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

You can claim someone can do what they want with their 'property', but when that property is the only way to purchase what is needed to live, and it is denied to you due to your skin colour, then it IS wrong imo.

Private ownership of the means of production (capitalism) is what would be the cause of the discrimination in the first place. Someone can only truly cause harm by discrimination if they are in a position of power over that person.

But I agree it does not have to be government intervention to stop it, just common sense.

If all people had equal access to the means of production, then other peoples discrimination wouldn't have such an effect on anyone's ability to acquire what they need.

Ron Paul is a typical liberal capitalist. IMO liberal capitalism is the worst thing we can have. The capitalist elite already have their liberty, it's the rest of us that are being exploited to give the capitalists their liberty. We finance their life with our labour.

We don't need presidents we need organization and control of our own lives. We don't need government control, we need to realise what our true needs are, and stop being blind helpless consumers constantly looking for someone else to take care of things we think are out of our control. But no one wants to take responsibility any more, as long as they have their toys to play with.

Originally posted by zillah
I'm not sure about everyone else, but where I live there are signs up in stores, even franchises like McDonald's, that state "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".

One has to read between the lines here:

What that really means is I can refuse service to anyone but if I refuse service to a minority there had better be a damn good reason with lots of witnesses to corroborate my story because they have preferential treatment under the law regarding refusal of service.

I don't take the same risk when asking some white teens to leave the store because they are being loud and disruptive as I would doing the same for a group of black or hispanic youth. An ACLU Lawyer would be at the court house before you got home from your shift.

When the law affords "special categories" and "special protections" (like in race and hate crimes) the law is unequal and inequality under the law is wrong and unjust regardless of its victim’s majority status.

Originally posted by ANOK
You can claim someone can do what they want with their 'property', but when that property is the only way to purchase what is needed to live, and it is denied to you due to your skin colour, then it IS wrong imo.

Private ownership of the means of production (capitalism) is what would be the cause of the discrimination in the first place. Someone can only truly cause harm by discrimination if they are in a position of power over that person.

But I agree it does not have to be government intervention to stop it, just common sense.

If all people had equal access to the means of production, then other peoples discrimination wouldn't have such an effect on anyone's ability to acquire what they need.

Ron Paul is a typical liberal capitalist. IMO liberal capitalism is the worst thing we can have. The capitalist elite already have their liberty, it's the rest of us that are being exploited to give the capitalists their liberty. We finance their life with our labour.

We don't need presidents we need organization and control of our own lives. We don't need government control, we need to realise what our true needs are, and stop being blind helpless consumers constantly looking for someone else to take care of things we think are out of our control. But no one wants to take responsibility any more, as long as they have their toys to play with.

You have the right to deny entry to your home. In fact every human being on the planet, including you and me, discriminate every day. We did it when we chose our friends, when we decided who we wanted to marry, etc.

A restaurant owner does not own an "essential service". He owns a building, just like a house, and if you believe in private ownership of property, then that business owner should have the right to deny entry to anyone in a building he/she owns. Why? Because it belongs to him. Not to the public, and certainly not to the government.

Thanks for the replies and I know that I've kicked over a hornet's nest, judging by some of the hostile replies I've seen.

Maybe this isn't enough to discount Ron Paul. Maybe his stance on this issue really doesn't matter, as long as he isn't planning a return to the bad 'ol days (and he does not seem to advocate that so far).

Thanks for clarification, folks.

Originally posted by The Sword
Thanks for the replies and I know that I've kicked over a hornet's nest, judging by some of the hostile replies I've seen.

Maybe this isn't enough to discount Ron Paul. Maybe his stance on this issue really doesn't matter, as long as he isn't planning a return to the bad 'ol days (and he does not seem to advocate that so far).

Thanks for clarification, folks.

Star for that one. I truly believe (by your other posts I've seen) that you will look at him in a fair light going forward. Without context, what you brought up in the OP is a very valid concern. Everything looks different when the lights are on, however.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

If you're going to use that to bash Democrats, then you need to understand that the Democratic party back then wasn't anything like it is now.

