Quote:
Originally Posted by iella
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.
"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?
|
1. We live in a country where businesses can't do whatever they want. For example, a business can't operate purely on the barter system. If someone offers to pay with U.S. currency the business person is obligated to accept that payment under penalty.
Likewise, we have rules against businesses discriminating against people of all races and religions, whether you are white, straight, latino, gay, black, Jew, Muslim, Christian etc. Hence, if you want to run a business in this country you can't be bigoted towards your patrons, and I don't think that is asking a lot. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government can't make rules to regulate businesses. In fact, the Constitution explicitly gives broad authority to the government to regulate interstate commerce whether you like it or not.
2. I think you are having trouble understanding what I am saying. I'm not saying that Paul is a racist. I am saying that minority rights (or majority rights for that matter) are not a concern of his. He prioritizes the right of business to treat minorities like crap over the concern for their civil rights. It doesn't mean he is a racist, nor does it mean he doesn't have sympathy for the plight of certain minorities, but it does mean the civil rights of minorities is just not that important to him.
3. Obama disavowed the support of Reverend Wright, and the types of people that Paul refuses to disavow have said and done far worse things than saying "god damn America." All politicians pander, but most politicians don't pander to hate groups. It is disgusting that Paul feels the need to do so.
4. The point I am making with Lawrence v. Texas is not that he is a homophobe. It is that he is an extreme state's rights conservative, whereas liberterians value the right of the individual over any government (state or federal). In that instance he is favoring the state over the individual, which is antithetical to what real libertarians believe.
5. Finally, it is bizarre you are so angry at bankers, yet you are supporting a candidate that wants to create an environment where bankers can do whatever they please. Seems a bit hypocritical