How do you defend Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[Jingles]

Okay so I just got linked to this by someone and I am getting all the "OMG RACIST" crap (from someone I know quite well):



Now I understand how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 undermined private property rights and etc... I've linked a few things to them:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne64.1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/5-95.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

And then said, "Just because you don't support provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't make you racist or something. Its like saying that if you don't support the PATRIOT act then, in turn, you are unpatriotic."

They still don't seem to understand (AKA repeating "racist")... So what exactly is the best way to get this through to people? I've never really had to defend this before (other than personally knowing it is the correct stance).

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Affirmative Action discriminates me every time I am mandated to place my private information about my genetics onto an application for an employer to review me as a possible new-hire. Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unnecessary legislation to control a persons private property . Government created Jim Crow laws(segregation) and instead of repealing the Jim Crow Laws as unconstitutional we had the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated over private property thus keeping control of private property in the hands of government again. If I am a highly qualified person to do a job an employer is looking to hire people for I should be hired based upon my skill level and not based upon how many people the government mandates an employer to employ.I should be hired based upon my skill level and not based on a government mandated restriction of how many individuals of different ethnicity and gender can be employed under the employer.

 

[falconplayer11]

Just stare them in the face and ask them if they really think the Civil Rights Act was the solution to racism in this country.

 

[low preference guy]

Tell them that it makes it harder for blacks to get hired because it increases the potential litigation costs of employers.

 

[specsaregood]

I usually tell them to go screw themself and then beat their ass. A good ass whooping always get the point across.

 

[kah13176]

This may be better in hot topics.

Also, Paul is only opposed to a small portion of the Civil Rights Act, not the parts about discrimination on public transportation or when using public facilities.

 

[beerista]

There are of course two different components to Civil Rights legislation: the public and the private.
The public facet consists largely of undoing institutionalized racism. No argument from me there.
The private facet consists not only in stepping on individual God-given human rights of private individuals to be racist asshats, but it also, by denying those self-same asshats a place to congregate legally spreads them into the gen-pop, making it so that the rest of us have to deal with them. Tell your friend that if private establishments were legally allowed to exclude people for whatever reason, that then we'd know where all the racists hung out and could then know which places to avoid or where to find them to make fun of them.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

There are of course two different components to Civil Rights legislation: the public and the private.
The public facet consists largely of undoing institutionalized racism. No argument from me there.
The private facet consists not only in stepping on individual God-given human rights of private individuals to be racist asshats, but it also, by denying those self-same asshats a place to congregate legally spreads them into the gen-pop, making it so that the rest of us have to deal with them. Tell your friend that if private establishments were legally allowed to exclude people for whatever reason, that then we'd know where all the racists hung out and could then know which places to avoid or where to find them to make fun of them.

Simply put:
civil rights act of 1964 keeps property rights in the hands of the government just as Jim Crow laws did.

 

[ronnilingus]

I can't attest to what it is specifically that Dr. Paul opposes in the Civil Rights Act but I think the point that Dr. Paul makes is that we need to see each other as individuals. When we to group people based on race, gender, or anything for that matter we take away the liberty of each person in that group.

I agree that racism is not gone from our country but by creating anti-racist laws it seems to create more racism. If employers choose to be racist in their hiring, then that will become public knowledge and that company will not succeed. Free markets are blind to groups of people. By enacting anti-racist or affirmative action laws, the government is creating inefficiency in the economy. When people are educated on the principles of liberty and free market economies, they should be able judge on the merit and character of others, not by race or any other means.

 

[nicoleeann]

Remember to defend your stance from the black persons' standpoint as well. Here are the arguments against it from the black persons standpoint:
1) treats black people like children and like they are naturally undesirable. (can you remember the nerdy kid that your mother made you play with out of pity?)
2) limits employment opportunities because of fear of suing.
3) give them an unfair advantage which is not beneficial to a person.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Remember to defend your stance from the black persons' standpoint as well. Here are the arguments against it from the black persons standpoint:
1) treats black people like children and like they are naturally undesirable. (can you remember the nerdy kid that your mother made you play with out of pity?)
2) limits employment opportunities because of fear of suing.
3) give them an unfair advantage which is not beneficial to a person.

