Ron Paul supporters, answer me this

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tray Dub, Sep 1, 2008.

  1. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the points he makes are logical about trying to force racial harmony through artificial quotas
  2. It's trying to "force" fairness and equality. Forced integration is one of the most obvious duh's of any political issue I can think of.

  3. Yea, that's how they teach it in schools.

    Constitutionally it is a violation of private property, and it infringes on personal freedoms.

    And the creation of federal laws against "hate crimes" and "racial profiling" laws only insight more hostility between the created groups.

    Aside from this philosophy, He's a strict constitutionalist, any time the Federal government uses coercion to achieve moral social goals he disapproves. It usually achieves negative results anyways.

    He would support it if a local state population voted to enact those laws.
  4. he makes a very legitamate arguement

    just because everyones going off the run of "OMG OMG RACIST RACIST" think about it

    if the employer dosnt want to higher a black person



  5. What a utopian philosophy. It is not looking to government to correct our sins. It's looking to government to correct others' sins. The act was protecting individual's rights, the rights of individual minorities. The law was evening the playing field, not tilting it in the blacks' (or any other groups') favor. It was ensuring the right to the pursuit of happiness for minorities. And it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure the right to the pursuit of happiness if a state's laws are infringing upon it.
  6. Believing that the government needs to step in to resolve racial tensions is silly, even in employment. Consumer watch groups and unions would do a better job of protecting people from racial discrimination, or at least pegging the companies that do it unabashedly. Don't like that such-and-such store won't hire blacks? Don't support them with your money, the same way I'd hope you'd refrain from buying products put out by a company guilty of pollution or animal-testing.

    Coercive integration is just as evil as coercive segregation, and yields similar results ("You mean holding a peaceful marijuana user in jail for 20 years turns them into a criminal? I had no idea!" // "No sir, I have no idea why our crime rates went up after we forced the school to bus in inner-city kids at the taxpayers expense"). Racism and sexism are much like drug use in that they can't be successfully legislated into a oblivion. They simply need to be allowed breathing room to work themselves out organically; and they will. Or rather, they would, if we had a rational government philosophy.

  7. Did you just say that crime increases with education of inner city kids? Anywho, this is the problem with strict libertarianism. It's utopian (no, that's not my word of the day). For years, unions and consumer watch groups didn't fix the problem. There simply wasn't enough interest in protecting black people's rights to make it financially imperative. (Consumers are typically too ignorant for an unregulated market to work as a whole, but I don't want to get into the free market debate.)

  8. If in order to protect the "rights" of one individual you have to infringe on the rights of another? That doesn't sound... right.

    But as said, the market could easily handle racism without the federal government. You think with todays minority population's purchasing power any business could get away with it?

    As even socialist MLK said,

    The markets are not free though, and because we repeatedly choose to allow moral decisions to be passed by the centralized super state, the War on Drugs was used as a racial war and perpetuated the violence and poverty of minority communities, feeding more tax-dollars into the welfare programs. Funny how they are connected like that...

  9. When I'm not high I'm gonna come back and respond. You're a smart cookie though.
  10. But it's also racism. Which hurts people and should therefore be no more allowed than murder or robbery.
  11. #12 Chaohinon, Sep 1, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2008
    Lol, that isn't an education. It's arbitrary "diversity" programming that only serves to put schools further at the mercy of the government
  12. 1) It is not racism.

    2) Are you trying to tell me that someone who has racist thoughts is worse than a murderer or a thief? I can not believe how fucked up our world has become. Racism is a state of mind, while thievery is an actual crime. Murder is an actual crime.

    I can't believe anyone would say something like that, but I guess it is all thanks to our public schools.

    All that Ron Paul is saying is that it is wrong for the government to initiate force on anyone. The fact that they will attempt to stick you in jail if you do not follow the equal opportunity employment measures is simply ludicrous. Equal opportunity employment hurts employers and honestly hurts the people who it is intended to "save".

    You know when you feed a squirrel? The next day it comes back and you feed it again? And again? And eventually it forgets how to survive on its own? Racist government programs are kind of like that.

