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.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,407,894 times
Reputation: 2394
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MStant1
Are there racist people? Yes. Would there be those who discriminated? Yes. Would it be in overwhelming numbers? No.
The two articles mentioned in the original article are also very interesting concerning whether rampant discrimination would exist in a free market even amongst racists (especially the second link below).
I agree. Those are very good articles. I do believe that free individuals would (and do) provide incredible pressure to those establishments that are rouge (in practice or beliefs). If you just make a law, then it will be circumvented and will require years of court battles to make it work. Free people boycotting (and hitting them where it really hurts - their pocketbook) would be efficient and effective alongside well-thought out laws.
He doesn't side with business 100% of the time - he will side with the individual rights/liberties 100% of the time. That aspect of liberty carries over into the fact that individuals own businesses.
What about when a business rights are in conflict with an individuals rights, such as discrimination. Want to bet he'll side with the business.
It's not contradictory. If it seems contradictory it's due to people's ignorance regarding the various title sections as you suggested.
The fact is the Civil Rights Act is the total of all of the Title sections and if someone hears or reads that Paul would not vote for the Act, then they would assume he is against Civil Rights. There are only 2 sections of the Act that I would guess he has issues with but regardless, they show that he has no problem with people being denied equal access to certain facilities which in effect will cause people to believe he has no problem with legal segregation and him saying he doesn't support Jim Crow is contradictory to this fact.
I personally don't think Ron Paul is a racist but I do think that he has a warped and romantic view of the "good ole days."
These folks were also against the Civil Rights Act but in favor of the Jim Crow laws:
- Robert Byrd
- J. William Fulbright
- Albert Gore Sr.
- Sam Ervin
- Richard Russel
Any idea what they all have in common?
Yes, they're all dead, and so are their ideas. Paul is alive and still spouting racist nonsense, under the euphemism of "property rights".
What about when a business rights are in conflict with an individuals rights, such as discrimination. Want to bet he'll side with the business.
Businesses are run by individuals not just corporations, what about their right to run the business the way they want to ,should that take a backseat to anothers rights? See what Paul said will happen, is he doesn't believe many, if any businesses will do that, they will be put in the spotlight, look bad and lose business. They would be cutting their own throat.
Are there racist people? Yes. Would there be those who discriminated? Yes. Would it be in overwhelming numbers? No.
The two articles mentioned in the original article are also very interesting concerning whether rampant discrimination would exist in a free market even amongst racists (especially the second link below).
You, my friend, are incredibly naive if you think that. Or I should say, if you think that would be the case if the CRA of 1964 hadn't been passed. If we had continued with "business as usual" in this country, there would be a lot of de facto and de jure segregation still going on. The CRA dragged a lot of people kicking and screaming into the 20th century, when it was 2/3 over! I'm not sure what your Gary Becker article has to do with anything we are discussing.
I don't think that Ron Paul is a racist. I think that he gets far too carried away with his philosophy at times, which has won him praise amongst like-minded individuals, but has also alienated individuals on both sides of the isle from wanting to associate with him. Because he views life via the libertarian narrative and is unwilling to accept any critique which falls outside of it, he can come across as inconsistent (i.e. mosque at ground zero vs. civil rights fiasco). However, those are his principles and I applaud him for standing up for them even when they may make others feel uncomfortable. What I think of his principles is for a different discussion...
I agree with this. Ron Paul needs a campaign manager to tell him when to shut up sometimes regarding his theories and philosophy. I respect his honesty and him speaking his mind, but sometimes when he's being interviewed I catch myself saying "Ok, Ron, point taken we get it. Just stop talking."
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.
