Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Ron Paul’s Statement on Racism
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Ron Paul, as we've mentioned several times, has garnered some attention due to the support that white supremacist groups have given to his campaign. Apparently, this attention has caused to issue a forthright official statement about the evils of racism.

But, while it a statement against racism, it's kind of an...odd one. Let's go through his statement in its entirety.

Divider

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
Well, that's an interesting start. I seem to remember that way back in the good ol' Rugged Individualism days, the rugged individualists in about half the country owned slaves. Black slaves, to be precise. That seems to me like the rugged individualists were sort of obsessed with racial group identities, at least insofar as they determined which group could be legally owned by other groups.

As I remember, they even promulgated very specific laws about how much black blood (one drop, basically) one could posesss and be considered a potential slave. Many of the rugged individualists also frowned on sexual relations between racial groups. And, by "frowned on", I mean "hung the offending member of the disfavored group".

I don't think that being "uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities" is a particularly new phenomena in American cultural life.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Um, OK. I mean, by definition, an obsession with racial matters is "collectivist" in the sense that one's racial group is a collective. But that isn't usually what we mean when we refer to the collectivist mindset. When we think of collectivism, we tend to think of Karl Marx, not Lester Maddox.

But, we'll come back to this in a bit.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
Well, that's true enough, I guess, but government doesn't actually try to combat it, do they? What government does is ban discrimination, i.e., the physical manifestation of bigotry through unequal treatment in housing, employment, etc.

Now, we can certainly have a discussion about whether government's proper role is to ban private discrimination, but I think we can all agree that, at minimum, government itself cannot be allowed to discriminate on the base of race. I think Equality Under the Law is supposed to be the ideal.

In any event, this statement of Mr. Paul's is certainly true in part, e.g. that the government should not be picking winners and losers in the marketplace, nor should it be distributing pelf to favored groups. But the idea that the government played any significant part in the racial practices of early America is simply ludicrous. Indeed, before FDR, most Americans had a fairly tangential relationship to the Federal government. Indeed, it was the federal government's generally hands-off attitudes towards racial matters that led slavery to fester, and after that Jim Crow.

Blacks weren't forced to drink at separate water fountains in Mississippi because the Feds were giving too much welfare money to black people.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
Again this is a perversion of what we usually mean when we refer to collectivism. Collectivism means a specific thing: grouping people by their affiliation with an economic class, the elimination of separate economic classes, and equality of economic outcomes. Racism is simply not collectivism, as normally understood. Racism, like collectivism, separates people into different groups, but for entirely different purposes, and in the pursuit of different objectives.

Collectivism's goal is to eliminate all group differences to create a unified whole...a "collective", if you will, of absolute equality. Racism's goal is to perpetuate group differences, and to permanently subordinate one group to another.

So the whole collectivist notion seems a bit out in left field to me.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
Actually, I don't think think liberty is an antidote to anything other than oppression. In a truly free society, in fact, each individual is free to think whatever he wishes about other racial groups, and decline to associate with them, do business with them, or serve them as customers.

What a person cannot do in a free society, is to coerce another person, or violate that person's rights. That is an entirely different thing from eliminating racism.

Liberty, in fact, is utterly silent on racism, except to the extent that the government of a free society may not in any way engage in it. Individual citizens are as free as they like to do so. Liberty is a mechanism that provides the elimination of coercion, not the inculcation of virtue.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant.
This is a non-sequitur. However warm and fuzzy the feelings about oneself that one derives from living as a free citizen, it doesn't really affect the feelings one has about others. In a free society, there are no favored groups that can prevent a member of a disfavored group from making individual achievements. It does nothing whatsoever, however, to make the members of one group feel any particular bonhomie towards the members of other groups.
Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Liberty is a political virtue, not a private one. Political virtues are great, of course, but they are not a solution to private vices. Indeed, a truly free society would provide individuals with more, not less, opportunity to indulge in private vices, as long as the rights of others are not violated in doing so. Liberty is the absence of coercion, not the presence of universal goodwill. Frankly, I am astounded that Mr. Paul would imply otherwise.