Does not just pertain to black, but other races as well.

 

[Invi]

1. Laws do not deter racism.
2. You should not attempt to legislate morality.
3. What people do on their private property is not the concern of anyone else. If you were to not like that a restaurant refuses to serve blacks (or asians, hispanics, etc.), you eat at a different restaurant. Likely a restaurant the refuses service based on race would go out of business quickly.

 

[TastyWheat]

Not to be negative or unhelpful, but if someone believes the government has a responsibility to enforce equality and social justice you pretty much lost them already. You really can't argue there's a benefit to someone denying service to someone else based on race other than being obviously exposed as a racist. Deferring the argument is good though. Does the Civil Rights Act ensure equal treatment? Not in the least. What's the point of ensuring equal access if someone is still treated like crap when he/she walks through the door?

 

[Wicklowwolf]

Quite simply for me. If somebody wants to employ / not to employ a person of a specific ethnic background, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc, then they should have the perfect right to to so. It's about personal liberties and covers / helps people regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. In other words, freedom of choice is a level playing-field for all people. Nothing racist or discriminatory about it at all.

 

[axiomata]

As far as a I know RP only opposed one title of the eleven in the act.

 

[Wicklowwolf]

Remember to defend your stance from the black persons' standpoint as well. Here are the arguments against it from the black persons standpoint:
1) treats black people like children and like they are naturally undesirable. (can you remember the nerdy kid that your mother made you play with out of pity?)
2) limits employment opportunities because of fear of suing.
3) give them an unfair advantage which is not beneficial to a person.

A lot a black people are business owners as well. They may feel happier having black employees. Affirmative action therefore elimates their right to freedom of choice as well.

 

[Acala]

The portions that prohibit government race discrimination are appropriate. That's what Martin Luther King fought for.

But Title 7 in particular goes beyond that and denies to private individuals the right to make their own choices about who they associate with.

It also institutionalizes racism in that it essentially requires people to evaluate each other on the basis of race when making employment decisions.

It makes it more difficult to hire racial minorities because it increases the risk if an employee doesn't work out.

It is unconstitutional.

It invades property rights.

It is divisive.

It doesn't solve the problem of racial hostility. In fact, it makes the problem WORSE.

 

[LineHogs]

1. Laws do not deter racism.
2. You should not attempt to legislate morality.
3. What people do on their private property is not the concern of anyone else. If you were to not like that a restaurant refuses to serve blacks (or asians, hispanics, etc.), you eat at a different restaurant. Likely a restaurant the refuses service based on race would go out of business quickly.

Exactly. Beyond that the civil rights movement was exactly that. A Movement within the people. People were ready for it on both sides. I would venture to say that outside of customs most southern people weren't very racist. When they saw the video of people being hosed down they were every bit as disgusted by it as we were. Furthermore it is important to remember that the oppression was orchestrated mainly at the government leve which should be a perfect illistration of WHY government is corrupt by nature. Powerful groups such as the clan who made up a minority of the population managed to wiggle their way into high positions. Then they were ABLE to supress the rights of their fellow citizens. It is no different today only the scale is much larger. Instead of one racist sherriff in one county it is nationwide. Our government is ripe for the picking. All we need is a little civil unrest to tip the scales and radical groups (even beyond what they are now) will take power.

Small Government protects Liberty. Liberty protects Freedom. And freedom is a gift to the people.

 

[Bruno]

Property rights allows people the right to do things with their property that others might consider stupid or insensitive, such as choosing who can or cannot enter it. On the opposite end of the heated spectrum, they allow an African-American restaurant owner to not allow a man in a KKK hood to eat at his establishment.

 

[FunkBuddha]

Tell them that whenever they are willing to discuss the issue intelligently and maturely you will be happy to do so. Don't waste your time arguing with the crazies. Calm, rational people are a better use of your time and sanity.