Your absolutely correct...they had JFK at the helm back in those days, and the Democratic Party has not been the same since.

Originally posted by aravoth
You have the right to deny entry to your home. In fact every human being on the planet, including you and me, discriminate every day. We did it when we chose our friends, when we decided who we wanted to marry, etc.

I don't think you can look at a business in the same way you look at your home. A business imo should part of the community and ran for the benefit of that community not some private owner.

A restaurant owner does not own an "essential service". He owns a building, just like a house, and if you believe in private ownership of property, then that business owner should have the right to deny entry to anyone in a building he/she owns. Why? Because it belongs to him. Not to the public, and certainly not to the government.

I don't believe in the 'private ownership of property' that is used to hire workers at hourly wages. There is a difference between your home and your business. I believe the community should be allowed to have a say on what businesses in their community do. If a restaurant can have the right to not allow certain classes of people, then the community should have a right to refuse certain classes of business. True democracy, no government intervention. The community belongs to all of us, or do you think only those with private property have rights?

Businesses should be worker owned (cooperatives/collectives) by the community they serve and support. That way there is no 'owner' to discriminate against people in the community. When people feel ostracized from their community they become anti-social, and criminal.

reply to post by The Sword


Nice take on everything. By the way, I hope you didn't think my post to you was in any way hostile...It wasn't directed toward you, but rather the media who keep harping on non issues rather than focusing or debating Ron Paul's policies.

But yes, you certainly have a right to vote for whomever you wish, for whatever reasons you choose.

The position of free market will weed out racist businesses a valid point.

I live in a City bordering the Navajo Nation . Businesses that favor one race over another either fail or do just enough to keep from going under the ones who welcome all people do rather well.

You dont need a sign to express your racism just bad actions.

I have walked into a restaurant that was not of my racial decent and sat and watched other customers enter and get served sit there for 15 min and never get a waitress to stop by our table . Complaints to the manager ends with pointing to the sign .

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone .

In Chicago went to a BBQ restaurant waitress acted mean spilled the bowl of beans on the table and gave me a towel to clean em up then spilled hot coffee in my lap . _javascript:icon('') By her actions it was obvious it was on purpose .The cook just was smiling away . I would have rather seen a sign that said NO insert color here than had my family jewels scalded.

Did the present law stop this behavior ? NO it just made the racist behavior come out in a different way.

YOU CANT legislate tolerance and intelligence into our society! it has to be learned and taught .

So in essence you have a law that dose not cure a societal ill it just forces it to go a different direction at the same time placing controls on private property. Dont solve a problem but add more laws to restrict rights typical Washington actions.

On Paul's statement everyone should listen to the whole interview and listen to all of his remarks not just pick and choose what words and sentences to use to fit a particular political agenda talking point listen to his reasoning not what the TALKING HEAD sock puppets are saying .

Originally posted by ANOK
If a restaurant can have the right to not allow certain classes of people, then the community should have a right to refuse certain classes of business.

We do have the right to refuse certain businesses. We can simply not spend money there and it will die. That's why I get so mad when people try to make legislation against Walmart (and I can't stand Walmart) opening up in a town, have the attempt fail, and then see the whole town shopping there. Those communities could really get rid of Walmart if they wanted to. Now, if they started saying "Walmart, Always Low Prices... Except for Black People", I'd bet you my life savings, they would be out of business pretty quickly.

And that's how the community should decide. Boycotting, picketing, defamation, protests, and simply not feeding the beast will solve just about any problem.

Originally posted by neo96
in my opinion the democratic party is still the same as it ever was
they havent moved on from slavery they expanded it to cover every minority in this country.

free money just give us your vote.
if minorities started with holding their votes just see how long the democrats will care about them.

Unfortunately you make a very good point, it's sad that it's true

Look at this:
Chicago Fire fighters to hire 111 black firefighters because of grade marks years ago that will cost 30Milliion$$
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Happening right in Obamatown, PC-ness run amok

reply to post by Lostinthedarkness



Absolutely my friend...

Very good points, I couldn't agree more. We live in a headline driven society where people seem to make snap judgements rather than understanding everything about a topic before coming to a conclusion. I do believe that if more people would educate themselves about what Ron Paul is saying, and why he is saying these things, most of them would agree with his position.

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness

YOU CANT legislate tolerance and intelligence into our society! it has to be learned and taught .

I don't advocate legislation. I advocate worker ownership, rather than private ownership.

If the business is owned by the community it serves then you wouldn't have to go though the crap that having a sign would create.

What if you're wrong? What if signs in windows, not allowing let's say blacks, feeds racism? What if they open their own business and not allow whites in? Do you really think that is a practical way to organize a community?
Remember segregation? It's born out of ignorance and ignorance is not a right, it's ignorance. You really want to go backwards?

Originally posted by ANOKBusinesses should be worker owned (cooperatives/collectives) by the community they serve and support. That way there is no 'owner' to discriminate against people in the community. When people feel ostracized from their community they become anti-social, and criminal.

Unfortunately this is America Comrade....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd207efe0eea.jpg[/atsimg]

I am glad I don't need my neighbor's permission to run my business as I see fit...

reply to post by ThichHeaded


Makes sense. That analogy just clears things up. And if everybody actually saw the whole Ron Paul video they would understand what he means

reply to post by The Sword


Guys, all these are planetary games, dont get involved be an observer

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by aravoth
You have the right to deny entry to your home. In fact every human being on the planet, including you and me, discriminate every day. We did it when we chose our friends, when we decided who we wanted to marry, etc.

I don't think you can look at a business in the same way you look at your home. A business imo should part of the community and ran for the benefit of that community not some private owner.

A restaurant owner does not own an "essential service". He owns a building, just like a house, and if you believe in private ownership of property, then that business owner should have the right to deny entry to anyone in a building he/she owns. Why? Because it belongs to him. Not to the public, and certainly not to the government.

I don't believe in the 'private ownership of property' that is used to hire workers at hourly wages. There is a difference between your home and your business. I believe the community should be allowed to have a say on what businesses in their community do. If a restaurant can have the right to not allow certain classes of people, then the community should have a right to refuse certain classes of business. True democracy, no government intervention. The community belongs to all of us, or do you think only those with private property have rights?

Businesses should be worker owned (cooperatives/collectives) by the community they serve and support. That way there is no 'owner' to discriminate against people in the community. When people feel ostracized from their community they become anti-social, and criminal.

Well, regardless of what you believe, businesses are privately owned. That property does not belong to the community, it belongs to the person that bought it. I'm not sure what good "workers" owning the whole of the business would do for anyone. It's not like your average grunt knows a single thing about R&D, expansion, or business-class investment.

Basically, what you are advocating for is the seizure of private property for the collective whole. In other words, no one working for these "businesses" were smart enough to start it, run the books, or develop the products it sold, yet because they swept the floor and did the dishes, they are somehow entitled to someone else's intellectual mastery?

Standing the shoulders of giants will get you no-where, especially when the Giant Shrugs.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness

YOU CANT legislate tolerance and intelligence into our society! it has to be learned and taught .

I don't advocate legislation. I advocate worker ownership, rather than private ownership.

If the business is owned by the community it serves then you wouldn't have to go though the crap that having a sign would create.

What if you're wrong? What if signs in windows, not allowing let's say blacks, feeds racism? What if they open their own business and not allow whites in? Do you really think that is a practical way to organize a community?
Remember segregation? It's born out of ignorance and ignorance is not a right, it's ignorance. You really want to go backwards?

Then let the states do it. I know my state would have a similar act as the 1964 one but it would be my local people deciding on it, not somebody else. As far as your views, you are obviously communist (which is a totally valid ideology) and would probably be happy with somebody like RP in office because it would leave states to decide what they do or do not want to regulate or socialize. There will be some crazy wild-west states and there will be some states that are more up-to-date with the rest of the world (socialist) and you could live there. It's just a matter of time before left and right (no matter how extreme) realize he's an advocate for local (thus personal) power.

Win/win for everybody.