So batshitloonitarian libertarian Ron Paul, who isn't a racist, but just happens to adopt civil rights positions completely identical to those held by racists, has a slight problem. As Brad DeLong notes, he does believe in a very active role for government--but only on behalf of certain people (italics original; boldface mine):
When you own a hotel and bar Black people what happens is that if Black people comes in and sleep in the beds you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass. When you own a bus and require Black people to sit in the back and Black people [sit] in the front you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass. When you own a lunch counter and make it whites-only if Black people sit down at the lunch counter you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass.
Ron Paul's belief is that the state should assist in amplifying social and political crises and injustices whenever the propertied wish to provoke them.Private fee-simple property is, after all, an institution established and enforced by the government. You can hardly get the government out of what is, fundamentally, the government's core business.
And if Ron Paul had had his way, the South would still be segregated. Because those who owned property in the South (along with many who didn't) liked segregation, and were more than willing to use the state to enforce those property rights (with the occasional assistance of the Klan). Paul is someone who thinks freedom and liberty start and stop with property ownership (and the more property you have, the freer you get to be).
Paul is either batshit lunatic or plain evil. And Paul is an elected GOP official, not a blogger or radio show crank.
But he's not racist. Just unfortunate in his fellow travelers.
- Log in to post comments
This is part and parcel of the Randroid view of the world that Ron Paul subscribes to. The only rights that matter are property rights. Those rights should be considered supreme to the exclusion of all else.
And it goes beyond even civil rights. Do you own a factory? Well then, the government has no right to make you limit the amount of pollutants your factory releases. It's your property. And if that means the water of a neighboring town is undrinkable or the air is making kids sick, that's secondary to your property rights.
Own a mine? The government has no authority to tell you to follow safety regulations. Who is the government to tell you to protect your workers from blacklung disease or a mine cave in. If they don't like the conditions they can just go work somewhere, um, else.
Have you just developed a new alloy and want to use it to make railroad tracks? The government shouldn't require to you to test it beforehand to make sure it can withstand the stress and strain. It's your metal, you know it works. You don't have to prove it to the government.
Anything else is just an infringement of your property rights and punishing your success.
Wow. This is an extremely thin analysis of his positions. Do some research on the War on Drugs, which he wants to end, and see how it is destroying the lives in inner city blacks, then come back and say he's racist.
Joe, just because Paul advocates for a policy that would help blacks does not mean he's not a racist. He wants the war on drugs to end because a)it's a waste of money and b) he probably thinks it infringes on individual liberties. I doubt in the highest that helping inner-city blacks is at all on his priority list in that respect. And either way, he has openly supported policies that would make segregation by business owners completely legal, a position which is just not right.
Joe, go back and look at paul's history of letting racists dominate his newsletters and then think about your "defense".
Ron Paul claims that no one would really instigate a racial policy at their place of business if the proprietor were given a choose of doing so, because in his view it would be like committing business suicide. That's crazy talk there. I guarantee thousands of businesses would throw signs in their windows discriminating against whatever minority the happen to dislike. They very will may loose some customers, but unfortunately they will also attract many customers with like minded views. And just like that, BANG! instant segregation. If you ever wanted to experience time travel to see what it would have been like to live 'back when', well Ron Paul will be the engineer that gives you the means to experience that dimension. For real.
What a poor analysis. All gun control proponents must be racists because gun control was originally about keeping guns out of black hands. That has similar merit.
It is not about propertied interests. Paul is simply advocating that the government should only enforce negative rights. These apply to both propertied and non propertied individuals.
has President Barack Obama been compromised ?
is he now being controlled by extortion & blackmail
His son Rand has made the same argument. It's completely ridiculous because we know that some businesses would engage in racial (or religious) discrimination if left to their own devices because they once did. Which is why anti-discrimination laws were enacted in the first place.
For a couple of guys who represent states like Texas and Kentucky to claim to believe otherwise requires a willful disregard for history.
