Ron Paul suggests basic freedoms depend on property rights

[proud2BlibKansan]

On the same day that he announced his candidacy for the presidency, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) made waves by telling MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he had been in Congress at the time.

Paul dismissed claims that he is a racist as “outlandish” and said he would have voted to desegregate public facilities. He insisted, however, that private business owners have an absolute right to decide what to do with their own property.

“I believe that property rights should be protected,” Paul stated. “Your right to be on tv is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can’t walk into your station. so right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property.”

Suspicions of racist attitudes on Paul’s part are not new and rest on part on newsletters containing racial slurs that were published under his name in the 1990s. However, his belief that the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are simply varying aspects of property rights has been less publicized and may deserve closer attention.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/ron-paul-suggests-basic-freedoms-come-second-to-property-rights/

[alphafemale]

1. The civil rights act didn't end property rights.

If so how is it a certain golf club in Augusta can still deny membership to women?

And what of Maurice Bessinger's BBQ restaurants?

[still_one]

2. He can say he is not a racist, but that doesn't mean he isn't /nt

[LynneSin]

3. Once again we have the "I'm not a racist but....."

If you have to use that statement you probably are a racist.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. He's anti-choice too but I guess if he SAYS he isn't I could support him!

LOL

[F Bastiat]

4. The" right to life" entails property rights...he's right about that.

However, if a private business is "open" to the public...isn't the public "all?"

On the other hand, if I see a sign that says "open to whites, or blacks, or whatever only," I know where not to do business.

One of the less mentioned benefits of "freedom of speech" is that the bad guys are free to tell us who they are.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. The right to vote used to be based on property rights, too.

Wonder how far back into history he wants to go.

[somone]

6. The bigger your bank account, the more freedoms you have

just as our Founding Fathers intended :sarcasm:

[Lex]

11. or the more stuff you own, the more rights you should have . . .

[F Bastiat]

18. No, the more stuff you own, the more fun you should have...

[blindpig]

8. Libertarian retrofitting

By making property the basis of of other rights Capital is given the right to run amok. The only freedom to be found here is for the bourgeoisie.

Truth is, this has been the ruling idea of the ruling class in the capitalist era.

[Volaris]

15. argue back with this....

"Property" and the ownership thereof are nothing but the PHYSICAL manifestations of other, INALIENABLE rights, like right to free speech in the Public Square, the freedom to express oneself outwardly as one sees fit, and the security that those rights CANNOT be violated by anyone without Due Process of LAW.

their heads will hurt for a week...

[blindpig]

16. All 'rights' are alienable, they are the creation of society

"The ruling ideas of any epoch are those of it's ruling class."

Thing is, all of those rights which you mention are hollow without economic rights.

[F Bastiat]

17. Rights are a "creation of society?" What country are you from?

[blindpig]

21. So inform me....

where do rights come from?

[F Bastiat]

22. Well, my friend, ever since the Age of Enlightenment, western society, and in particular, the US,

has recognized that individuals are endowed with natural rights, that are "self-evident" and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture, government, or society.

The reason I asked what country are you from is that every American should know this.

[white_wolf]

24. That is not true.

If rights were truly universal and nature, then everyone would have the same rights. People seem to have this belief that rights are part of some natural law, but that sadly isn't the case. Gravity is a nature law, I can't break and no society can get rid of it, but a society can get rid of someone's ability to criticize the government.

Rights are creations of society, that is how we must make sure our society preserves and protects those rights.

As to Paul's statement, property is not the basis of rights, private property in fact infringes on freedom, the only freedom people like Paul care about is the freedom of the capitalists to do whatever the hell they want.

[verges]

26. Wrong. And in fact backwards.

The US is based on the assumption that all men have certain self-evident rights. These rights are conferred by nature. IOW natural law. The creations of society are those wich curtail those natural rights, and therefore should be fought against. Hence the American Revolution and many other revolutions that followed.

[white_wolf]

27. I know the US was founded on that assumption.

That does not mean I agree with that assumption, the US was also founded on the assumption that slavery is okay, but I don't agree with that.

[verges]

29. Not exactly.

It was a contentious issue from the start. And it was an unfortunate, yet necessary compromise.

[F Bastiat]

31. My friend, you have some reading to catch up on.

You should start with the Declaration of Independence.

And then, you should lose the notion that "society can get rid of someone's ability to criticize the government." While it is true that a society can put you in a cage or even take your life for criticizing the government, it cannot take away that right.

