination clauses with regards to employment, and allow private schools (including colleges) to discriminate?

    7. Joshua Bruce,
    On a side note, there is a difference between a leftwing liberal, and a libertarian liberal.
    But to the point, you are saying that Ron Paul’s position on Civil Rights is excusable, even preferable, because of his other positions.
    I find that position on Civil Rights highly objectionable.
    Combined with his association with groups like the CCC and David Duke,
    it is also highly questionable.
    This isn’t disinformation, it is fact, fact I suggest you take an unbiased look at for yourself.
    If you still want to support Ron Paul afterwards, write him and call him out on this, and see if he actually listens and changes his position.

  10. 8. Julian,
    First, I edited your comment to remove the homepage you provided. If you don’t have your own site to link to, please don’t link to a purely commercial site (that sells servers? Honestly, what were you thinking?)

    Can you explain how the civil rights act discriminates against Asian Americans?

  11. http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm the so call affirmative action is Reverse discrimination to White and Asian.
    Asian is not included as Minor
    in CA, Asian have to score 200 higher in Standard test in order to get in same school as Black

  12. http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm
    the so call affirmative action is Reverse discrimination to White and Asian.
    Asian is not included as Minor
    in CA, Asian have to score 200 higher in Standard test in order to get in same school as Black

  13. You people can call Ron Paul whatever you want, but the fact is if we don’t elect this man we’re in a world of trouble!!

    If your reasoning for not supporting Ron Paul is because you believe he is a racist then imo that is pretty petty! You can nit pick any of the candidates and say wow “he’s against this,” or “she’s against that.” The fact is if you add up all the positives and negatives of all the candidates Ron Paul will be the only one with his head still above the water. The hugely positive ideas he has for this country greatly outweigh any negative impressions a few of you people may have of him.

    You people need to stop nit picking every little thing because if you don’t you better take a week off work to nit pick the other candidates because you’ll be a while!

  14. “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. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.” — By Ron Paul
    http://unofficial-ronpaul2008blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/from-archives-government-and-racism.html

  15. Ron Paul will speak @ Google in 7/13
    I am the first one in Google to push his speech.
    Why?
    I don’t want the discrimination, and I don’t want my son or daughter get the same discrimination

  16. fitness:

    First you cite Dr. Williams as an authority, then you dismiss his position when it disagrees with you. Your statement that “free association doesn’t happen in a vacuum” is certainly true, but it doesn’t help you point.

    This is an excerpt from an article I found on a great source for economic education The Right to Discriminate

    The above is a utilitarian argument, saying that the free market deals with the problem of racism better than government, but leaving that aside, there is still the ethic of freedom that must be upheld.

    To infringe on my freedom to discriminate (on whatever basis) as an employer, for instance, on the grounds that gov’t only does so to prevent a job-seeker from having his rights infringed upon, implies that job-seekers have a fundamental “right” to that job. No person seeking employment has a “right” to a job, in general or in a specific case. Nor is their a general right to “non-discrimination”. As an employer, it is my property, my business, my time, etc, etc, and I have every right (property rights) to decide how and with whom I will associate.

    Remember, Dr. Williams is black himself, so you might want to rethink the classic arguments. He is not the only minority to believe this way either. Dr. Thomas Sowell, Ward Connerly, and others have understood the greater harm done by taking away the essential freedom of association.

  17. Somehow the excerpted portion didn’t make it into my last post. Here it is:

    Assuming that the ends we desire involve a reduction in the extent to which minorities will suffer disadvantages in the market, what can be offered to provide these ends?

    Clearly, it must be a system that provides incentives for employers and consumers to cast aside such differences in individuals as skin color, religion, background, and so forth. It must be a system that emphasizes man’s productive ability and not who his ancestors might have been—one that rewards ambition and individual ability. This system is called free market capitalism.

    It is the free market that has provided minorities the greatest source of opportunity with respect to their economic activities. The free market provides great incentives for producers to use the factors of production as efficiently as possible. An employer who practices irrational discrimination in employment will suffer as a result. Milton Friedman explains this process as follows:

    . . . there is an economic incentive in a free market to separate economic efficiency from other characteristics of the individual. A businessman or an entrepreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is in effect imposing higher costs on himself than are other individuals who do not have such preferences. Hence, in a free market they will tend to drive him out.[7]

    Similarly, a consumer must also bear the costs of his discrimination in the form of lost services. If he refuses to buy goods or services from individuals he dislikes, he thereby limits his range of choices. He may then have to go without such goods or services or will generally pay a higher price for what he does buy or receive elsewhere.

    Far from being the enemy of minority groups, it is the free market that can provide real gains for all minorities as it continually imposes high costs upon employers who choose to hire on the basis of irrelevant characteristics instead of on the basis of merit and qualifications.

  18. google Reverse discrimination
    and Reverse discrimination Asian
    lots of stories there.

  19. I can sort of see where Ron is coming from: in the 1950’s racism was very agile. if folks could put on their sunday best and dress the kids to go down and watch them a little Strange Fruit performance, some type of authority definently needed to step in. imagine if Nat Turner had gotten a foothold. other than the people themselves, who could have been there, respected enough to stop the race war/massacre in its tracks? would everyone have tired of the killing and given in to freedom’s definition? Society/media history and current affair, always addresses the acts of the few who have crossed the line, but never really contribute a focus on the ones who are on the fence or on the other side of this fence. I have no way of submitting a proof, but my opinion is that there are always more people who are on this other side of the fence who are all about liberty’s definition. This group are the one’s who strongly disagree, but fall into “nobody will listen to me” or “there’s nothing i can do” catagory. looking at this as it allies to today’s societal mindset, the parrallel still exists. I was just reading the other day of how UCLA became aware of a drop in minority enrollment and how they shuffled to attract. now I don’t know if this action was do to Affirmative Action or not. it would be nice to know if this was set in motion by the merit of UCLA’s stand with humanity in it’s best interest, but because individuals decide for structured institution, from experience, you always have to be aware that the next boss may have a totally new agenda. He may have this 1950’s racist blood fued vendetta. can never be sure. It’s good that a school could reach out to society and ask “What’s Wrong”, and if this attitude breeds, it’s for the better of us all. It would be nice that people could resolve without one blood drop, but after the display of the Bush machine in action, something is still very wrong with a society that can be easily influenced into a submission of no reaction or immediate response to the trespassers of our liberty. Overall, I feel Ron Paul would like to see this world he invisions before he leaves it. an equal playing field, where everybodies in training and pushing the ones who begin to slip behind. A development of an work ethic. The civil rights act had begun as the glue that has, in small increments, apllied bandages to humanities wounds. and it can only be incremental strides as we are confronted with famine and genocide throughout the African continent. one day we will be condensed concerned with why the tree and it’s fruits won’t grow in these areas. this type of love will trickle down into ghettos and into the hearts of these 15 year olds that Ron Paul feels threatened by. I mean to tell you the truth, all he really has to do is go into these neighborhoods and talk. they’ll listen just as the children they are. All youth has wild imaginings of being the bad-ass Bruce Lee savior of the people or the coolest, the dopest, the best at what one does where everyone looks up to them as having recognizing the ability. When they are doing bad things, they are looking at the light at the end as a celebratory goal of self accomplishment. it doesn’t matter at what age one becomes wise, 7years old right on up to 57 years of age. one immediatetly utilizes a recognized ability. if the civil rights act is maintaining a directional mindset that is a force swallowed medicine or punishment, I don’t know, but like I said if the schools such as UCLA could not have done what they did without the Civil rights Act, then society needs to remain on the strict diet of it… and we need to here Ron Paul thouroughly address this issue. He seems a wise man. instead of attack and assume, Let him talk.