Divider

In essence, Mr. Paul's message is that government causes racism. But he ignores what must be a necessary corollary of that belief: if government has the power to cause racism, it must also necessarily have the power to combat it. You simply cannot have the power to do one without the other.

In a certain sense, of course, Mr. Paul makes a valid point. To the extent that government itself attempts to create favored and disfavored groups, it perpetuates racism. And one can certainly argue that government has in some cases done precisely that.

But one cannot ignore the fact that government action has, by and large, reduced overt discrimination in the last two generations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 essentially destroyed—completely and permanently—the Jim Crow laws of the South. Yet, any acknowledgment of this is sadly lacking in Mr. Paul's statement. Yes, government at the state level created Jim Crow. But government at the federal level eliminated it.

Mr. Paul seems to be making the old argument that "government is the problem". And all to often that argument is true. But, again, all to often, the problem is people themselves. And government, whatever its virtues or vices, does not solve the problems that arise from human nature. Neither, for that matter, does liberty. To argue otherwise is to argue for the perfection of man through political means. And that, my friends, is the very basis of collectivism.

Finally, I have to say that one can derive an uncomplimentary subtext to this message. And it is not one that that white supremacists, on the whole, will object to. Because the message I'm sure they'll get from Mr. Paul's statement is, "I'll stop giving your tax money to the..." well, you know.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Ron Paul is odd.

Having said that, so what? He stands no chance of becoming the GOP nominee.

So who cares about Ron Paul? Wingnuts do. Ron Paul’s critics are primarily if not exculsively on the right.

Why?

As I have said before, it is because he is espousing anti-authoritarian beliefs. Wingnuts have fallen in love with power.

Sad.

Rudy will become the wingnuts nominee for President. My guess is this site will eventually endorse him. After all, how many posts have appeared on this site critiquing Rudy compared to those critiquing Ron?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
How about - we’re paying attention to him because we want to see if he’s a viable alternative to replace the clowns from the twin big top circus.




 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

Well, that’s an interesting start. I seem to remember that way back in the good ol’ Rugged Individualism days, the rugged individualists in about half the country owned slaves
That is an extremely misleading statement. About 5% of the wealthy land owners owned slaves. Most were wealthy before they even came to America and then the wealth was passed on to the next generation.

The rugged individulists were poor and did not own slaves.
 
Written By: Ody
URL: http://
I think Dale is trying too hard with this post. I’m not at all a Ron Paul supporter, but I think some of the analysis of his statement is a bit tenditious. I frequently conflate "collectivist" thinking with "group identity politics" thinking—I think the two errors have the same root.

And I’m not sure that Paul is asserting that the government causes racism—he seems to be asserting that bad reasoning (collectivist or group identity political assumptions) leads to bad policies, which perpetuate our fixation on race (in contemporary terms, a conventional fixation on "victimhood" or "protected classes).

If we’re going to blast Paul, let’s do it for his ambiguous response to some of the racist/extremist groups that openly support him. His statement shown here can be criticised on that measure, but I’m not sure the dissection of it here is particularly damning.
 
Written By: JMD
URL: http://
Rudy will become the wingnuts nominee for President. My guess is this site will eventually endorse him.
Over any of the conceivable Democratic candidates? Absolutely. It’s the lesser of two evils. I’ll always choose a slightly authoritarian traditionalist over a commie totalitarian any day. Won’t be happy about it, but if it’s the best choice available...

Or, I might just do what I did last election, and simply not vote for anything but libertarians.

Giuliani, however, is certainly the least favorite Republican for me personally. His only redeeming quality is that he’s far better than any Democrat who’s liable to be nominated.
After all, how many posts have appeared on this site critiquing Rudy compared to those critiquing Ron?
None, but only because Rudy doesn’t seem to be fine with taking money from Nazis and Klansmen. That would be a problem.

