Issue: Personal Liberty: racial segregation & the repeal of civilil rights?

[angrydragon]

Try and watch Penn and Teller's BullShit show on college and diversity. I think they're right. What they say, is that diversity just enforces people together who are incompatible and leaves less individual freedom. It's also profitable with the "cultural audits" thing, where some person determines whether there's racism. Freedom comes with being offended, if you aren't being offended by something today, then people are not free. Somewhere, people are offended, and that's fine, they just go elsewhere or change the channel, etc...this is the essence of the first amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRIZjDftFSE

It doesn't show here, but this girl towards the end of show she says, "When you have all these different diversities, people with different ethnicities, cultures, grew up in different places, different opinions, different political groups, there's going to be conflict. There's going to be controversy. That's what makes college worth it."

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s3/college


And if a private business were to sell or serve a certain race, yah the place wouldn't get much business or the media would be all over them, but it's their property and right to serve whoever they want. The market will determine if that business fails or succeeds.

 

[coplinger]

So Liberty Forever, excuse my ignorance, but what is a White Nationalist & how is that different than a white supremacist or KKK member?

 

[ThePieSwindler]

So Liberty Forever, excuse my ignorance, but what is a White Nationalist & how is that different than a white supremacist or KKK member?

White nationalism is more pro-white than anti-black or any other race. Many within the white nationalist movement are racist, but many are simply white people who are proud of their heritage and race. Think of all the black nationalist and black-agenda oriented groups, like the NAACP. They don't necessarily disparage white people, they simply want to work for the advancement of their own race. In fact, many white nationalist groups are allied with hispanic and black nationalist groups to help promote "racial purity". Now personally, i don't believe "racial purity" matters that much since race doesn't really even exist outside of slight genetic variations - yet my genetic ancestry might be more related to a black person than a Basque or a Bulgarian - yet i would still be considered "white" like the basques and bulgarians, rather than a black. But white nationalism is not necessarily a racist movement (Though hthere are plenty of racists, KKK members, etc associated with them.)

Point being, its offensive to many white nationalists to be labeled as racist, and their activies more often than not do not have anything to do with racism or hatred toward blacks. Thus, they certainly should not be disparaged the way an out and out KKK member usually would be. Either way, you become the very thing you hate when you discriminate against white nationalists.

 

[Danny]

I think RP articulates his position pretty well in his speech referenced by the OP.

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. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. 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.

Danny

 

[Bradley in DC]

I just scanned the post and thread but wanted to give some quick information.

One, these are not generally federal issues. On this Goldwater was right. Trying to solve them the way we have has created more problems.

Two, government-imposed segregation is the antithesis of what we believe in: the use of government force to stop voluntary association. There were businesses that wanted to serve minorities that were prohibited from doing business (making money) by government restrictions.

In addition, Dr. Paul supports a dynamic capitalist system that evolves in ways that better incorporates the talents of our society and better matches them to our wants and needs. Online banking knows no race. Our federal race-based policies to fight discrimination make no sense (no matter how well-intentioned). Under simultaneaous and current federal banking laws, bankers are required to determine your race on a home loan applications (under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act) and are trained on how to identify race by surname, appearance, voice, etc., and the bankers are prohibited from noting race on credit card applications--just for fun, go to your bank and ask for both applications!

 

[ctindale]

legion

BRAVO

9/11 is based on reason almost all the other people in the tent are reason based.

and there will be more of them here if you go back to my original post and follow the url to the stormfront forum and read through the posts and there are many more than here I am extremely worried about the white nationalists hijacking the Ron Paul movement.

Liberty forever

I believe that White Nationalism is the worst form of collectivism that exists. We all have the right to our views as individuals but when we form collectives purposely designed to promote our individual rights over another then we harm another persons liberty.

To some extent collectivism in the form positive discrimination has made white people feel discriminated against and has bred resentment, in essence the liberals have tried to socially engineer racial equality and while it hasn’t been completely successful it has promoted racial harmony when compared how things were. This nation is a big tent and we need to fit everyone in it but it isn’t much good if you folk pull down the tent poles on top of the rest of us.

