How do you respond to this?
Submitted by galeninjapan on Sat, 10/27/2007 - 15:19
I am trying to tell my friend that Ron Paul wants a smaller government that does not interfer in our personal lives. This is what my friend says.
"And the govt. that governs the least DOES NOT govern the best. Would a govt. that governs the least inact a national civil rights law in the 60's? No. And most southern states would not have came up with one on their own. The civil rights bill PROVED an "activist" govt. can work in the nation's best interests. Which negates the libertarian view."
I know Ron Paul isnt racist, which isnt even what this is about. I do think that the Civil Rights bill was good to get rid of racism and segregation. How do I rebuke him?
»
Missing the point
Your friend is missing the point. The big picture that so many lovers of "Big Government" are unable to (due to the DOE's dumbing down of America) see even when laid out right in front of them.
Anyone given the ability to force laws on free states and its citizens to "act in the nations best interest" is also given the ability to act to destroy the nations best interest.
Also anyone who thinks the Federal Government has acted in the "African Americans" best interest has not checked the racial percentage of our prison system. Has not checked the racial percentage of the unemployed. Has not checked the racial percentage of those dependent on government programs.
Your friend should realize that any progress made by minorities in America is the result of their own initiative and not any laws any government has passed down.
The civil rights laws were
The civil rights laws were NOT good. Note, I don't agree with segregation, I personally despise it. But in a free society, people should be able to do with their own property what they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others. We do not have the right to be served at every establishment. You can't have it both ways. Either you support government regulation of business of all stripes of you reject all of it.
Zachary Hensley
Philosophy Dept
University of Iowa
Like this??
Galen,
I'm not telling you that I know anymore than you on this and I may be wrong as well but this is what I do. If anyone has constructive criticism that could help either of us please jump in.
I would agree that there have been some good that has come out of the Federal government, but if you really look closer the only thing that has really changed is the amount of racism and the location of segregation. It didn't get rid of it completely. The changing of laws only changes the laws but education of racism did more. There are going to be issues that will have exceptions and its only logical that most exceptions will require an additional solution. Remind them that Ron will still have to work with the Senate and the Congress. We are still dealing with issues that other methods have not fixed. But if we expect different results from our efforts maybe changing our approach would better serve us. I would be curious if the candidates that they are considering can prove by example the integrity that Ron has shown most of his political carrier. I would tell them that its not so much what they disagree with Ron Paul about, but how much they agree with him more than the other candidates. What would they do if China or Russia had military bases in our country? How would they feel? What makes it right for us to have military bases in other countries at the cost of our tax-payers. Ron was right to look at why we were attacked and maybe that was our wake-up call to get our government in check. I then send them to www.ronpaul2008.com, www.dailypaul.com, freeme.tv or tell them to google, youtube or whatever Ron Paul,
We already had a national
We already had a national civil rights act - It's called the Bill of Rights. As Ron would say, all we have to do is follow the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Federal government had all of the authority it needed to prevent the states from violating the civil rights of blacks. What it didn't have was the will. Just as we now have many of our politicians worried about being "soft on terror" then they didn't want to be accused of being a "n*****r lover".
Time moves on, but politicians stay the same -sigh-
I agree if the Government
I agree if the Government was so great why did minorities not get civil rights until 1964 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964. They had cases in 1875. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875. What the government did in 1964 was outlaw segregation in schools. But it was peaceful marching and Of course people themselves like Rosa Parks that got the job done, not the government.
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library"
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library"
civil rights
It wasn't the Federal Government that gave people their civil rights. It was the people who had enough and risked their lives marching. Dr. King and the countless other freedom fighters who demanded their rights and wouldn't go away. In fact that is what we are faced with right now. They hope we will get bored or discouraged and give up but we won't because we have no other options. This is our last stand for our civil liberties.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Encourage him
To look at the goal of Martin Luther King, and what he was for, and what he was not....King could be very easily described as a libertarian, you know. Then ask why we still have racism. Then mention the prison population. Then suggest caffeine, nicotine, or some other substance that will cause you friend to wake up.
If all else fails take him to an inner city neigborhood at night and ask him to get out and ask how succesful the government has been.
Mike Stahl
Mike Stahl
You may
Want to notify emergency responders before you take that inner city trip.
Mike Stahl
Mike Stahl
I don't have the full
I don't have the full context or full quote, but Harry Browne said this in his book "Why Government Doesn't Work:
[Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964], many governments in southern states forced people to segregate by race. Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state laws, but failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But this federal law didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It also prohibited voluntary segregation. What had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about who they associated with.
The point is, your friend's thinking is rational to him because he has not examined the ends of it. Government programs always seem to increase the very problem they were trying to fix, do they not? It was society that changed to end segregation-- and I think society could have done it more effectively than the government. Look at the movement and behavior of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Did he use government force to change people's behavior or attitudes?.....
Further ...
Equality under the law means that people should be equally treated when it comes to government programs, employment, and the courts.
But equal treatment under the law in the private sphere means respecting the right of others to freely associate or not, based on whatever criteria they want to use. If a government forces people to associate with other people in any way, it annihilates the entire concept of freedom of association.
This is true in employment, in churches, in private schools, and in private businesses "open to the public". People have a fundamental right to contract, buy & sell, study, and worship with whom they wish.
Racism is a moral issue which cannot be solved by the government taking away the rights of the people. Governments only have authority to try and punish actions which HARM another's life, liberty, or property.
It is leading by example which does the most to change society and the hearts and attitudes of people.
Hope this helps. Background study for you: Read Bastiat's essay THE LAW on the extent of government's authority.
I have heard
Ron Paul say that there were two problems in The Constitution. Not specifying slavery and abolishing it and something about federal legislation on tariffs. I may be wrong and can't remember the program I heard this on.
Horse Hockey
That by no means negates the Libertarian view.
Individuality is individuality. People are people.
It is still a crime to separate or attack someone because they are different, we've always known this.
Remember it's about civil liberties. Everyone gets the same rights as anyone else. Anyone trying to alienate society should be dealt with.
The south, would have to abide that all men are equal and have to take it from there.
The Constitution has all answers to Ron Paul questions
First line of the US Constitution is "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY. Seems to me someone who lives by the Constitution would have motive to introduce civil rights legislation.
"One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states."
Civil Rights were surely quarrels amongst the states back in the old days and the government has constitutional right to step in.
Ron Paul for President 2008
Ron Paul for President 2008
Prejudice is expensive,
and it requires a violent organization (the State) to enforce it. People are free to be bigoted, but when there is a State there to socialize the costs of their bigotry there is naturally more bigotry. When the bigot has to bear their own costs there is less incentive to be bigoted.
and...
Since 1964... racism and segregation are no more? Clearly this person confuses intentions and results.
The 3 above responses are perfect
The goverment has the power to ensure domestic tranquility, prejudice is expensive, and it was predicted that the system of having two separate systems was bankrupting the southern states. Economics in simplicity would have brought that to an end. Also intense media scrutiny.
Compulsory attendance in substandard schools was part of the problem.
I would also submit that the above response suggests that a larger government did not solve the problem.
When someone brings to me a situation they claim the federal government had to solve, I immediately look to how government intrusion exacerbated the problem in the first place.
Also consider that it was intense private media exposition that brought the problem, and the civil rights activism to the national attention. A "don't by segregationist" movement would have developed as surely as a "don't buy child labour" or "don't by animal tested" movements did.