You frickin’ idiot.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I think Dale is trying too hard with this post. I’m not at all a Ron Paul supporter, but I think some of the analysis of his statement is a bit tenditious.
The word you’re looking for is "tendentious", and no, it isn’t.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I agree that the Paul message was odd, but also agree that the analysis was stretched.
Because the message I’m sure they’ll get from Mr. Paul’s statement is, "I’ll stop giving your tax money to the..." well, you know.
Any group can read the exact same thing into Paul’s overall campaign message.

Environmentalists can read "I’ll stop giving your tax money to oil interests"
Big Oil can read, "I’ll stop giving your tax money to the Sierra Club"
Employees of NIH can read, "I’ll stop giving your tax money to Big Pharma"
Californians can read, "I’ll stop giving your tax money to Alabamans"
Palestinian citizens can read, "I’ll stop giving your tax money to Zionists"
Jewish citizens can read, "I’ll stop giving your money to the Christian right"

and on, and on, and on.
 
Written By: m.jed
URL: http://
Rudy will become the wingnuts nominee for President
Since he’s also the most liberal of all of them, with the possible exception of Paul himself on such issues, your label gun is laughably inaccurate. And Dale is correct in that if he’s the nominee, thereby making it a chocie between Rudy and a Democrat, I’ll support him, for the same reason I supported GWB... he’s the lesser of the evils.

And as for Paul himself, it’s as I said at my own place this morning... Even with this statement that Dale references...

We’re still left with Ron Paul’s history as a PLO supporter

We’re still left with Ron Paul’s history of being anti-Israel

We’re still left with Ron Paul appearing repeatedly on the the radio show of the Tinfoil King, Alex Jones.

We are still left with the fact that Ron Paul embraced the American Free Press, which is a parent publication of the Neo-Nazi Barnes Review.

We’re still left with Ron Paul calling our troops murderers.

In short, we’re still left with the same problems that Ron Paul has always brought to the table… and this poor excuse for a statement solved nothing.

Indeed, if by some stroke of utter stupidity, Ron Paul ever got the nomination, I’d be forced to vote against the Republican candidate.





 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Let me get this straight.

Republican/Conservatives "Leaders": Ron Paul is too Liberal and/or Left-Libertarian.

Democrat/Liberal "Leaders": Ron Paul is too Conservative and/or Right-Libertarian.

Libertarian/left-libertarian, right-libertarian, neo-libertarian(oxymoronic label) "Leaders": Ron Paul is too Conservative and/or Liberal.

So to summarize, according to these self-appointed political elitists i shouldn’t support Ron Paul because he is too Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian and/or not Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian enough.

Huh?

And they wonder why Paul supporters ignore the talking heads...

Dale Responds: No. Not really. We don’t wonder at all.
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
After all, how many posts have appeared on this site critiquing Rudy compared to those critiquing Ron?

None, but only because Rudy doesn’t seem to be fine with taking money from Nazis and Klansmen. That would be a problem.
Rudy’s fine with taking an endorsement from a man (and his followers no doubt) that believes 9/11 is the fault of gays and atheists.

So it’s only certain kinds of bigotry that bothers you?
Other kinds… not so much?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Francine,

The left describes Hillary as too conservative. The right describes her as too liberal.

One of the right’s beefs with Bush has been his "liberal" domestic agenda. Some rightists even criticize his interventionist foreign policy as liberal. The left, of course, describes him as an arch-conservative.

Yet, somehow, the only politician that this knee-jerk labeling by all sides rebounds in the favor of is Paul? Is this really what passes as an argument in favor of Paul?
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
I didn’t say it worked in his favor, only that it works against the talking heads. You all contradict each other too much to be taken seriously. I know why i’m voting for Paul, and I have a fairly good idea why others are voting for Paul. When the bloggers decide to up their hit points with "I know [political label here] who are supporting Paul because [political position here], what that might not realize about Paul though is that he [ad hominim attack, biased emotional appeal, guilt by association, mountains out of molehills here], so you see he’s not really a friend of [political label here], he’s more of a [political label here, name calling helps] not worthy of your support." How can i take any of you seriously with that crap? I don’t care if they "do it with clinton too". That’s why he’s getting support from people not normally involved in politics such as myself. You all just want to keep your little clubs and partisan groups in tact. keep the status quo of elitist lefties and righties getting to decide who makes money off our backs while they send the poor to occupy other poor people.

