(ThyBlackMan.com) GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul just can’t seem to help himself when it comes to his fetish on a law which has been on the books for nearly five decades and which has long since been rendered a moot point by even avowed white supremacists. That’s the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ron Paul caught much flack when he flatly said he’d have opposed it if he had been in Congress in 1964. He dredged it up again as an issue in 2004 when he voted against a symbolic resolution honoring the law on its fortieth anniversary. He dredged it up again during his abortive presidential bid in 2008. And now he’s dredged it up yet again stumping for 2012 presidential votes.
To hear him tell it, it’s a matter of the simple principle of upholding the sanctity of private property from any government encroachment. It’s a libertarian purism taken to the nth degree and it’s a legal and public policy fraud. Ron Paul’s oft times uttered quip that private business owners have an absolute right to decide what to do with their own property; to make his point that it is legally wrong to tell private business owners what they can do with their business is laughable. Local, state and the federal government tell businesses what to do all the time. They compel businesses to pay state and federal taxes, business taxes, adhere to environmental, building, and safety codes and regulations, have liability and workers compensation insurance, file employee tax reports, and corporate filing reports, and publish a DBA notice.
Ron Paul, and GOP anti-government deregulation crusaders, pay obligatory lip service to the campaign to slash and burn government regulations, but the long laundry list of subsidies, protectionism, tariffs, import controls, benignly weighted tax shelters, tax write-offs, and depreciation options that corporations use to reduce taxes and increase profits all courtesy of government intrusion, would fill up a small telephone book.
Ron Paul knows that the times that government has gone lax on “intrusion” into the affairs of private business it’s been an unmitigated disaster for the public and business. The loosening of oversight on the savings and loan industry resulted in failure of banks, and left taxpayers holding the bag for lost account values. The deregulation of the electricity industry allowed for large-scale manipulation of rates for profit-making. The result was market panic and skyrocketing electricity prices. The jewel in the crown of government non-intrusion is Wall Street’s scamming of the real estate and financial system in 2008. That did much to get the country into the fiscal mess it’s still struggling to get out of, and for which President Obama gets blamed for. Ron Paul makes no fetish of the appalling failures of business left to its own devices without government intrusion to handle, well, its own business.
There’s no mystery why. Carping about workers compensation or safety regulations as government intrusion into private business is not chic, media eye catching and will not stir up controversy. It won’t get lusty cheers from the legion of Ron Paul devotees that think taking shots at a civil rights law decades after the fact proves he’s a fearless, uncompromising fighter for his principles. Harping on the Civil Rights Act has even greater value since it provides cover for race baiting without the odious stench of actual race baiting.
Ron Paul’s use of the Civil Rights Act as a foil to snatch a headline any other time could be dismissed as an archaic rant from the fringe. But Ron Paul now has virtual household name identification, hordes of fanatical backers, unbridled media allure, and he’s stirred nervous tremors among GOP mainstream leaders. He’s not going to fade away no matter what happens in the presidential caucuses and primaries especially since he’s dropped the coy hint that if the GOP doesn’t play ball with him and take some of his positions more seriously, he may just pick up his political marbles and not support the eventual GOP presidential nominee, meaning in reality, Romney.
This makes Ron Paul’s broadside against civil rights laws more dangerous. There’s no danger that government or corporations will roll back the clock on the Civil Rights Act but it does send another strong signal to government agencies to slacken up even more in vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. The relentless water down and outright elimination of affirmative action laws and measures by courts, state legislatures and ballot initiatives, and the near impossibility of scaling the stratospheric bar of proof of intent required to win discrimination lawsuits against corporations and financial institutions that engage in blatantly discriminatory practices, has already severely crimped the fight to broaden civil rights protections.
Ron Paul is clever though. He recognizes that attacking the 1964 Civil Rights Act while in the next breath saying he’s against discrimination makes his ploy seem like it’s solely about protecting private property, and not the bigotry that it is. We haven’t heard the last of Ron Paul’s civil rights fetish.
Written By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
One can find more info about Mr. Hutchinson over at the following site; TheHutchinson ReportNews.
