Clear up the Civil Rights issue from today..

[i2ambler]

I watched the Meet the Press today, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. i thought the interview was fair, and Dr. Paul did well. However, Im not so sure about the Civil Rights / Segregation thing. Dr. Paul basically stated that if you own a place, you have the right serve whoever you want (i.e. property rights). While I believe in that to a degree - in abstract, Does not everyone agree that the banning of racial/sexual discrimination from places of business is a good thing? I personally think that in this case, its quite fine to have this in place. Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

I realize much of what he stumps is based on idealogy, however, I would really love for him to begin moving from idealogy to solid facts. People love solid, undeniable staticstics. Can someone pleas clear these issues up for me? I am not a 'troll' and do not appreciate being labeled one whenever I have a valid question, or difference of opinion.

 

[DRV45N05]

I watched the Meet the Press today, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. i thought the interview was fair, and Dr. Paul did well. However, Im not so sure about the Civil Rights / Segregation thing. Dr. Paul basically stated that if you own a place, you have the right serve whoever you want (i.e. property rights). While I believe in that to a degree - in abstract, Does not everyone agree that the banning of racial/sexual discrimination from places of business is a good thing? I personally think that in this case, its quite fine to have this in place. Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

I realize much of what he stumps is based on idealogy, however, I would really love for him to begin moving from idealogy to solid facts. People love solid, undeniable staticstics. Can someone pleas clear these issues up for me? I am not a 'troll' and do not appreciate being labeled one whenever I have a valid question, or difference of opinion.

In today's world, it would be utterly stupid to bar those of other races and sexualities from service at your business. Society is by leaps and bounds more tolerant than it was in the 1960s, and if an owner did this, they would lose business to other firms and get quashed. Not to mention the backlash that would occur in local media.

 

[i2ambler]

In today's world, it would be utterly stupid to bar those of other races and sexualities from service at your business. Society is by leaps and bounds more tolerant than it was in the 1960s, and if an owner did this, they would lose business to other firms and get quashed. Not to mention the backlash that would occur in local media.

I understand that.. but i suppose its just a hypothetical 'what if' situation. What IF the federal government never stepped in. Would it have been better, or worse? One think I do LOVE about Ron Paul - his ideas get people THINKING.. whether they agree or disagree with him. Would we even be having these kinds of conversations if he was not in the race? heck no.

 

[Bilgefisher]

You have a valid argument. I disagree, but not because I want whites only business or anything else, I think a business owner should have the right to refuse business to anyone, especially if it affects his business.

I bring up the gentlemen refusing service to those who don't order in English. You can't expect him to know every language out there. Thats just my opinion.

 

[ItDoesNotStopWithRonPaul]

I agree with Ron Paul. We have rights as INDIVIDUALS, and individuals own property. They should have the right to accept or refuse business from anyone. Most people just want business, and don't want to make a political statement with every customer. Plus, like Dr. Paul brought up, why should the government have the right to FORCE people into your neighborhood through bussing and HUD programs?

 

[throughnothing]

I dont completely agree with you. I feel that any business owner today should be able to open a "whites only" establisment, in fact, id like to see someone try. This would fail miserably, I know I would never go there, and neither would most other people. The point is, if society really wants to be free of racism it will be, the government cannot force that on us in private property. Thoughts?

 

[Bilgefisher]

I dont completely agree with you. I feel that any business owner today should be able to open a "whites only" establisment, in fact, id like to see someone try. This would fail miserably, I know I would never go there, and neither would most other people. The point is, if society really wants to be free of racism it will be, the government cannot force that on us in private property. Thoughts?

Very good point, in fact I think by forcing people to "not be racist" it can be counterproductive, like a rebelling teen. It does get down to morality issues, I for one don't wish to have the govt define all my morals.

 

[CMoore]

You raise an interesting question and a complicated one. It is probably not an accurate picture to suggest that without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 merchants would still be refusing service to "colored people". Actually back in the bad old days, we had separate facilities because local "Jim Crow Laws" required them. No merchant wants to discriminate against paying customers, but they would have been defying the laws at the time not to do so. Why were the laws not changed? I don't fully understand because I was just a child when the Civil Rights Movement began. But it is a valid discussion to consider whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the proper vehicle to bring about equal treatment for all races. It is a complicated discussion and too long for this post, but clearly while no one should be required to sit in the back of he bus, it was not always the merchants, rather the governments, who were the culprits.

 

[RP-Republican]

you have the right serve whoever you want

He didn't saying anything like that...