That’s why we call it a revolution. It’s amaziing how many bloggers(who are supposed to be influential i guess) hate Paul and spend so much time "educating" us about the "real Paul" just to get frustrated when they realize they are talking to a brick wall.

we will not allow ourselves to be marginalized.

so you can complain about Paul not being a "real libertarian", it doesn’t matter, we don’t want a "real libertarian" we want Ron Paul.
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
In other words Paul belongs to us, not the other way around. It doesn’t matter how much "education" you write about him, this isn’t about him, and the small groups of racists or 9/11 guys or whoever that is trying to ride our coattails can kiss my ass, they don’t matter either and we don’t care.
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
"No. Not really. We don’t wonder at all."

And arrogant to boot. Regular people don’t care about the finer points of libertarian critique. The guy says he’s not a racist, his comments and record show no racism. He might not be the "libertarian ideal", most folks don’t care, they are supporting the guy most likely to loosen the grip of the establishment and their welfare/warfare ways. Meanwhile you guys are parsing over the texts to discern his exact meaning when he said blah blah blah
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
we want Ron Paul.
Yes, what a coup it will be if we can get Ringo George to run as VP.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in an overwhelming 400-6 House vote last month. Got to make sure the intertubes are not "radicalizing" our youth... by locking up the youth who talk about it. Works for the drug war.

Even if the guy is more of a federalist than a libertarian, what are your better more viable options?

We’ll end up in rehabilitation camps but at least we’ll feel better about sticking to idealogical purity.

The man isn’t the focus, it’s the movement.
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
It should be pointed out, to balance the historical record, that not all (and I would hazard "not even most") rugged individualists owned or supported slavery. Having lived in the South as a transplanted Yankee for about twenty-five years now I am always struck by how less individualistic and more communal Southern society is, compared to Northern society. (I realize that for a time in the northern colonies, and later, states, but it was the South where it was more deeply entrenched and had more longevity.) The exception to this was and still is the mountain south, where Celtic individualism was stronger and slavery less intrinsic to the society. My impression is that antebellum southern society was even more communal than today’s South is. In fact, George Fitzhugh, the most articulate of the pro-slavery apologists, defended slavery in terms that would warm the cockles of both modern collectivists and communitarian conservatives, harshly criticizing the "dog-eat-dog" individualism of northern capitalistic society; while the most vocal individualists could be found among the abolitionists, whose writings read like modern libertarian manifestoes.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Correction to my post above: I meant to write that "I realize that for a time in the northern colonies, and later, states, slavery was permitted. . . ."
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Bilwick-

be careful, if you you step in their revisionism you might get something stuck to your shoe...
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
I’m wondering when Paul will get around to denouncing his Truther and white supremacist/neo-nazi supporters. If he wasn’t making the Right look bad, you know the Left would be making pronouncements, like they did with the Swift Boat Vets, demanding that Bush distance himself and denounce them.
 
Written By: William Teach
URL: http://www.thepiratescove.us
"I’m wondering when Paul will get around to denouncing his Truther and white supremacist/neo-nazi supporters."

Considering that they are only a handful and a marginal minority of his supporters that he might not be aware of, in fact only a handful of blogger "journalists" are even aware of, then i’m sure he will give it the attention it deserves when it actually becomes and issue. God forbid he keep the likes of Dale franks waiting, what must he be thinking...
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
"I guess, but government doesn’t actually try to combat it, do they?"

You have never heard of, for example, diversity training?

"Guidelines for Conducting Diversity Training"
http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/Policy/divers97.asp


"In essence, Mr. Paul’s message is that government causes racism."