  20. check out
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
    Chinese American get discrimination in the history
    and so the call Civil Rights Act hurts Chinese American again.

  21. 12. Rick,
    How is it being petty to wonder if a candidate for president might work against one of the landmark pieces of legislation of the last century?

    This is hardly a “little thing”!

    13. Julian,
    (Thanks for switching to link to Ron Paul’s site, btw).
    Heh, now who is worried about what people are thinking?
    Look, can you provide a good argument as to why
    overturning the civil rights act is a good thing?

    14. Julian,
    The more speakers, the better!
    Although I’d suggest asking him about his positions on the Civil Rights act, or support for the CCC while you have him there.

    15. Free Acadien,
    I cited Dr Williams in comment #2 to provide an example of someone who missed what Bret (comment #1) found glaringly obvious. It was to take him to task for his position. However, it is possible for someone to have both good ideas and bad ideas. Ron Paul is a good example of this.

    The free market doesn’t deal with racism. If it did, why didn’t racism just disappear from jobs and schools on its own? Why does it persist today even though it is illegal? The free market is not a magic bullet.

    People have a right not to be judged on their skin color, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. When you exercise the freedom to descriminate, you infringe upon that right.

    Dr Williams being black himself has nothing to do with the internal value of his arguments. If a Jewish man got up on stage and suggested it was ok to make Chritianity mandatory, why would his argument be any better than if he was Christian? It would still be bull.

    16. Free Acadian,
    The free market is not a cure-all. And I see no reason to leave our fundamental rights up to ability of individuals and companies to compete. Rights should just be there, protected, not exist on the whim of consumer demand.

  22. 17. Julian,
    Lots of stories, little substance.
    18. Julian,
    That preceded the Civil Rights Act by nearly a century.
    While it is a good example of discrimination against Chinese Americans,
    what does it have to do with the Civil Rights Act?
    Can you provide an argument that addresses the Civil Rights Act directly, and why you think it is bad for Asian Americans?

  23. overturning the civil rights act will stop Reverse discrimination against Asian American and White.

  24. maybe u miss the 11
    so I redo it again
    http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm
    the so call affirmative action is Reverse discrimination to White and Asian.
    Asian is not included as Minor
    in CA, Asian have to score 200 higher in Standard test in order to get in same school as Black

  25. Ah crap. Now the numbers are just all out of order. Sorry. Akismet spams some comments with links, and those are generally caught and de-spammed/approved later.

  26. fitness:

    Both of your responses to my last two posts are summed up and based on this line you wrote:

    “People have a right not to be judged on their skin color, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.”

    This sounds very pretty and nice on the surface, but just exactly where does this right come from? For that matter, where does any right come from? The corruption of the idea of rights is one of the greatest problems we face today in public discourse.

    FDR came up with a whole new “Economic Bill of Rights”, which is so far out of touch with reality that it is frightening. Your proposed right to non-discrimination fits right in:

    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

    The right of every family to a decent home;

    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    The right to a good education.

    All of these “rights” sound just lovely, until you realize their implication, which is government tyranny, and socialist central planning, which is exactly what FDR tried (and in many ways succeeded) to implement in this country.

    I suggest you (and the rest of the country, heck the world) get really clear on what true rights are, and what they are not.

  27. 19. greg,
    He did speak. And in his own words, argued against the Civil Rights Act.
    It is not an attack to point out the public words and actions of a politician.

    23. Julian,
    Reverse discrimination is a problem, although not as large of a problem as it is made out to be. What we really come down to is a problem of limited resources with regards to schools, and the faulty but better than nothing policy of affirmative action.

  28. BTW, fitness, my point about Dr. Williams being black has nothing to do with the fact that (of course) he can be wrong. What I’m suggesting is that you might want to ask yourself: as an African-American who ostensibly benefits from the Civil Rights Act, why would he, a highly educated, very intelligent, reasonable economist, be in favor of market-based solutions to racism? Could it be because he can see the unforeseen consequences, and realizes that the cure is worse than the disease?

    Again, my point is, maybe he has something worth considering, given his unique perspective. (Not that he is always right)

  29. I fail to see the problem, he made the right decision and position. Racism is a form of collectivism. By focusing on a group instead of an individual you acknowledge differences according to race, sex, etc. By removing things like that, you focus on the individual…which is the way its supposed to be.

  30. so u mean “Asian have to score 200 higher in Standard test in order to get in same school as Black”
    is not a problem?

  31. I don’t see why Reverse discrimination is not as large of a problem as it is made out to be.
    why? Because some people’s voice is less than others? their votes are less?

  32. I agree with Danny,
    focus on the individual…which is the way its supposed to be.

  33. 26. Free Acadien,
    I don’t think too many people regard FDR as a tyrant.
    I don’t.

    I cannot see an ethical way to hold that equality is not a fundamental right. Why is it ok for non-discrimination to remain in the realm of the “pretty and nice”?

    The practical implications of repealing the Civil Rights Act can be seen by looking at history. They are not encouraging.

    28. Free Acadian,
    I cannot really say what his motivations are. I can only say that his words on the subject are unconvincing. I can say that his “unique perspective” plays a role in his being a desirable example for the right to put forth.

    29. Danny,
    This isn’t about abstractly focusing on the group or the individual.
    The Civil Rights Act protects against decisions being made on the basis of groups. Why would Ron Paul oppose that?

    30. Julian,
    It is a problem, but until we address the fundamental rift in educational resources that produces that gap in achievement, we need some system in place to ensure kids don’t fall through the cracks.

    31. Julian,
    It is a significant problem, but it is made out to be larger than that by racists who use it as cover. It does need to be addressed directly though.

    32. Julian,
    How does the mantra “focus on the individual” equate to a collapse of civil rights? It is an affirmation of civil rights. All the more reason to be critical of Ron Paul’s stance.

  34. Center for Equal Opportunity:
    http://www.ceousa.org/general.html

    the real Equal Opportunity, not the discrimination Opportunity in AA

  35. so, according to you,
    those Asian and White kids should be hurt?

    I believe the real fundamental problem is not Equal Opportunity to Asian and White kids

  36. the collapse of civil rights is not Equal Opportunity to Asian and White kids

    Why Pick Asian and White, why introduce hate between people?

  37. 35 & 36 Julian,

    Affirmative Action is a sticky problem, because whenever you have a limited resource, someone is going to get hurt by being denied access.
    I think we need to address the root cause of inequality in our school systems, and also address the limited space available by properly funding our universities.

