Ron Paul: Property rights trump civil rights

He's challenging the chosen one, of course he's a racist. Anyone that questions the Messiah Obama is a racist.

I love this site. You guys are so informative.I'm still learning stuff at my age,When you don't agree,you do it with class.Some people just know more than others.(LOL)Storming in my neck of the woods,so I'll be done with this computer. Have a great life and don't change.

This dog is too old to teach new tricks.He'll never win the presidency even with all of his money.He's evidently been a racist all of his life, something he learned as his son learned from him.Such wasted energy.

OMG HE'S A RACIST EVERYTHING ELSE HE HAS TO SAY IS NOW IRRELEVANT TO MY ONE TRACK CONDITIONED MIND

give me a break. Go vote for Obama again.

If you want to live on your privately owned parcel in your own house and refuse to allow minorities on/in it - by all means, you have the right to do that. However, if you run a business that is open to the public, you do not have the right to exclude people based on the laws of discrimination that are currently on books. Plain and simple.

Ron Paul will have a lot of detractors and so long as he doesn't run on the republican ticket he can really split some political affiliations with donkeys and elephants. I don't believe him to be racist and honestly this country needs the type of radical reform he can bring. Unless of course we choose to continue down this path that will end in a class war and an end of a nation. What if some other country decides to intervene on the behalf of all the people suffering through poverty,.homelessness, corporate corruption, abusive power, overpopulated prisons, unreasonable health-care practices, and acts of terrorism. With Unemployment averaging 15 to 20% how long will it be before some skinny broke motherfucker decides he's gonna go get some hill side justice and eat the rich. Watch the mob mentality outbreak as the storm of anarchy surges. When the rain starts falling Ive got my umbrella and a shot gun. Wanna see my ghetto pass? It's state issued EBT card.
Once people start seeing things get worse I'm sure someone with power will be held responsible.
Who do you work for?
How long will it be before they realize the power of money will capsize under the influence of the desperate, hungry, mistreated commodities known as the majority? Tax the lower class unfairly, and we'll tax your souls. Poor people will bust out the guillotines and pitchforks with unchallengeable numbers. History shall repeat itself. Letting nature run its course is not a threat.
French Revolution ringing any bells?
How about the liberty bell when peasants kicked Britain out of America?
The fall of Rome?
Egypt?
Tiananmen Square?
Next time you hear a public official saying protest is unamerican or unconstitutional, treat him like a red coat. It's time to start tossing some stones.

Rachel showed this clip on her show. Ron Paul is using the property rights argument to mask his racism. He wants to appeal to the fringe voters. Who do you think backs him? He gets solid backing by the white supremacist groups. I remember quite well back in 2008, he raised a shitload of money through online donations. Where did it go? In his pocket. He will raise more money off of his followers this time around and pocket that because he won't get close to the nomination unless he's seriously planning a thrid party run this year.

Ron Paul is not a Racist....

Nice try....

ok so ron paul is a true libertarian... he does not believe government should make laws about a lot of things... this fits with his normal stance... doesnt make him right about this particular issue... but i can see how making laws to try to please everyone ends up pleasing no one... just look at our government that was so eager to regulate everything, they ended up jamming up their whole system. There is no such thing as common sense anymore because theres probably a law to tell you what to do anyways.
This to me proves one thing... Ron Paul is upfront about his stance, if nothing else, he's honest. We dont need the government to tell us whether or not its ok to segregate businesses... would you go to a white's only cafe in this day and time? i wouldnt... I think thats what he was trying to say... let the free market be a free market... let free people choose where they want to go to eat... its very simplistic...

Here's why this argument (and every other one like it) is wrong.

Let's say I decided to build a coffee shop. I buy the land and materials and hire people to construct it at a busy intersection. It becomes a great success but I don't want to allow any minorities inside. It's my shop and land, right? I took the risk in starting the business right? It was my hard work that made it a success so I have the right to say who comes in and who doesn't. Wrong.

The major glitch in this kind of reasoning is the premise that "I did it on my own" therefore it's mine to do with as I wish. The fact is there were many tax funded things that allowed this business to get constructed and grow. Here's a list.

1.) Police protection-protects the owner and clients from getting robbed

2.) Fire protection- educates people about fire prevention and, well, puts out fires.

3.) Good roads, bridges- Can't build a successful business if you can't get building supplies shipped or people can't get to it to buy your product.

4.) Education-you need employees who can read and count change right?