How ridiculous. We all know that white people cause racism.

I am getting the impression, after reading a few of your posts, that you don’t care much for Ron Paul.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"In essence, Mr. Paul’s message is that government causes racism."

"How ridiculous. We all know that white people cause racism"

His message isn’t that government causes racism, racism is a social prejudice, race is a construct invented by slaver to justify slavery. What the government does is to institutionalize racism by legitimizing the idea of identifying people by what race they "belong to" and therefore helps to perpetuate racism. The government has no business classifying anyone by something as devisive and un-progressive as the idea of race. I prefer to judge and be judged by the content of my character.

Ron Paul isn’t a racist, he is an individualist. The intelligent among us usually are. It’s the difference between a polemic (Malcom X) and a leader (Dr. King).
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
"Yes, government at the state level created Jim Crow. But government at the federal level eliminated it."

What an absurd arguement. ... and government on the global level can bring it back again...

Wouldn’t the best solution to this be to eliminate the role of government in racial matters at all levels: Local, State, and Federal?


I thought this was a libertarian blog but you sound like a statist in this regard.

DALE RESPONDS:
What an absurd arguement...
And yet, it actually
happened.

Again, you cannot argue that government has the power to perpetuate racism, without also arguing that government has the power to ameliorate its effects.

Cake. Have it. Eat it. Please choose only one.
Wouldn’t the best solution to this be to eliminate the role of government in racial matters at all levels: Local, State, and Federal?
And had you actually read my post for comprehension, you might have noted that I said exactly that.

I am not foolish enough, however, to accept Mr. Paul’s implication that doing so would reduce
private racism or discrimination.
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
race is a construct invented by slaver to justify slavery
It is? Who knew!
Boy are the Asians gonna be pissed to find out they’re really Caucasians trapped in an elaborate slaver plot.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"I’m wondering when Paul will get around to denouncing his Truther and white supremacist/neo-nazi supporters. If he wasn’t making the Right look bad, you know the Left would be making pronouncements, like they did with the Swift Boat Vets, demanding that Bush distance himself and denounce them."

And who won that election... Bush. Even though he never distanced himself. That’s because deep down everyone knew it wasn’t Bush attacking Kerry it was the Swift Boaters. You either bought what
they were selling or you didn’t. What made the Swift Boat attack confounding to the Democrats was that they couldn’t turn it around and attack Bush because it was coming from a separate source. Likewise... these groups act individually for their own reasons and everyone, even you, knows that. The best move strategically for Paul will be to continue to completely ignore the calls for denouncement just as Bush did and continue to focus on his own message. The only people calling for denouncment are the ones who want him to lose the election. He will never denounce them. He will continue to state his own beliefs. You’re going to be waiting a while.
 
Written By: Thomas
URL: http://
"Boy are the Asians gonna be pissed to find out they’re really Caucasians trapped in an elaborate slaver plot."

Talking about the modern conception of race and it’s origins:


"From the 17th through the 19th centuries, the merging of folk beliefs about group differences with scientific explanations of those differences produced what one scholar has called an "ideology of race" (Smedley 1999).

The word "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration. (Smedley 1999) As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups. The rise of the Atlantic slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups in order to justify the subordination of African slaves. (Meltzer 1993) Drawing on Classical sources and upon their own internal interactions — for example, the hostility between the English and Irish was a powerful influence on early thinking about the differences between people (Takaki 1993) — Europeans began to sort themselves and others into groups associated with physical appearance and with deeply ingrained behaviors and capacities. A set of folk beliefs took hold that linked inherited physical differences between groups to inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities. (Banton 1977) Although similar ideas can be found in other cultures (Lewis 1990; Dikötter 1992), they appear not to have had as much influence upon their social structures as was found in Europe and the parts of the world colonized by Europeans. However, often brutal conflicts between ethnic groups have existed throughout history and across the world, and racial prejudice against Africans also exists today in non-colonised countries such as China and Japan.

