The true cause of racism is precisely failing to feel and understand the human toll of it. If you find yourself blind to that in your pursuit of “liberty”, then what you’re pursuing isn’t actually liberty at all.
Yea I didn’t get that either, what does matter whether he opposes the drug war based on it being morally wrong and unconstitutional or if he opposes it only because it is enforced unfairly which hurts minorities?
According to Ron Paul, the true cause of racism is collectivism, the human tendency to view people not as individuals of their own rights but as members of a heterogeneous group with similar traits.
If humans never grouped people, Paul is saying, then racism would not be possible. A world in which there were no collectivist sentiment would be ideal, and such a would would be one without racism.
nevermind, question answered above
Yes, and if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump it’s ass a-hoppin’. However, they don’t. People also still group things, largely by looking at them. That’s why it’s naive to think that ignoring it on a federal level will make the problem go away. So, he’s right as to the source of racism as far as he goes. He’s totally wrong on a solution to the problem because he doesn’t go far enough into the problem at all.
ETA: To be totally clear, I think that he is of the mindset that the constitution does not allow the Federal gov’t to get involved in the solution. He’s wrong, but that’s a totally different thread, I think.
And this is precisely why Chronos made the comment about unicorns and perpetual motion machines earlier: Ron Paul believes in a fanatastical world where people are pure at heart and just want to get along if only the big bad ol’ government would leave them alone. His ideas are esoteric intellectual exercises that don’t allow for selfishness and greed.
His opposition to the Civil Rights Act is a perfect illustration of how disconnected he is from reality. The argument is if a business owner decides to refuse his services to someone because of their race, sex, religion or whatever, fine, let the market decide. If society finds it objectionable the business owner will realize how much more money he would make by not being discriminatory and will start offering his services to everyone regardless of what they look like or where they are from, etc.
He doesn’t allow for things like ignorance or hatred in his naive little thought exercise.
I would say the scenario you described above definitely allows for things like ignorance or hatred. In fact, it presupposes them - otherwise why would the owner decide to refuse his service to someone because of their race, sex, religion or whatever?
No, the big flaw is that he assumes that we live in a world where that would work. We have the real-world experiment right in front of us: It didn’t.
He thinks market forces would prevent the business owner from being able to have business success because most people would find his bias objectionable. Why, all it would take is someone opening a restaurant next door that would be open to everyone and the bad ol’ segregationist would magically go out of business, because people are really kind hearted and full of love for all races.
A truly free market will always prevail, don’tcha know?
Ron Paul seems to have never heard of this guy or his very successful restaurant where black people were refused service. It seems there were enough ignorant and hate-filled people to keep it going for quite a few years.
Your criticism is misguided. The restaurant next door will not prosper because of people’s kind-heartedness and love. It will prosper because its customer base is wider. And the segregationist restaurant may not go out of business, but so what? There will be a restaurant next door that will accept everyone.
Let me be clear: I’m not proposing a solution to racism, nor am I suggesting that we deal with it in any particular way. My remarks are only about how different people identify the issue of racism. I contend that it is a social problem that people should understand on multiple levels, including the personal level how of racism isn’t simply a phenomenon experienced if they are in prison or if they are applying for a job. There is also the aspect of social isolation, like not being able to hail a cab at night, being regarded with suspicion in routine activities, dealing all the time with prejudicial concepts or ideas, and so on.
I think Ron Paul just plain doesn’t understand the social burden of having racism within a society, because his view of society breaks down to two simple measurements of a society having “more liberty” or “less liberty,” and “more market forces” or “less market forces.” And when there is “more liberty” and “freer markets,” the social problem of racism is subordinated or hand-waved away due to a thoroughly implausible idea that racism disappears when government gets out of the way of liberty and racism. It just doesn’t work that way. It has been tried.
This is just too rich not to comment on. If Paul opposes the grouping of people, why does he treat homosexuals in such an insulting and ridiculous way? Seriously, refusing to use a toilet at the house of a supporter of his simply because the guy is homosexual?
I think this is the key. The Federal Government did get out of the way in 1878 or thereabouts when they agreed to remove Federal troops from the South. Reconstruction ended, and the Southern states treated their black populations like less than citizens again, with Jim Crow laws, poll taxs to prevent black voting, and all that crap. It wasn’t until the 1960s that blacks got their full rights back.