Also feel free to connect with him through twitter; http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
My feeling is that Romney will win the nomination and pick Condoleezza Rice for VP. Obama will promise to legalize pot and win. Ron Paul supporters will write in Ron Paul and consequently help seal Romney’s fate.
Private property is a big issue with libertarians. That’s why we can’t smoke in a restaurant or bar. Because do-gooders control what other people can do on their own private property. Personally, I agree with Ron Paul about restaurants serving who they want, but it sure is stupid to turn away customers. They would probably lose white customers, too. They would lose my patronage. I don’t want this to be another “I have black friends” type thing but I have no problem patronizing minority-owned businesses. Usually I don’t know who the owner is, race just isn’t a factor (unless they’re more likely to carry something that others don’t). Some of the best officers and NCO’s that I served with in the military and my favorite boss I worked for in a steel mill were black. My feeling is that having been treated unfairly in the past, they went out of the way to be fair and treated people as individuals.
Being a longtime big-L Libertarian, in college after the military (during Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign) I argued that the drug laws and the judicial system were racist and even many black students thought that I was crazy. These are Libertarian positions, and Ron Paul doesn’t shrink from them even if it might be politically disadvantageous. With Ron Paul you know what you’re getting. Who knows what those other Republican clowns really think? They’ll say anything to get elected. Ron Paul would hold Obama’s feet to the fire a little. Even though I think Obama will get re-elected, with Ron Paul debating him, difficult issues will be discussed in a forthright manner.
The misunderstanding is similar to when people confuse the support of an unmitigated freedom of the press with an explicit endorsement of whats being said or expressed therein. If you believe in the importance of the protection of private property as I do, the solution to eliminating bigotry is not in furthering the power of the state. All of the major freedoms are preserved fundamentally on the existence of private ownership of property.
Wrong. Ron Paul is definitely not a bigot.
Please put some more thought into what he’s saying. 🙁
Scotty,
you brought up a really great point. a few years ago, i was heavily involved with the motorcycle riding community. and, there was the “confederation of clubs” which pretty much every state has them. for the most part they do serve a good purpose. we raised alot of money for charity, and got involved with our prospective communities in a positive way.
but, we had a group of lawyers that would represent various clubs, and or individuals that were denied entrance or service at different establishments. it really ticked me off, to some degree. i had been refused service at various places throughout my time riding. i can say, no black person ever denied me service. infact, i rode cross country a couple of times, and bikers passed me by constantly, and it never failed a black guy would always pull over for me, and asked if he could help me out some how or i could use his phone to make a call.
but, back to my point. i always felt it was the business owners right to refuse me service. the guys i rode with, became fiercely loyal to the establishments that treated us right, and we inturn would bring more people, and always tipped well. i was never offended by it. i remember one time they wouldnt even let us in at a mexican restaurant, at denny’s they just didnt come to the table and take our orders. we had tried calling someone to the table and they just acted like we werent even there, we got up and left there too. then at this point we were starving, and found this mom and pop italian restaurant. we had a blast with those people, they happend not to be that busy that day, and ended up eating some great food and have a great time with all the folks what worked there. like you, i dont want to force myself on anyone. someone out there is more than willing to take my money and provide me a service. maybe im wrong, but i believe in the goodness of people, and i feel left to our own devices we will find each other, and inturn be loyal to one another.
i never supported the idea of suing establishments, for not wanting us around, its their right… i always felt that way.
James,
Absolutely wrong. Read my post, below. Ron Paul has not objected to the 90% of the Civil Rights Act that solved 100% of the legal segregation.
He has correctly stated that it is completely constitutional, under the 14th Amendment, for the federal government to prevent states from legislating racial inequality.
Given that companies like Woolworth’s were racist because the LAW REQUIRED THEM TO BE RACIST, the solution is to remove the bad laws. The solution is not to punish all businesses for the next 100 years because Southern Woolworth’s stores complied with bad laws they had no power to change.
There is no need to replace a set of anti-black laws with an anti-business law. Why don’t we let SOCIETY resolve these problems, instead of GOVERNMENT ? [Society and government are two VERY different things, you know. All the libertarians I’ve met are very pro-society.]