While the 17th century did not have systematic notions of racial difference, colonialism led to the development of social and political institutions, such as slavery in the New World, that were later justified through racial theories (cf. Gossett 1997:17)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_race

And it continues today, a useful tool to divide and exploit by identifying us a parts of a whole(members of races), instead of whole being in our own right(individuals).



 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
"Again, you cannot argue that government has the power to perpetuate racism, without also arguing that government has the power to ameliorate its effects."

Of course, but the arguement is should the government have the power to do either, and if we let it retain that power do we not run the risk of it choosing the former over the latter?

"I am not foolish enough, however, to accept Mr. Paul’s implication that doing so would reduce private racism or discrimination. "

Show me where he made that arguement. "Implication" is not suffecient to base a position on. What did he state and how is it wrong? Your whole argument stems from an imaginary "uncomplimentary subtext". while the overt text denounces racism and gives principled libertarian derived reasons for it’s denouncement, you seem to imply that the underlying subtext appeals to racists because it calls for a non-statist approach to racism.

Most people i know who find the statist aproach the most satisfactory in dealing with social problems are themselves statists despite the state’s poor track record. correct me if i’m wrong.

DALE RESPONDS:
Show me where he made that arguement.
OK:
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.
That’s actually less an implication, than it is a blatant assertion. Moreover, it is an assertion that even a superficial review of American history shows to be...counterfactual.
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
"What government does is ban discrimination, i.e., the physical manifestation of bigotry through unequal treatment in housing, employment, etc.

Now, we can certainly have a discussion about whether government’s proper role is to ban private discrimination, but I think we can all agree that, at minimum, government itself cannot be allowed to discriminate on the base of race."

First you state that what the government does is ban discrimination in housing(private), employment(private), ect(i’m guessing also private). Then you state "Now, we can certainly have a discussion about whether government’s proper role is to ban private discrimination".

Are saying the government has a legitimate role to play in encouraging or discouraging the discriminatory acts of it’s citizens in their private lives and non-government affiliated businesses or not?

Is the matter of who i choose to employ or not employ for whatever reasons a legitimate concern for the State or not?

DALE RESPONDS: I am saying exactly what is written there. It is possible for people of good faith to debate whether the government has a role banning private discrimination. It is a policy debate that actually exists.

That government, at any level, should not be allowed to discriminate, is I think, a proposition to which everyone can agree.
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
Reread the post, again it seems that your argument is essentially a leftist/statist one.

Local and State government protected and encouraged racially motivated practices(jim crow) in private affairs and public matters, the best way to combat that is not with a revision/repeal/replacement of Local and State laws, but with the expansion of the more powerful and pervasive Federal laws in regard to not only public but also the private matters.

That at it’s heart is not a libertarian agruement, that is a statist argument.

DALE RESPONDS: See, this is why reading for comprehension is SO important. I didn’t argue that the Federal goverment’s intervention was the best way to get rid of Jim Crow. I merely argued that it did.

"Is" and "ought" are not the same things, you see.
 
Written By: Francine
URL: http://
Francine wrote:
Considering that they are only a handful and a marginal minority of his supporters that he might not be aware of,....
If he is not aware of supporters who are Truthers, who have been shown ON VIDEO bringing the 9/11 Truth issue up to him, and is unaware of the support from white supremacists, then he obviously has no idea what is going on with his campaign, ergo, he would have no clue what to do as president.

Thomas, there is a big difference between the Swift Boat Vets, who did have truth on their side, and nutters who believe in white supremacy and 9/11 being an inside job (MILHOP and/or LILHOP)
 
Written By: William Teach
URL: http://www.thepiratescove.us
then he obviously has no idea what is going on with his campaign, ergo, he would have no clue what to do as president.
Bravo.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Ron Paul spoke clearly about his opposition to racism.

His claim that it is collectivism and contrary to the ideal of individualism is almost exactly the way Ayn Rand described it.

