It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: "I Would Not Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act"

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
But, society will be self-governing and will do away with the detritus without the help of the Federal government.

/TOA

Certain things will self govern... other things will not, civil rights wouldn't have worked it self out, seat belts would have.

Nuclear processing and the detriments of such would not be self evident until considerable damage was done
to the environment and people. The detriment would be virtually impossible to prove in court and a major disaster would be impossible to pay the potential damages. In such a case, the more regulation the better...

Wealthy entities would receive better justice because the average person is not able to bring a sustained suit.
Wealthy entities would be virtually judgement proof...
edit on 14-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977
So Ron Paul is saying we do not need the Civil Rights Act because we live in a world where it is no longer relevant, thanks to the Civil Rights Act. That would explain his stance on drugs then.

I hear that murder and rape are socially unacceptable. Why do you still have laws against such things? People would not murder or rape because they might lose the business they do not want or be looked upon poorly.


"A world where it is no longer relevent, thanks to the Civil Rights Act"

Apartheid was around until 1994, way after the CRA in America, so I don't think that it's thanks to the CRA that we no longer live in a world where it is no longer relevant.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69

Originally posted by Runaway1977
So Ron Paul is saying we do not need the Civil Rights Act because we live in a world where it is no longer relevant, thanks to the Civil Rights Act. That would explain his stance on drugs then.

I hear that murder and rape are socially unacceptable. Why do you still have laws against such things? People would not murder or rape because they might lose the business they do not want or be looked upon poorly.


"A world where it is no longer relevent, thanks to the Civil Rights Act"

Apartheid was around until 1994, way after the CRA in America, so I don't think that it's thanks to the CRA that we no longer live in a world where it is no longer relevant.


Do you contend that civil rights would have lifted itself from the status quo?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


Well, let me clear this up for you:

If EVERY store owner is allowed to discriminate, then who the hell are they going to sell to? Where's the logic behind this? Do you want a return to a segregated, Jim Crow America?


"Jim Crow" laws had to do with voting, not shopping. Segregation had to do with far more serious issues than where someone could buy a soda.


Ron Paul claims that this is something the markets could have sorted out. Social issues are not economic issues and therefore, should be separate.


Social issues are not economic issues? Tell that to people advoating for Economic Justice.

Face it-if you support the idea of the FEDERAL government having the right to dictate who you must open your private shop doors to, then you support ideas that are nowhere in line with anything Ron Paul is talking about. You might agree with him on some basic issues like no war and no drug laws, but it is likely you dont agree with the reasoning BEHIND those ideas.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
The quality of a governing system depends more on the quality of the people implementing it than it does on the form of government. A monarchy or dictatorship can be a fine place to live, if the quality of the implementors is high. A representative republic can be a lousy place to live if the implementors are of low quality.

Here's the problem with un-restrained Libertarianism, especially in the current US culture of everybody only looking out for themselves:

Two privately owned companies:

Jim-Bob's Electric Utility company and Achmed's Food Store. They are located in a sparsely populated area, and are the only game available for electricity or food.

Jim-Bob don't like "the cuhlerds", so only white people get electric power to their homes (it's Jim-Bob's company, right? He can refuse to sell to whoever he wants right?).

Achmed doesn't care much for white people, especially now that he has to have his own electricity generation capability, so Caucasions are not allowed to shop at his food store. The only one in 50 miles in any direction. So white people have no place to buy food. Hey, it's Achmed's store, right?

And just for the hell of it, Juan owns the only gas station in 50 miles from anywhere. At this point he don't care much for whites OR Arabs, so only Latinos now can buy gas at his station.

Or failing that, sure, Jim-Bob will sell electricity to non-whites... at 10 times the rate as whites. Achmed will sell food to whites, they can pay about 10 times what non-whites pay. Same for Juan... if you are not Latino you can buy gas at his station at the "non-Latino only" pumps, which start at $15.00 per gallon.

Given a healthy culture, clearly this scenario is not likely. The current culture in the US is anything but healthy.