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

 

[RP-Republican]

I watched the Meet the Press today, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. i thought the interview was fair, and Dr. Paul did well. However, Im not so sure about the Civil Rights / Segregation thing. Dr. Paul basically stated that if you own a place, you have the right serve whoever you want (i.e. property rights). While I believe in that to a degree - in abstract, Does not everyone agree that the banning of racial/sexual discrimination from places of business is a good thing? I personally think that in this case, its quite fine to have this in place. Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

I realize much of what he stumps is based on idealogy, however, I would really love for him to begin moving from idealogy to solid facts. People love solid, undeniable staticstics. Can someone pleas clear these issues up for me? I am not a 'troll' and do not appreciate being labeled one whenever I have a valid question, or difference of opinion.

It took me a whole 10 seconds to find this on google maybe you should try it before saying something like

Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

 

[Ernest]

I dont completely agree with you. I feel that any business owner today should be able to open a "whites only" establisment, in fact, id like to see someone try. This would fail miserably, I know I would never go there, and neither would most other people. The point is, if society really wants to be free of racism it will be, the government cannot force that on us in private property. Thoughts?

I don't know what you mean by "whites only" but if there can be "black" stores and "Hispanic" store etc there can also be "white" stores.

The point is, if society really wants to be free of racism it will be, the government cannot force that on us in private property.

I absolutely agree with this point.

 

[jeffhenderson]

I think we would all prefer a world where everybody was treated the same, regardless of race. Sadly, the world is not perfect. The real question is this: Is it legitimate for the government to use violence or threats of violence against business owners who don't let certain people into their stores? The answer is no way. The only legitimate use of force is in defense of one's person or property, not to make people act nice.

Furthermore, it turns out that if the government just left them alone, the market will certainly punish the bigots. If an employer turns away a more qualified worker just because he's black, then his business will be less efficient than his competitor who chooses to hire him, and his costs will go up. Similarly an owner of a "whites only" store will lose a lot of sales. The market places huge punishments on businesses that decide their customers and workers for non-economic reasons.

More on the above here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/12/caplan_on_discr.html

 

[Ernest]

Furthermore, it turns out that if the government just left them alone, the market will certainly punish the bigots. If an employer turns away a more qualified worker just because he's black.

Or because he is white.

 

[jmunjr]

In today's world, it would be utterly stupid to bar those of other races and sexualities from service at your business. Society is by leaps and bounds more tolerant than it was in the 1960s, and if an owner did this, they would lose business to other firms and get quashed. Not to mention the backlash that would occur in local media.

PRECISELY!! The Civil Rights Act was unnecessary. Dom Imus...> He did nothing illegal, but he' s gone!!

I'm sure there are many individuals and businesses that have suffered from quasi-racial positions that weren't illegal in any way. We don't need the government to get involved..unless a crime has been broken(and often not even then).

 

[Corydoras]

Do you think there should be gyms for women only?
http://badgerherald.com/news/2003/03/25/curves_bill_would_al.php

 

[driller80545]

any time that you lump people into groups such as race, you are feeding racism. RP is for individual liberty. the civil rights act, instead of ending racism, inadvertently created racism by describing people as groups instead of individuals.

 

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul's arguments as stated in the link posted above are twofold.

1. It was unconstitutional. They used the interstate commerce clause loophole. The same loophole used for the war on drugs.
"This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. "

2. Negative results:
"Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. "

I have also heard him use a 3rd argument before (the free market)
3. Businesses turning away business because of the color of their potential customers' skin would have lost business. If I have a competitor that turns away business for immoral reasons, I as a business owner would be willing to service those customers.

Barry Goldwater was also against this legislation and said about it, "You can't legislate morality." I think I have heard Ron Paul use that phrase before.

I would bet that Ron Paul agrees in regards to the sections of the legislation affecting government instutions and services; but draws the line when the Federal government starts meddling in private businesses. It also leads to "special rights" as certain businesses have gotten an exemption from the employment regulations for "authenticity". ie: Chinese restaurants being able to hire only chinese employees. And we all know that Ron Paul is for equal rights, not special rights.

 

[user]

If the business is not subsidized by the government (and in today's world, that's a very big if), then I agree with RP.

 

[Dsteenbock]

Yep. Maybe If the government got out of It, the people would follow and racism will die the death It needs to die. It's a shame in this day and age It's still propagated, unfortunatly, by both blacks and whites.

 

[rodent]

I watched the Meet the Press today, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. i thought the interview was fair, and Dr. Paul did well. However, Im not so sure about the Civil Rights / Segregation thing. Dr. Paul basically stated that if you own a place, you have the right serve whoever you want (i.e. property rights). While I believe in that to a degree - in abstract, Does not everyone agree that the banning of racial/sexual discrimination from places of business is a good thing? I personally think that in this case, its quite fine to have this in place. Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

I'm of the opinion that whites-only businesses are fine; however, I think market-access should be fair for everyone. It used to be in the past that they'd prevent blacks from owning and purchasing real-estate. I think markets need to remain open. I'm not comfortable with the idea of allowing insider-trading and allowing whites-only market transactions.

With regards to lending, I think access to capital should be the same. Historically, shutting off blacks from market access did more damage to them than anything else.