Many libertarians have made this claim in the past, explaining why they aren’t racists. Is Franks really as ignorant as he pretends?

(This doesn’t imply that racists can’t be libertarians, but rather, that those who are libertarians because they value indidualism often reject the collectivism of racism as well. Paul has stated he is against racism because he is an individualist.)

Like many libertarians, Paul appeals to the American tradition of liberty. From this approach, the libertarian elements of the American tradition are the "true" American way. The anti-libertarian elements (like slavery or Jim Crow) are held to be inconsistent blemishes.

See Paul’s speech when cosponsoring recognition of Junteenth. He claims that slavery is inconsistent with American ideals.

I think this is desirable in a libertarian politician. Claim that libertarianism is the American way.

Does Franks really believe that libertarian politicians should be griping about Jefferson’s slaves? Or should they treat the Declaration of Independence as the core of what it means to be an American?

As I read Paul’s words, what I see is a statement that white racists are collectivists who reject American traditional values and really are no better than the left-liberal adovcates of affirmative action. (The last is a very cutting remark to them.)

What does Franks have to say? Well, America’s tradition is consistent with racism and collectivism has nothing to do with race.

Ron Paul is not making a campaign issue out of Civil Rights legislation.

Franks claims that we could have a "debate" about government prohibition of private discrimination.

We could also have a debate on separation of powers and the role the Federal government should have in determining state government policies on racial discrimination.

But why?

Ron Paul apparently has other priorities. (If he were a racist, or courting racist voters, he would presumably make this a priority. He might even attack affirmative action as politically acceptable way to make this appeal. He is not.)

But for some reason, Franks nitpicks Paul’s assertion that racism is contrary to individualism and the American way. And he want’s to debate issues that would ...

what?

Provide more opportunity for Paul’s critics to assert he must be a racist?

All libertarians believe that slavery is (and was) very wrong and that government should never enforce segregation.

Many libertarians believe that government should not prohibit private discrimination.

Many libertarians believe that the market system tends to destroy racial discrimation, and explain government enforced segregation as efforts to stop this consequence of the market process. (So, yes, Franks, government is the problem here.) In fact, in the American South, it was an explicitly anti-capitalist populism that imposed Jim Crow. The same politics were at work in South Africa when the Nationalist Party imposed Apartheid. So economic collectivism and the collectivism of racism are really not all that far apart in practice.

Many libertarians believe that the Federal government should not have the power to prohibit state policies, even if they are bad. This would include enforced segregation. (Or even slavery.) Those libertarians believe that appeals to state constitutions, or else libertarian political movements at the state or local level should change those unjust policies.

Again, is Franks this ignorant? Or is he just pretending?

All libertarians are quite aware that opposing laws against private discrimination or taking a strong "federalst" stance will result in charges of racism.

Ron Paul is no racist. He has made that clear. He is not running for President on a program of changing the civil rights laws.

 
Written By: Bill Woolsey
URL: http://
Well, I read through your post and most of the comment thread. Dale, I didn’t see anywhere in your post where you said you think Ron Paul is racist. Perhaps I missed it, but would you please clarify for me: Do you think his statement actually indicates he is racist or do you think it is only a political liability, the sort of thing that can (and likely will) be carefully misinterpreted by opponents in the worst possible way in order to attack him?
 
Written By: Jim
URL: http://
Well, I read through your post and most of the comment thread. Dale, I didn’t see anywhere in your post where you said you think Ron Paul is racist.
That’s because I have no access to his inner life, so it is impossible for me to say.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
One of the biggest liabilities the Paul campaign has is... the Paul supporters themselves. Not those that have contributed to his campaign, but, and its on a fundamental level, those Paul Pods that run around defending Ron Paul against any and all criticism.

