General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon Paul's Vision For a Free Society Based on Liberty
by cato
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well here is one picture representing the end effect of Ron Paul's bold vision for America:
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.
I thought a little reminder of what Paul's policies would actually look like in practice might be appropriate on a day like today. Small wonder the Stormfront crowd is firmly behind Paul's candidacy.
- more -
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/16/1055261/-Ron-Pauls-Vision-For-a-Free-Society-Based-on-Liberty
Turbineguy
(37,296 posts)bigots and predators!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)The rest of y'all are screwed.
Democrats_win
(6,539 posts)Paul says,
"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."
YOU can not just arbitrarily treat people differently. The Bible says love they neighbor as they self. Ron Paul is arguing against a more fundamental right of all humans: to be treated as a human being. This trumps property rights and that is why the government, in the spirit of Thomas Hobbes, must enforce the "natural equality" of all people. Sorry, Paul, your libertarian values run counter to human values and when that happens, humanity must win out.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The Genealogist
(4,723 posts)I'm not personally convinced that, someplace in that strange little head of his, Ron Paul doesn't still think of some humans being on earth just to be the property of others.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)K & R
ProSense
(116,464 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)and bring back legal segregation. People were beaten, shot, lynched, kidnapped, killed and assassination to gain their civil rights! Fuck anybody who wants to take that away!! Ron Paul is a racist prick endorsed by David Duke and Stormfront and useful idiots like Kelly Clarkson and a host of other idiots.
Gee, I wonder why?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Which puts him on my personal shit list by definition.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)doesn't care about providing aid. His health care plan is for people to rely on charity.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So I would expect that from his past...thanks for the history lesson, had no idea he did that. What a total shitstain.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)matmar
(593 posts)What a wack job that Ron Paul.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)Expressing his right to be a selfish asshole.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)we start praising him for anything.