Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[ShackledNation]

The Civil Rights act had two parts: ending government mandated discrimination and segregation (Jim Crow Laws) and mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives to stop personal discrimination.

Ron Paul fully agreed with the former, which pundits and partisans conveniently like to ignore. He disagreed only with the latter. Why? You cannot legislate morality. You cannot stop people from doing drugs by outlawing drugs. You cannot stop people from being racist idiots by outlawing personal discrimination.

If Ron Paul being honest enough to reveal this truth is disgusting and offensive to you people, then you need to wake up and smell the roses because government has no power to make us better people. We have to do that ourselves.

 

[Mr.Nick]

It is completely relevant

Dr Paul says we should have let social forces regulate businesses that discriminate on the basis of race. We had over a hundred years to let those social forces influence racist businesses........and nothing happened

It's irrelevant. RP was talking about free market, you are bringing up the fact that it took 100 years to get to the same period of time. That is irrelevant. The one has nothing at all to do with the other.

We had one hundred years of free market and nothing happened. What makes Dr Paul think that giving the free market more time would have led to any improvement?

What the FUCK are you talking about???

Which 100 years do you speak of????

Are you ignorant to the nature of Keynesian economics or "mixed economy??"

We haven't had true capitalism since Wilson dummy..

It's pathetic how dumb you are given your age...........

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because of the time. It was time for that change to happen. Just as there wasn't a federal law against descrimination, there wasn't a free market solution. Free market ebb and flow is also subject to societal pressures. To imply that free market solutions wouldn't work because they didn't for 100 years is not fully understanding how things work.

Gibberish.

Whether a ‘market solution’ would have worked or not is irrelevant.

As a matter of law segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and laws authorizing segregation were struck down accordingly. Segregation in public accommodations adversely effected commerce among the states, and Congress is authorized to regulate that activity per the Commerce Clause.

That this is even subject to debate in 2012 is sad and telling.

 

[paperview]

...
We haven't had true capitalism since Wilson dummy.
...

Define "true capitalism."

While you're at it, remind me again of how the Robber Baron age went...

 

[Mr.Nick]

We had one hundred years of free market and nothing happened. What makes Dr Paul think that giving the free market more time would have led to any improvement?

Because of the time. It was time for that change to happen. Just as there wasn't a federal law against descrimination, there wasn't a free market solution. Free market ebb and flow is also subject to societal pressures. To imply that free market solutions wouldn't work because they didn't for 100 years is not fully understanding how things work.

Oh.....I get it now. It was time for that change to happen. Free market was about to end segregation all on it's own. Martin Luther King was just wasting his time because all that change would have happened without the civil rights movement.......it was time for the change to happen

God.....that Dr Paul is a smart guy

Hey retard - we haven't had a true free market for 110 years dummy..

 

[Mr.Nick]

...
We haven't had true capitalism since Wilson dummy.
...

Define "true capitalism."

While you're at it, remind me again of how the Robber Baron age went...

How aboutthe cost of goods and services based on supply and demand principals instead of a controlled economy and monetary system based on absolutely NOTHING.....

 

[paperview]

...
We haven't had true capitalism since Wilson dummy.
...

Define "true capitalism."

While you're at it, remind me again of how the Robber Baron age went...

How aboutthe cost of goods and services based on supply and demand principals instead of a controlled economy and monetary system based on absolutely NOTHING.....

Well, Mr. Nickelodeon, after that brilliant display, there's no fear of a Mensa membership being a noose around your neck.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Define "true capitalism."

While you're at it, remind me again of how the Robber Baron age went...

How aboutthe cost of goods and services based on supply and demand principals instead of a controlled economy and monetary system based on absolutely NOTHING.....

Well, Mr. Nickelodeon, after that brilliant display, there's no fear of a Mensa membership being a noose around your neck.

Do you disagree with my basic definition of capitalism??

Or do you just want to talk shit and spit remedial one liners?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Civil Rights act had two parts: ending government mandated discrimination and segregation (Jim Crow Laws) and mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives to stop personal discrimination.

More nonsense and gibberish.

As the Heart of Atlanta Motel Court noted, the settled interpretation of the Commerce Clause to regulate public accommodations was in place at the time for 140 years – this had noting to do with ‘legislating morality’ or ‘mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives,’ to argue so only exhibits one’s ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

 

[ShackledNation]

The Civil Rights act had two parts: ending government mandated discrimination and segregation (Jim Crow Laws) and mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives to stop personal discrimination.

More nonsense and gibberish.

As the Heart of Atlanta Motel Court noted, the settled interpretation of the Commerce Clause to regulate public accommodations was in place at the time for 140 years – this had noting to do with ‘legislating morality’ or ‘mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives,’ to argue so only exhibits one’s ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

Calling something nonsense and gibberish does not make it so.

I get the impression you have no idea what the Civil Rights Act actually entailed. You likely just assume it ended racism, as is the propagated story, and therefore any criticism of the act is a defense of racism.

 

[dblack]

The Civil Rights act had two parts: ending government mandated discrimination and segregation (Jim Crow Laws) and mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives to stop personal discrimination.

More nonsense and gibberish.

As the Heart of Atlanta Motel Court noted, the settled interpretation of the Commerce Clause to regulate public accommodations was in place at the time for 140 years – this had noting to do with ‘legislating morality’ or ‘mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives,’ to argue so only exhibits one’s ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

How does your post have anything at all to do with quote cited? Your "case law" droning is tedious even when it is applicable. Here it's just pompous blathering.

 

[ShackledNation]

Because of the time. It was time for that change to happen. Just as there wasn't a federal law against descrimination, there wasn't a free market solution. Free market ebb and flow is also subject to societal pressures. To imply that free market solutions wouldn't work because they didn't for 100 years is not fully understanding how things work.

Gibberish.

Whether a ‘market solution’ would have worked or not is irrelevant.

As a matter of law segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and laws authorizing segregation were struck down accordingly. Segregation in public accommodations adversely effected commerce among the states, and Congress is authorized to regulate that activity per the Commerce Clause.

That this is even subject to debate in 2012 is sad and telling.

And Ron Paul supported the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow laws and the like that forced and encouraged segregation. He supported ending all segregation in public accommodations.

The only people discussing that are dishonest pundits who smear those they fear will change their position in power. What is telling is the complete bias and ignorance of people who take things out of context. That is telling of the lack of honest debate here in this country in 2012.

Just as you cannot stop people from doing drugs by making it illegal, you cannot stop people from being racist by doing so. In fact, just as government laws banning drugs lead to an even worse drug situation, so do laws trying to ban segregation lead to more racial tension.

Ron Paul supported ending all segregation in public laws. He was against provisions of the bill that tried to force people to integrate, which simply cannot be done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...we haven't had a true free market for 110 years...

If that’s the case it’s solely the fault of business owners and collective corporate entities, having nothing to do with government or the courts.

Business owners and collective corporate entities have only themselves to blame for their excess and abuse of consumers and employees, who had no other choice but to seek relief in Federal court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Civil Rights act had two parts: ending government mandated discrimination and segregation (Jim Crow Laws) and mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives to stop personal discrimination.

Ron Paul fully agreed with the former, which pundits and partisans conveniently like to ignore. He disagreed only with the latter. Why? You cannot legislate morality. You cannot stop people from doing drugs by outlawing drugs. You cannot stop people from being racist idiots by outlawing personal discrimination.

If Ron Paul being honest enough to reveal this truth is disgusting and offensive to you people, then you need to wake up and smell the roses because government has no power to make us better people. We have to do that ourselves.

So the anti-discrimination laws have not all but ended businesses discriminating against minorities?

 

[Salt Jones]

The last thing I want to be is a Ron Paul defender but even radical lefties and Huffington probably understand deep down that Paul is no racist. He isn't the most articulate speaker and he is desperate to turn his sagging ratings around so he appears on shows that aren't sympathetic to his views. Be careful what you wish for lefties. Paul is your best bet to lose the election if he wins the nomination.

P.S. Neither was George Wallace.

 

[rightwinger]

Because of the time. It was time for that change to happen. Just as there wasn't a federal law against descrimination, there wasn't a free market solution. Free market ebb and flow is also subject to societal pressures. To imply that free market solutions wouldn't work because they didn't for 100 years is not fully understanding how things work.

Gibberish.

Whether a ‘market solution’ would have worked or not is irrelevant.

As a matter of law segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and laws authorizing segregation were struck down accordingly. Segregation in public accommodations adversely effected commerce among the states, and Congress is authorized to regulate that activity per the Commerce Clause.

That this is even subject to debate in 2012 is sad and telling.

And Ron Paul supported the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow laws and the like that forced and encouraged segregation. He supported ending all segregation in public accommodations.

The only people discussing that are dishonest pundits who smear those they fear will change their position in power. What is telling is the complete bias and ignorance of people who take things out of context. That is telling of the lack of honest debate here in this country in 2012.

Just as you cannot stop people from doing drugs by making it illegal, you cannot stop people from being racist by doing so. In fact, just as government laws banning drugs lead to an even worse drug situation, so do laws trying to ban segregation lead to more racial tension.

Ron Paul supported ending all segregation in public laws. He was against provisions of the bill that tried to force people to integrate, which simply cannot be done.

We did force people to integrate and it worked. Have you seen a lunch counter that says "No colored" lately? Some acted like integration was the end of society.......within five years nobody cared

Ron Paul is 50 years behind the times

 

[Mr.Nick]

...we haven't had a true free market for 110 years...

