You’re lumping all “public places” together. Should voting venues be forcibly desegregated, of course. I don’t think Ron Paul would disagree with that.
Why have a constitution?
Constitutions != values.
Tough, he can not pick and choose from the act.
Is there a specific part of the Constitution that guarantees hotel owners the right to refuse service to people of certain races, religions, or sexes?
Why not?
Because he has to enforce all of it if he’s POTUS.
It’s the law now, sorry that you missed 1964.
So your main gripe is not his argument against the CRA, but the fact that he holds these views and is running for president.
So by your standards a potential POTUS can not:
-
think marijuana should be legal
-
oppose the part of the NDAA that allows indefinite detentions
-
oppose various provisions of the Patriot Act
Your ideal candidate believes 100 % in every law that he or she will have to enforce as president. Seems a bit much.
Does Ron Paul believe that Presidents may selectively enforce laws that Congress has passed? Or does your leader believe that Presidents are obligated to follow the law, even though they may disagree with the law and work to change it?
Now I’ve heard everything - the Left invoking “American values” to justify a law.
The “American values” argument has been used to oppose abortion, censor the mail and the press, require religious and loyalty tests for public officials, permit religious indoctrination in public schools, prevent women from voting, and so on, all of which eventually crash and burn when people notice they’re unconstitutional.
Civil rights are guaranteed not by someone’s definition of “American values” or by any particular piece of legislation, but by a plain reading of the Constitution (as amended). It is reasonable to ask why the ostensible goals of the CRA could not have been achieved simply by finding discriminatory practices to be unconstitutional.
Because it requires active and ongoing enforcement. And the people who wrote the reconstruction amendments knew that. That’s why the last section of each amendment empowers Congress to enforce the amendments with legislation.
Once again Ron manages to come off as a lunatic in the media because he did not explain his position, libertarians have the worst public relations!
Maybe everyone knows the libertarian position already, but I’ll try to explain this.
Libertarians do not in any shape or form believe government should be allowed to discriminate based on race in dealing with citizens, however they do believe individuals and private businesses should be able to. So for instance a restaurant could enact a blacks only policy and refuse service to whoever they want, a store could decide only to allow asian shoppers, and a printing company to employ only whites. And the public of course can boycott these racist businesses and encourage everyone to avoid them, but not use the force of law to infringe on what they see as the right of private business and individuals to discriminate.
This of course is a giant mess in the real world, but it does not mean libertarians support racial discrimination just that they believe you have the right to do it.
Yeah. Cause the KKK vote is pretty strong…
We already knew Ron Paul was wacky beyond words, and the linkage between 1964 Civil Rights Act and 2001 Patriot Act just confirms that. As some cynics say about string theory, the idea is so ill-conceived, “it isn’t even wrong.” 
But I’ll bet you can walk into almost any large saloon or revivalist tent in Texas and find someone espousing “ideas” just as wacky as Paul’s. The problem isn’t Paul, it’s the American voters who’ve placed this nutcase near the top of a dismal troop of Presidential contenders. :smack:
Can anyone explain why, with Paul surging, FoxNews liked to laugh “hold the Paul stories, but if Sarah Palin turns up give us a call”? Instead, an honest debate on Paulism might have put this monster to rest a while ago.
Hi, John. I’ll guess your IQ is half again as large as that of Emac, yet you remind me of him sometimes. You like to snark at progressive-thinking rationalists, yet do so from the sidelines, leaving yourself room to scamper away from any charges that you are a right-wing thinker yourself.
I think I got this. Libertarians think businesses have the liberty to discriminate, but a libertarian government must also give them the liberty not to discriminate as well? So libertarianism is all about liberty. A black person may not have the liberty to eat at a discriminating restaurant but he does have the liberty to solicit charities and get airfare for a one-way ticket back to Africa. Liberty is so sweet.
grude, if your post was a clever troll, Bravo! If, OTOH, you’re a supporter of Paulism or libertarianism, or whatever you want to call it, I’m afraid your clarification is unlikely to win converts.
Arguably the 4th, 5th, 13th, and 14th combine to form the idea that private property is sacrosanct. The very idea of private property is the ability to invite those whom you choose and exclude those you don’t. If the government makes those decisions for you, then they have infringed on your property right.
The 13th amendment argument is weakest, but it is somewhat there because forcing a hotel owner to tender service to a particular person against his will is tantamount to slavery (again weak argument, but similar to the 13th amendment and the conscription argument both shot down by SCOTUS).
I think a better question is what Article II power gives Congress the right to compel hotel owners to grant service to groups that they deem worthy of protection (I know, interstate commerce, but embrace the original intent here. That is the argument).
We understand the libertarian position. We just think it’s wrong.
For most of us, it’s not enough to say “I don’t like racial discrimination but I’ll just stand idly by and allow it to occur while doing nothing to prevent it.” To us, this is condoning racial discrimination.
If you feel that racial discrimination is a serious problem, you don’t just think bad thoughts about it. You enact laws against it and you enforce those laws. You take positive action to stop it.
I can’t understand a philosophical system that’s willing to criminalize stealing a car but isn’t willing to criminalize racial discrimination. To me, racial discrimination is a much more serious problem than car theft.
Huh. I’m not sure of the Constitutional principle that requires us to believe that those various amendments mean things that aren’t actually written down, but the Article I powers actually confer less power than what the text of the Constitution actually says. I wonder if Ron “Mr. Constitution” Paul can explain that one, especially since the courts have viewed Title II as not controversial for decades and decades.
To be fair, this thread is way more neutral and rational than the usual way these threads go, in which anyone who defends the libertarian side of this issue is called a racist.
But still, something that baffles me about this issue is that if the KKK or aryan nation wants to go marching down town square talking about how they want to kill all non-whites, and someone wants to have them barred from doing it, (many) liberals will say “Well it sucks, they’re horrible people, but it’s important they we don’t infringe upon their rights here, even if it’s the right to be a dick”
Someone with a knee-jerk view of the subject could say “wtf, you racists, you want the KKK to spread their message?!”, but a more nuanced view acknowledges that we lose more by having the freedom of speech infringed than by having some assholes spout their hatred.
But if a libertarian suggests that some person be allowed to act in a similar assholic way with their own private business, then the libertarian must be a racist that wants to empower other racists. But it’s really quite similar - they think the solution (removing the freedom of a private business to regulate their own affairs) is more harmful than the problem.
Now you still may legitimately disagree that the issues are the same, but just as some soccer mom might think the ACLU is nuts for trying to empower racists, a similar principle is at stake here.
Libertarians only want to remove the restriction on private businesses. They don’t want to re-segregate schools or keep blacks from voting or anything like that. In fact quite the opposite - libertarians would be talking about how we needed to de-segregate schools, de-segregate public busses, stamp out the practices of discouraging black voters, etc. long before the general public would.
I sympathize with you Little Nemo; to understand the system you have to adopt the mindset of someone for whom property rights are everything, but where your ownership of your own body imposes no obligation on them beyond kibitzer’s pleasure and no trespassing.
I evny you for not understanding their philosophy, but if you insist on learning it just repeat the mantra:
Greed is good. Governments exist only to protect property rights. The Market’s decision is Sacrosanct. Greed is God, and the Market is His Prophet.
It may sound like I’m caricaturing them, but even the more moderate of them aren’t far from this stereotype. Perhaps I should start a thread on market paradoxes, hoping that once they recognize the absurdity of extreme free-market thinking, thy’d acquire better critical skills.