You need to open up your mind to possibilities beyond simple choices like:
1. Let’s subsidize labor union bosses and punish businesses, or
2. Let’s subsidize big businesses and use the national guard to attack workers.
How about the government doesn’t target anybody for punishment, or anybody to get special privileges ? Why don’t we wait for somebody to actually commit an assault, theft, or fraud, before we assume they’re evil ? How can you pass out “free” goodies to anybody without first taking them from somebody else ?
Surely the ultimate issue is this: federal action was needed in the 1960s and after, still is, to protect minority rights in certain parts of the country. Ron Paul argues that this was an unwarranted intrusion on personal freedom because it was against the federal system as he sees it. So in the name of preserving strict ‘constitutional liberty’, he disagrees with measures which gave real, tangible liberty to millions of people.
I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist, although as the furore over his newsletters shows he isn’t necessarily shy of associating with people with deeply discriminatory views on race, gender, sexual orientation and so on. He genuinely, fanatically believes in personal freedom (except when it comes to things like abortion, of course). But his view of what liberty means is incredibly limited, and the idea that we should smooth other race relations by simply ‘treating people as individuals’ is frankly asinine.
“Ron Paul’s oft times uttered quip that private business owners have an absolute right to decide what to do with their own property; to make his point that it is legally wrong to tell private business owners what they can do with their business is laughable.”
I also find it laughable but sadly pathetic that black people would want to beat down the doors of a business that does not want their business to take their money. Instead of blacks fighting to integrate the lunch counter at Woolworths, perhaps they should have stopped shopping there all together or perhaps pooled their economic pwoer and started their own black owned department store. I mean really, what is the point of all these “buy black” campaigns we see today if we want to shop were they have policies we do not agree with?
“Local, state and the federal government tell businesses what to do all the time. They compel businesses to pay state and federal taxes, business taxes, adhere to environmental, building, and safety codes and regulations, have liability and workers compensation insurance, file employee tax reports, and corporate filing reports, and publish a DBA notice.”
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Paul against most of these things? Just because the govt is compelling us to do things do not make them right. But of course, most people lack the courage to change the status quo even if they disagree with it.
I’m sorry you feel this way about Ron Paul. But your feelings about him won’t change his feelings about you, that you’re an individual not a color. That you should be treated as a human being, with the rights inherently belonging to all human beings, rather than be treated as a member of a group. This is why he opposed the Civil Rights Act. Because it labels and divides people into groups.
Are we to assume from your article that you believe all federal laws are just? How about the drug laws? Do they fairly target minorities? What about the gun laws? Do you believe it is agreeable for urban populations to have less access to self defense than rural citizens? Do urban populations have less need for property protection than rural citizens?
What about the Fugitive Slave Laws? Should those have been supported? Ron Paul is the only candidate who can articulate a states’ rights position that was actually used to fight the Fugitive Slave Laws (nullification). Would you oppose this position as well, because it is a states’ rights position? Be careful here, because if you oppose Dr. Paul’s position on this issue, then you support the recapture and transfer of freed slaves in the north back to their “owners” in the south.
The property rights argument is also a racial issue. Look at what happened around Columbia University (a private university) from 2003-2007. The university purposefully allowed their buildings to become rundown in order to devalue the property. Then, they petitioned the local government to allow the University to take over the private property in the area because of “urban blight”. The private properties, including low-income housing projects, were transferred to the private university. This is clearly unconstitutional, and yet was allowed to occur because of a gross misapplication of the principle of property rights. Still another example is the Kelo Supreme Court case. In that case, people’s homes were taken from them and the land was given to the private company Pfizer.
Once the government is allowed to tell a private individual what he/she is allowed to do on his/her private property, it is only a small step to the actual confiscation of that property. Notice in the above examples that the properties weren’t even transferred to the public, but rather to other private individuals. A strong property rights position protects the individuals from these unconstitutional property confiscations.
Please study the concept of property rights in more detail before dismissing Dr. Paul’s position. His voting record clearly supports minorities’ rights, and his property rights position is no different.