Representative Paul himself seems a hopelessly out of touch paleo-Libertarian - his supporters are mostly just goofy, and fun to watch while they petulantly seek recognition, respect, and (seemingly) fealty for their savior.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Considering that they are only a handful and a marginal minority of his supporters that he might not be aware of, in fact only a handful of blogger "journalists" are even aware of, then i’m sure he will give it the attention it deserves when it actually becomes and issue. God forbid he keep the likes of Dale franks waiting, what must he be thinking...
Interesting. But I beg to differ. Ru-Paul has made more than a few stops by good ole’ InfoWars. He has also had a few pow-wows with Mr. Alex Jones, the head nut at the Asylum of Truthers. So, if this is not an attempt to placate the nuball voting block, I do not know what is. Maybe his excuse could be he got Alex Jones and David Letterman mixed up.
 
Written By: Keith
URL: http://
By the way, gang... Todat... 11/21, Ron Paul showed up on King Tinfoil’s radio show again.

Game over.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"The word you’re looking for is "tendentious", and no, it isn’t."

You’re right—I looked it up, and the word I was looking for was ’tenditious.’

I’m glad to see that others were more articulate than I in answering: "Yes, it is."
 
Written By: JMD
URL: http://
"The word you’re looking for is "tendentious", and no, it isn’t."
You’re right—I looked it up, and the word I was looking for was ’tenditious.’
Huh. Yeah. Maybe you’d better look that up again. Again, the word is "tendentious".

Third time’s the charm, old boy.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Ya know, this has a familiar ring to it...
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Do you or do you not support Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
 
Written By: James Bowery
URL: http://laboratoryofthestates.com
So, are we now reliant on law to determine someone’s personal take on race?
Or, is it simply a nice little hidy hole?

If you ever wonder again why government grows at the rate it does, reconsider the basis of your question.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
mkultra:
So who cares about Ron Paul? Wingnuts do.
What the hell is a "wingnut" supposed to be? There are two wings, you know. Or perhaps you don’t.
Ron Paul’s critics are primarily if not exculsively [sic] on the right.

Why?
Oh, I dunno, could it have anything to do with the fact that he’s a nutjob who pretends to be part of the right, and has never pretended to speak for the left in any way, shape or form? Nah, couldn’t be that. It must be because he’s the only candidate who thinks the U.S. has a constitution.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
"Liberty is a mechanism that provides the elimination of coercion, not the inculcation of virtue."

People are much more inclined to spend other peoples’s money via the state in irrational pursuits (like racism) than they are to spend money out of their own pockets. The former costs them little as individuals, the latter costs them more dearly. Thus economic liberty, the absence public funding, will tend to curtail irrationality.
 
Written By: John T. Kennedy
URL: http://no-treason.com
Why should someone(Ron Paul) who believes people have the right to think however way they want to, denounce someone who has views that he doesn’t necessarily support or agree with.

To imply that because he is somehow tainted because he has appeared on some show or is supported by that person is lame and disingenuious. Your writings have appeared on many different websites some of which I am sure you do not necessarily agree with all of the positions of the webmasters/owners but you’ll leave your writings there because you want/need the exposure. Ron Paul is no different in that respect.

In a free open society you have the right to be a Nazi, NAACP member, Klansman, communist, Black Panther, Libertarian, and even a Muslim. Wow, imagine that.

It’s only a closed society or people who want to close a society who fear people belonging to these groups.

Unless I’m mistaken the whole idea of libertarianism is that a person is free to feel, believe anyway they wish.

"Again, you cannot argue that government has the power to perpetuate racism, without also arguing that government has the power to ameliorate its effects."

Affimative Action, set-asides, Disabilities Act, Hate Crime Laws, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are just forms of racism/prejudice against the very people they are suppose to help. They do not create equality or level the field as those who support them argue.

You CANNOT make a group of people equal by treating them special. If you give them special treatment, by definition, you’re not treating them equally.

These laws/acts/regulations are the tools government uses to perpetuate racism. The only way government can do its part in ameliorating racism is by doing away with these types of laws.
Government involvement perpetuates the problem.

The majority of those who argue against doing away with these laws derive much of their power and wealth from these laws remaining in place.






 
Written By: Dan
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider