Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread took a month off and then started over, all of the good dialog was just tossed by the side and you all went back into partisan bickering.
I have yet to see an answer to my question.
Why would a bigoted racist spend the past 30 years being almost the lone champion of ending the drug war and releasing ALL people from prison who have committed victimless crimes?
"A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons." Ron Paul 2007 http://www.city-data.com/forum/20654936-post880.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
I've raised the same point in other threads where Ron Paul was accused of racism, and I have yet to receive a response. Maybe that should be the thread ending point raised every time this happens in the future.
I don't think anyone is calling him explicitly or implicitly racist, but tolerating or encouraging racist behavior is not good social policy.
I don't think anyone is calling him explicitly or implicitly racist, but tolerating or encouraging racist behavior is not good social policy.
So believing in a theoretical possibility based on a consistent belief in individual and property rights is worse than the backing and promoting of the systematic imprisonment of a generation, and the destruction of the inner city?
I don't think anyone is calling him explicitly or implicitly racist, but tolerating or encouraging racist behavior is not good social policy.
Ron Paul neither tolerates or encourages racist behavior. To say so is dishonest. Many times he has spoken out against racism.
It is not the role of government. We've seen from their past history, government is the worst offender of all. Society solves that problem not government.
Some of this makes sense "on paper". But picture yourself on the road to a business meeting, job interview, sales call, etc. It's late & you need a few hours' sleep. Stop at a motel & be told that they do not serve people of your color. Next motel may be 50 miles down the road & may not serve you either. Such policies have put you at a severe disadvantage, making it difficult or impossible to compete with others who are not so restricted. Same with the restaurant where a meeting has been announced. You show up for the meeting & are turned away at the door. How do you do the business you came to do?
Anyone favoring this type of "liberty" has never been on the short end of it. I have not either, but I grew up seeing such things. My parents helped organize a professional dinner party in the early 1960's. When calling restaurants, "do you serve Negroes" (polite term of that time) was the 1st question they had to ask. At that time, the answer was often "no".
Some of this makes sense "on paper". But picture yourself on the road to a business meeting, job interview, sales call, etc. It's late & you need a few hours' sleep. Stop at a motel & be told that they do not serve people of your color. Next motel may be 50 miles down the road & may not serve you either. Such policies have put you at a severe disadvantage, making it difficult or impossible to compete with others who are not so restricted. Same with the restaurant where a meeting has been announced. You show up for the meeting & are turned away at the door. How do you do the business you came to do?
Anyone favoring this type of "liberty" has never been on the short end of it. I have not either, but I grew up seeing such things. My parents helped organize a professional dinner party in the early 1960's. When calling restaurants, "do you serve Negroes" (polite term of that time) was the 1st question they had to ask. At that time, the answer was often "no".
I agree, that would be horrible. The problem is that same discrimination happens now, the motel clerk just says they are full up. Laws don't change attitude.
If these theoretical motels were corporate chains, the property rights that individuals would have would not be carried over to corporations which receive government protections.
The odds of someone being invited to a place owned by racists are almost zero, the negative publicity for the business would guarantee it not to happen.
The main thing that people need to understand is for this to actually take place, it would be after a massive multi-decade societal transformation.
Our inner-cities would be radically different, gone would be the drug gangs and gang culture. We would have more opportunity, equality and fairness because fewer minorities would be living with the stigma of being in the prison system due to victimless crimes.
The demonetization of people by groups would be minimized because liberty is an ideal of the individual, not groups. Racism is group think.
hilgi, I agree it would likely not be a common happening, as it used to be. But, having seen the tail end of such things, I hate to think of the law allowing it again.
hilgi, I agree it would likely not be a common happening, as it used to be. But, having seen the tail end of such things, I hate to think of the law allowing it again.
I tend to have a historical view on it. As bad as things are, I'll take this time period over the 1950's.
Nah, they can't purposefully poison people, murder or discriminate among other things. That whole civil rights things changed that. You might of missed it.
Quote:
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."
if no interstate commerce is being done, then it would not apply. at least according to the civil rights act.
I would love to see a business discriminate. Then myself, an entrepreneur of sorts, would be able to open a far more profitable business next door! The market provides its own rules and regulations that are far more effective, fair, and beneficial to all, than government mandates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