    Please do not equate the Civil Rights Act with affirmative action.
    While the issues of reverse discrimination you raise are interesting
    and important, they do not apply to Ron Pauls opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which is what I addressed in this post.

  38. everything is limited.
    you never be able to address this by “properly funding”
    kids compete the ranking, i.e. the seats in UC Berkley is always limited

    Civil Rights Act and affirmative action are tightly coupled
    I don’t know how u separate them.
    The so call Civil Rights Act is against Civil Rights, introduce hate between people. It is evil

  39. The Civil Rights Act basically says:
    mankind is not created equal,
    Asia Male and White Male should be discriminated

  40. and particular, lower and middle class Male and White Male are discriminated.

  41. Julian,
    The Civil Rights Act is an recognition of equality.
    Simply saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so, and doesn’t make Ron Paul right for his opposition to it.

  42. no matter how they wording the document,
    the reality is Government use The Civil Rights Act to discriminate lower and middle class Asia Male and White Male

  43. 42. Julian,
    How they word the document is very important.
    It determines what is and is not the law.

  44. I applied to the U. of Michigan a few years back. I got wait listed, and didn’t want to wait until June to know if enough people decided to go elsewhere to get into U of Michigan.
    It was common knowledge at the time that minorities got preferential treatment over caucasians, which I am.
    Any one want to argue why I shouldn’t sue the U. of Michigan for discriminating against caucasians?

  45. Our question:

    “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?”

    He certainly should. Racial discrimination is not harmful. Force is harmful. Racial discrimination is merely irrational and unprofitable. It is irrational because race is an arbitrary mental collection having no objective reality. You can as easily prove that there is a short race and a tall race (and those half-breeds in between).

    If you do not want to hire me because I am black or short or female or fat, I ceratinly do not have a right to force myself on you. You have done me no harm. It is not a harm to deprive me of what I have no right to – your approval and your company. Anyone who thinks I have a right to force myself on you if I decide that your reasons for not liking me are not proper, believes in rape and slavery.

    It is the use of force that is at the root of the trouble in the world. There are, in fact, only a few people who discriminate for such silly reasons as skin color or gender. Most discrimination is against people who are offensive in their behavior. Racists are amongst the most offensive fools on earth.

    Ron Paul wrote:

    “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals.

    By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

    We should understant that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

  46. Nate,
    Let’s united, support Ron Paul is support future of us, and our Children. Keep it up

  47. 44. Nate,
    I regret having responded to the opened the affirmative action can of worms in this thread.

    45. John Howard,
    Racial Discrimination can assuradly be harmful.
    No Hispanics allowed in this hospital.
    No Gypsys are allowed to shop at any groceries in this town.

    Race is arbitrary, but hate is just as central a problem as force. I’d argue that force fueled by hate is a primary problem.

    Advocating for civil rights is not adopting a group mentality. It is expressly the opposite: fighting against those who adhere to a group mentality at the expense of others.

  48. “fighting against those who adhere to a group mentality at the expense of others.”

    what about give Black kids better University at the expense of Asian and White kids?

  49. 48. Julian,
    Fortunately that specific clause was left out of the Civil Rights Act.

  50. Discriminating against others is not a harm. If I refuse to deal with you, that is not a harm. You are harmed when I take from you what is yours by right – your liberty or wealth or health. But if I merely leave you alone and refuse to deal with you, I have not done you harm.

    You need to get clear in your mind that the lack of a benefit is not a harm. Not giving you money is not the same as stealing from you. Being a bigot and not liking you is not a harm. You do not have a right to my respect or affection or even my rationality. You have a right to go in peace un-bothered by me. Nothing more. You do not have a right to trade with me, be hired by me, marry me or in any other way make a claim on me.

    Liberty means that I do not owe anything to you unless I take something from you.

  51. There are two main arguments against the use of force to control the freedom of association.

    One is moral, it states that people should be free to deal with who they choose for whatever reasons they wish. If we give the government the right to use force against certain thought processes (i.e. racism), we are assuming the government’s reasoning is in fact more just and moral than each individual who might discriminate against certain peoples. While this is true in some cases, in others it is not. Asian restaurants hire asians. Gay clubs hire gays. Hooters hires attractive women with large breasts. Should a bar frequented by white supremacists have to hire a black bartender? I certainly hope not, for the sake of the bar and especially the bartender.

    The other is pragmatic. The use of force to tell people who they can and cannot hire is not likely to ease the relations between races. If anything, it is likely to increase the antagonism between them. Also, it is not likely to really provide minorities with better opportunities. With few exceptions, it is going to be really hard to prove that a certain person did not hire someone because of his race or gender, so the law will mostly be unenforcable. In the case where it is enforced or at least threatened to be enforced, an individual might be hired where she otherwise would not have been. Is that individual going to enjoy her job, working under people who likely hate her? Is she going to be paid and treated well?

    What exactly does this law hope to accomplish? Is it ment to be symbolic, and if so, is its symbolism worth opening the door to government being able to legistlate motive in private life? Looking at the history of government in our society and others, can we trust government with this responsibility?

    I would simply say to look at history, and note how the use of force, in any manner, to ease relations between different cultures or races never works. What works is voluntary association and trade.

  52. You have responded several times on this thread but haven’t demonstrated any attempt at understanding what Dr. Paul actually said in total.

    His argument against the Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with race even remotely.

    His argument is that Congress’ power to regulate commerce does not include the power to tell individual business owners what they may and may not do wrt hiring practices.

    That is a state matter. And furthermore, the act, claimed by its authors to be designed to solve the problem of racism, did not accomplish this and set race relations back by years due to the ill-will it generated and the liberty it destroyed.

    People do have a right to base their decisions on irrational beliefs and run their businesses as they see fit. The federal congress had no jurisdiction in the matter of whom anyone hires.

    The Civil Rights act allowed judges to arbitrarily determine how many blacks a company had to hire. That’s not right because a company that had “too few” blacks in its employ are automatically assumed to be motivated by racial hatred for not meeting an arbitrary number set by some federal judge.

    Are federal judges mind-readers? Or, did the Civil Rights Act simply throw out the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

    The latter is the case. That’s another reason why it was a terrible piece of legislation.

  53. Let me help out 🙂

    There are good aruments about quota abolishment for employers and unviersities, 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 sop 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 ont her 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.

    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.

    I wonder if when you take KKK members out how well he does in the polls?

  54. Public segregation was stopped by a supreme court case which ruled the idea of “seperate but equal” was impossible. It wasn’t stopped by this law. Do you really, honestly think the use of force to combine races, cultures and sexes helps reduce racism or sexism? I can’t see how it could do anything but make it worse.

    As for the KKK, I certainly can’t speak for Paul or anyone else, but I’d rather have them free to discriminate in who they associate with. Then they’d mostly hang out with each other, and leave the rest of us alone. People should have the right to live the way they want to live. No one ever complains about asians if they mainly hire other asians, even though they make more money than whites on a per-capita basis.

