Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
You are not getting it. He is also against sodomy laws. But he was against the Lawrence v. Texas decision. He wants to get rid of these laws on the state level, but not on the federal level.
Moreover, it is bizarre that he prioritizes property rights over the civil rights of black people. You can say he is not racist. Fine. But the civil rights of black people are clearly not a high priority of his, at least not higher than the right of businesses to discriminate against black people.
|
I'm not familiar with the case that you mention. I do think the federal government should step in and strike down state laws that restrict freedom - so yes, I think Dr. Paul is wrong in his opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in this case (again, just based on your statements, not my own familiarity with the case). Regardless, Dr. Paul HAS clearly stated his opposition to the Jim Crow laws and would have supported their repeal (though not supported the Civil Rights Act as a whole).
On the flip side, Dr. Paul is very much in favor of states' rights to legalize and tax marijuana. If a state does not restrict its citizens' freedom, why should the federal government be allowed to step in and restrict liberty? Part of Dr. Paul's appeal is that no other major candidate has even come close to paying lip service to this position.
I object to your statement that "he prioritizes property rights over the civil rights of black people." Specifically, why should he care about the civil rights "of black people"? What about the civil rights of Latino people? What about the civil rights of women? The point is, discussing the rights or non-rights of specific groups is inherently discriminatory. We don't have rights because we belong to particularly minority groups, and the protection of our rights isn't dependent on being a particular ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion. etc. EVERYONE has the same rights. No one person's rights take precedence over another, and the government's responsibility is to allow people the freedom to behave and associate in the way that they see fit.
Again, this means that you are going to run into a lot of backward idiots. It means that if a restaurant chooses to not serve people of a particular skin color, they have that right. You also have every right to not patronize that restaurant, start a campaign against it, raise awareness, and challenge other people to not give that restaurant their business. However, this is VERY different than the government stepping in and saying, "You MUST serve any customer that wishes to eat at your establishment, and we will penalize you if you do not." One scenario is MORE free - the other scenario is less free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
The whole reason behind the CRA is because even if you repeal Jim Crow laws you could still have de facto segregation. If the entire community of white people in a state or locality decides limits what black people do, where they can go, and where they can eat then there is a de facto Jim Crow.
Furthermore, The fact that you find nothing extreme about supporting the right of businesses to treat black people like crap is telling.
Does it not also disturb you that Paul won't disavow the support of white supremacists? I notice that you are avoiding that topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us...agewanted=3&hp |
"The fact that you find nothing extreme about supporting the right of businesses to treat black people like crap is telling." This is a straight up straw man attack. I consider the treatment of people based on their skin color (or religion, or sexual orientation, or...) to be extremely racist, hateful, outrageously offensive, and backward. However, I don't think you can legislate color-blindness. I don't think Civil Rights Act really made those business owners any more tolerant. If anything, it just created bitterness, resentment, and more hatred.
It doesn't disturb me that Dr. Paul doesn't disavow the support of white supremacists. Freedom is popular, and again, protecting ALL rights means that you are also protecting the rights of people to feel, think, and in some cases, act in ways that society has deemed offensive. Dr. Paul recognizes that even the people with whom he disagrees find his message of liberty to be attractive, and he chooses not to alienate them. His campaign is fighting for their rights (though not for their beliefs), so why should he disavow them?
You know what DOES disturb me? How other political candidates don't disavow the support of bankers, CEOs, and corporations that have profited tremendously from figuratively raping and pillaging the public. Other candidates basically get into bed with people who are interested only in their own gain. These politicians speak at their events, schmooze with their lobbyists, and go through great efforts to pass favorable legislation. Is this not more disturbing than acknowledging that there are some crazy people who like freedom?