Ron Paul Supporters, Answer This Question!
“IF the free market was never free in America, then how does making the free market free now erase the years of inequities caused by it not being free in the past?” – DG
Libertarianism is purely theoretical and functionally impractical because of the nature of politics and the nature of man.
If racism and discrimination did not exist, then libertarianism would pose no threat to any particular race or class. But because it does exist it reinforces inequities in the system that were created by historical racists practices.
Libertarianism reinforces existing inequities that were caused by historic racism in that it says “we shall not touch or interfere with the market or property rights”.
However, the historic aggregation of wealth and property in the hands of whites can be directly traced back to the times when other races, ethnicities and sexes (outside of the white male) were not allowed to own property, participate equally in the free market, or even vote.
So exactly how does libertarianism provide opportunities to address the historical inequities caused by the historic rejection of the free market principles that they avow? The answer is THEY DON’T. It is purely a future forward, past be damned approach to politics.
While I applaud some key concepts by Paul such as the elimination of the war on drugs, the reduction of the prison industrial complex, and the non-interventionist military focus, I can’t overlook the broader failures of libertarianism as it would be implemented through policy.
As a black man myself all I have to do is look at the other candidates!
If theres any question of racism there then the answers obvious!
My instinct tells me that we are being manipulated, along with the publishers of this website.
Clear Channel Communications which is owned by Bain capitol(Romneys company) shared with Thomas H. Lee Partners. They have 100 Fox Station under Contract..Fox+Bain own 1/2 the Media. Both buyout leverage co.s(combined 100 bill assets) We remember Refco? How about MF Global?
Thomas H. Lee Partners ownes MF global. Remember the hard drives removed from Romneys Governotorial computers?
People better come to understanding that the Dec 14th meeting in New York this year with the Primary dealers JPMorgan, Blackrock ect was when Romney got final approval from the Federal Reserve for the Presidency. Wall Street is going to get a pass on ever being held responsible for it’s action, past present or future. Like Greece or Italy and other countrys Bankers now directly run the Govt. There is no Democracy in a Banker run social order. Leverage is what got the world to where it is at, and The Federal Reserve will blow out the dollar to help the Banks all over the World.
And Romney will be saying ‘everything is fine’ as our ship goes down. Sad thing is his greed and hunger for power will not allow him to see, he is just another Jon S. Corzine, another ex Govenor, ‘Ex Banker-Private equity’
who will be taken to the woodshed by the Bankers. Like Obama or Corizone, Romney thinks you can swim the Sharks. America is about to sleep with the fishes
Ron Paul 2012!
@ Jim Edwards…well done. A lot of people don’t understand libertarians including libertarians. I don’t think true libertarians concern themselves with race. They tend to be suspicious or distrustful of anyone who looks towards government solutions for even mundane issues.
Ron Paul, as well as those who oppose him, seem to forget the reason for our government. That is, among other reasons, “TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE”.
But it isn’t the government who can ensure justice on its own. A change has to occur in the “hearts and minds” of people so that justice can be automatic and self policing. Through their elected representatives the citizens approved of the Civil Rights Bill. It was a long drawn out battle, but Martin Luther King was able to change the “hearts and minds” of Americans.
Ron Paul is a good Constitutional steward, but he often doesn’t get it right. In our system of government, it is the people through their elected representatives who determined the direction of the Country, because any law requires the cooperation of the people.
Two things you’re wrong on, to start:
1. While you’re correct to note that most Republican candidates play lip-service to small government while supporting corporate welfare, and regulations written by industry lobbyists in DC meant to supercede tougher regs threatened at the state level — you’re wrong to paint Ron Paul and other libertarians with that brush.
Ron Paul, and most libertarians, generally believe that ALL of those intrusions into business you listed should be eliminated – so there is no hypocrisy. You may disagree about it being good policy, but it’s unfair to imply that libertarians have created a “racial exception” as the one area that government shouldn’t intervene in private property.
Libertarians generally OBJECT to government laws that proscribe behavior BEFORE there’s been any showing of actual harm to others. [e.g. – You must fill out these forms every month, all widgets must be labelled in such a manner, water can’t be moved from tank A to tank B without a permit, etc.]