    If we were getting massive discrimination which prevented some groups from getting jobs, like some sort of a coercive racial hegemony, then we’d have a problem. But any employer in today’s world who refused to hire non-whites would be at a huge disadvantage and would probably soon be out of business.

    The only way to get rid of racism is to treat everyone like an individual. The fact that both civil rights activists and white supremacists support Paul shows just how universal the benifits of individual freedom are.

    “There is only one group that you have to worry about, only one race, and thats the human race and the individual. Every individual deserves rights because they are an individual, and not because of their race, or gender, or anything else…”
    -Ron Paul

  55. So, if the government where to unleash the rabid dog, you fear we will automatically revert back to full-scale racism with blacks having to sit at the back of the bus, eating off paper plates in restaurants?

    Honestly, if you believe that, we have gained NOTHING from the civil rights act. It also speaks volumes to your preconceived notion that the white man is a devil.

    Now, that is my opinion…here’s some simple truths

    The role of government is to protect rights, not grant them. This is spelled out in the Constitution. The constitution doesn’t say anything about any group of people having less or more rights than another group of people.

    I certainly won’t argue that we didn’t have slavery and discrimination after the constitution was enacted, but these were the result of two things. The first being that they were abuses and disregard of the constitution. Second was that it was generally beleived that people of color were not humans, had no souls, etc… Absolutely barbaric, but that was the prevailing wisdom of the day. But, we grew as a nation and a peoples and realized that this was wrong.

    The civil rights act became law because the people wanted it to be law. Blacks were not allowed to vote, it was whites that voted in the law. We all, rightly concluded that we are all humans, all children of God, and share the same common goals and capabilities.

    and now back to my opinions…

    A law granting or sanctioning that you are a human being is ridiculous and perpetuates a belief that the white devil is just chomping at the bit to go back to opressing minorities. This creates a division among us people. If minorities believe this is true of white people, then how is THAT not racism? Doesn’t it foster a climate that any action against the white devil is really justified?

    I certainly will not deny that racism does not exist in only in an extreme minority of people. The division we mostly witness today is a lack of trust and understanding of each other and voluntary form of segregation. I challenge you to look in a work or college cafeteria and see what I see… white people sitting with white people and minorities sitting with other minorities. This is completely voluntary.

    Now, I certainly have some controversial views on this subject and being white, I am labeled as racist to even discuss it. I have no hate for a person’s skin color or ethnic background. I want to treat everyone as an individual but the focus these collective groups place on their “difference” from me gets in the way.

    You define yourself. Collectivism means that your entire life is centered around your skin color, sexual orientation, gender, or ethnicity. If all you are is a ‘black person’ and all I am is a ‘white person’ then how can I possibly find common ground with you?

    To be honest, it is silly that we are even having this discussion. We should be talking about things that matter to us both as Americans. Things like taxes, economy, freedom, etc…

    I bet we are all very much alike when it comes to those things. So, let’s focus on the things we have in common rather than the things that make us different.

    This is what Ron Paul believes, honestly. When someone says something so controversial, it should be instict to want to read more to understand why they think that way. You might actually find yourself agreeing with them.

    Bottom line, we have come a long way when it comes to discrimination, but we still have a long way to go. The only way to stop it now is by removing the barriers between us and having honest, sometimes painful, discussion about it so we can really understand each other.

  56. craig tindale

    Do you really believe the people would stand for it? If I saw something like that posted on a restaraunt door, I would refuse to eat there. And I can guarantee that nearly everyone else would too. A very small percentage of people might like the idea. I say let them have their club. I certainly couldn’t care less if a “blacks only” restaurant opened up. Why would I? If a certain niche of people really wanted that and it somehow had a market (can’t believe it would, honestly) then so be it. At least the bigotry is out front and you know who they are.

    Bigotry isn’t going to go away in some people simply because you force them not to express it. If anything, it creates a distrust because you don’t know WHO the bigots are.

    Again, your arguments are pretty much saying that the civil rights act has done no good, we are all racist slave-owners, blah blah blah…

    Is it really your belief that the majority of white people are just dying to enslave and abuse black people? That would make you far more of a racist than anyone I know. Do you honestly believe the majority of white people would just shrug their shoulders and be OK with this.

    As far as the bus scenario, you haven’t been on a bus lately, have you? People are voluntarily segregating themselves. Go ahead, take one and look around at how people are sitting.

    It would not be the right of the country to do it, because our constitution doesn’t allow it. Privately, sure, but those businesses that do it first of all won’t survive (the only color a business cares about is green, and your money is the same color green as mine) and if they did, they would be a minority of niche’ clubs. You certainly can’t argue that we don’t have these already. There are several places that my presence would not be so easily accepted. And to be honest, I don’t really want to be there if they don’t want me there.

    And again, we have a bill of rights to protect all of our freedoms. And under Ron Paul, a state would deal with any discrimination issues if it really became a major problem again (I just can’t see it happening, honestly.)

    “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. ”

    Exactly. We have advanced far beyond this. There is no need for the leash anymore. Now, it simply gets in the way of us all moving on and progressing as individuals.

    “Are Paul supporters aware that White Nationalists are mobilising behind Ron Paul ?”

    Who cares who supports him? Do you know for a fact that they support him because they think he will endorse their cause? Any ethnocentric group is a fringe group. If they elect him because they think he is going to help them further their racist causes, expect them to be disappointed. Perhaps they support him for some of the other major issues he stands for that they might perceive as ‘helpful’? Perhaps they support him because

    Actually, it sounds like they all realize he ISN’T for any of their racial issues, but support him because of his immigration policies, and indirectly by cutting off funding to Israel. Of course, THEIR reasons are obvious, but Ron Paul doesn’t support those policies for the same reasons.

    “I wonder if when you take KKK members out how well he does in the polls?”

    You probably wouldn’t even notice the difference.

    As a counter argument, I wonder how many ‘black nationalist’ groups support Obama? or how many feminist groups support Hillary? Who cares? They don’t represent the majority in any way, shape, or form. They certainly won’t be THE deciding votes if one of them are elected.

    Stupid, pointless attack. I suppose I should ask why you were dwelling around a ‘white pride’ website?

  57. The irrational and dishonest suggestion that Ron Paul (or any candidate) is to be blamed for the views a few of those who support him is not worth taking seriously. The KKK almost all vote for Republicans and the communists almost all vote for democrats. That is hardly a reason to condemn all republicans and all democrats as racists and communists.

    The level of debate here is not too bright. And the attempts to smear Dr. Paul are pathetic.

  58. Ron Paul is not associated with David Duke in any way. Ron is not responsible for a public figure who is not held in high regard, supporting him. Ron Paul has not indicated he in any way that he supports David Duke. He does not associate with him either.

  59. This article demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge about what rights are, where they originate and how they’re protected.

    “It is a peversion of terms to state that a charter grants rights.” -Thomas Payne

    The “right” to equality cannot exist without government, which is why equality is not a right. A right exists in a stateless society. Equality cannot be considered a right without a state to force equality.

  60. 50. John Howard,
    So it is not a harm to keep you out of my bistro?
    To say “you can’t live in this town, anywhere?”
    Or to limit your job options to cabbie and waiter?

    These actions are clearly harmful.

    They are also, currently, against the law, and I aim to keep it that way.

    51. G

    These are very interesting objections (I liked your examples), but in looking at history as you suggest, I am left with two questions:

    If voluntary association and trade, why didn’t slavery just end on its own?
    The use of force in the case of civil rights isn’t to ease relations, but protect rights. Having known people who benefit, even today, from integration at schools, I can say that yes, it does provide lasting opportunity. Maybe some of the students and teachers are racist assholes, but not all of them are, and the end result is an education that previous to the Civil Rights Act would not have been available.

    The issue of trust holds for both governments and people. The question is, when this trust is broken, should there be a law in place to catch us?
    I think the answer is a resounding yes.

    52. Demidog,
    The “this is about states rights” is a shallow and dishonest attempt to steer the debate away from racism. It failed when the Civil Rights Act was first introduced, and it fails to persuade now.

    No law is perfect, but to allow overt racial discrimination in hiring practices is just not in line with even the pretense of civil rights and equality.

    53. Craig,
    The example of “whites only, blacks only” was quite good. As is the possibility of segregated public transit. Campaigning in 2008 on a pre-1964 message is not going to be terribly effective either.

    54. G,
    It isn’t whether outlawing segregation stops racism or sexism, it is how it prevents resources/opportunities being denied soley on the basis of race or sex.

    If no employers are in danger of actually discriminating completely, why is there even a need to oppose the Civil Rights Act? In other words, how do you know the free market will punish companies to the extend that the cost of racism exceeds the percieved benefit? Why leave an ethical question to the market rather than the rule of law?

    55. Scott,
    Here is what my position speaks to. There is a law that protects civil rights. I believe it should remain in place.

    I believe that, given the opportunity, racism would gladly resurface in an overt manner. Racism and oppression, while reduced, have not been solved.

    Civil Rights are very topical when the Bush administration is taking them away left and right.

    What should be instinct, beyond reading more, is to allow yourself to be critical.

    Removing barriers between us and honest discussions sound great. But there is no need to kill off civil rights legislation to make that happen.

    56. Scott,
    The problem with Paul and the supremacists isn’t one of support going his way, but his taking public actions that support them (appearing on their radio shows, writing articles for them that repackage their arguments for mainstream consumption, speaking at events, etc).

    57. John,
    It isn’t about the views of those who support Ron Paul, but his support of some racist organizations.

    Thank you for your efforts to elevate the debate.

    58. Andrew Panken,
    Ron Paul could at some point address David Duke’s publication of Paul’s articles on his website. But it is a different association than with other groups, to be sure, where he takes a more direct role by speaking at their events, or pushing their arguments for them.

  61. 59. Seer,
    You are partially correct.
    There is a distinction between Civil Rights, and Human Rights. Human Rights are, as you say, inherent, and exist in a stateless society. A government can simply recognize these rights.

    Civil Rights, however, are in fact rights that are protected by the state. Equality is one of them. Property is another. One can argue that some civil rights are in fact specific manifestations or consequences of human rights as well.

    With regard to equality, I am treating it here as a civil right. Given that we do not live in a stateless society, we have a government that can protect rights. Equality is one such right I think the government should protect.

  62. -fitnessfortheoccasion wrote:
    “It isn’t whether outlawing segregation stops racism or sexism, it is how it prevents resources/opportunities being denied soley on the basis of race or sex.”
    Do you really think the law was effective in stopping that? The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show some racial or gender descrimination took place. I cannot imagine this could be proved often enough to really have an impact. I have heard of laws like this one scaring employers into hiring or not firing people, but that works both ways. Sometimes they can be scared into keeping on an unproductive or antagonistic employee, for fear of a lawsuit. Of course, litigation costs are a bit out of control as well, but thats another topic…

    -fitnessfortheoccasion wrote:
    “If no employers are in danger of actually discriminating completely, why is there even a need to oppose the Civil Rights Act?”
    Pragmatically, I believe it has the opposite effect it was intended to have (like so many other government programs), and I don’t think its really something which can be effectively enforced. Of course some employers are going to be bigots, but there will always be bigots against some minority. Thats always been with us, and I don’t think its ever going away completely.

    Morally, I do not believe the government has any right to tell people why they can and cannot associate themselves with someone else. If we grant the government this power, we could regret it in the future.

    -fitnessfortheoccasion wrote:
    “In other words, how do you know the free market will punish companies to the extend that the cost of racism exceeds the percieved benefit? Why leave an ethical question to the market rather than the rule of law?”
    Well, first let me say I don’t think government should sit idly by and allow monopolistic practices against any group of consumers or workers. That can be a form of coercion in itself. But I don’t think this sort of anti-trust action should be at all restricted or defined by coercion against racial groups.

    But, market forces are far more color-blind than government. Yes there are a few monopolies in the market not created by government action, and there are probably some instances of coalitions of companies which work to excersize monopolistic tendencies which might exclude portions of the workforce. But these instances pale in comparison to the racial injustices commited by government. Slavery, conscription, and segregation are all things enforced by government which make no economic sense, and are the anti-thesis of any free market system.

    Individual market capitalists might be racist bastards, but its in their self-interest to employ the best workers they can find, regardless of their race or gender. It is not, however, in the self-interest of politicians or public prosecutors to ensure the best workers are selected; they just want to look good for their voters.

  63. If you’re going to quote, quote the whole thing.

    “”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.”

    Paul voted against the Act, as all of Texas’ congress members did, because 1.) it mandated affirmative action quotas for private businesses. 2.) it treats certain states, such as Texas, differently than others, even though 40 years have passed. 3.) it requires federal regulation of voting for those states, so if a local official in Georgia wants to move the polling place from one church to another, he/she must contact the federal government first to get permission. 4.) it mandates bilingual balloting, in one case given as an example in a letter signed by these members of Congress, more than $40,000 of taxpayer dollars were spent printing Spanish ballots in a California district because one voter made this request.

    In other words, it makes government bigger, costs lots of money, restricts businesses in who they can and cannot hire, costing many people jobs, and treats things as if they were exactly the same as in 1964. It shouldn’t have been renewed. Perhaps a new version of the bill could be passed, but that bill is a bad bill and should not have been passed.

  64. G,
    Yes, I do believe in some instances it has been effective.

    I guess I disagree on the “association” problem. The reason being in the abstract, that sounds just find. But as soon as you hit the ground of reality, that ideal results in people being shut out of so much of what life and society have to offer. Segregation and discriminatory practices change the opportunities and resources one has access to.

    Where is the proof that market forces are more color blind than government? Is it in the racism that existed in the south before the federal government overruled the state government and private organizations? If these federal protections evaporated, then history indicates the “free market” wouldn’t stop much.

    As for slavery and such, they do make economic sense. Slavery made a *lot* of economic sense, hence why America engaged in it. Think of how much labor went into the founding of this country. It was stopped by force, yes, but it would have gone on. People don’t enslave other people without getting something out of it, and in this case, the result was wealth. A number of wealthy families and organizations today were build on money made off of the direct profit or labor resulting from slavery. Opposing slavery is a fundamentally ethical stance (and obligation).

    Jean,
    Why do I have to quote the whole thing?
    Making government bigger isn’t always a bad thing.
    Regulating states with an ongoing history of problems with racism and voting isn’t a bad thing either.

  65. Obviously, I’m late to this discussion. But, someone needs to clear up Julian’s confusion about what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does. The law makes it illegal to discriminate against non-white people in public institutions and accommodations and guarantees their right to vote.

    Prior to the mid-1960s, segregation by law made it impossible for people of color to live their lives without continually being forced to use seperate facilities, wait until white people had been served in any business (if they were allowed to enter at all), sleep in their cars if they traveled because they were not allowed to stay in hotels in the South, etc. Nor could they work in any job forbidden by whites, marry a white person legally in most states until the 1970s, or attend integrated schools in the South and much of the West prior to the enforcement of Brown v. Education in the 1960s and 1970s. Thousands were maimed, killed or driven from their homes if they became economically successful or attempted to vote.

    Ron Paul grew up in state with a horrible history of racism and lynching. It is estimated that the Ku Klux Klan and the Texas Rangers may have killed as many as 7,000 people, most of them black or brown, from 1800s through the 1960s. Paul’s attitude toward race is typical of someone who grew up white during segregation and has not grown enough as a person to disavow white supremacy. His recent attempts to mask racist beliefs in innocuous language are not convincing at all. Paul sees no problem with returning to the segregation that was legal until he was in his 30s. People like him were taught not to see people of color as fully human like themselves and, obviously, he still doesn’t or repealing the Civil Rights Act would not be on his agenda.

    Furthermore, the Civil Rights Act has not failed. Levels of education, income and political participation have risen significantly for black, Hispanic, Indian and Asian-Americans since civil rights laws passed. Lynching, the ultimate enforcement of segregation, has declined to only a few cases a year.

    Like many Asian immigrants, Julian is ignorant of the fact that he owes the freedoms he has to the white and non-white people who risked their positions, and, sometimes, their lives, to get civil rights laws passed before he arrived. He is benefitting from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 every day, though he doesn’t realize it.

  66. Podesta,
    Thanks for clearing it up. That was a great comment,
    save for the “Like many Asian immigrants” part (which was uneeded and false). Also it is misleading language. “Like many” implies a majority but can point to a significantly smaller segment.

    You are correct in that he is benefitting from the civil rights act every day. Directly or indirectly, we all are.

  67. Nice to virtually meet you, Fit.

    I’m encountering Asian immigrants and first generation American born Asians who really don’t understand civil rights laws at all. One of their misconceptions is that segregation applied only to African-Americans. That isn’t so. Anyone who wasn’t white suffered the indignities of segregation. For example, even in California, Asian-Americans could not marry non-Asians, so they either traveled to Mexico to marry or entered into contracts that almost replicated marriage. (You will want to read Lisa See’s biography of her family, if you haven’t.)

    I think part of the problem these people have is identifying with the Right Wing white men they come into contact with, particularly in the Internet technology field. Suffice it to say that if Ron Paul were to succeed in getting civil rights laws repealed, they would be the ones paying the price, not the reactionary white men they echo.

    Here is an example of what I mean:

    http://tinyurl.com/2wb463

    A disproportionate share of the Ron Paul hypnotized on that thread are Indians.

    Also, you might want to do some lurking at the white supremacist site American Renaissance. If you do, you will notice a significant number of people of Asian descent declaring solidarity with the white supremacists there.

    I am not blogging currently, but I think that someone needs to make an effort to educate these unfortunates about what civil rights laws really do.

  68. Likewise Podesta,
    I think a *lot* of people don’t understand civil rights laws, the intentions behind them, and their actual effects. In that thread, it didn’t seem especially disproportionate.

    There can be a lot of strange alliances amongst hate groups, this is nothing new. What continues to amaze me is the short-sightedness of anyone who allies themselves with neonazis and supremacists. But that essential conflict of interest appears all over the place, like poor people who support politicians with social and economic policies that directly harm them.

  69. I don’t believe you should call Mr. Paul a racist just because he believes a piece of legislation over reaches the role of the federal government. I also think it’s alarmist to say that if the Civil Rights Act was somehow repealed segregation would run rampant through the US. If schools did start denying admission to minorities, then people would protest and the local state government would pass laws to effect change. If the government started to repress people then the people will rise up to elect new leaders. If the government tries to silence the voice of the minority they the Federal government must step in to protect the rights of the American citizens. If companies and public education need to be regulated to ensure they don’t discriminate, then they laws should be passed by the state, not the federal government. I believe that is Mr. Paul’s reason for saying that the Civil Rights Act is unnecessary.

  70. “If the government tries to silence the voice of the minority they the Federal government must step in to protect the rights of the American citizens.”

    That is exactly what the civil rights laws Ron Paul opposes do, dshcustom. There is no reason to repeal them. It is not an accident that he is the only representative foolish enough to vote against it.

    As for the ‘states’ right argument,’ it has always been a pretext for discimination, particularly in Southern states. It has been used for that purpose since before the Civil War. Slavery was the ultimate states’ right. We should all be knowledgeable enough not to fall for the pretext by now.

    I am looking forward to more of Paul’s newsletters being leaked. The ‘a ghostwriter did it and I never got around to being critical about the content for years,’ gobbledygook is not going to work when they are.

  71. Howdy! Great conversation all.

    Here’s a thought I think you should all consider thinking about with your thoughtful minds…

    Being against aspects of Civil Rights Legislation is not the same thing as “being against civil rights.” Ron Paul is absolutely opposed to any government infringement on civil rights, whether race-related or not. Our GOVERNMENT used to discriminate against African Americans and some other minorities, and Ron Paul is entirely opposed to that.

    What he is also opposed to though is forced integration, because it hurts the people it purports to help, and it intensifies the problem of racial tensions and discrimination. Just read about the Reconstruction after the Civil War.

    Here’s an example of something that I don’t think any one of us would approve of.

    “Discrimination is bad. I am a black woman and I want to be married to Tom, but he says he’s not attracted to African American women…I desperately want to have Tom’s children, and he wont let me. There should be a law that doesn’t allow him to discriminate against me and other beautiful black women. He also says he is not attracted to homosexual men, so this is not just about black women. He’s just a bigot in general.”

    Now I realize how ridiculous this example is. But what is the fundamental difference between choosing a sexual partner and choosing an employee.

    You could say, well why would any self-respecting gorgeous black woman waster her time on a racist white man. Just because she thinks he’s attractive and wants her children to look like him? Nonsense.

    Well why on earth would a self-respecting black man want to work for a bigot who thinks he is subhuman? Just because it’s a “good job?” Even if the government forces him to be hired, you can’t guarantee the work environment will not be tainted with tension (because the employer was forced he will be all the more resentful). You can’t even guarantee he will get treated the same way (raises etc.) unless the government is then permitted to infiltrate every aspect of the company’s internal affairs. This IS called tyranny and central economic planning, and it has never worked successfully.

    The black man (like the black woman) should seek employment (or education for that matter) at an institution that respects him and chooses to associate with him based on his attitude and skillset, rather than his skin color.

    Again, civil RIGHTS, shouldn’t be any different than RIGHTS. All people should have the same RIGHTS, and as long as the government isn’t infringing on those rights (institutionalized racism), and as long as it is protecting all people (which of course includes minorities) from aggression, then people will prosper more fully.

    Racism is ugly and evil. That is obvious to anybody with a brain who is not sick.

    But you could argue that cocaine is evil too, but the real issue is whether a government ban on cocaine ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHES ANYTHING POSITIVE.

    Racial (and religious) equality is a goal we should all strive for in our personal lives and societal lives. But it is not “wacky” to be of the opinion that government prohibition (of discrimination or anything else) is INEFFECTIVE.

    Thoughts?

    -Chad

  72. Here’s another extreme example to illustrate my point.

    A company CANNOT THRIVE without good employees.

    Robert is a talented white engineer, and the Ford company is in desperate need of a good engineer. Robert however is a racist and says “I refuse to work for a company that hires black people.”

    Should the government not intervene and force him to work for Ford, which after all can’t survive without good engineers, which are in short supply?

    You might say, “Well in this case, they could just hire someone else.” Well there is no difference between saying that and saying “well THEY could just work somewhere else that doesn’t discriminate.”

    Again, racial (and other forms of) discrimination is ugly and bad. But getting the government involved is a poor solution.

  73. The last two remarks are so incredibly stupid I am not going to dignify them with a response.

    Indeed, the caliber of zealot Ron Paul attracts is really low. Many can’t express a coherent thought or write a literate sentence.

  74. The left refuses to admit they are “at war” with the rights of individuals. They seek to oppress the individuality of everyone that takes offense at their collectivist thinking. Face facts. Some people do not want to associate with other people. Integration laws will never correct that. Is it right to force people that hold strong religious beliefs to hire and work with those whose lifestyles they find objectionable? Why not force companies to hire convicted criminals while your at it? As an employer, if I refuse to hire someone because they are divorced I can be sued. Why do they have a right to oppress my first amendment right to freely associate? We are already way too far down the slippery slope for much to change, but it goes straight to the root of the disintegration we see in todays society. And speaking of ending wars, let’s end the war on poverty, and the war on drugs. Neither will be a benefit to the nation as a whole.

  75. If it was not for the explicit inclusion of “states rights” in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the US Constitution, we would still be part of England and subjects of the crown. Those that claim that “states rights” is a pretext to racism are afraid of the concept of true liberty. Why is forcing children onto buses away from their neighborhoods, any different that loading them on slave ships and sailing away to a hostile nation? It benefits neither race. How does forcing a company to ignore the merits of one candidate in favor of another based on color benefit either? Where does forced integration stop? Will the “liberals” soon demand forced interracial marriage? I think that is a very good question?

  76. Just cuirous why the rest of Ron Paul’s response was not included only an excerpt. The link is included but many of the arguments i have seen seem to have neglected to read the rest. I am not suggesting that the we should go back to the pre 1964 legislation in America, but at least debate what the man actually said instead of the blurb posted on the page.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

  77. Chad, you’re examples don’t make much sense.
    As for the abstract, one could suggest that we run a study to
    find out, in fact, which laws are in fact effective at countering
    a given crime. But I wonder to what degree that is testable?

    Anti-Socialist,
    Because we are not “at war” with the rights of individuals.
    What a ridiculous thing to say. Fortunately, you’ve neglected
    to back it up. What you were able to do is twist the civil rights
    debate into a mere discussion of “association”. That is not the issue.
    The issue is should people be denied access, to anything, based purely
    on the color of their skin, religion, etc? Individuals do not have a right to infringe upon the rights of others. You can re-cast this infringement to make it seem like an independent right, but any honest analysis quickly removes that shroud.
    That said, I’m perfectly happy to end the war on drugs. (Perhaps you could explain the war on poverty as you see it?)

    Stop treating “states rights” like a rallying call.

    Where does forced integration stop? Will the “liberals” soon demand forced interracial marriage? I think that is a very good question?

    It is a very misleading question at best. That is the worst sort of illogical fearmongering. Forced marriage? Really?

    Why is forcing children onto buses away from their neighborhoods, any different that loading them on slave ships and sailing away to a hostile nation?

    …Where to begin on this one? Are you actually asking this? Slavery vs Integrated schools?

    kithas,
    I did respond to what he actually said. The thing about quoting is, unless he immediately follows with “and I didn’t mean ANY of that stuff I JUST said”, its quite valid to single it out for a deeper look. But perhaps you could point out what you feel I missed.

  78. Very interesting discussion everyone. I have to hand it to you fitness for presenting for the most part good arguments in support of your position. However, I must say that as a bystander to the whole debate, it seems the arguments presented against you have your position beat. As many have pointed out throughout the discussion, one does not inherently have a right to work for someone else. One does not have a right to be another’s client. The problem is that many people do not have an understanding of what natural rights are.

    We need to remember that we do not live in a socialist society, which attempts to provide that to which one does not have a natural right. Once a government undertakes to grant illegitimate rights (such as the right to wealth, the right to a free ride), the rights of others are infringed upon. For example, if a government tried to guarantee its citizens a right to a high paying job, it would have to infringe upon the rights of some to attempt to grant that right to others.

    “The issue is should people be denied access, to anything, based purely on the color of their skin, religion, etc? Individuals do not have a right to infringe upon the rights of others.”

    True, no one has the right to infringe upon the rights of others. And as others have been trying to explain to you, yes, under the constitution the government does not have a right to to discriminate against, deny access to government funded public services, or make any law “respecting” or pertaining to any group based on their religion, race, etc. However, one does not have an inherent right to be hired by another. Conversely, an individual does have a right to decide who he will hire–even “discriminate,” against various individuals or groups.

    For instance, if a Christian founded a Christian organization, he would have a right to not hire say, devil worshipers or satanists, even though the devil worshiper or satanist may argue that devil worship or satanism is his religion. These individuals may claim that they are being discriminated against because of their religion, but the citizen (in this case the Christian [in another case vice versa–the devil worshiper also]) is guaranteed that right to employ whomsoever he chooses.

    On the other hand, government could not discriminate against a law-abiding devil worshiper or deny him the use of government public facilities. After all, the devil worshiper has to pay taxes to support those facilities.

    Overall, I think we need to rethink our concept of rights and the role of government. Racism is indeed wrong, and no one in our day and age who discriminates based on race ought to be considered anything more than an uneducated senseless bigot. But we nor anyone else has the right to abuse the rights of any uneducated senseless bigot. If such a right did exist, who would decide who the bigot was? The majority? What if the majority was senseless bigots and they decided that we in actuality were the bigots? Fortunately we live in a society ruled by law and not by absolute democracy.

