Ron Paul for President--Part IV

Don't forget about the war on Christmas, too!

 

Sweet, I just graduated. Can you get me a job? I can't relocate but I can travel.

Wouldn't the opposite happen? If regulations are too tight in one state, won't they just pack up and move to another where its looser? What good does that do economically to the state with tighter regulations? They can lower theirs to try and keep up, but then you're just stuck in a catch-22 where every state will eventually pay little attention to environmental standards.

Yes, I did. That's awesome.

Um, they all do different work? EPA is good at measuring air quality while an agency like NOAA can take meteorological assessments. They can relay that to the GIS people so they can then make a model over where the current will take the chlorine gas cloud. Locals and state officials will take the lead on who/what/where to evacuate, while FEMA will assist with long-term shelter and assistance to those whose homes are now unsafe to occupy.

Besides, only when water is involved will the Coast Guard ever respond. Otherwise the EPA generally takes the lead on oil spills.

We got that with DHS, it kinda blows. And like I previously stated, they all have different objectives when there's not a catastrophe.

It's cheaper and they have less liability?

oh, if you say so.

 

What can I say? I hate whitey.

 

Dude, it's been well and truly established that libertarians are not the kind of people to be intimidated by common sense, history, or reality.

 

While I personally support the Civil Rights Act (though not all interpretations and mandates pursuant or arising under it), there is no question that the commerce clause has been used to expand federal power at the expense of the states (as well as individual rights) in ways that upset the original balance of power envisioned by the framers in this regard. This is not to suggest that the balance envisioned by the framers was necessarily the correct one, nor that subsequent historical events (e.g., the civil war) and constitutional amendments (especially the 14th Amendment) did not alter the equation. Rather, what I am suggesting is that there were legitimate constitutional issues and concerns with regard to such a broad assumption of power by the federal government, and those concerns could lead someone of a libertarian persuasion to take a position against the Civil Rights Act without being necessarily influenced by any racist motives.

To the extent the issue has to do with a candidates views on race, I believe a more pertinent set of questions would revolve around any comments they have made on race issue per se, as well as the positions they might have taken with regard to the expansion of individual liberties, including through the application of many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment? I would personally be suspicious of a candidate who, in the guise of libertarian beliefs, would oppose the Civil Rights Acts while at the same time would oppose limitations on the power of the states to infringe on individual rights.

On the broader issue of the role of government in people's lives, as I have stated before, I believe that libertarians must be mindful of any clogs in a society created due to past historical practices and events, and not pretend that free market theory can work in the ways suggested in theory when those clogs undermine the conditions precedent that apply to the theory in the first place. The greater the distance between reality and the conditions precedent for free market competition to produce the desired results, the less relevant the conclusions suggested by free market theory. And, arguably, the greater the role of government to bring the picture closer to what market theory requires in this regard.

In any case, I believe the greatest threat to the proper functioning of American government right now lies elsewhere. In my estimation, these traditional arguments and issues (about which a president will not be able to bring about any radical changes as it relates to reducing, as opposed to expanding, governmental power) are secondary for now. At the moment, I view American government to have been corrupted and its process to prevent such corruptions to be nearly broken down. On this important issue, which to me overrides others, I see Ron Paul having the correct views. Not surprisingly, he will be experiencing a lot of mud slinging the more he appears to be a serious candidate challenging those who are essentially directing American foreign policy (and consequently aspects relevant to the domestic functioning of the government itself).

 

Excellent post. I am intrigued by your third paragraph. Can you give any examples of this?

 

So the way to handle discrimination is to move? Isn't that like saying, "America, Love It or Leave It?" And why should I have to move if I'm discriminated against? Aren't you assuming that people can just pick up and move to another state willy nilly?

 

I totally disagree with this. Have you ever heard stories about jazz or blues musicians traveling through the South during Jim Crow, who weren't allowed to stay at white hotels? They talk about the humiliation and disrespect at not being treated like a man or human being by such racist policies. They were definitely harmed and to say otherwise is disingenuous. Give a listen to Louis Armstrong's "Black and Blue" for reference.

Besides, you don't get to determine how other people react to discrimination, so you don't really know whether or not someone, with any certainty, has been harmed.

And if I wasn't allowed in a restaurant or hotel because of my race I would be hurt.

 

Go back and read my reply. I am merely stating it as an option. Some people like to think that racist oppression is inescapable. Rarely has it ever been so in the US for the last 100 years. Of course it is not ideal...I wouldn't want to move either. But the option exists.

 

But why put the burden on the person who is being discriminated against? I agree that moving is always an option. But it kind of seems like telling a rape victim that she needs to move if she wants to avoid being raped again. If I was being discriminated against, I would refuse to move and instead seek to remedy the solution through other means. If I'm discriminated against AND I move, I've been doubly hurt and doubly troubled by some stupid discrimination. And we must acknowledge that some minorities don't have the economic mobility that others have. So telling a poor black person to move doesn't really solve the issue.

And I believe that Jim Crow laws were part of an institutionalized racism, with businesses, governments and other civil organizations exercising racism over an entire group of people, so it seems to be more than just individuals discriminating on their own personal property. Rather, it was an entire institution of racism that utilized all available institutions to perpetuate racism and discrimination. And I think this is unconstitutional because it subsumes an individual to a group, while the Constitution is careful to guarantee individual rights.

