Ron Paul 2012
Out of context: Reply #69
- Started
- Last post
- 78 Responses
- deathboy0
Dude you dont get the idea of rights hes defending. You get caught up in the social conditioning of the times. Im ok with a hotel clerk saying "we dont allow coloreds here." The idea of right is the colored person doesn't have any right to the owners property or his labor except in free trade. Should anyone have a right to my services if i refuse to give them? Doesn't that impede on my rights? The answer is yes it does and grants a higher set of rights that are unequal. Forget the race card and look at the principles involved. Discrimination is a right. Now this right can be used stupidly or not. But it is a right and everyone acts upon it. As far as constituion allowed and how they didn't qualify slaves as white men with rights that is wrong. But it was a social condition of the times. You look at jefferson and see he felt they should have the same rights, but i liek to think he knew that with the foundation layed people would see it and conditioning would change. And it did. It had hurdles and the civil rights act made peopel who had no concepts of rights or philosophy and reason be forced to accept the truth. However its was an act of force and diluted individual rights. I'd like to think we could repeal the laws established by it and people would have changed and understood it as the necessary evil it was. But so many people are conditioned like animals and neglect reason and would probably act the same before they were forced to accept it. To force someone to do something doesnt always establish knowledge and understanding. But it would be an interesting experiement to repeal it and see how far we have really come. The man stays solid with his principles despite the politics and emotional issues of such issues. Its why i respect him. Do you think if the civil rights acts stuff was appealed today and granted equal rights as they should be there would be an issue? Id guess some hillbillies might refuse blacks but see how long they last.
As far as career and the constitution hes solid. Hes not a rightwing guy just talking. Everything he says is backed up. The only other concern i can see is his right on pro life but it is justifiable. The line to draw when a person counts as a human being is grey area. When it is ok and not. Its a question of value and there really is no hardline and i respect his opinion on letting the individual state decide through a democratic vote. The whole idea of state legislation on the grey areas is the point.
Im positive im informed on what i state and if not ill say im not. And im positive on the right to discriminate wether it be a black in business or fat chic at a bar. The choice is the individuals and the terms agreed upon. It might not all be shiny and happy but that is the nature of freedom and liberty. If my logic is not conclusive i need an argument to pursuade me or prove it as false.
Now you might not agree with my view and if so id say look into what a right is derived from philosophically and not any emotional attachment to what you think is a right or should be right. And i think you'd find his reasoning sound, but you may disagree on the level of "necessary evil or force" to change how things are and if you do do not forget its still an evil or not right.