Regarding property rights: People must create and produce in order to sustain their lives. If they are not free to choose how they dispose of what they create and produce, they are nothing more than slaves.

Slavery was abolished in this country a long time ago. Fortunately, those who advocate against private property rights and thus, seek a return to the good old days, are in the minority.

[white_wolf]

36. I've read the Declaration before.

Secondly, if you aren't able to exercise your right to criticize the government without being punished, than you don't have that right. It is as simple as that, rights are granted by society. As for property rights, that is nothing but a creation of the capitalists to defend their system of exploitation that turns us into slaves.

[kentuck]

38. +1

Well said. I like the way you challenge conventional wisdom.

[Mr. Jefferson]

40. That was akin to challenging the conventional wisdom which holds that 2 + 2 =4.

[kentuck]

41. I disagree.

Can you explain further?

[Mr. Jefferson]

46. It took thousands of years of philosophical evolution to establish the idea

that individuals are endowed with inalienable rights. Similarly, it took thousands of years of astronomical evolution to establish the theory of heliocentrism.

The theory of heliocentrism cannot be refuted, nor can the existence of inalienable rights.

[jtuck004]

39. While I think you make a good point, just because a government limits

your rights by killing or beating you up does not mean you don't, in a very real sense, still have those rights. It means that the government is in the wrong because they are abridging them, and that you should resist until you can exercise those rights freely.

Just because we don't live up to an ideal doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[kentuck]

43. This assumes you had the "rights" before they were taken from you.

There are some folks in the world that have no idea what "rights" are. They have never had them or exercised them. Do they still have them?

[Volaris]

44. I say yes they do, and heres why I think that...

the Poor Schmuck living in N. Korea has just as much a Right to things like self-governance, Speech, expression, Habeas Corpus, Trial by Jury without indefinite detention or torture, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, ETC., as you, or I, or any other Human Being has.

If the Government in N. Korea does not agree, then that citizen, (as a truly free Human Being) has the Right to make a choice...wether to resist a Govt. in the wrong, or go along with the wrong...I.E., the first choice in society for any human being it between letting Govt. dictate rights (rather than simply protecting them) or dictating TO government which of your HUMAN rights it is GOING to recognize and protect, and maybe get yourself killed in the process. (and only our Poor Schmuck can decide which is more important to him, security from punishment, or Liberty....)


The trick for we over here in our little American Representative haven, is to understand that while we might have the RIGHT (by the tenants of OUR society), to force other governments and peoples to our way of thinking, we certainly don't possess the MEANS to do so. But if the aforementioned Poor Schmuck from N. Korea finds himself under OUR governmental (or military, I think) jurisdiction, we have a societal obligation to treat him the way we would treat one of our own, because in that instance, we most certainly DO have the means to do so. (who is going to stop us? his government that can't reach him now that he is over here? give it a try, motherfuckers, we DARE you...and as an aside, I think this tenant of "you don't fuck with us, and we won't fuck with you goes all the way back to the Americans in the British Colonies...) This is, I believe, the foundational argument AGAINST torture of captured enemy forces. WE believe, that as a Human Being, he needs to be treated AS a Human Being, even if this is a foreign concept to HIM.

The argument AGAINST this way of thinking that I have heard from some of my GOP friends is as follows: "Well, the Constitution simply does not apply to him, hes not a U S Citizen." My response to that is, as follows:

ok then, who do Constitutional Rights apply to?
American Citizens only.
Ok. Define Citizen for me.
Someone born here.
Or?
Someone born to American parents overseas, or on an American Military base if the parents are enlisted (as American Bases are Sovereign U.S.Soil)
Or?
Someone who follows proper legal channels to BECOME an American Citizen.
Or?
Thats about it.
So... your argument is that to be a Citizen and have Constitutional Protection of Rights apply to you, first you have to have been BORN....
Well, good job super-genius, you just DESTROYED forty years of Pro-Life Activism in America, all so you can waterboard some Other Poor Schmuck who wandered into a battlezone and got himself captured. And as far as I personally am concerned, that can be an OK position to take, but now you have a choice to make...It either applies to ALL HUMAN BEINGS, or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways, and still try to claim the Moral High Ground. This is because Constitutional Rights are really HUMAN Rights, all the Constitution does is codify them into a Governmentally Enforceable Contract that WE the FREE PEOPLE have empowered our Government to enforce our behalf, because we recognize that ONE of us is not as strong as ALL of us in accomplishing the goal of defending SOME of us from the potential human idiocy of the REST OF US (as well as from the potential vagaries of the State of Nature, which is basically the same thing if you ask me). You CAN disagree with this philosophical position, thats OK, as long as you are willing to trade the Rights of ONE Human Being (our aforementioned Poor Schmuck) for the Rights of another (the Rights of an as yet UNBorn "potential" child). But be willing to suffer the philosophical and LOGICAL consequences of your argument if the REST of us start agreeing with you on the waterboarding thing.