Most libertarians DO NOT OBJECT to to holding a businessman’s feet to the fire for actual harm AFTER the fact [through criminal prosecution or lawsuits]. [e.g. – damages for employees injured on the job while working in unsafe conditions, jail time for committing fraud against customers / investors]
Sarbanes-Oxley, which Ron Paul has been critical of, has not been shown to have prevented any bad acts. Many believe it actually makes things worse, because potential investors believe they are being protected by the government – and so they neglect to do their own due diligence before making unsafe investments.
Although it was highly regulated, Enron was able to commit massive fraud. The guilty parties were prosecuted under ordinary state anti-fraud laws.
2. Dr Paul doesn’t object to the portion of the Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow. He has objected to a small portion of the Act that was never shown to be necessary, was overeaching, reduced personal freedom, and Dr. Paul says, has served as a precedent for more bad policy – like the Patriot Act.
Dr Paul has stated many times that Segregation was an evil perpetrated by government, and that it was appropriate, under the 14th Amendment, for the federal government to act to end persecution of racial minorities by unjust government laws.
Consider Woolworth’s – noted for sit-ins at segregated Southern lunch counters.
Woolworth’s was a nation-wide corporation. Why weren’t their lunch counters segregated in the North ? –> because greedy businesses want to sell hamburgers to anybody who’ll eat them !
Why were they segregated in the South ? –> because local LAW required them to be so !
Read “Parting the Waters”, by Taylor Branch [a great friend of the Civil Rights movement]. When the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee [“SNCC”] came to Memphis and demanded that downtown businesses integrate, the chamber of commerce answered, ‘we’d love to, but it’s against the law !’
As soon as the city council repealed the law, downtown businesses integrated.
So, while there is VERY CLEAR evidence that bad government laws prevented blacks from buying goods and services in a free market, there is no evidence that – once those bad laws were removed, that a properly functioning free market wouldn’t have stepped up to sell as many goods and services to blacks as the new consumers could afford.
The portion of the Act that tells businessmen who were obeying bad laws that they must not discriminate was not shown to be necessary.
Clearly, there were many individual examples of establishments whose proprietors did not want non-white business – even post-Civil Rights Act – in both the North and the South.
In an atmosphere of genuine, irrational hatred, however, is a black consumer really better off walking into a restaurant where the owner is so pissed off he may deliver tainted food – rather than just knowing the few places filled with klansmen that are best to avoid ?
It is worthwhile to note there is considerable evidence that a large, black middle-class that had previously provided services to Southern blacks was wiped out, post-Civil Rights Act. [because more prosperous, white-owned businesses were forced to take black customers.]
Libertarians, like Dr Paul, see a big difference between segregation and private discrimination.
If I don’t like people with green hair, all I can do is not socialize or do business with green-haired persons. A businessman who takes their business will incur an advantage and, have much higher profit margins than me. He gets rewarded for being open-minded, I get penalized for discriminating.
If the government doesn’t like green hair, people can find themselves in jail, on death row, with assets seized, their children may be taken away, they may be prevented from attending public schools, a law may be passed excluding them from ANY business, they may lose rights to vote, and due process. Legal segregation is orders of magnitude worse than what any one misguided, private individual can do.
Judge for yourself if you think Ron Paul is a racist
Ron Paul Reacts To Black Man’s Testimony Video
December 30, 2011
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has commented on the emotional testimony of a man who explained how Dr. Paul came to his rescue when know one else would purely because his wife was white and he was black.
The video, released this week not by the Paul campaign but by independent supporters, features James Williams explaining how close to forty years ago Ron Paul was the only physician who would help him when his pregnant wife became sick.
Mr Williams of Matagorda County, Texas, says he believes no one would come to his aid and deliver the couple’s child “because of the difference, me being black and her being white”.
Mr Williams then explains how Ron Paul stepped in and took care of his wife and even dealt with the medical expenses after the baby was tragically stillborn.
Watch the video below:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-reacts-to-black-mans-testimony-video.html