 

No. Actually, you cannot oppose the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virgina, or the Fourteenth Amendment without being a hardcore racist.

You can SAY you're not a racist, of course. One of the effects of public opinion turning against open racism is that people couldn't just talk about sharing swimming pools and the threat to white womanhood without suffering a certain amount of public disapproval. So people dance around it these days.

I think that's preferable to honesty, because at least hypocrisy admits a certain standard of decency that is far and above what it was in, say, 1963. Still, it does make it a little bit harder to tell whether someone's a racist, since they don't have the common courtesy to come right out and say it anymore.

But after fifty years of federal rulings and legislation, after a hundred years of malignant neglect on the federal level and active oppression on the state level, it is utterly impossible to oppose these things without being motivated by racism. The benefits were so obvious, and the disadvantages had threatened the foundations of the Republic on numerous occasions. There is an unbroken line of consistent political thought in America from the ideals of the Declaration of Independence to the Civil Rights Act that expanded the blessings and benefits of America from landed white men to every citizen. Without that progress, the United States would today be a couple of reasonable countries and a passel of powerless, barbarian, autocratic shitholes.

So when you hear a blanket statement and a blanket conclusion along the lines of "Opposing the Civil Rights Act makes you a racist," it's coming from a knowledge of history paid for in blood by heroes. Heroes who, if Ron Paul had his way, would have lived and died for nothing.

So, uh, ******** Ron Paul.

What an amusing coincidence. That happens to be Ron Paul's position.

*laugh track*

Where? Iran? Iraq? Italy? Jamaica? Japan?

Did I miss a country? Nope, don't seem to have done.

 

Mississippi, we're lookin' at YOU!

 

But see...humiliation and disrespect happen to everybody, for millions of different reasons beyond just race. You should talk to high school counselors and ask them how many cases of student depression come from disrespect and distrust by authority figures and parents...for the sole fact that they are teenagers. I knew a girl in my Materials Engineering major at Cal Poly...that ended up dying her hair from blond to brown after her first semester because none of her teachers treated her like the intelligent student that she was. She shouldn't have to dye her hair...Just like black people shouldn't have to move. It is unfair, and mean to treat people based on their condition or characteristics, rather than their true merits....whether that is homelessness or poverty, hair color, disability, race, lingual background, cultural ties, religious choices, etc.

But that doesn't mean we should be protecting them through force of government. You see, when you use government force to decide which groups can't be discriminated against, you are, by the same decision, forcing property owners to do something with their own property...which they may or may not agree with.

I personally think that personal liberty trumps hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are always going to happen, no matter how much protection you provide the victim. If you start protecting people because of their skin color, then they will be hurt because they are treated badly because of their economic class. If you start demanding fair treatment of poor people, then they are going to be hurt because of unfair treatment because of their hair color. If you ban unfair treatment of all of those, people will be be hurt because of unfair treatment by the way they are looked at.

Yes, it sucks that sometimes people are discriminated against. I have been there, and know how it feels. But I would rather deal with hurt feelings, than take away someone's personal liberty. Hurt feelings are going to happen no matter what...and we as people need to learn how to deal with them. However, IMO, losing individual liberty is not acceptable. Once you take away parts of someone's liberty (even in the name of hurt feelings), it becomes easier to take away even more. As ideal as it would be to have everybody act the way you want them to, I will never force someone to do so. I would rather kill myself than force someone to think a certain way.

Of course, all of this is talking about private business and private property. If you want to talk about government property, that is something completely different. Government property should be held to the standards of the people that give that government power. I don't care at all what standards the government uses for its own property...as I want to abolish 90% of it anyway

 

Its good for you to finally admit that you can't think for yourself. Confession is the first step to repentance.

 

Actually, according to Al Sharpton (JKWD), you can't even compare FEMA response in San Diego to Katrina without being a racist. You probably can't be a republican and not be a racist. You probably can't even be white without being racist.

Rational argument does not work with him, because he is, of course, Al Sharpton.

 

Defined what constitutes "harm".

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY75siz6KuuapqkDMdrAZ_nHBXQAD8TNAHSG0

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul on Sunday defended his efforts in Congress to bring home money to his Texas district, despite his long-held aversion to big government and congressional votes to reign in federal spending.

"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's "Meet the Press" about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.

 

Forget that, he owes the world an apology for saying that Isiah Thomas shouldn't be fired as NY Knicks GM/Coach.

Well I think he shouldn't be either, but I'm a Nets fan, so it's great comedy that that 99.9999999% of the world knows Thomas should be fired, and that the one person who doesn't happens to own the team.


In any event, back to Paul.

Regarding earmarks, I think they suck, but remember earmarks do not increase government spending overall. They simply remove the discretion of the agency that gets the money. Now, of course that can be really really bad as we well know.

I also like how we hold Paul to this impossible standard, whereas all the other candidates skate by. And we also talk about how racist Paul is, when if you go by your mom's and teacher's advice (actions speak louder than words), he's demonstrably the least racist candidate by far.

 

That's why I married a black woman. So I wouldn't be a racist anymore.

Well, that, plus the hot, hot, HOT interracial sex.

 

That's not true.