The reality is this country isn’t a “white nation” it’s a racially diverse nation and I want freedom and liberty for everyone inside and outside this nation. White Nationalism is a collect

Austinphish

I appreciate what your saying and Ive been active from the start but I think you should think through all aspects of a campaign this alignment with White Nationalism to me is major weakness that may bring undone everything all of us have done. What are you going to say

Angel

Exactly lets get it all mixed and over with its going to happen anyway

How come the conflict between 21 and 22

Carbine excellent post

I also thought he might add “in any case I would rely on the congress to decide and guide me as President on such matters”

That might be the out, in that he would have to have both houses debate and repeal it and that’s unlikely to happen.

For those who aren’t sure of what White Nationalism stands we have this from Wikipedia

White nationalism (WN) advocates a racial definition (or redefinition) of national identity, as opposed to multiculturalism. The contemporary movement in the United States is a reaction to a perceived decline in white demographics, politics and culture.[1] According to Samuel Francis, a key WN writer, it is "a movement that rejects equality as an ideal and insists on an enduring core of human nature transmitted by heredity.".[2]
Supporters see themselves defending the legitimate civil rights of white people against society's racial double standards.[3] Jared Taylor, another key writer in the movement, says their racial views were held by mainstream American leaders before the 1950s.[4] Critics accuse them of hatred, racial bigotry and destructive identity politics.[5][6]
According to Samuel P. Huntington, the modern movement is increasingly cultured, intellectual and academically-trained.[7] Rather than espouse violence, they use statistics and social science data to argue for a self-conscious white identity.[8] They say a natural hierarchy should triumph over the "false promise of egalitarianism"[9] - and that the downfall of white dominance spells doom for representative government, the rule of law and freedom of speech.[10]
Supporters say they stand for racial self-preservation and claim culture itself is a product of race.[11] As a result, according to Huntington, they say the demographic shift in the US towards non-whites brings a new culture that is intellectually and morally inferior.[12] With it comes affirmative action, immigrant ghettos and declining educational standards.[13] By challenging established policy on immigration, civil rights and racial integration, they seek to build bridges with moderately conservative white citizens.[14]
White separationism and supremacism are two smaller subgroups within white nationalism.[15] The former seek a separate white nation-state, while the latter add ideas from social Darwinism and national socialism to their ideology.[16] Some white nationalists are in neither category, however.[17] They avoid the term "supremacy," saying it has ugly connotations.[18]

 

[mikelovesgod]

As a business owner myself the question is very sticky...

The gov't requires that after you have so many people working for you there has to be representation from other races with ratios depending on where you live. If you live in a 99% white area and you have 50 white people working you might have to hire someone of another race if they are qualified or not or face the threat of litigation for discrimination. Now let's say you live in an area like most of TX where there are many Hispanics. If you have 50 employees and there are not at least 10 Hispanics it may be considered discrimination based on the ratios. Now if no people in a certain demographic was qualified to work at the position I have open I can honestly say they are discriminating against business owners to hire people to stay solvent for the good of the business.

Now let's take the racially biased view... I only want to hire blacks, or whites, or whatever for the sake of argument. Now the laws have been repealed and I have the right to do this. Would my business suffer if I only hired whites when 10 blacks who applied are more qualified? Oh yes it would and I would be foolish not to hire them, the same would be if I hired all blacks and that was my policy and a white person who applied to my job I turned down on the merits of race. Based on a free market I'm working against the viability of my company on the merit of race.

That's basically the Mises principle I listed above, namely that the free market, a true free market determines who is hired based on merit alone. Discriminating against businesses success is very detrimental to the long-term viability of our economy. The employees of the world look at discrimination from a hiring perspective, a business looks at discrimination from a profitable perspective. Free market un-biased approach is the best way, although in reality we know racial discrimination will happen but who does it hurt? Both the business owner and the employee.

Both positions of being pro-employee and pro-business can be discrimination. Economics is never a perfect science because we don't have a perfect society. My recommendation is to look at both perspectives before getting locked into your position without thinking all the way through. The best solution is based on merit alone and not on entitlements, yet I can say as an employer that I know people who don't hire outside their race, which I find repulsive personally and ethically, yet I still feel it's their right as a business to do so because it really hurts them too and their pig-headedness will eventually cause their own down-fall.

 

[beermotor]

believe it or not, the civil rights act hasn't killed segregation. i currently live in a town in arkansas where there is a whites only diner and a blacks only bar. they just call them private clubs and charge some inconsequential membership fee. i guess its the only way the old fucks around here can feel superior because god knows they haven't done anything with their lives. thats really all racism is about. if you are a loser, you're probably also a racist or an ultra-nationalist. the rest of us don't have time.

I made that point about segregation on that guys blog, and he poo-pooed me. Chuckle.

 

[c10h14n2]

So what happens if at the state level discrimination is legalized? Is that really ok? Is it really okay for the state of NH to say, we are now becoming a white only state. All others must leave now.

Is it ok, for a small diner owner to say, not blacks can work or eat here.

Is it ok for a big corporation like General Electric to say, only whites, no others can work here.

If the federal level doesn't "protect" rights of all by force, who is to say that over the next 25 years we see segregation come back in a new and totally different way?

Mass can be the Gay state
Vermont the White male state.
Utah the Morman state.
Alabama the White Nationalist State.'

If private businesses start discriminating because it is there right to do so, isn't it possible that whole groups of people would have to struggle even harder than they do now to find a job?

Just thinking out loud here...

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Nicotine c10h14n2

Did you read all the posts previous to this one on this thread, it seems to me it was discussed very well? I hope you find your answer so you can vote for Ron. Good luck with your search.

 

[c10h14n2]

Grrr, my bad. I replied to a post on page 3 thinking it was the end of the thread, so, no <nods head in embarrassment> I did not read the well written thread above.

I do have concerns. I love Ron Pauls message. I live in one of the most liberal states (MA) and I think that we are losing our liberties because of it. But being gay, I completely understand and live through discrimination every day. When I was younger, I studied up on White Supremacy - specifically, that skinhead faction. One of the things I learned, was that when they formed in England in the 60's, they initially aligned themselves with the Black West Indian Culture through music, clothes, ideology, etc. They were young kids...just starting out in the work force - blue color kids. Then an influx of Indian immigration began and this skinhead group started to develop "white pride" and blamed the Indians for their financial decline (The Indians took there jobs for less money). It took years, but they did become racist. They were still kids, so it was largely a music-based culture, but racist and violent all the same.

When the movement entered the United States, this skinhead faction was full on racist. (*note, not all skinheads are racist - I am only referencing the ones who are)

Anyways, people can be susceptible to discriminate at an extremist level. The Federal Governments does "protect" those who may be targets to these extremist. If we take that protection out of the Feds hands and give it to the states, what would stop a state, if the majority of constituents are racist, from becoming a separatist state which supports the ideology of the majority. Now lets say this majority is White Supremacists? Far fetched, yes, but could it be possible for an entire locality to literally "push out" a population? Lets start small - maybe a town. Lets say a county in MA didn't want blacks and the poor in there town. they could push them out in a variety of ways. If the majority of people in this hypothetical town were of like minds, they could all agree to stop hiring and selling to blacks. They could get rid of subsidized housing or other low income housing to get rid of the poor. Without legal protection, theres nothing anybody could do. Yes, the media would be terrible. But what if this town could withstand it? What if it spread? What if our "ideas" change so much in the next generation that racism comes back into vogue?

I dunno. Its a stretch and past my normal bedtime. I've just seen some of this in action - not in a hateful way, but which one of us hasn't seen a previously undesirable neighborhood become gentrified as a result of a great free market? And when that happens, it prices out the poor people, usually black) out. I know I have been made uncomfortable enough to leave an establishment. Who says that a whole town couldn't make me feel so uncomfortable that I would leave the whole town behind?

I guess I have concerns. I can see how "no law" could get abused and taken into extremes. Affirmative action is bad. But I do see a need to protect someone from blatant racism when they are an equal candidate.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Interesting point c10h14n2. If someone passing thru a small desert town with one store, restaurant and gas station, thus no choice for water, food and gas and they only allowed one race to buy there it could be life threatening to other races. But that same area could be shut down everyday for 12 hours and nobody could buy. Net result is you don't go there at night or you don't depend to stop there at all thus the owner is losing money punishing himself.

I could guess that if everybody in that town denied the poor or a certain race vital services needed for life then the US gov could come in and say this town is denying these people their right to life and liberty which is mandated to do. Please note that this could a be all black, chinese, hispanic, jewish or gay community.
But realize that on all coasts of this country the price of real state has gone up that the poor can never live there unless they owned homes for many years do you think that all the coasts should be forced to subsidize everybody that can't live there?


As far as the Main Stream Media they have always controlled the sheeple in the past. Look at their support for slavery, killing Indians, black discrimination in the the last century and now making the white people the cause for all society's problem. You really have to look who runs the MSM for they are the ones that tell the sheeple who to hate.