I’m not sure I will ever understand why Paul mistrusts the Federal government but not state governments. I do think the Feds overreach at times, but as we’ve seen time and time again, state governments get into our business just as much (the various states’ sterilization programs, preventing whites and blacks from marrying, etc).
Typo: I meant to say, “when the government gets out of the way of liberty and the market.”
To those black (and white) supporters of Ron Paul who are fine with his plans to “reform” (ultimately eliminate) the Food and Drug Administration and let the market handle problems of drug safety and effectiveness: there’s an interesting news story lately about counterfeiting of Roche’s cancer drug Avastin. The FDA has recently warned oncologists and other buyers of this drug about the foreign counterfeits and is investigating how they’ve entered the market (such counterfeits have been shown in the past to contain no active drug, but do have bacterial contamination that could cause serious illness). The “market” hasn’t been able to handle this threat, but no biggie according to Ron Paul (who wants to expand foreign drug imports).
"Paul proposes sharply reducing the government’s regulation of medications and health supplements by reducing the role of, and ultimately eliminating, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).[276] In a 2011 interview, Paul said, “Well, the FDA just serves the drug companies, you know… [and] they also prevent drugs from coming on the market [until] 10, 15 years later than other countries have it. So, yes, government just gets in the way on so many of those things.”
Someone should ask Ron if he rejects the FDA “getting in the way” of access to counterfeit drugs.
So, back to the question at hand: how strong is African-Americans support for Ron Paul?
I found some exit polls from the primaries so far, only to find… that African-Americans have made up less than one percent of the electorate in the primaries so far: NH, NV, SC, IA, and FL. I couldn’t find detailed data for Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, or Colorado. I was sure the number of African American voters would be low, but that surprised me.
So I kept looking, and the best I’ve been able to come up with is a CNN poll from December, in which they tested Obama head-to-head with various Republicans, and broke some of the results down by non-Whites. Ron Paul did the best of the group, with him receiving 25% of the non-White vote against Obama. (Non-Whites preferred Bachmann, Perry, Romney, and Gingrich against Obama in the 15-20% range, so Paul’s support may not be much, but it is a significant difference from other GOP candidates.) Link.
On the other hand, here’s a poll from the same period that found Ron Paul getting 10% of the black vote in a head to head race against Obama (Gingrich and Romney would have gotten 12-13% of the black vote when going up against Obama). So that suggests Paul doesn’t do significantly worse than the others, but certainly no better.
You do know that this actually happened, right? There really were segregated restaurants. And the Pollyanna unicorn scenario you’ve outlined did not, in fact, come to pass. At all. Because it is dumb, and fundamentally misunderstands human nature.
Sure. Cuz if you remove the restrictions today, all the restaurants will immediately segregate themselves. After all, it’s human nature. Right?
You seem to misunderstand. Let’s review:
You made a claim. It was falsified by history. News flash: just because you believe something to be true doesn’t mean it is true. Even if a theory backs it up. You see that’s what scientists do: they compare theories to evidence and reject them if they are wanting. The theory is rejected that is, not the observation. Modern conservatives and old school Marxists have difficulty with this concept.
I agree though that segregation wouldn’t be likely to reappear in significant ways in 2012, regardless of the law. But I want to stress the importance of empiricism: a theme which is lost to economic and religious fundamentalists.
I thought the segregation was by law, not necessarily a business decision.
When I first moved to the United States about 25 years ago, I thought that if black people were being discriminated against by some firms, surely the other firms that hired them would get a more productive worker at a lower wage and be able to out-compete the discriminators. Then I entered the workforce and saw that things were a lot more complicated than that.
I once took a course in economics on the economics of discrimination. Even in a free market, if whites place a high value on not associating as equals with black, the company that hires a single black person in a job category previously all white, will soon lose all the white workers or have to pay them much more to tolerate the black person, and will be at a severe disadvantage competitively. Same thing happens if you hire a black salesperson. If all the buyers are white they will require a discount to do business with your firm.
Even in the mid 1990s I worked in the sales organization (I was in the technical and finance support side, not in sale directly) that sold telecoms services to large commercial customers (primarily companies with 5000+ employees). There was pretty much a universal belief that black salespersons couldn’t cut it because the customers didn’t want to deal with them.