Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

The ideological principle is: The government exists to PROTECT rights. This includes rights to associate and do business with whomever you please, for whatever reason you choose. It does NOT include the government (federal or state) FORCING you to not do business with someone whom you want to do business (for ANY reason).

I find nothing extreme about this.

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

[iella]

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.

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?

[SeanL]

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

[iella]

Originally Posted by SeanL

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.

I recognize that these rules are in place. In fact, I recognize that these rules, in general, encourage people to behave in a civil manner and live harmoniously with each other. However, I am of the belief (and you are free to disagree, of course) that government regulation of businesses tends to hurt small businesses, which is often the exact opposite of the stated intent.

Speaking in a general sense first, large businesses with plentiful resources can hire lawyers, bribe regulators, find loopholes that allow them to circumvent the spirit of the law, or even absorb the penalties of outright breaking the law. More regulation doesn't make these businesses change. Rather than trying to legislate people and businesses into civility and modern, enlightened thinking, individuals ought to spend their energy raising awareness for causes that they support. The loudest incentive in business is almost always the money.

For example, the environmental movement has existed since before you or I were born. The government been passing laws and setting aside land to support that movement. However, it wasn't until more recently that being "green" became trendy, and as a result, people started spending their money to support environmentally friendly businesses, products, and causes. Public awareness to the environmental movement made businesses realize that it's profitable to be (or at least appear to be) environmentally friendly. Before this, not many people cared. The government can't create regulations and penalties fast enough to keep up with all the ways a company find to dump toxic waste, but public awareness can keep those things in check and encourage "good" behavior.

Going back to the main example - if a business decided to stop serving people of a certain ethnicity, what would happen (assuming no laws existed that prevented this)? There would be a public uproar, people would call for a boycott of the restaurant, and anyone who dined there would probably be accused of being racist themselves. Would the business suffer? I would hope so, and if it suffered enough, they would change their policy or go out of business. What if it was a fantastic restaurant that was patronized by wealthy people with unabashed racist sympathies? They probably wouldn't change their policy.

In the latter case, what would happen if the government stepped in (as it does) and forced them to serve people of that ethnicity? Would they serve those people? Yes. Would they be less racist? No. So what have we accomplished? All we did is pretend that the problem doesn't exist. If someone wanted to exclude me from an establishment based on the color of my skin or my gender or my sexual orientation or my religion, would I really be comfortable patronizing that place anyway? In general, I would be more than happy to say, "Screw you" and find a place that wants my dollars more than they want to hate on me.

You said, "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." I would argue that no one running a business could be called "intelligent" for being bigoted toward their own patrons (or potential patrons), but why shouldn't they be free to be stupid businessmen? Also, "asking a lot" is subjective. You and I don't think it's asking a lot because of how we were raised, but to some, it may in fact be asking a lot.

Emphasizing to people that discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. is prohibited ultimately just causes everyone to constantly be thinking about the fact that people might do this. It means that white kids think they're rejected from colleges because they're white, and it means that black students get disciplined for being unruly think it's happening because schools hate black people. It puts a chip on everyone's shoulder. Rather than trying to legislate enlightenment, we who consider ourselves to be more enlightened ought to be spreading the message and spending our money in a way that reflects our beliefs.

More recently, protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has become the popular rallying cry. A few years from now, it will be something else. The problem with creating these "protected classes" is that we're ultimately still categorizing people and assigning rights based on the categories to which they belong. Every time a new way of categorizing people comes up, we'll need to pass more laws to make sure that you're not allowed to discriminate against people of that particular category.

It's more efficient (and less discriminatory) to say, "We are all equal. Everyone has fundamental, inalienable rights." You don't need to say "black people and white people and gay people and straight people and religious people and atheists," because we ALL fall under the category of "Everyone." And what are those fundamental rights? Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms... obviously, you can see where I'm going with this. If someone's fundamental rights are violated, they ought to be protected, and the violator ought to be punished or otherwise discouraged. But the linchpin question here is, what constitutes a fundamental right? I don't think "the right to force someone to do business with me" is all that fundamental.

If that's what we're disagreeing on, then no amount of discussion on the surrounding issues will ever bring our points of view into alignment.

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.

I agree. Every politician has their pet causes. Dr. Paul thinks that the pendulum has swung too far one way, and would like it to start swinging back the other way. Somehow, a lot of people interpret this as being racist.

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.

Did Obama's disavowal of Rev. Wright's support mean, "Please don't vote for me, and if you are a follower of Rev. Wright, don't vote for me either"? If anything, the pandering was in Obama folding to the pressure of those who objected to Rev. Wright. The disavowal is symbolic, meaningless, and used purely for political purposes. Dr. Paul doesn't see the need, and I don't see why that's "disgusting."

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.

I agree that Dr. Paul is often wrongly categorized as a libertarian, and I agree that he is wrong in this case (again, as I understand it based on your descriptions). Individual rights ought to be the most protected. I don't agree with 100% of his positions, but I agree more with him than I agree with other politicians. I think his positions, while very idealistic and perhaps ultimately counterproductive if brought to complete fruition, would move the country back from the brink on which we currently find ourselves (over regulated, overtaxed, overly politically correct, overly involved internationally where we have no business being involved, overly in debt).

I have no delusions of grandeur. Dr. Paul is not going to be nominated, much less elected. I do wish that people would think more thoroughly about his positions and why/if they disagree with the ideological underpinnings of his positions rather than just dismissing the platform as ludicrous based on what positions are popular today. I'm fighting a philosophical and ideological battle here, not a political one.

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

I'm not angry at bankers as much as I'm disappointed with politicians who pass legislation to help out their banker golf buddies/political contributors. I expect bankers (and businessmen in general) to do whatever they can to get ahead and end up on top - isn't that what we're all doing? I also expect the government to keep the playing field level-ish by not passing legislation that quashes competition or artificially props up certain institutions over others.