Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaminyu
I'm not sure when or where he supposedly fraternized with former KKK leaders (nor do I see its relevance, since he himself is about as anti-racist as you can get).
|
Apparently David Duke is one of his most vocal supporters...and Paul hasn't bothered distancing himself or his campaign from Duke and his ilk. In fact, he's even justified accepting campaign donations from leaders of white supremacist groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaminyu
Him voting against the Civil Rights Act, stems from his opposition to collectivism, which he views as the root of racism. He opposed the Civil Rights Act because he didn't agree with the idea of forced integration, which it promotes. But, as he explains, this opposition is motivated by his belief that "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty". This is of course consistent with his view that racism is a part of collectivism, and that the only true way to oppose it is to recognize peoples' liberties as stemming from each of them as an individual, not from their membership in any particular racially-defined group.
|
Thank you...I've read his attempts at justifying/rationalizing his opinion.
However, I fail to see how the government was overstepping its bounds by mandating that publicly funded institutions be open to all Americans, regardless of race...or that voter registration requirements be applied equally.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that companies should be able to fire employees just because they decide to grow out a beard, or start wearing hejab? After all...its forced integration and collectivism that gives unjustly terminated people an avenue of appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaminyu
There's nothing "kooky" about having honest money, or giving people their constitutional "right to bear arms", since gun control laws really only effect adversely the people who abide by them. It doesn't stop criminals from getting and using guns, it just stops law-abiding citizens from having them to defend themselves with.
|
As far as the gold standard is concerned...its absolutely absurd to think that its even remotely applicable in this day and age. There quite literally isn't enough gold in the world to back the amount of US currency currently in circulation...and even if there was, the rate at which new gold is mined simply doesn't match the average rate of economic growth. You're basically tying down economic growth to a very fixed commodity...its ridiculous.
As far as your comments on gun control are concerned...where exactly do you draw the line? Do you support the legalization of drugs as well? How about getting rid of age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco purchases? What about prostitution? All of these things exist in society despite legal restrictions...so if we're to take the libertarian approach, then they should all be decriminalized.
That's the problem with extremist libertarian policy...it's almost a form of controlled anarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixpakistan
The "assault weapons ban" that you're referring to Ron Paul repealing is a ban on assault-style weapons. It bans the semi-automatic variants of military rifles, which is pointless - they're functionally the same as a normal hunting rifle.
Real "assault weapons" have been restricted since 1968.
|
Exclusive: Ron Paul Video Interviews | Newsweek.com
In theory, Ron Paul has no problem with "hobbyists" owning machine guns.