Ron Paul on Civil Rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Telecast
  • Start date Start date
Curves For Women... clearly a violation of sex discrimination, since it's a gym that caters solely to females.

Oh, never mind. We're getting it wrong. It's okay to discriminate against the Evil White Man... but not to discriminate in favor of the Evil White Man.
 
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (Windows Mobile; WCE; Opera Mobi/WMD-50369; U; en) Presto/2.4.13 Version/10.00)



you are so stupid
 
I don't think thats the point. The question is not whether or not the civil rights act improved race relations, it's whether or not the government has the authority to restrict an individuals freedom of speech on their own property when it does not cause physical harm to others or interrupt the freedoms of others. If we were only to look at the success of legislation, measured simply by its benefit to society, then for the sake of reducing crime, something that poses immediate and life threatening danger daily, we should no longer require warrants. Warrants are time and time again a hinderance to the prosecution of true criminals, dangerous individuals.

By your logic, we would look back on this unconstitutional legislation and ask "Yah, but did it get bad guys off the streets or not?"

Racism is abhorrent. Still, racism exists and the constitution is certainly an inconvenience to some peoples idea of a utopia (one with perfect social harmony). Yet, we can not restrict proprietors rights if they intend to exercise their first amendment right by restricting access to their business, just as we can exercise our right to not patronize such an establishment.
 
So you want the govt to force a man to provide a service without his consent ? yeah that sounds great.
 
never thought i would quote him, but:



It doesn't matter that the CRA wasn't a pure libertarian law, it was what the country and society needed at the time.
 
When did I call Rand Paul any names? I completely understand his point and I have no reason to believe he is a racist. He's just wrong on this issue.
 
The only thing I'm advocating is freedom. I like to walk with my feet; if a business turned someone away because of their skin color, I'd tell anyone I knew to never go there, so to answer your question, no, I don't think it's fine. The part where you and I differentiate is you put stock into legislative code and arbitrary rulings, while I base my reality off of my interpersonal relationships and my ability to influence people without coercion. Again, to rephrase my analogy, why do I have to go out of my way (quit my job, live under a bridge) to obtain welfare? A=A, no?
 
1) I never said you were calling Rand/Ron Paul names, though others were.

2) You keep saying he's wrong but you're not providing any proof of your argument, beyond "racism, lol." The powers of the government to control private business to the degree of specifying staff and clientele have never and will never be specifically ennumerated in the Constitution... for the federal government to step in and decide how many blacks, mexicans, etc, get hired at Ma & Pa's corner store, and open Ma n Pa up to racist litigation persuant to their hiring practices, is simply insanity.
 
Go to China and start a website bashing the government and see what happens.

Just because the government can take your rights away doesn't mean that your rights don't exist.
 
How does arbitrarily denying access to goods and services for an entire demographic not interrupt their freedom?

For instance, a local farm supply store decides they're only going to serve white customers. Now the white farmers have greater access to a resource necessary to conduct business and thrive that the minority farmers do not. (apply to any industry/business scenario)

What's the black/latino/asian guy to do in a situation like this?
 
Back
Top