Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Destroyed Privacy

Pamela - posted on 01/01/2012 ( 18 moms have responded )

1,496

104

41

I thought had posted this once but it didn't show up. Oh well, anyhow.

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.

"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."

Paul's comments on how to improve race relations come at an interesting time, following the recent revelation of a series of racist and homophobic newsletters that were published under his name in the 1980s and 1990s. Paul has denounced the newsletters, and he says that although he was the publisher, he didn't write or review any of the offensive comments in them -- only the "economic parts."

"I'm the true civil libertarian when it comes to [race relations], and I think that people ought to, you know, look at my position there, rather than dwelling on eight sentences that I didn't write and didn't authorize and have been, you know, apologetic about," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on Sunday. "Because it shouldn't have been there, and it was terrible stuff."

What do you all think about Ron Paul and his stance in regards to the Civil Rights Act of '64? Let's try to not flame on this - I think Paul might have some thoughtful analysis of some of the problems facing us as a nation - particularly in regards to race issues (though honestly I'm not sure how much I agree with them). So let's try to have a reasoned conversation...

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Karla - posted on 01/02/2012

1,555

48

83

I agree with Krista E, when I hear any libertarian idea I think: that sounds good, IF all people were good, but they are not.



I think libertarian government might work in small villages, but not large communities, and certainly not in large nations.



It's a very Pollyanna notion to believe the Civil Rights progress that has been made would have happened with out government regulations. It's also very naive to believe rights and liberties would balance of their own accord.



I find it particularly frustrating that those that are libertarian or follow libertarian teachings completely ignore human history with it's failing and discrimination, etc.



Women haven't even had the vote for 100 years yet... I find that amazing and I do take it for granted. We need to remember the progress that has happened and the reason it happened.

Rosie - posted on 01/02/2012

8,657

30

315

i hate how this man is so reasonable on some issues, and then completely ignorant on others. to say that the civil rights act should've never happened shows how out of touch he is with the need of the people to have some type of government. does he think we don't need laws against murder as well? are we just all supposed to be wonderful people who do what is right, just because it is? that's what gets me about his ideas. who the fuck in their right mind thinks that without actual LAWS regarding minorities and women that things would be where they are today. not that today is perfect, but damn, it's a hell of a lot better than back then.
but of course plenty of politicians out there seem to think that corporations can regulate themselves and will magically not try to hoard millions of our tax dollars in offshore accounts MORE than they do now!! it's idiocy, pure idiocy.

Tah - posted on 06/14/2012

7,412

22

357

Yes what Karla said....not about who you live next door to..more so who you can't live next to...

Karla - posted on 06/11/2012

1,555

48

83

Blacks couldn't live where they wanted so they had to live around blacks that were black trash. Would a well to do white family live next door to a white trash family? No but why should a well to do black person have to live next do those they didn't want to.

Honestly, I never thought it was about who they would "live next door" too. It was about being able to afford a house and being refused a loan, or even having laws against home ownership in that neighborhood. It was a total and complete disenfranchisement of the race. For instance, I could care less who I live next door too, but if I can afford a nice home, then I expect to be allowed to purchase one no matter where it is.

Maybe the law wouldn't have been needed if white americans would stop looking at color and hire those who could do the job.

Yeah, someone should have told them that! lol Just kidding.
Dealing with prejudice (aka hate) is not so simple; and that's what people like Ron Paul don't seem to get. For all of society to have liberty and freedom, sometimes the government must step in to protect those rights for the disenfranchised people, and that means telling prejudice people that they are wrong and must adjust their thinking.

Karla - posted on 01/07/2012

1,555

48

83

Megan, what I always like to ask people who think Ron Paul's libertarian ways are great this question, "Name one 1st World Industrialized Nation that is libertarian." That usually stumps them. There are tons of reasons that large nations are not libertarian; the final thing being that it doesn't work.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

18 Comments

View replies by

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 06/11/2012

6,434

12

67

Janessa, no offense, but the phrase 'Preaching to the choir' comes to mind. Many of us know the lasting affects of Jim Crow laws and Brown V board didn't do too much when they tried to overthrow the ruling of Plessy V Ferguson which started the idealogy that separate but equal was constitutional.

Janessa - posted on 06/11/2012

444

38

28

I like Ron Paul but I so disagree with him. Becaue Jim Crow tore families apart. Just lalk to a black family how there own family members had to pass and leave them behinde and lied about their hertiage just so they can have a great life. That is why many black americans do not feel or agree with him. Many blacks that were smart and educated could not get jobs base on the color of his or her skin. Blacks couldn't live where they wanted so they had to live around blacks that were black trash. Would a well to do white family live next door to a white trash family? No but why should a well to do black person have to live next do those they didn't want to. Americas have to realize the act was to help those who were looked at because of ones color of skin all minorties since than should be glad something like that happened it wasn't just for blacks but all others. Maybe the law wouldn't have been needed if white americans would stop looking at color and hire those who could do the job.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 03/12/2012

6,434

12

67

We'd also lose a lot of government funded programs and health insurance. It's hard enough staying healthy in America without having to worry about that stuff.

Pamela - posted on 03/12/2012

1,496

104

41

Many people adore Ron Paul (and ardently so) - but the main reason is because of his stand on the wars our country has a habit of getting into. This is the ONLY thing I can agree with Paul on - everything else is hard right. Blech. A Paul administration would throw us back to the pre-civil rights days and I don't want to go there.

[deleted account]

Looking back at this and now how he feels that there is no such thing as right to privacy, what is he griping about?



OH, I see. WE only want right to privacy when it's white anglo-saxon Catholics (some Protestants but not all). Any other group, their right to privacy should be abolished!

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 01/07/2012

6,434

12

67

Good point Karla. Here in Canada our PM is Conservative. Most don't like him, but things do get done here. DH compairs Harper's politics to American politics, but he's Canadian so I allow him to do that sometimes.

I believe the issue we have in the US is that neither party wants to work together. Obama wants everyone to work together and tries to make compromises, but the Republicans just want everything their way. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of that party. And if anyone wants to think otherwise just look at how Obama had to beg the House Republicans to come back before Christmas break to extend the payroll tax cuts. If he hadn't done that you all in the US would've gotten more taken out of your pay checks this week

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 01/06/2012

6,434

12

67

One of my cousins and all his friends seem to think Ron Paul is the saviour of our nation. I'm wondering how this will turn out.

Pamela, we have our issues here too. The referendum didn't get rid of Harper. However the NDP (New Democratic Party) did gain a near majority in parliment. DH likes them because they're for working people and families.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 01/03/2012

6,434

12

67

You'll have to pardon me. I live in Canada and I don't have CNN on my cable package. (can we bitch about SHAW here?) I haven't been a fan of Ron Paul since the first debate I watched via Youtube from CNN when he said that Freedom is risky as a response to people not having access to health care. That's just dumb because in Canada we have freedom and health care. If you're a politician, or even just a grown up you should be responsible enough to read and review everything that gets published and will be stuck to you.

Tah - posted on 01/02/2012

7,412

22

357

I just posted this in my debate community..should have looked here first..lol. In a perfect world we wouldn't have needed any of the Civil rights acts, but such is not the world we live in. we obviously need laws to force people to allow others rights that they wouldn't otherwise afford them. i do think that he is right about the issues regarding race that need to be addressed but may be a little short-sided on what it has taken to get us here, he blames goverment, which is made up of people who have and support these beliefs. since he voted no in the 2004 mock vote, i wonder what he would have suggested to replace this civil rights act that would have guaranteed the same outcome

Krista - posted on 01/02/2012

12,562

16

842

Yep. In their mind, the free market is an infallible being, and the only reason why it hasn't turned the world into a utopia is because of those damned dirty liberals and their insistence upon government regulations.

Pamela - posted on 01/02/2012

1,496

104

41

I tend to get a little cynical when I hear people go on about "liberty" and "free market," as if somehow the two go together. I don't think they do. In fact, I wonder but if they're antithetical to one another. These men talk about the free market as though it were a god - have you ever noticed that?

Krista - posted on 01/02/2012

12,562

16

842

I think that Paul is ridiculous on this one. He seems to think that the invisible hand of the free market will perform every miracle under the sun -- from making companies safer to ending discrimination.

And that's not how life works.

Overall, I think that people are good. But there are a lot of people out there who are not -- there are plenty of people out there who have no qualms about hurting other people, for their own selfish reasons. If every human being was inherently good, then no, we wouldn't need things like environmental regulations, or laws, or the Civil Rights Act. But in the real world, there are plenty of immoral people out there. And we cannot rely on the invisible hand of the free market to just magically marginalize those people and render them powerless. So as a society, we set certain rules saying, "You can't do that to people. It's not right."

And if that curtails their freedom, then so be it. I'm not going to shed tears over somebody losing their freedom to be an immoral asshole who negatively impacts others.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms