Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
So What's Ron Paul's Beef with the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Only a racist wouldn't applaud the 1964 Civil Rights Act, right?by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)
Sunday, February 24, 2008
I recently tried to explain Ron Paul to a very liberal friend of mine whose parents are from the former Soviet Union. She liked the idea of ending the war on drugs and the one in Iraq. She liked the idea of the Constitution as a Contract. So she went and told one of her friends about what she'd learned and her friend brought up segregation as being an example of a time when government had every right to overstep its bounds.
The next night we were out on a date and she asked me about this issue. I tried to explain the position of Dr. Paul's I'd read, but I didn't do a great job of it. I promised her I'd get back to her. I sent her a message with a few of my thoughts but basically just a link to Dr. Paul's speech explaining his opposition to recognizing the bill on its 40th anniversary.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Her response and my follow up answers are broken up below.
This was just between me and my beautiful young friend, but I thought you'd enjoy it. I haven't proofread it, so forgive the typos. I didn't intend for it to be an article, but I liked what I think I wrote and wanted to share it.
"k, so first, the claims that he makes in his article are not founded on anything except his own assertions. He says our racial "progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act," but does not provide any proof to qualify this claim. I would really like to know what his proof is if any...how this act hinders race relations I cannot grasp as it was the catalyst that forced people to adopt different social standards and face the truth that racism is unjust, otherwise the white, economically advantaged, politically active majority would have continued living in comfortable ignorance and denial."
You are right--This act "forced people" to do something, but wasn't "adopt[ing] different social standards and face the truth that racism is unjust." It forced them to accept the fact that the federal government had the right to tell private property owners how they could and couldn't use their businesses. It also set the stage to "force people" to hire people based on skin color instead of merit thus creating the idea of "group rights." Here is some proof that this hindered race relations not just in the United States but everywhere where such systems are used.
I could find about 10,000 more if you'd like. I think it was a black men who once said:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
"With hundreds of years to look back on what makes you think that people would just one day change their minds...if it hadn't happened on its own throughout history, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that some kind of outside intervention was necessary?"
Isn't what I think just an assertion? I don't know what would have happened. And it wasn't hundreds of years to look back on. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed from 1865-1870. Before then, slaves (the majority of who were black) had no rights, weren't citizens, and couldn't vote. Once they could vote, they could have used their 1st Amendment Right (which is protected in the Contract that seems to mean about as much to you as it does to the politicians who follow it arbitrarily) as MLK did to bring awareness to the issue. And while blacks as a group were discriminated against in business, people have no unalienable right to eat or shop where they'd like. As awareness was raised (and after all isn't racism just ignorance?) would enterprising people from other states not have seen the potential for the market of individuals who weren't being served or employed and created businesses where they could take advantage of this either by funding black businessmen who otherwise wouldn't have been able to obtain loans or creating businesses themselves where they could tap into this labor/customer pool? This movement was started by brave individuals who risked being jailed and it should have been decided by individuals through voting to amend the Contract to allow the government to infringe on personal property rights the way they did or to create opportunities for this underserved market.
Outside intervention was necessary, but not in the form of the federal government as I will discuss below.
"His assertions are based on things that didn't happen, and in fact are in direct opposition to previous historical trends that set precedents of human's tendency towards intolerance and violence, and not on inevitable integration and community bonding like Ron Paul claims. When has it ever happened that way?"
Uh, what do you think Dr. King was doing in Montgomery and Birmingham? It was happening that way in America before the government got involved as this link shows.
Note the dates here. Also note that federal intervention was used for a very legitimate purpose: Protecting the Right of Individual Citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights. Instead of allowing this to happen in the way it was happening which would have led to the things I discussed above, the Federal Government felt it was such a great idea that they'd get in on the act and just make it a law the very next year and created all of the problems I've noted above and some I'll talk about later in this response.
And I don't think Dr. King would have agreed with you about "human's tendency towards intolerance and violence" based on this quote:
"Nonviolent resistance ... is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. Consequently, the believer in non-violence has deep faith in the future. This faith is another reason why the non-violent resister can accept suffering without retaliation. For he knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship." - Martin Luther King
"And how much time is enough time, what if natural desegregation took 500 years?"