_________________________
Yes, but all anyone has to do is call Weights and Measures who doesn't care who you hate as a merchant but you better have honest pricing and honest signage for everyone or you will be fined monstrous amounts of money for each violation. Not too hard for customer to prove they had to pay 10x the regular price for any reason.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I agree with Paul if you don't like how I run my business don't come in here. If I don't want to do business with you that's my business...I'm letting you know from out there so you don't have to come in and hear it verbally....remember there are strict laws...you can't harm and you can't deface...but anyhow I think the financial crisis in the 1970s would of forced most if not all small business to accept all races...9 more years and we as a society could of matured out of it without a silver spoon in the mouth...if it was left up to anyone it should of been the states and down from there.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


i dont think you live in the real world

here in the REAL world of the USA businesses and corporations do have the right to hire and not hire whoever they want

its not about whos qualified


so they were told they cant say you arent hired because you are polka doted, then they just make a new policy

for example, now businesses can and do use your credit history in the state of ny at least when they do the background checks and all that other stuff

if you are in too much debt, you are unhirable because "they cant trust you wont steal from them"

business wins no matter what the law is

all paul is saying is get the govt out of the way



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
reply to post by The Sword
 


See that is the cool thing about this..

If i went to a store lets say.. Bob's big ass tires.. and on the front it says No black and Arabs allowed.. I would probably be like well this guy is a douche and goto Jim's big ass tires because jim likes everyone..

Sooner or later Bob will be out of business because he was a douchebag and jim will have all the business he can have and them some..

Free market at its best.


You all seem to forget that it didn't work like this. What if Bob says no blacks and Jim says no blacks and Steve and Tom and George....that is racist and it is what prompted the law. Business was not gonna sort itself out and in fact was just happy with discrimination the way it was.

It's funny that if the store said no whites you guys would be up in arms. "Well I'd go down the street to the next one then", will be your reply.

But what if the one down the street won't sell to whites or the one across town or any in your city...Think you'd be a little upset and ask the government to do something?

Don't forget that the Constitution requires the government to "provide for the general welfare of the people," now tell me how they can do that as long as places are allowed to discriminate.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
This is basically putting words in Paul's mouth because we all know it was a straw man to begin with. Ill take it a step futher and say that anyone who owns a business should be able to discriminate against anyone they want. That is what freedom means. If I dont want to hire you or sell my good to you because you're black or hispanic ...well so be it, its my business. Now in today's society we all know that wouldnt work. If someone put a big sign in their coffee shop saying "whites only" nobody is going to walk into that shop, not even white people. But it still should be every American's right to express his freedom of speech regardless if we agree with it or not.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Ideologically the bill of rights would be enough...but, eh...I'm not as optimistic about the nature of mankind as Dr. Paul may be. It wasn't enough in the 19th Century or even in the 20th...I think humans are xenophobic by nature and these feelings are either intensified or eased by their surrounding culture and society.

Thing is...that the U.S. isn't Europe. The U.S. really is a melting pot of cultural and ethnic diversity because that's how it came to be. It's easy to discriminate against people who are different, esp when you're in the majority. Just look at muslims for example. Most people won't even keep it a secret that they regard muslims with suspicion.

The Civil Rights Act '64 helped combat this type of discrimination, because it could in fact come down to the minority's safety and well being. And by minority, it could be anyone of any race. A muslim in Oklahoma, a white girl in Compton, an atheist in Alabama...I don't care. It's easy to come up with these scenarios, because we've all read about them.

I'm all in favor of keeping the government in check, but if we claim to be in a society that upholds justice and liberty for all...then there's no good reason why the Civil Rights Act would be opposed.

If you're saying that these measures should be left up to individual states, well then...I think the U.S. would no longer exist as it does now. If states refuse to fall under the conditions set by the constitution and openly practice discrimination, then what exactly are we upholding as a nation? Why would they even want to remain within the Union?

The more I think about it the more problems I see springing up.
edit on 15-5-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay
This is basically putting words in Paul's mouth because we all know it was a straw man to begin with. Ill take it a step futher and say that anyone who owns a business should be able to discriminate against anyone they want. That is what freedom means. If I dont want to hire you or sell my good to you because you're black or hispanic ...well so be it, its my business. Now in today's society we all know that wouldnt work. If someone put a big sign in their coffee shop saying "whites only" nobody is going to walk into that shop, not even white people. But it still should be every American's right to express his freedom of speech regardless if we agree with it or not.