But again, this is the Randroid philosophy taken to its extreme. Property rights are the only rights that matter and the sole reason for the existance of government is to protect property rights.
If Ron Paul were around in the 1860s, he'd not only be defending the right of slaveowners to keep their "property", but would insist that the federal government force the northern states to return any runaway slaves to their owners.
I watched Paul's interview with Jon Stewart and it was "property rights this, and property rights that." I couldn't even count how many times Paul said "property rights."
I wanted to shout at Stewart and get him to say to Paul "You've talked about property rights so much I'm beginning to wonder if you think there is no such think as human rights."
It's such a basic question and nobody has ever asked either Rand or Ron this question. I have the feeling the answer is "no, there are only property rights...no human rights."
"I can pump all the dirty air into the atmosphere as I want but the property called "dirty air" has more rights than the property called "your lungs."
Um. Pollution violates your rights, including your property rights. Paul believes that the problem of pollution is best solved through litigation (or something like that). I think he's wrong on that but I'm not going to beat up a strawman and then call him crazy based on it.
If racial discrimination were made legal, it would also undermine the role and value of money, because a $20 bill in the pocket of a black person would not be worth the same as a $20 bill in the pocket of a white person. Given Ron Paul's obsession with property, how does this not make his tiny little brain explode?
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul endorses, but I would add to his defense in this case. This is largely an ad hominem attack. Paul does support property rights as the keystone for individual rights. That theory may or may not be true, but it's not prima facie absurd. He has also been a consistent and long opponent of War, and the imperial machinations of the US. He opposes centralized power in all of it's forms, again right or wrong. I would also point out his larger influences have been Ludwig Von Mises, and F.A. Hayek. You may disagree with them but they're not whackos. He's more of an anarcho-capitalist than a Republican. In any case, at least he is consistent.
"This is part and parcel of the Randroid view of the world that Ron Paul subscribes to. The only rights that matter are property rights. Those rights should be considered supreme to the exclusion of all else."
It's not just the randroids. One of the fundamental ideas in meta-ethics over the past few centuries has been the notion of a "right". You gen people who will argue that murder, for instance, is wrong not because it's wrong, but because it is a violation of your *right* do, umm, not be murdered.
What is a right? It's something that you *have*. Own. Possess. This notion of a right, and this framing of all ethics in terms of rights, frames all of ethics in terms of property.
But it's nice of RP to admit that property is a societal construct, that - like taxes - it's all about "men with guns" telling you (the unpropertied) what you can and cannot do. The fundamental flaw of libertarianism is in thinking a) that it's the only one, or even the most important one and/or b) that it's an axiom not to be questioned.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how it is that at "science" blog, you lack basic Constitutional understanding, at a supposed science blog, no less. Same learning process, data logging, recorded precedence, just different topic. All the same tools of study apply so WTF is wrong with you all?
You're looking to the Fed.Gvt, the same institution that routinely tortures, murders, and genocides to be a buffer between to protect your rights? Are you all mental?
Got StockholmSyndrome much?
Why is it that all liberals intuitively get that rich assholes take over govt, & send in their lackeys to head up the very agencies that is suppose to regulate. Yet you still moronically delude FDA protects your food & health, SEC prevents Madoff, FEMA took care of Katrina, EPA trading pollution does not stop it.
Are we seeing pattern yet, geeks?
Seriously how f*cking daft do you have to be to constantly look to govt for solutions?
First off, most of you weren't even around to witness "whites only," so for the love of god, ENOUGH with the feigned empathy.
Secondly, every civil rights movement in the history of our Republic, has been the result of a grassroots moral, active minority. From abolitionists, Native American rights, to Civil Rights movement of lat 1950's to 70's, were all led by individuals who could care less that the "law" identified them as a second class citizenry. They demanded their rights, acted like FREE EQUAL Human beings, believed it, and lived it. They didn't ask govt for permission. Unlike bunch of suburban lily white elitist pseudo-intellectual whinos, for which frankly this is nothing more that a topic to pass between your Starbucks sipping.
The Govt didn't end racism or inequality. It has always been an institutionalizer of it, as the capable & the wealthy ALWAYS USE GOVT to their benefit. WHEN are you gonna finally learn that lesson?
Hey, "science"blog geniuses, under CRA, technically, ANY black business owner is equally barred from expelling ANY NeoNazi from his establishment, if open to public accommodation. Unless you don't think there's such thing as black biz owner to worry about the probability of such cases arising.
Regardless, even now, as was back then, ANY business can LAWFULLY DENY ANYONE ANY SERVICE or even entry by using broad discriminatory excuse as "disturbing the peace" or "violation of dress code." Capice?
So puhleeze, unless you've actually ran a business, had a need to upkeep a payroll and keep your eye on cashflow, like most things in life which most liberals have zero first hand experience, you haven't got a CLUE. So ENOUGH with the BS. rationale for the making yourselves seem intellectual.
Do you know what you SHOULD be all up in arms about? Your Lord oBUSHma who is currently renditioning, secret & indefinitely detaining, assassinating American citizenry, and occupying, bombing, torturing, and MURDERING innocent brown people in MidEast & Central Asia, DAILY, while raiding legal med.pot clinics, and locking up non-violent offenders for life: THE REAL racism in America TODAY.
So excuse me, if I don't really think you give two f*cks about what actually is moral, or what is truly urgent problem facing America today.
You don't care, don't deny it. Otherwise there actually would be something called a robust Leftist AntiWar Movement under the current oBUSHma regime. Just another projection of your guilt in stupidity in getting suckered by a 5yr old targeted ice cream truck jingle called "Hope & Change." So bitches, get over yourselves.
Get your priorities straight. Ron Paul's objective? While he fundamentally considers all entitlements, all foreign aid, all foreign imperialist adventures as UnConstitutional. Well because they are! His goal is, as Pres. the ONLY thing he CAN actually do is as Commander in Chief, is to RECALL ALL American forces overseas. That's 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS a year saved, which as he's said for over 20yrs, he'll ACTUALLY PUT toward tying up generations of elderly & less well to do Americans who's grown dependent on them. Not to mention, as an Austrian economist Dr.Paul considers contract law to be paramount: seniors were PROMISED it. So he'll honor it.
Do you honestly delude there's ANY politician in DC who hasn't voted to raid the entitlement funds, trusts? Grow up & STOP letting sound bites tell you what to repeat as your own thoughts. In the age of internetS, WhatTF is your excuse for still be brainwashed as if we only had 3 network channels, people!
Besides do you people have any clue that Dr. Paul has the sole distinction of NEVER EVER having raided ANY of the entitlement funds to be used toward general budget, EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS they're UnConstitutional? Simply because he believes IN PROPERTY RIGHTS & CONTRACT RIGHTS?
Honestly, you all need to do the same amount of research as you'd apply to all your other fields of study, in understanding ORIGINS of the Constitution. The Const. does not GRANT any rights, it merely CODIFIES pre-existent rights. It explicitly LIMITS the powers DELEGATED to Fed.govt by the People. Capice?
Why is property rights crucial to human liberties? Without it YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, you unevolved primates. It is what gives you the HUMAN right to privacy in actual practice. The HUMAN right to KEEP what your own labor produces is a property right. NOT to have your home or persons violated as SCOTUS recently MORONICALLY 8-1 it could. So OBVIOUSLY SCOTUS can be MORONIC UnConstitutional dopes, as Doc alluded to in a recent Tweety interview where he clarified the point about FDR packing liberal justices which culminated in 1937 statist rulings.
Honestly, as someone who has always shared much more in social values with liberals, frankly when it comes to Constitutional laws, natural rights, fundamental philosophical basis for the role of govt, and rudimentary economics, speaking to you all on the matter is like talking to a wall.
Give a little advice. Do you have any clue as to why most people actually don't like BOTH liberals and conservatives? Despite the Divide & Conquer the RulingClass has been successfully playing off, which you all are displaying how easily, stupidly you succumb to it, most Americans still maintain that "leave me the f*ck alone" heritage and instinct.