This is usually when they walk away mad, yammering about the "damn liburl eeleet edukashun sistum".

Think, and ye shall Win.

[jtuck004]

47. Absolutely yes. Those rights exist prior to and above anything a government

which is just people, might do or say. Just because a government has suppressed their expression, even if the "people" have internalized the idea that they only get what the government gives them, they still exist.


From Wiki:

"Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body."

[enough]

9. A great thinker. (nt)

[Lex]

10. Did he say property owners should be the only ones allowed to vote?

Racists are fetishists about owning property.

[txlibdem]

13. Paul: only property owners should enjoy *any* rights

Ron and Rand Paul are not libertarians, they're Medievalists. "Liberty" for the rich, serfdom and slavery for the rest.

[ThomWV]

12. So is it any surprise to anyone that Father and Son see eye-to-eye on the matter

Where do you think sonny boy got his grand ideas? Rand Paul said essentially the same thing in an interview with Rachel Maddow a couple of months ago.

[kentuck]

14. A flaw in his argument..

As for property rights, he cannot build his church wherever he wants. He cannot build a TV station without permission from the government, ie, the people. We, the people, regulate his "property rights" in almost every instance. He cannot start a restaurant if his "property" is not zoned for it. His idea that property rights are supreme to all other rights is mistaken.

[FLAprogressive]

20. Libertarians would probably do away with zoning because it "impinges on their freedom"....

....freedom to build a skyscraper or a toxic waste plant in a residential neighborhood.

[kentuck]

32. But society, the citizens, have democratically decided...

that zoning is an appropriate way to handle growth and business. If they can get enough votes to agree with them, then they could change those laws. Until then, they have the same rights as everyone else and are relegated to follow the same laws as everyone else.

[FLAprogressive]

33. Tell them that....to libertarians, it is all about the individual.

[kentuck]

37. They can believe what they want...

We still have laws that society must obey.

[FLAprogressive]

19. What does he not get? Businesses that serve the public cannot discriminate.

See the Supreme Court case "Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States".

Asshole.

[DainBramaged]

23. So his platform is property rights to discriminate but no right to choose for women

What a fucking neanderthal

[nolabear]

25. When I was a kid in Mississippi my grandparents owned a cafe.

This was in the '60s. The cook was an African American woman who did a stunning job of turning out meals for the local shipyard breakfast and lunch rush. She fed her own husband too, but she handed him a plate out the back door. They did not allow blacks to eat in their place.

One day there was a rumor of a planned movement by the black shipyard employees (there were many) to come into the place. My grandparents put "Reserved" signs on all the tables, and the regular crowd colluded with the idea that they all had their own reserved places at each meal rather than just showing up.

My grandparents, whom I loved and who were in many ways warm, decent, stunningly hard working people were racists. No doubt about it. They were also about a month away from economic disaster, and knew that if black people ate at their place by their choice, white people would not. The cook knew that too, and was very afraid that if the movement took hold she, who was poorer than my grandparents, would lose her income.

No confrontation happened, and within a few years the occasional black worker would come in and was (yeah, grudgingly) served. Why? Because they had to. It was the law. And no one refused to patronize them because they could all rail against the law together.

My grandparents were wrong. They were afraid. They were caught up in a situation that should NEVER be allowed to happen again. To require that private enterprises adhere to the laws of integration actually takes pressure off the private business owner, though I doubt those who want to mask their prejudices behind those of others would agree.

[verges]

28. Good story.. Thank-you for sharing this. nt

[Hannah Bell]

30. interesting, thanks.

[Ramulux]

35. Thats a great point I hadn't thought of

[krabigirl]

34. Well, at least he is consistent, nt.

[Arkana]

42. The fuck?

This guy is like Calvin Coolidge reincarnated--a godawful racist who believes that anyone who owns a business is a god.

[themadstork]

45. Freedom for the ruling class maybe. . .

Freedom to claim private ownership of huge parts of the commons. . .