How much time? I don't know, and neither did Dr. King, but he believed it would happen as this quote proves:
"The nonviolent approach does not immediately change the heart of the oppressor. It first does something to the hearts and souls of those committed to it. It gives them self respect; it calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not think they had. Finally, it reaches the opponent and so stirs his conscience that reconciliation becomes a reality." (Martin Luther King)
If people's conscience's had been stirred by allowing this approach to continue, reconciliation may have indeed occurred, which is why the government couldn't allow it to happen as I will explain below.
Is that worth upholding a contract that allows for injustice?
One of the reasons it was happening was because The Contract was being upheld by protecting freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. By violating the Contract to expedite a process that was already occurring, what the government actually managed to do was expand the role of federal government. Read the 1st-4th things LBJ says he will do to enforce this law:
They all increase the scope of the federal government. The "Community Relations Service" LBJ mentions spent almost $10,000,000 in 2007--these things never go away once they are established.
Did it ever occur to you that possibly the reason this legislation was created was in order to keep people from seeing that when their individual rights were protected, serious change could take place and to remind them that the only way real progress could happen was if federal government got involved? What a great opportunity to teach people this lesson under the guise of "addressing a serious issue." By introducing this legislation, the government accomplished two very significant things to increase their power, all under the guise of "helping people":
1. Gave themselves the power to regulate private businesses on private property even if not involved in interstate commerce.
2. Split the nation into racial groups and perpetuated racism so that they could play people off of each other, manipulate voting groups by blaming these different groups of people and the other party for the problems facing our country instead of blaming the government for creating laws that should never exist. And
3. Convinced the people that the federal government was the chief arbiter of good (even if it meant violating individual rightsprotected by the Contract--to promote this good).
Do you not see the connection between this and how the War on Drugs is justified?
1. Private property can be confiscated if you break this "law." 2. When you think of a "crack baby" what color is it? When you think of a criminal, what color is he? 3. Drugs are badwe're telling you that, so just trust us as we expand our power and restrict your rightsall without we the people ever giving them the power to do so.
Or the War on Terror? 1. Increased access to all financial records (read the Patriot Act). 2. "Islamic" terrorists. 3. We have to go to war, even without Constitutional authority to do so.
Any time the government does something it isn't authorized to do in the Contract, however noble the cause may be, individuals suffer either through the loss of financial freedom or by loss of unalienable rights. I can't repeat this enough.
So you tell me, is it worth upholding that Contract? Here's a quote for you:
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
"I understand where you're coming from, but what you both are claiming are opinions or educated hypotheses at best."
You're right, these things are all opinions. And of course they are hypotheseswe can only hypothesize about things that didn't happen because the government never created the option of allowing it to happen. In fact, they made damned sure they didn't allow it to happen.
When you really understand where I'm coming from, you will first be horrified at what our government is doing, then you'll be really pissed off, then you'll start to do something horrible in the eyes of the government by becoming educated not on the issues, but on your rights and their role. Then you'll start to talk to others about it. Then two things will happen that are better expressed by these quotes than anything I can say:
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. - Dresden James
And if you don't let people calling you a lunatic stop you, you may help enlighten someone which will create the second thing best expressed by good ole Thomas Jefferson (that dude really got this whole freedom/liberty thing):
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.
"Second, the business thing I don't agree with because there were years of segregated businesses, in fact that's all that there had ever been, preceding the Civil Rights Act and the laws of the market place did not correct the situation themselves. Why? Because black people were kept in a constant subordinate state of economic deficiency, so its not like they were a huge faction of the market place anyway. Basically, the white people didn't miss their business, and if they did, it was such a small proportion that they were willing to take the loss to keep blacks out of their store...so their racism was stronger than their greed. What I think you fail to recognize is that racism isn't a rational phenomenon, it is irrational and unnatural...you can't reason that one race is superior to another, therefore racism is a product of culture and society believing things that are not only untrue, but unnatural. What makes you think that the counterargument for the end to this kind of thought would come from "the rational laws of the market place"?