Thus, intuitively, if you are an American worth his/her salt, NO BODY likes interventionists. NO ONE likes others imposing their view on others, no matter how well intended, or how good it may for them. It's not your right, nor job, ya arrogant pricks!
Problem with both establishment Dem/GOP is that you both arrogantly delude you have the right to institutionalize stupid solutions codifying aberrant human behavior via laws for all 50 states at once, using a hijacked Federal Gvt.
THAT is why someone like Ron Paul truly appeals to the REALLY F*CKING intelligent, informed populace. The world is full of morons who don't understand jack sh*t & assume ability to type = gnosis. You wonder why so often Ron Paul supporters are called names? You may want to look in the mirror and ask yourselves, really? Are you really that informed on those particular issues that Ron Paul often makes "shocking" statements about? Look around, you think current INSANE reality is a result of sane policies by enlightened bureaucrats? Or you think we all got here because everyone listened to Ron Paul's advice. You monkeys constantly harp on how "fringe" he is. Well, which is it? How is he fringe, as according to your logic if the current insanity is result of people applying his proposed policies?
Seriously, get over yourselves.
The biggest issue we're facing today? Their empire and welfare state will BANKRUPT us all!
By then, no matter how much you monkeys want entitlements, govt checks aren't gonna buy you sh*t. Guess that's something pathetic Krugman has still yet to figure out, that Federal Reserve printing excess credit out of thin air is a direct contributor to inflation. Right now, Wall St. bankster scums are holding on to NOT-their "money." Just wait until this prolonged contraction is through & Bernanke presses the floodgates open, say hello to Weimar.
So FOCUS on REAL priority, or for the love of god, please geeks STFU. Form coalitions on issues, of just talk to yourselves. You ranting to feel good don't really help.
How long is it gonna take you to figure out that Ron and Rand Paul are the only sane ones in GOP that you SHOULD be building coalitions AGAINST the Wars/Occupations, corporatism, and FOR restoration of ALL our civil rights, because without Freedom, all this discussion is moot.
Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?
Have you taken your anti-psychotics yet, fruitcake?
What I find amusing is that hippies and libitarians hate each others guts. Yet at the heart of both ideologies is the fantasy that if governments stopped "interfering" everyone would get along just fine.
RP really does seem to be nuts at times. and doesn't/shouldn't represent "libertarianism". his positions seems to default to the social conservative status quo steeped in states rights.
that certainly doesn't seem like it advances individual liberty, nor does it seem to roll back governmental power. It just deflects it.
and don't get me started on his batshit insane gold standard garbage.
that's great he's against the wars! for sure! and he has some other good ones, too, but on the balance, at least for this citizen, the batshittery comes out on top.
As I started to fall asleep reading a tirade by someone who says he doesn't care what we think but cares enough to write us a boring essay I skipped to the end.
"Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?"
I was until I started reading your post.
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul endorses, but I would add to his defense in this case. This is largely an ad hominem attack. Paul does support property rights as the keystone for individual rights. That theory may or may not be true, but it's not prima facie absurd. He has also been a consistent and long opponent of War, and the imperial machinations of the US. He opposes centralized power in all of it's forms, again right or wrong. I would also point out his larger influences have been Ludwig Von Mises, and F.A. Hayek. You may disagree with them but they're not whackos. He's more of an anarcho-capitalist than a Republican. In any case, at least he is consistent.
evet turkiye zafir seba
You are as ignorant as the Republican establishment that is bent on bringing down Dr. Paul. You're incomplete and unknowledgeable "analysis" forgets the fact that Dr. Paul believes all people of all ethnicities deserve the exact same civil rights so that all Americans have an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream. Count yourself among the Republican hate machine that squanders American patriotism on a daily basis.
Sorry Ryan, I didn't quite catch that.
How funny that people will willingly defend a racist by claiming to know exactly what he is thinking, and that he couldn't be racist, despite his actions and evidence to the contrary.