If that’s the case it’s solely the fault of business owners and collective corporate entities, having nothing to do with government or the courts.

Business owners and collective corporate entities have only themselves to blame for their excess and abuse of consumers and employees, who had no other choice but to seek relief in Federal court.

What the fuck are you talking about??

We don't have a true free market because our government has been attempting to dictate economic outcomes for the last 110 years...

It has absolutely nothing to do with businesses and everything to do with government greed and a notion that elitist politicians know whats best for society....

Their goal is to dictate an economic outcome....

Capitalism won't work well if you fuck with it.... It will work, however it will be severely stunted.

 

[ShackledNation]

The Civil Rights act had two parts: ending government mandated discrimination and segregation (Jim Crow Laws) and mandating intrusive government involvement in business and personal lives to stop personal discrimination.

Ron Paul fully agreed with the former, which pundits and partisans conveniently like to ignore. He disagreed only with the latter. Why? You cannot legislate morality. You cannot stop people from doing drugs by outlawing drugs. You cannot stop people from being racist idiots by outlawing personal discrimination.

If Ron Paul being honest enough to reveal this truth is disgusting and offensive to you people, then you need to wake up and smell the roses because government has no power to make us better people. We have to do that ourselves.

So the anti-discrimination laws have not all but ended businesses discriminating against minorities?

You bring up a good point that goes back to the heart of the argument. It involves the idea that government can legislate morality effectively. Looking at the drug war, it obviously can't.

What ultimately ended business discrimination was two things:
1. People over time became more tolerable of those different than them. That fact the Civil Rights act even passed is proof that much of this had already occurred not only without government interference but in spite of government interference in the opposite direction (jim crow laws).
2. It is very unprofitable to run a business that prevents large segments of the population from patronizing it. Not only will you lose minority customers' money, you will likely be boycotted by those who are sympathetic with the minorities. This did not happen prior to the Civil Rights Act because laws were on the books that forced segregation.

Today, the result of government intrusion is that in the name of fighting “discrimination,” all-women gyms are sued and forced to open to men; a gay softball team is sued for rejecting bisexual members; A wedding photographer in New Mexico is fined thousands of dollars for refusing to take photos of a homosexual wedding. (those are all real world examples that have actually happened).

Instead of just eliminating segregation, the Civil Rights Act imposed mandatory association. Ron Paul is right. Neither mandatory segregation, nor mandatory association, is appropriate in a free society.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How does your post have anything at all to do with quote cited?

The poster is incorrectly stated that the Act was some sort of bleeding-heart moralization, partisan, unsubstantiated, and subjective.

The case law demonstrates that’s clearly not the case.

Your "case law" droning is tedious even when it is applicable. Here it's just pompous blathering.

Perhaps.

But no one cares about my opinion, just as I give no weight or consideration to others’ subjective opinions. All that matters is the facts of law, regardless how conservatives, libertarians, and other rightists might want it to be.

If you find my citing of case law tedious and pompous, take it up with those who refuse to acknowledge it, and i'll gladly cease.

As I already noted, that after all this time the Act must be defended at all is sad; it’s also evidence the Act is as much needed today was it was then, if not more so.

 

[ShackledNation]

Gibberish.

Whether a ‘market solution’ would have worked or not is irrelevant.

As a matter of law segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and laws authorizing segregation were struck down accordingly. Segregation in public accommodations adversely effected commerce among the states, and Congress is authorized to regulate that activity per the Commerce Clause.

That this is even subject to debate in 2012 is sad and telling.

And Ron Paul supported the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow laws and the like that forced and encouraged segregation. He supported ending all segregation in public accommodations.

The only people discussing that are dishonest pundits who smear those they fear will change their position in power. What is telling is the complete bias and ignorance of people who take things out of context. That is telling of the lack of honest debate here in this country in 2012.

Just as you cannot stop people from doing drugs by making it illegal, you cannot stop people from being racist by doing so. In fact, just as government laws banning drugs lead to an even worse drug situation, so do laws trying to ban segregation lead to more racial tension.

Ron Paul supported ending all segregation in public laws. He was against provisions of the bill that tried to force people to integrate, which simply cannot be done.

We did force people to integrate and it worked. Have you seen a lunch counter that says "No colored" lately? Some acted like integration was the end of society.......within five years nobody cared

Ron Paul is 50 years behind the times

"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. Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
-Ron Paul

You are ignoring all the negative affects of the civil rights act, such as all women gyms being sued for discriminating against men. In many ways, the Civil Rights Act (minus the end of public segregation and Jim Crow Laws of course) increased racial tensions.

The main problem Ron Paul and people like myself have about the bill is title II, not the whole thing.