Don't forget that freedom also allows you to be given the same opportunity's as everyone else. People have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of the color of their skin.

And suppose someone did put up a sign that said whites only and people did keep going in would that still be ok to you.

Remember that it was only a few decades ago when this was the norm. Do you really think people have changed that much and that racism doesn't exist anymore?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


I'm willing to risk that. If having a couple of homogeneous states is what it takes for the rest of us to have our culturally diverse and rich society, then so be it. You are right about the US "not being the same as we know it" (paraphrased, sorry). And that's a good thing. Every time I think of this, I keep coming back to how hard it is to move out of the country now if you don't agree with its policies. It's hard, man. But, if we were all independently authoring our own state policies, finding your dream nation would be as easy as moving to a different state.

I will fight tooth and nail to defend backwards state policies that make me shiver as long as they support my state's right to do the opposite. And the people there that don't like it, can move in with us! And visa versa.

ps - I know I'm over-simplifying it but I'm only looking at the big picture and its eventual outcome.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by AndrewJay
This is basically putting words in Paul's mouth because we all know it was a straw man to begin with. Ill take it a step futher and say that anyone who owns a business should be able to discriminate against anyone they want. That is what freedom means. If I dont want to hire you or sell my good to you because you're black or hispanic ...well so be it, its my business. Now in today's society we all know that wouldnt work. If someone put a big sign in their coffee shop saying "whites only" nobody is going to walk into that shop, not even white people. But it still should be every American's right to express his freedom of speech regardless if we agree with it or not.


Don't forget that freedom also allows you to be given the same opportunity's as everyone else. People have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of the color of their skin.

And suppose someone did put up a sign that said whites only and people did keep going in would that still be ok to you.

Remember that it was only a few decades ago when this was the norm. Do you really think people have changed that much and that racism doesn't exist anymore?



This isnt the special olympics... everyone doesnt win a prize. If everyone deserved the same opportunity Id have the opportunity to go to college. I obviously dont because I have to work my ass off for a living. Those born into wealth are put through Harvard. Government cannot dictate opportunity.

Freedom of speech is more important than racism because eventually society overcomes the probelm of racism using freedom of speech without Government dictating to them what can and cant be said. If you are born as a minority and are discriminated against blame the people and society... not the constitution.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
That guy has principles. Something lacking in the fast-food politicians of today.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
That guy has principles. Something lacking in the fast-food politicians of today.


How cute it is to insult me rather than argue my point. Maybe YOU should be flipping the burgers while people with more potential are given these magical "opportunities".



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Go watch the video..

he makes his point quite clear.

More political drive bys. I guess it's that time of every four years.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
America is going down the toilet...
Ron Paul for 2012.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 



edit on 15-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay

Originally posted by 547000[/i
That guy has principles. Something lacking in the fast-food politicians of today.


How cute it is to insult me rather than argue my point. Maybe YOU should be flipping the burgers while people with more potential are given these magical "opportunities".


I didn't read your point nor do I care to. Private companies have the right to hire or not hire whoever they please. It's a freedom versus equality issue, and I've realized freedom is more important. True equality will require eliminating unideal people and restricting the opportunity of those who are more prosperous.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by AndrewJay

Originally posted by 547000[/i
That guy has principles. Something lacking in the fast-food politicians of today.


How cute it is to insult me rather than argue my point. Maybe YOU should be flipping the burgers while people with more potential are given these magical "opportunities".


I didn't read your point nor do I care to. Private companies have the right to hire or not hire whoever they please. It's a freedom versus equality issue, and I've realized freedom is more important. True equality will require eliminating unideal people and restricting the opportunity of those who are more prosperous.


Oh, that sucks. He read your post out of context, dude. I'm pretty sure he thought you were referring to him having to work instead of going to school.

Let's just all back. Away. Slowly.

Ok, now everybody cool? Alright. So, what were we talking about again? Oh yeah. Ron Paul's a cool guy.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join