I'm gonna guess that everyone defending him is a white male.
"the fact that Dr. Paul believes all people of all ethnicities deserve the exact same civil rights"
A fact needs evidence rather than assumption.
Until then, that is merely your opinion.
'course he could be an equal-opportunities racist: ALL ethnicities, including white, are inferior if they aren't extremely wealthy like him.
Weird, isn't it. Ryan has to repeat something multiple times to make it fact.
Rather like a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
Truth doesn't need embellishment. Lies demand it.
"Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?
Have you taken your anti-psychotics yet, fruitcake?
Posted by: Drivebyposter | May 19, 2011 2:22 AM"
Since you seem to be oddly familiar with it, the real question is have you?
I meant your daily dosage of pro-psychotics/SSRI, because frankly any insensate imbecile who deludes mustering a kindergarten retort is a 'ha ha funny,' in the age of the internetS, as if I'll be 'OMG, you hurt my feelings, for prompting you to reveal yourself as a dumbass!' must be on one, no?
Now you can go back to staring at the inside of your rectal opening that you seem to have managed to shove your eyeballs into a state of brainwashed delight.
Observe, absorb, & learn a thing or two, or at the least if you're gonna rebut, do so with style.
Thanks for fulfilling my daily bemusement quota. Ciao, neurological invalid.
"As I started to fall asleep reading a tirade by someone who says he doesn't care what we think but cares enough to write us a boring essay I skipped to the end.
"Are you wake yet, sci-bloggers?"
I was until I started reading your post.
Posted by: Ender | May 19, 2011 10:42 AM"
I know, right, how dare someone "rant" against the glorious mendacity, clique of murderers, schemers & thieves, that is the current state of affairs in the District of Criminals that has long been hijacked by Wall St. banksters, wasting $Trillions annually on illegal wars, occupation, torture abroad & police state at home.
Of course you'd love it if everyone told you your unicorn vision of the universe was hunky dory.
Yes, please, for the love of God/Universe, stay asleep, oh brilliant mensch of unremarkable retort. Irrelevance? Usually not a quality missed in realm of higher human values. Please, stay that way.
Sources please? Even secondary or tertiary would be appreciated! Dr. Paul IS a statesman. Most of the others show that they are politicians by the evidence of their voting record. Gingrich voted to create a Federal Dept of Education, GATT, NAFTA. Romney created Romney-care. What Paul votes prove your point?
Once again, we see the follies of a man who simply vilifies what he does not understand. Perhaps if you actually read more about Libertarians and our views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, instead of cherry-picking racist-looking passages, you might learn something.
Ron Paulâs Double-Think about how âThe State" should be forbidden from easily mitigating Social Injustices... AND... "The State" should be REQUIRED to Amplify Social Injustices whenever shopkeepers want to provoke them is crazy enoughâ¦
But Wait! â Thereâs More Crazy Double-Think!
Ron Paul never shuts up about the evils of how our currency is constantly being devalued... BUT â As Julie Stahlhut pointed out above⦠Discrimination of minority groups devalues the currency in the pockets of the minority group.
If shopkeepers were allowed to boycott an entire race of people, it would also undermine the role and value of money, because a $20 bill in the pocket of a Black person would not be worth the same as a $20 bill in the pocket of a White person.
But why stop there with devaluing the money in the pockets of Black people?
Why not open a âWhites Onlyâ grocery store and a âBlacks Onlyâ grocery store and then charge the Black people Twice As Much for the exact same products as the Whites Only store?
Heck! â Why not go even further by paying the Black employees Half of what you pay their White counterparts working at the Whites Only store.
Through the process of boycotts, price gouging⦠White people could devalue the money in the pockets Black people to the point where what little money they have is almost worthless. Pay inequity could reduce their earning power to almost nothing as well. Pretty soon we could have class of indentured servants who we can force to work for slave wages.
Isn't Ron Paul's vision of "Freedom" and "Liberty" wonderful?