A house divided against itself can never figure out who is screwing them

 

[c10h14n2]

I'm really feeling Ron Paul's message. I just don't want to jump in the boat too quickly without a life jacket.

I work in technology. We have a cycle that we run through...usually about 7 years of centralized services and then another 7 years of decentralization. I see America going through the same cycle now. I think Paul is leading the effort. For the most part, I think its great. Smaller Federal government, more liberty. But I also fear that the size of State government will skyrocket. Right now, most states are fairly congruent in structure and policy with one another. If states become too powerful in the process of decentralization, how will we remedy it? The last time they were grossly incongruent, we had a civil war to even things out.

eh, you know what they say about history repeating itself...

 

[Bradley in DC]

Smaller Federal government, more liberty. But I also fear that the size of State government will skyrocket. Right now, most states are fairly congruent in structure and policy with one another. If states become too powerful in the process of decentralization, how will we remedy it? The last time they were grossly incongruent, we had a civil war to even things out.

eh, you know what they say about history repeating itself...

Remember, constitutionally all non-enumerated rights are reserved to the states and the people!

 

[Shmuel Spade]

But I also fear that the size of State government will skyrocket. Right now, most states are fairly congruent in structure and policy with one another. If states become too powerful in the process of decentralization, how will we remedy it?

Yes, you should definitely fear the rise of the individual states' powers. Unfortunately it's been going on while we haven't been paying attention.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3020881.html

http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/ClintBolick.asp

(audio) http://www.fee.org/!UserFiles/events/CBolick.mp3

Our remedy? Amendment XIV, Section 1.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

people have to be involved not just circuses

Thank you for those links. It's points out the abuse of state government. But it is easier to change something in your own back yard. If Dr. No get's big there will now be an army of informed people about how governments should work. Dr. Pauls #1 intent was to run was to teach people about the constitution. Well now you have millions of informed citizens that could bring similar constitutions to their own states and rid themselves of corruption.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I think personal liberty means the liberty to like or dislike whoever you want. Using the power of government to try and force people like each other seems misguided. As such, if a private business owner doesn't want to serve blacks, or whites, or short people... then I tend to think they should have the freedom to do that.

The only place where I see a role for specific non-discrimination rules is in the area of employment that is funded by taxes, such as government jobs. Anything receiving public funds must benefit all citizens, it can't be exclusive.

Basically, I think public/consumer action is quite sufficient to keep rampant discrimination in check and we don't need thought crime laws.

 

[Swmorgan77]

Does Ron Paul suppor racial segregation and the repeal of civilil rights?

There is a fundamental problem here in that you have equated the lack of "civil rights' legislation in the form we currently have it with "racial segregation".

There is a tendency that we must be wary of to view, in hindsight, the way in which history has addressed a problem as the only way or the best way that it could have been done.

The idea of "civil rights" is, in my opinion, very bad. When we are focused on "civil rights" (or rights that are bestowed by government, or exist only withing the framework of government) then we have a problem.

I tend to take the view that Malcom X did, that the idea of going to another man, or a group of men in governemnt and beggin for "civil rights" is not freedom at all.

I think intrinsic, unalienable rights would have been much better and the approach to freeing the slaves and ending segragation would have been much better to simply have a Constituitonal amendment stating "All americans of all nationalities and ethnicities shall be considered "persons" under the Bill of Rights".

Then the reset would follow. Instead what he have done is create notions such as "civil rights" and "equal protection" which are not the same. "Equal protection" means as long as everyone is just as oppressed as you, or has the same bestowed rights (or lack thereof) as you, then you are protected.

 

[revolution]

haha, if you think war in Iraq is bad now.. racial segregation would surely start a civil war within our own country. With the troops overseas, the nation would have no way to defend itself from the chaos, and frankly I think the troops would break with the chain of command and help champion the cause of those discriminated against. The war would be interesting too, because it wouldn't be black vs. white, it would be black, white, mexican, chinese, and everyone else against the government that would support such legislation.

 

[Mesogen]

Sometimes a person can be judged by his supporters, but I don't think Ron Paul is one of them.

Sure David Duke likes Ron Paul, but then again so does Walter Williams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

Conservative comic strip Mallard Fillmore has launched a campaign to draft Williams for the Republican nomination in the 2008 United States presidential election [1]. Williams has stated that he is inundated with emails, but won't run, although he won't completely rule out the possibility. Instead, he endorsed Republican candidate Ron Paul.[5] Paul himself has named Williams as a top choice for his running mate.[6]