5.) Clean water-nothing worse that coffee that has all kinds of nasty bacteria and chemicals in it.

6.) Trash pick up- Self explanatory.

7) Defense-can't build and maintain a business if the leader of an invading army destroys it and the infrastructure that supports it

The list goes on and on and on, but you get the picture.

Without these PUBLICLY funded services, my little business would have next to zero chance of success. If you think I'm stretching the logic then consider this; where would Microsoft be today if Bill Gates tried to start it in Afghanistan? Or Wal-mart. Or Best-Buy? Or the gasoline station on the corner?

So is the coffee shop mine? Yes. Was I alone responsible for the success my business. No. The ground for "my" success is constantly tilled with billions of PUBLIC tax dollars local, state and federal.

Given that those tax dollars also include those paid by minorities, do I have a right to exclude any peaceful citizen from my shop?

His "property rights" position is internally logically consistent.

The whole "property rights" bit has been a problematic issue for some of us from the get go.

"Segregation was created by government laws."

Segregation

he never denied that he's a racist.

the Constitutional mandate to " secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity"...

The U.S. Constitution, 9th Amendment is there for that purpose to protect the individual liberty of the people. Quoted here: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."
The first interpretation and responsibility of this Amendment is to establish the rights of the people as numbered in the list of amendments and articles, even though the statement of a right is not expressed, such as the 1st Amendment, with regards to "Congress shall make no law". This Statement has been made to have all law makers comply to the right of the people by all of the governments of our nation.
An additional 2nd interpretation of this amendment Leaves open a responsibility to Other Rights of the people not expressed, but open to constitutional protection as so stated in the constitutional mandate to " secure the Blessings of Liberty to our selves and our Posterity".
An additional 3rd interpretation is: The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has a duty for the judiciary to maintain a responsibility to respect the greater right of the people for the limitation of the jurisdiction of the law. Other wise they should be found in contempt of the 9th Amendment, based on, " shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." With "others" representing a meaning of "other rights". The other rights of the people are those common to the individual survival, free trade, and freedom of the people for which common acceptance of society has understood the sense of this respect, but not limited too. Meaning that some settled law limitations have been determined in the past as an institutional constriction of these rights, which previously have not been judged to the responsibility of the 9th Amendment, as required for all the judiciary, the President, congress, state governors, legislators, county and city government leaders, to include all levels of government agencies as required for all, per their oath of duty and office to our U.S. Constitution.
All three interpretation are relative to the responsibility and duty of the 9th Amendment.

Property Rights is another right protected by the 9th Amendment as a condition of the right to own your own goods or property and the value there of.

I feel Ron is straddleing the fence trying to pander to southern bigots while trying to claim he is not racist at the same time. That pretty much means he is racist to me.Simple. Simple. Simple.

Ron (and Rand) Paul's view on the Civil Rights Act hinges entirely on the free-market mythology he ideologically embraces with scant regard for the real-life situation on the ground and the centuries of history that had led up to that point.

At odds with the idea that the free market, if left alone, would have led to integration and racial harmony, is the fact that it was considered good business at the time to have segregated lunch counters and water fountains. In Northern cities, there were no laws racially segregating the neighborhoods, but real-estate agents who valued their careers knew that in some neighborhoods, a black family moving in would lower the property values.

Nonetheless, I don't think that the Paul boys are racist, per se. They are, however, victims of their extreme ideological tunnel vision.

Well I support Ron Paul.. This is anther snow ball by American Media.. We need a change again... Because this damn fake Bin Laden killing all over the news well we have to ask why didn't anyone else who was killed on that building buried at sea..Hmmmm has Bin Laden been dead no one is asking any questions we got to see between the lines America is on Stilts and the water is rising.. can anyone se we are getting fooled just like the Bush era.

I recall having spoken to someone who lived through the Jim Crow era. While there was overt racism among some of the people there was another segment that believed the violence was clearly wrong while at the same time held racist views of their own.

It's not so simple to say that the people felt like this or like that. What's clear is this: Let's not do anything that would allow us to go back.

This all seems very misconstrued and out of context.

So Ron Paul wants to get rid of Civil Rights, It's sounds like he wants to return back to Jim Crow Law. Maybe apartheid or Jim Crow will fit him better. Then he can wear his white robes with the pointy hat in public. This is the little man that wants to be America President.

