This is about whether the Federal government has the right to legislate morality. At least thats how I see it in a Libertarian viewpoint and I think thats where Paul was heading with this as well. My guess is Ron Paul was trying to keep the Federal governments power restricted as intended by the Constitution. Legislating morality doesn't make it go away it only puts the sexism/racism behind a door.
All criminal law is legislating morality. I'm okay with that as long as it deals strictly with things that directly affect others; it's only laws that address ickiness factors (like prayer in school or gay marriage) with which I disagree. There is and should be no right to not be offended. On the other hand, I think there is a right to be served by any business which serves the public, as long as you behave yourself. And I have no interest in making racism go away, only in seeing that it doesn't unduly interfere with people's lives. A restaurant owner should be perfectly free to believe that blacks are an inferior race or that whites are devils created by an evil sorcerer to bedevil the superior black man, but in his business he'd better treat them just as he'd treat anyone else.
Ron Paul isn't unelectable because he might be "Racist", although what has appeared in his past Newsletters will be damning regardless of his explanations. What makes him unelectable are his positions. Every Liberal/Conservative can find RP policies that they agree with 100%, but they can also find policies that they disagree with 100%. This just makes him too radical for any widespread support as the only way to accept such divergent policy is to completely accept that starting from scratch is the only solution.
Very few are willing to go there, especially when, despite the problems, the US is still at or near the top of so many of the Demographic measurements used to measure Success. Despite the trending downwards, all encompassing change is just unnecessary, at this time anyway.
Well said.
You realize of course that it would be possible for an entire town to refuse service to black people, in effect making it prohibitive for black people to even live in said town?
Oh, you're black? No oil delivery for you!
This is why, even though I fundamentally don't like government infringing on a man's right to run his business as he sees fit, I disagree with Paul on the Civil Rights Act. I've twice heard bosses ask "You didn't hire that ni##er, did you?" And that was in the eighties, not 1964. If the only place hiring refuses to hire blacks, then blacks are effectively shut out of the whole town's job market.
Our nation's founding began with a document declaring that all men are created equal. If government has to intervene to ensure that all men are treated thusly, that's sad but necessary.
EDIT: ALL that is not to say that I think Ron Paul is a racist or a horrible person, just to say that I think he's wrong on this particular issue - and vote.
Facebook
Twitter