The "rational laws of the market place" weren't enough, you're right. But it is worth noting that Dr. King was using these laws (through boycotts) coupled with public awareness and his Contract-protected free speech right to change these things, by changing the hearts and minds of people. This would have possibly ended racism. The politicians in control of the government couldn't have that.
"It's not like one day a racist storeowner will decide to be prudent to get more money when his motivation for being racist is not based on a system or rewards or rational benefits in the first place. I guess maybe after reading the article and your message I would say that maybe this literal adherence to the contract is missing the point."
I would say after reading your response, that you are missing the point. As was I when I tried to explain it over dinner. I told you I'd look into when certain laws were passed (which I didn't do until tonight) and amazingly, after looking into this it is ridiculously clear why this law passed. When you get the point of just how important this Contract is, and how simple it is, you will see time and time again this pattern of laws creating more problems than they solve. If you were getting paid obscene amounts of money to address issues, wouldn't it make more sense to create issues than to actually solve problems?
"The founders of the constitution were racist too, byproducts of a racist society, and maybe they did not make explicit certain things because they did not even cross their minds, it was just a cultural normalcy that went overlooked, maybe they never thought to mention desgregation because they never actually thought that the nation would end up wanting to desegregate."
Maybe they were racists, but they created a Contract that allowed changes by the people when they thought it necessary. And the people did when they created the Amendments mentioned earlier. Maybe your government wants you to believe the framers were racists so that you will further distance yourself from understanding the Contract's importance.
The true byproduct of being raised during this period of time was an understanding of how important freedom was and how hard it would be to regain once lost. Maybe they never thought to mention desegregation because they knew if people's true rights were protected, any "tyranny would vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." And in the case of segregation and racism it was happening until the government stepped in. These founders also understood who the true enemies of the people were. Here are two final quotes. The first is the opening line from Thomas Paine's Common Sense and illustrates that society could have changed for the good, but government by nature can never accomplish this end. The second is from good ole TJ about those true enemies and how to prevent them from harming the people:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
It might take a while for a woman born in a place that placed the common good above the individual good by making a family live in an apartment while waiting for a house to understand the true value of freedom and what it means, but it is possible to overcome genetics, little commie ;). Thanks for making me think.
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Of course there is only one race, the human race. And in Kansas City in the forties our schools were integrated.
I was a member of the Plano, Tx Jaycees when this terrible legislation was being debated. I intuitively knew that it was wrong and just another Federal power grab. I authored a resolution against the act which was unanimously (except for one union guy) approved by our club and sent it to every member of congress. All to no avail.
I did not read all of the links, so perhaps you already noted that Dr. Thomas Sowell is on record as stating that Blacks were making more progress before the civil rights acts were passed than they have since. Himself being one of our great Black educators should know. A sense of entitlement never helped anyone.
"What I think you fail to recognize is that racism isn't a rational phenomenon, it is irrational and unnatural...you can't reason that one race is superior to another, therefore racism is a product of culture and society believing things that are not only untrue, but unnatural."
Racism, unfortunately, is a natural and rational phenomenon. It's an extension of tribalism, which has been around for millenia. It is natural to have fear of, or think less of, someone who isn't part of your "tribe"; someone who looks different, who speaks differently, someone who the "elders" in your community/tribe have designated as "undesirable".
It's has nothing to do with superiority, other than percieved associative superiority. It tends to devolve down to the following assertation: "My tribe is better than your tribe".
A good discussion of the issue. The only point I could see needing to be added is that, in private business, the 'invisible hand' of the market punishes racism without any need for government involvement. If you a businessman wishes to hire only one race, he has to pay more for labor; if he wishes to sell to only one race, he's going to sell less product. If not for government supports, racism would have a hard time surviving in a capitalist economy; though it could, if people wished to pay the penalty.
George Dance, it survived just fine before the government made it illegal. The problem with this article, and all of your responses, is that it's all theoretical to you.
Blacks protested peacefully, and used their First Amendment rights peacefully, and the "free society" you champion didn't want to hear it or listen to it.
To blacks, the civil rights movement's triumph was in getting the GOVERNMENT to act. There were already white people who did not act or feel racist, but they didn't act to change society or the way blacks were treated.