Origins of Jim Crow laws

During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877 federal law provided civil rights protection in the South for "freedmen" — the African Americans who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, conservative white Democrats gradually returned to power in southern states, sometimes as a result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaigns. In 1877, a national compromise to gain southern support in the presidential election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state.[5] The conservative white, Democratic Party Redeemer government that followed the troop withdrawal legislated Jim Crow laws segregating black people from the state's white population.

Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but the establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration and electoral rules more restrictive, with the result that participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease.[6][7] Starting with Mississippi in 1890, through 1910 ten of the former eleven Confederate states passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements.[6][8] Grandfather clauses temporarily permitted some illiterate whites to vote.

Voter turnout dropped drastically through the South as a result of such measures. For example, Alabama had tens of thousands of poor whites disfranchised.[9] In Louisiana, by 1900 black voters were reduced to 5,320 on the rolls although they comprised the majority of the state's population. By 1910, only 730 blacks were registered, less than 0.5 percent of eligible black men. "In 27 of the state's 60 parishes, not a single black voter was registered any longer; in 9 more parishes, only one black voter was."[10] The cumulative effect in North Carolina meant that black voters were completely eliminated from voter rolls during the period from 1896-1904. The growth of their thriving middle class was slowed. In North Carolina and other Southern states, there were also the effects of invisibility: "[W]ithin a decade of disfranchisement, the white supremacy campaign had erased the image of the black middle class from the minds of white North Carolinians."[10]

Those who could not vote were not eligible to serve on juries nor to run for local offices. They effectively disappeared from political life, as they could not influence the state legislatures, and their interests were overlooked. While public schools had been established by Reconstruction legislatures for the first time in most Southern states, those for black children were consistently underfunded compared to schools for white children, even when considered within the strained finances of the postwar South. The decreasing price of cotton kept the agricultural economy at a low.

In some cases, progressive measures intended to reduce election fraud, such as the eight box law in South Carolina, acted against black and white voters who were illiterate, as they could not follow the directions.[11] While the separation of African Americans from the general population was becoming legalized and formalized during the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), it was also becoming customary. Even in cases in which Jim Crow laws did not expressly forbid black people to participate, for instance, in sports or recreation, the laws shaped a segregated culture.[3]

In the Jim Crow context, the presidential election of 1912 was steeply slanted against the interests of Black Americans. Most blacks still lived in the South, where they had been effectively disfranchised, so they could not vote at all. While poll taxes and literacy requirements banned many poor or illiterate Americans from voting, these stipulations frequently had loopholes that exempted white Americans from meeting the requirements. In Oklahoma, for instance, anyone qualified to vote before 1866, or related to someone qualified to vote before 1866 (a kind of "grandfather clause"), was exempted from the literacy requirement; the only persons who could vote before that year were white male Americans. White Americans were effectively excluded from the literacy testing, whereas black Americans were effectively singled out by the law.[12]

Woodrow Wilson, a southern Democrat and the first southern-born president

of the postwar period, appointed southerners to his cabinet. Some quickly began to press for segregated work places, although Washington, DC and federal offices had been integrated since after the Civil War. In 1913, for instance, the Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo—an appointee of the President—was heard to express his opinion of black and white women working together in one government office: "I feel sure that this must go against the grain of the white women. Is there any reason why the white women should not have only white women working across from them on the machines?"[13]

President Woodrow Wilson introduced segregation in Federal offices, despite much protest.[14] Wilson appointed Southern politicians who were segregationists, because of his firm belief that racial segregation was in the best interest of black and white Americans alike.[14] At Gettysburg on July 4, 1913, the semi-centennial of Abraham Lincoln's declaration that "all men are created equal", Wilson addressed the crowd:

How complete the union has become and how dear to all of us, how unquestioned, how benign and majestic, as state after state has been added to this, our great family of free men![15]
A Washington Bee editorial wondered if the "reunion" of 1913 was a reunion of those who fought for "the extinction of slavery" or a reunion of those who fought to "perpetuate slavery and who are now employing every artifice and argument known to deceit" to present emancipation as a failed venture.[15] One historian notes that the "Peace Jubilee" at which Wilson presided at Gettysburg in 1913 "was a Jim Crow reunion, and white supremacy might be said to have been the silent, invisible master of ceremonies."[15] (See also: Great Reunion of 1913)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_Laws#Origins_of_Jim_Crow_laws

Ron Paul is an orthodox libertarian, in that he deems ideological orthodoxy to be a suitable replacement for observation and cognition.