  13. It isn't? Not hiring someone purely because of the color of their skin isn't racism? Oook then, chief.

    I never said it was worse than murder or thievery. I said discrimination is a crime just like them and should not be allowed. It hurts people and limits their ability to live happy lives.

    I'm sure you wouldn't be very happy if you were white and lived in a society with a black majority and suddenly you were getting fired/refused jobs and denied entry to places because of the color of your skin. That's interfering with someone's freedom, and nobody should have that effect on someone else.

    I'm not sure why I'm bothering debating with a paulbot though. Common sense seems to go out the window whenever this happens.
  14. It is not your RIGHT to have a job. It is not your RIGHT to be allowed onto someone's property. It is not your RIGHT. The only RIGHTS you have include any actions that do not initiate aggression with another human being. Is the business owner lying to the black man that wants a job? Is he physically forcing the black man to do anything? No, he is not infringing upon anyones' rights.

    Who the fuck do you think you are? Telling someone else what they can and can not do? Why can't you govern your own life and allow others to do the same? What qualifies you for this high-horse position? Tell me that?

    You need to fucking get over yourself. Stop trying to control the world, learn to control yourself.
  15. But I wouldn't get a gun and go back down to that store and force them to hire me.

    You can't use a gun to force equality. It's illogical, immoral, and according to the Constitution, illegal.

  16. Positive discrimination is just as bad as negative discrimination, especially when the Federal government gets involved.

    Your logic is the antithesis to the founding body of politics that makes this country unique... you know, freedom...

    Constitutionally speaking, nobody has the right to be employed, fed, or healed, but we've converted the Federal government into a mass welfare machine that best serves the people running it.

  17. Look at when this law was passed. Not today, today is irrelevant (and that's not conceding that the law is unnecessary). The markets were not handling racism in any shape or form. Most employers were not letting blacks work, or if they could work, in poorer conditions with reduced wage. These employers relied on each other for support. Because yeah, if a small number of businesses are run in a racist fashion, The market will swallow them. But since black purchasing power was greatly reduced (not just at the time this law was passes, for centuries), they had no say. Eventually, they had enough of a say to change the bus laws, but that a. took years, and b. took massive organization and participation. Imagine how long and how amazingly difficult it would've been to boycott each and every industry.

    Plus, we're missing the point. Constitutionally, this law was needed. It stopped the infringement on blacks' right to pursuit of happiness. Which, I think you acknowledged. But it didn't infringe on the racist whites' rights. Businesses are subject to regulation. Which has been held to be constitutional. This was simply a regulation to ensure that these industries were being run constitutionally.

    Arbitrary? The inner city schools are typically much worse than the schools these kids were being bussed to. They deserve the same education the next district over gets. Plus, this law wasn't just about taking black kids out of the hood and into schools. It was about letting the black kid who lived next door to the school walk to school, instead of taking a 30 minute bus ride into the poor part of town so he could be "separate but equal".
  18. Constitutionally nothing has been done. If they want to go through the process to amend the constitution, and actually determine that the employer has no rights over who they can or cannot hire, then let them do so. If that was the case, Ron Paul would support the amendment.

    Instead the system is abused by, like I said in my last post of other thread, activist judges who ignore the constitution in order to create this illusion that politicians rather than the people have the ability to change social policy. And like I said earlier, for surrendering our constitutional rights we have allowed the Federal government to abuse the people in many ways by enacting overarching social regulations, like the war on drugs.

    The proper thing to do would be to bring it to Congress to start the amendment process, receive 2/3rds votes in approval, and then receive 3/4ths ratification from states. Otherwise, the laws should be carried out by the states themselves.

    Using coercion upon a free and democratic peoples, no matter how heinous their beliefs, was never the intent of our Constitution.
  19. #20 nfs924, Sep 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 2, 2008
    Where I live (Maryland), city schools have been receiving significantly MORE funding than county schools, for many years. Despite that, graduation rates are still lower in the cities than the counties, by a huge margin. Also, graduation rates in the city haven't even increased, they actually have fallen. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what you are saying, at least it's that way in MD.

Share This Page