It's very easy to claim that the legislation was "wrong" and that things could been achieved through other means when none of you had to live through those times as one of the people being oppressed.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-24 19:46:17
DX,
I didn't know that about Sowell, but his "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" is one of my favorite books.
Logical Premise,
Fast forward 40 years: blacks are STILL "blacks" because of this and subsequent legislation. When the blowback from our interventionism comes full circle in 20-40 years (and we still have problems with terrorists because of it instead of doing what we should have done and changed foreign policy, just as we should have protected individual rights and allowed the civil rights movement to run its course and black people would just be people who are black) this could be said:
It's very easy to claim that the authorization to grant GWB the power to unilaterally use military force in Iraq was "wrong" and that things could have been achieved through other means when when none of you had to live through those times as one of the people being threatened by terrorists.
Yes, the war may have helped defeat one generation of terrorists, but responding in this way ensured the real problem would continue for decades.
In my opinion you summed the entire article in 2 sentences. " When you get the point of just how important this Contract is, and how simple it is, you will see time and time again this pattern of laws creating more problems than they solve. If you were getting paid obscene amounts of money to address issues, wouldn't it make more sense to create issues than to actually solve problems?"
Even Dr. King understood how important those "racist" authors work was: When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
The problem with most issues is that those in power try and solve the illusion of what is wrong and not correct the underlying root of the problem. Is it any wonder that since Federal Aid has increased year after year the same people remain impoverished? The main motive of having our contract with the government was to provide incentive for industrious, free thinkers to come and prosper. Everytime weprovide some form of subsidy or aid and take away the incentive of people we are weakening ourselves as a nation. Our nation was at its strongest when the incentive was highest. Now that incentives are at their lowest is it any wonder our economy is doing as well as it is?
In the words of Dr. King:
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
It is also interesting to note that segregation was being caused by bad local laws--laws that ran contrary to the constitution. So it comes down to government enforcing bigotry and racism. Granted it was local government, but government nonetheless. I'm not sure how to handle it if a local government is doing something to its citizens that is unconstitutional. Does the Federal Government have the constitutional authority to step in and
And THAT is what I am getting at, goddammit. You people with your pie-in-the-sky ideals refuse to face FACTS.
LOCAL government and "the will of the people" is what entrenched racism. "Accessible politicians" who listened to "the people's will" is why we had Jim Crow laws. And you don't know how to stop that.
All you have is platitudes that "liberty" will make people see each other as human beings. I have a news flash for you people: white supremacists and neo-nazi's have a lot of the same wording, about "the right of liberty" and they only apply it to themselves.
Before you rush to enact your changes to society , you'd best consider the consequences. I don't have any faith in people because collectively people are bigoted , stupid, and only concerned for their own "group", and all your highblown ideals won't change that. In the period of the Revolution people grouped themselves, in the Civil War they grouped themselves, and they group themselves today.
Language won't change it. But I'm clearly waisting my breath here. None of you would understand.
How could slavery be the "Will of the People" if slavery was not consistently upheld throughout the country. It was possibly a majority of the population in specific areas that were enforcing those laws but it was not the "Will of the People" if the majority did not support it.
Liberty has nothing to do with how people see each other. Those who preach hate and separation have the same rights under liberty as those who preach peace and non-violence. To have liberty allows for the ability to preach ones beliefs regardless of what they are.
Liberty is defined as:
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4.
freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint:
And you are right people did group themselves together then as they do now. On one side were the revoluntionaries and the other was the tyrannical government. Amazing how people choose sides.
Logical Premise: "George Dance, [racism] survived just fine before the government made it illegal."
Sure it did, in the southern U.S., because those state governments made it compulsory instead. (I'd advise you to do some research on those state laws; start by googling 'Jim Crow'.) Some of those state laws were not invalidated until the 1957 Civil Rights Act, and some not until the 1964 Act; the 7 years between that and the 1964 CR Act, with its taking of private property, was very little time time at all in which to see what a free society could accomplish. However, one can argue that African-Americans did make more progress, in those few years, than they did before or since.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
