Rand Paul: A chip off the racist block

[Hydesland]

There remain sound reasons for suspecting racism on the part of Ron and Rand Paul, however.

What reasons with respect to Rand in particular? I mean all the things presented thus far seem to be pretty consistent with general hardcore libertarianism.

[Vittos Ordination]

I would think that Paul might develop emotional sentiments towards his pregnant patients as well. But, you know, they're women, not babies. I suppose that means they matter less.

Perhaps. I could think of reasons both ways, but to argue along those lines would not advance this discussion in any way. The only relevant point is that an obstetrician would have experiences that could cause strong moral inclinations that appear to form contradictions.

[Sun Aut Ex]

No compelling interest to do so. No one is harmed by not being able to visit your home. People are harmed if they can't find employment, buy food, get medical attention, obtain clothing and shelter, etc.

I think it's safe the say that with ACLU and the modern media, there's no real risk of that happening.

[Bendira]

Its not racist to give business' the option to hire whoever they want. Thats called freedom. If there is a business that descriminates based on race, then dont go there and buy stuff. Simple as that. The Civil Rights Movement was great in the fact that it removed institutionalized racism (in theory, although affirmitive action and similiar programs are racist).

You don't see any intellectual disconnect in praising the Civil Rights Movement at the same time you defend someone who opposes the heart of that movement?

You dont know the heart of the movement then. The movement was to not instututionalize racism. I doubt anybody actually believed they could change everybodies private opinions on race relations in the United States.

[Kjbm-land]

I think we must show a little sympathy with him for being saddled with the name 'Rand', poor bastard.

lol

[Farnhamia]

No compelling interest to do so. No one is harmed by not being able to visit your home. People are harmed if they can't find employment, buy food, get medical attention, obtain clothing and shelter, etc.

I think it's safe the say that with ACLU and the modern media, there's no real risk of that happening.

So you admit that without safeguards such as civil rights laws and the ACLU, these things would happen and that you're okay with them?

[The Black Forrest]

Its not racist to give business' the option to hire whoever they want. Thats called freedom. If there is a business that descriminates based on race, then dont go there and buy stuff. Simple as that. The Civil Rights Movement was great in the fact that it removed institutionalized racism (in theory, although affirmitive action and similiar programs are racist).

You don't see any intellectual disconnect in praising the Civil Rights Movement at the same time you defend someone who opposes the heart of that movement?

You dont know the heart of the movement then. The movement was to not instututionalize racism. I doubt anybody actually believed they could change everybodies private opinions on race relations in the United States.

Hawah?

[Vittos Ordination]

Increasingly less--usually my emotional moral conflicts have clear philosophical resolutions

Then you have a different sort of mind than I do. I have never found myself able to use my reason to inform my emotion, only the other way around. I couldn't even fathom the way you do it.

That is for another thread, however.

[Tokos]

*sigh*

Arguments from ignorance are really tiring. A bit of education would prevent such stupid statements.

First, learn a bit about segregation and the conditions that led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Second, you might try actually reading the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (pdf). See also Wikipedia re CRA of 1964

You might note that the Civil Rights Act does far more than you discuss, your problem seems to be with Title II and Title VII. Title II outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce. Title VII prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin .

A key part of why your object is nonsense is that once you engage in a public business and engage in interstate commerce, you are no longer just acting as a "private" entity. The Supreme Court settled this issue in Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). See also Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

Third, I bet you supported the recent SCOTUS decision in favor of white firefighters in [ur=http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-1428.htmll]Ricci v. DeStefano[/url], 557 U.S. ___ (2009). That decision was based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I'm not American. Anti-discrimination law is more than just American.

I fully agree it should apply to government service - civil service, councils, healthcare, etc.

No compelling interest to do so. No one is harmed by not being able to visit your home. People are harmed if they can't find employment, buy food, get medical attention, obtain clothing and shelter, etc.

Not granting someone a job is not direct harm. Employers deny people jobs every day. You may as well say that not giving money to beggars is causing harm in the same vein as refusing medical help.

[Soheran]

What reasons with respect to Rand in particular? I mean all the things presented thus far seem to be pretty consistent with general hardcore libertarianism.

His stance on anti-discrimination laws, yes. But the political movements from which their kind of anti-federal conservative "libertarianism" stems have long had racist associations, and the connections they have to clear racists--like Rand Paul's campaign spokesperson and Ron Paul's racist newsletters--further support this.

When I hear the Pauls start speaking out for the individual liberty of persons to cross the border, or to avoid racial profiling and police brutality, or to engage in affirmative action policies if they so choose, or any of the other socially-progressive stances perfectly consistent with hardcore libertarianism, maybe I will change my mind.

[Tokos]

When I hear the Pauls start speaking out for the individual liberty of persons to cross the border

lol

or to engage in affirmative action policies if they so choose

This is what a number of people on this thread are allowing should be illegal.

I don't think any self-proclaimed libertarian is against a business choosing to have affirmative action policies if it so wishes.

[Soheran]

You dont know the heart of the movement then. The movement was to not instututionalize racism.

The movement was to ensure justice and equal opportunity for all. The Civil Rights Movement fought for, and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King fully supported, affirmative action and anti-discrimination policies to make this goal meaningful.

I doubt anybody actually believed they could change everybodies private opinions on race relations in the United States.

So? Nobody is talking about that. The Civil Rights Movement absolutely did not merely aim at ending formal legal segregation.

[Hydesland]

His stance on anti-discrimination laws, yes. But the political movements from which their kind of anti-federal conservative "libertarianism" stems have long had racist associations, and the connections they have to clear racists--like Rand Paul's campaign spokesperson and Ron Paul's racist newsletters--further support this.

Perhaps, but this could easily just be an enemy of my enemy sort of thing.

When I hear the Pauls start speaking out for the individual liberty of persons to cross the border, or to avoid racial profiling and police brutality, or to engage in affirmative action policies if they so choose, or any of the other socially-progressive stances perfectly consistent with hardcore libertarianism, maybe I will change my mind.

Thing is, while these stances may be progressive, rejecting them are not inherently strictly racist, in that they don't have to be based on the idea specifically that one race is inferior to another. I wasn't aware that they dislike unfettered immigration, but this can be opposed for various economic reasons (wage arbitrage for instance). The only thing where it is a bit iffy is racial profiling, if it is based on something that is merely probabilistic, then it may not inherently be based on the idea that one race is actually inferior to another, as the probabilities may have nothing to do with race at all. Are you saying that they specifically support profiling, or haven't explicitly rejected it?

[WorldofWilly]

NOTE: I know that libertarians and other defenders of Mr. Paul will claim (as they do with his father) that this isn't racism, but an ideological objection to infringement on private property/autonomy. Although other evidence makes that less credible with regard to Rep. Ron Paul, I admit that may be true here (but I think that shows a flaw in his philosophy, even if it not one in his character). Also, the rabidly racist campaign spokesman doesn't help his case.

This racist argument no longer works. The left calls anyyone a racist when they can not argue against the facts. As the American economy continues to collapse most of America will not care if someone is a racist. America is falling and people need a scape goat racism will be in vogue in a few years. I think being called a racist by the left will be considered a badge of honor to conservatives in the future. The racism argument is dead especially in Kentucky!

[Tokos]

The movement was to ensure justice and equal opportunity for all. The Civil Rights Movement fought for, and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King fully supported, affirmative action and anti-discrimination policies to make this goal meaningful.

Whoah there. I'm not an expert on the civil rights movement - but, what about leaders like Malcolm X, who were in favour of black self-determination? Racial self-determination implies a lack of affirmative action policies, anti-discriminatino laws, etc.

[Bendira]

You dont know the heart of the movement then. The movement was to not instututionalize racism.

The movement was to ensure justice and equal opportunity for all. The Civil Rights Movement fought for, and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King fully supported, affirmative action and anti-discrimination policies to make this goal meaningful.

I doubt anybody actually believed they could change everybodies private opinions on race relations in the United States.

So? Nobody is talking about that. The Civil Rights Movement absolutely did not merely aim at ending formal legal segregation.

I never read anywhere that Martin Luther King was for affirmitive action. If its true its pretty hypocritical that he believed in censoring peoples right to hire who they want, while saying we need to maintain free speech rights.In that case I am against the Civil Rights Movement on that specific point. However I would have marched with them anyways, because their anti government institutionalization of racism deserved to be protested.

By the way, if you guys honestly believe the government stops people from descriminating against employees you are truly misguided. If somebody dosnt want to hire somebody, they wont.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Its not racist to give business' the option to hire whoever they want. Thats called freedom. If there is a business that descriminates based on race, then dont go there and buy stuff. Simple as that. The Civil Rights Movement was great in the fact that it removed institutionalized racism (in theory, although affirmitive action and similiar programs are racist).

You don't see any intellectual disconnect in praising the Civil Rights Movement at the same time you defend someone who opposes the heart of that movement?

You dont know the heart of the movement then. The movement was to not instututionalize racism. I doubt anybody actually believed they could change everybodies private opinions on race relations in the United States.

WTF are you babbling about?

1. Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was at the hear of the Civil Rights Movement.

2. What has the CRA have to do with institutionaliz[ing] racism. It did (and does) the opposite.

3. Your last point is irrelevant, but somewhat correct. However, ever heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have A Dream speech? "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

[CIB EMPIRE]

Ron Paul and Rhand Paul arnt raceists

[Bendira]

Yeah, he said I Have A Dream, meaning its a dream, not reality. And it will never be reality. If you honestly believe Dr King thought everybody on Earth would one day stop being inbred racists then I think your insulting his intelligence.

[CIB EMPIRE]

What Really Divides Us?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

[Tokos]

Yeah, he said I Have A Dream, meaning its a dream, not reality. And it will never be reality. If you honestly believe Dr King thought everybody on Earth would one day stop being inbred racists then I think your insulting his intelligence.

Where does this stereotype of "inbred racists" come from? To be inbred you need to have little contact with outsiders, and it's kind of hard to develop hatred towards people if you have never come across them!

[Soheran]

lol

Open borders is a requirement of genuine hardcore libertarianism. It follows directly from libertarian principles: as Bluth is prone to say, who I allow on my property, or to work at my business, is my decision, not yours.

This is what a number of people on this thread are allowing should be illegal.

Anti-discrimination laws do not bar affirmative action programs, except when the conservatives on the Court decide to turn them on their head.

I don't think any self-proclaimed libertarian is against a business choosing to have affirmative action policies if it so wishes.

You're right, they would not prohibit it, but Ron Paul and "libertarians" like him don't support it either, even though it is not even remotely inconsistent with libertarian principles, and insist that the government should do none of it--even in areas where they don't oppose government action in general.

[Ashmoria]

NOTE: I know that libertarians and other defenders of Mr. Paul will claim (as they do with his father) that this isn't racism, but an ideological objection to infringement on private property/autonomy. Although other evidence makes that less credible with regard to Rep. Ron Paul, I admit that may be true here (but I think that shows a flaw in his philosophy, even if it not one in his character). Also, the rabidly racist campaign spokesman doesn't help his case.

This racist argument no longer works. The left calls anyyone a racist when they can not argue against the facts. As the American economy continues to collapse most of America will not care if someone is a racist. America is falling and people need a scape goat racism will be in vogue in a few years. I think being called a racist by the left will be considered a badge of honor to conservatives in the future. The racism argument is dead especially in Kentucky!

cerainly the people of kentucky would care far less about whether or not mr paul is a racist and far more about his stupid policy positions that would be bad for the state and for the nation.

it should be a very easy campaign for the democratic candidate to run..."paul is running for the office that he wants to no longer be decided by popular vote"

[The Cat-Tribe]

My thoughts exactly. How is Dave denying a black guy entry to his house any different from Dave denying a black guy entry to his small business?

I am certainly not accusing anyone on this thread of this, but with those who originate these laws - I wouldn't be surprised if some of them would like to extend it to that, but just aren't able to do so.

Untrammelled freedom of association is, of course, one of the necessary freedoms in order to organise across a segment of society, as the founders of the USA realised - so I'm surprised that Americans of all people are willing to jettison this.

1. What exactly is the definition and scope of this "freedom of association"?

2. How is freedom of association violated by restrictions on people's voluntary choice to enage in interstate commerce?

[Bendira]

Yeah, he said I Have A Dream, meaning its a dream, not reality. And it will never be reality. If you honestly believe Dr King thought everybody on Earth would one day stop being inbred racists then I think your insulting his intelligence.

Where does this stereotype of "inbred racists" come from? To be inbred you need to have little contact with outsiders, and it's kind of hard to develop hatred towards people if you have never come across them!

I was using inbred in its quasi swearing pissed off form, rather than its dictionary meaning.