Need some help on the Racism issue

[samfibian]

Some people are riled up on another forum re the MTP Ron Paul show on the 23rd.

specifically the comment (which I construed very differently):

"MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...

REP. PAUL: So it's...

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach. "

some posters there have, I believe, misinterpreted what Dr. Paul meant about segreation and, what i took as a metaphor meaning the gov micromanaging every aspect of our lives - & the gov as the unwanted visitor broadly pertaining to jurisdiction and property rights (I could be wrong?),...and are know bringing up health care, separation of church & state, abortion, etc.

Any one here care to visit this forum & take a look? Maybe take a stab @ clarifying some false impressions? (No registration is required to post. Nice little forum in need of some open minds. Be sure to check out the other boards...National, International, etc.) I am in a time pinch & probably won't get to post for a while.

Thanks!

earthboppin.net/talkshop/anything/

(see the thread "Ron Paul is a racist")
earthboppin.net/talkshop/anything/messages/4794.html

/It devolves & reassembles itself through the thread.

 

[cliche]

This is a nasty side effect of having a free market outlook on things. Until you really understand liberty (or at least where the foundation of the thinking is coming from) the free market solution can often freak people out because it seemingly doesn't align itself with how you personally feel about a situation.

Ron Paul isn't a racist but he will never author or support a bill that attempts to create equality through the use of force. This is how his mind views the Civil Rights Act. The free market will give incentives and send signals just fine if left alone.

I know this probably isn't the heartfelt anti-racism argument you wanted, but it's probably as close to the truth as you will find. If they really want to understand how Ron Paul views the world you can tell them to look into libertarianism. Or free market economics if they really want the foundation.

 

[james1844]

Okay,

Do the following things:

1) Cite Dr. Paul's comments on Muhammad Ali

2) Quote from Paul's comments on racism from the webpage. It clearly lays out his views on race.

3) Show videos from african american supporters of Paul.

4) Cite the poll that showed that 22% of African American republicans supported Paul, the highest of any candidate in New Hampshire.

Don't be afraid to cite fact to refute that media spin jobs. Paul is a man of integrity who will never abide by racism.

Best,

James

 

[Corydoras]

I looked at those threads and I think that that crowd is pretty much a lost cause. What they are saying basically is that they want a federal government that does not remain confined to its constitutionally defined tasks but, rather, does whatever it feels like.

The supposed legal justification allowing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_commerce
You might want to ask the other people to explain how the interstate commerce clause does this.

I understand why people are upset at Ron Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I wish someone had found a way to ground it in the Constitution that is more solid than the interstate commerce clause. I think the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was based on the Fourteenth Amendment, should have been allowed to stand.

 

[nickcoons]

I think the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was based on the Fourteenth Amendment, should have been allowed to stand.

As I understand it, it wasn't allowed to stand because it regulated the conduct of private individuals, not the state. Had it been limited to state conduct, it probably would have.

 

[ladyliberty]

Don't forget he mentioned Walter Williams as a possible running mate.

 

[Corydoras]

As I understand it, it wasn't allowed to stand because it regulated the conduct of private individuals, not the state. Had it been limited to state conduct, it probably would have.

Yes. But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also regulated the conduct of private individuals. Once the idea of the federal government regulating individual behavior has been granted (and of course constitutionalists like Ron Paul don't), then (I think) the 1875 Act is on much firmer ground than the 1964 Act.

 

[james1844]

Dude, now that I think about it, Paul may be a racist after all. I can't believe his new immigration ad, its sucks total donkey balls.

 

[nickcoons]

Yes. But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also regulated the conduct of private individuals. Once the idea of the federal government regulating individual behavior has been granted (and of course constitutionalists like Ron Paul don't), then (I think) the 1875 Act is on much firmer ground than the 1964 Act.

So then you're not endorsing the 1875 Act, you're just endorsing it over the 1964 Act, is that right?

 

[nickcoons]

Dude, now that I think about it, Paul may be a racist after all. I can't believe his new immigration ad, its sucks total donkey balls.

Right.. ignore everything he's ever said about racism and instead replace it with a 30-second blip in order to garner your view of Ron Paul's stance on racism.

 

[justatrey]

Dude, now that I think about it, Paul may be a racist after all. I can't believe his new immigration ad, its sucks total donkey balls.

Even if it is "sucks total donkey balls", there is nothing racist about it. I actually think the ad will be really effective if they target the right audience. They are playing good politics IMO.

 

[amistybleu]

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

 

[Gilby]

Dude, now that I think about it, Paul may be a racist after all. I can't believe his new immigration ad, its sucks total donkey balls.

It's an interesting situation for libertarians. Here we have a fascist welfare state where those that come here get to reap the rewards of this welfare state. Then there is the typical libertarian ideal that people are free to go and live wherever they please. However, when you have the problems associated with a welfare state (ie. subsidizing illegal immigration), how do you "temporarily" solve that? Unfortunately, you have to close the borders to immigrants, then change the welfare state, and finally, allow the freedom to migrate (and freedom in general) to prevail.

We can't immediately change to the libertarian society, as to many people have become dependent on the promises the government has made. The odd reality is that under the current progression of government, those that depend on the government will greatly suffer when the monetary crisis comes, but under Ron Paul's transition government, those that rely on the government can be eased into converting to a freedom based society.