  79. 78. dontbeahater,
    Actually, our society is a socialist capitalist hybrid beastie.
    But let’s get to the point of civil rights.

    Of course no one has a right to work for someone else.
    One does have a right to not be discriminated against
    on the basis of skin color, creed, orientation, etc.

    Why the rush to give this right up?

    The point is I can’t say, oh, hire computer programmers,
    then stop and say “Ohh…. you’re hispanic? Sorry, no dice.
    I don’t like spics. You’re too lazy”. Why should
    this be permissable?

    Of course it can get sticky deciding who is and isn’t being racist.
    Deciding guilt always is, that doesn’t mean we give up on the process.

    But this is getting away from the central point.
    We have legislation designed to protect civil rights.
    Ron Paul voted against them.

    The best arguments I’ve seen for “trust us this is a good thing” revolve around “well it wasn’t stopping racism anyway”, which makes about as much sense as getting rid of laws against stealing and murder because those crimes continue.

    (This seems to be a common thread of logic amongst some Ron Paul supporters).

  80. Indeed, our originally capitalist system has been a perforated with socialistic elements, but fortunately it still remains far from complete socialism.

    Once again, I would say we need to rethink our concept of rights and remember the principles our country was founded upon. You stated, “Of course no one has a right to work for someone else. One does have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of skin color, creed, orientation, etc.” I would ask, how can you determine what is or isn’t a right? Where do rights come from?

    There are plenty of things that sound like great goals or ideas, and to the uneducated they may sound like a legitimate right, but they are not. For example, FDR brought about a completely erroneous understanding of rights when announced that everyone had the right to a useful job, a house, medical care, good education, etc. These “rights” become the battle cry for pandering politicians, or sincere politicians who lack an understanding of natural rights.

    While a look at society in America today one may think that they are arbitrarily determined, there is a clear basis for natural rights, which has been recognized by great political writers and philosophers throughout the ages, including Cicero, Bastiat, Blackstone, Hayek, Locke, Madison etc. True rights are given to us by God, or by nature, and exist in a state of nature. The existence of rights precedes government, and government is instituted to preserve those rights.

    In my last post I said, “an individual does have a right to decide who he will hire–even “discriminate,” against individuals or groups. “ Being able to choose, or “discriminate” (from Webster: Latin discriminatus, from discrimin-, discrimen distinction, from discernere, to distinguish between) between whom you hire is a natural right, even if your decision it is based on false, wrong, or unjust assumptions. If you deny people this freedom by trying to prevent racism you not only are abusing a natural right, but you are trying to enforce a non-existent one. Although denying someone a job because of their race is wrong, it’s not an abuse of rights, because no one has the right to work for someone else in the first place. Stealing and murder on the other hand, are an abuse rights.

    I doubt you’d agree with the government denying the freedom of speech when that speech is racist. It would be wrong because someone making racist comments is not abusing anyone’s rights. However, once a racist person begins to injure, abuse, steal, murder, or in any other way abuse the rights of another, the government must punish accordingly.

  81. Ok. Here is everything he said. Not just what would cause all of this mess. I guess thats what Mr. Tindale wanted.
    “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.

    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.

    This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

    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.

    Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.”

  82. keenwaa,
    Maybe I do need to rethink my idea of rights. I don’t think someone has the right to work for a particular place “You owe me a job!”. But I do think everyone with the will to work has the right to work. I agree absolutely with FDR on that. That goes beyond the typical idea of “core rights” to “rights society should guarentee.

    This idea of “natural rights” is a little bit bullshit, 2 parts clever rhetoric. The right to freedom of expression does not exist in nature. Neither does a right to life. Yet these are about as core as we can imagine.

    Rights are what we make of them, as a society. They can be non-existant, or protected. It is up to us. I’d argue that some rights are essential to living as a human. The right to life, expression, liberty, etc. But we have to recognize that these rights are meaningless if you don’t have shlter, a means of feeding yourself, medical care, etc. The right to life shouldn’t just protect against murder by knife, but also by lack of health care coverage.

    Being able to choose who you hire is not at all a natural right. It is an outgrowth of a weird social institution. And frankly, if a company chooses to discriminate in its hiring practices, yes, I am going to work to stop it.

    You are write, I am firmly against attempts to attack freedom of speech, even when it is truly foul speech (of course I am all for calling it out for what it is). But locking an entire segment of society out of a range of jobs because of race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc, is abusing the rights of every individual within that segment.

    James,
    Craig’s original comment asked if Ron Paul believed in segregation. I think his speech clearly shows he felt integration was a mistake. His vote on the Civil Rights act confirms this.

    Why quote the entire speech and then say “I guess that’s what Mr. Tindale wanted”? I think from his original comment it is clear he wanted to figure out whether or not Ron Paul was pro segregation. (And btw, I did link to the entire speech).

    So enough quoting Ron Paul. What do you think? Do you think Ron Paul is right to think the original Civil Rights Act was a mistake?

  83. I do not want to wake up one day and see a sign on a restaurant that says “Whites only;” however, I hope and truly believe that the majority of white people would refuse to eat at such a racist establishment. However, we cannot allow the white majority to simply ignore the problems of minorities, which would be unfortunately a lot easier if minorities are not somehow explicitly protected by law. We must maintain at least a minimum level of government intervention and taxes to support school vouchers and grants to start up small businesses that are made available for all Americans regardless of race, so that our citizens are guaranteed opportunities if they are unfortunately denied admission to schools or jobs because of their race. I know that Ron Paul supports vouchers, and I believe – based on what I understand of his philosophy – that he would support small business grants.

  84. Fitness, I know you said..

    “So enough quoting Ron Paul. What do you think? Do you think Ron Paul is right to think the original Civil Rights Act was a mistake?”

    but….

    “the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.”

    That statement is factually correct and says it all. Paul doesn’t oppose it because he is a racist he does so on the merits and constitutionality of it. (I know there’s that damn document screwing up your argument again).

    The civil rights act wasn’t/isn’t all that civil and had/has little to do with the rights of everyone.

  85. I think we can admit that at one time, civil rights was needed, because our society openly accepted racism as an ok thing to do. We have evolved past that, not because of laws that say we shouldnt discriminate, but because we know racism was wrong. If the civil rights act was repealed would all businesses suddenly fire their good black employees to hire whites who werent as good at their job, so they actually lose money? At the same time should somebody be forced to hire a black employee who is not as qualified as a white person to meet some quota that somebody pulled out of their ass, and be forced to lose money? We have to let business hire whoever they want to or their rights have been impeded on. Not only that why would we force them to hire based on skin color as oppopsed to character and integrity. But I wouldnt expect any less from liberals who think more government is the answer to all our problems.

  86. […] issue that produces a healthy part of the right-wings cognitive dissonance.  Racism.  Here is the comment: I think we can admit that at one time, civil rights was needed, because our society openly […]

  87. its all about obama!!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: