States' Rights

[MT SOL]

Ron Paul is finding great success among young people who like his message of liberty.

However, I find his message of liberty somewhat concerning. He supports states' rights on many issues. For example, he insisted that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. According to him, the government was overstepping its bounds. Paul would have left the issue of discrimination to the states.

This doesn't seem right for me. The more progressive states might pass bills similar to the epochal 1964 Civil Rights Act, but then, what about the states such as Alabama? Alabama might not pass a similar bill for a long long time. In this case, I think that the federal government should unite and lead the states forward.

While I commend Paul for ardently sticking to his views despite how unpopular they can be with the establishment Republicans and Democracts, I am a little concerned about his views on states' rights.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with me, and why?

[Keel]

Ron Paul is finding great success among young people who like his message of liberty.

However, I find his message of liberty somewhat concerning. He supports states' rights on many issues. For example, he insisted that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. According to him, the government was overstepping its bounds. Paul would have left the issue of discrimination to the states.

This doesn't seem right for me. The more progressive states might pass bills similar to the epochal 1964 Civil Rights Act, but then, what about the states such as Alabama? Alabama might not pass a similar bill for a long long time. In this case, I think that the federal government should unite and lead the states forward.

While I commend Paul for ardently sticking to his views despite how unpopular they can be with the establishment Republicans and Democracts, I am a little concerned about his views on states' rights.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with me, and why?

Firstly, states technically don’t have rights. You and I have rights, people have rights, buildings and structures cannot have rights, nor can governing bodies. So what we are discussing isn’t technically a ‘right’ as such, it’s more like legal protection under the Tenth Amendment which dictates that States should be protected through these so called “states’ rights”.

But why is the protection needed? If you understand the libertarian position, you will know that all form of governance is an act of force. Governments are very willing to use force, whether political, economic or legal, to serve their own interest and conserve power. Indeed the state level is a form of government, but what is above is the federal government. So if you don’t have “states’ rights” you effectively give the federal government power to dictate to the citizens of any state any arbitrary regulation regardless of the political, economic or social situation of that state. Hence, the founders of the US created this division of power to ensure that it serves as a bulwark to an intrusive federal government.

A racist will group people according to their race and believes that group traits always come on stronger than any individual traits. Racism does not go away simply because there is a constitutional amendment. Ron Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only because it infringed the states’ rights but because it is inconsistent with the methods in which libertarians wish to promote change. Change does not occur because governments dictate the change, they occur because people are convinced and persuaded at their own free will. Thus Ron Paul does not oppose the principle of equal opportunity for all but the method in which it was administered.

If the federal government should “unite and lead states forward”, what should the federal government’s policy be when there are disagreements between states? Is it ethical for 49 states to dictate what the remaining state should have for legislation? Should the federal government mandate a national policy on gay marriage? What about polygamy? States have so much trouble trying to legislate rules within their own states, how effective/popular do you think federal legislation is? Tyranny of the minority is bad, what is equally bad is the tyranny of the majority. Any form of federal law is coercion and infringes the rights of the individual.

[krystinawashereXD]

Technically people that call racists are racist; They are adding a negative connotation to the title.

-_____- I agree to disagree with all of this BS.

[Emmi]

Technically people that call racists are racist; They are adding a negative connotation to the title.

-_____- I agree to disagree with all of this BS.

That makes absolutely no sense. How does calling someone racist make one a racist? If by what you mean is true, then every time I tell someone that their actions or comments are racist I'm sharing the same feelings as that person making the comment/action in the first place. Plus "racist" already has a negative connotation to the word, it pretty much always has. I don't see how calling someone a racist is adding a negative connotation because there's nothing positive about it anyways to counteract it.

[otter12]

If the USA wishes to be know as the United States of America as opposed to Texas, Alabama, New York State etc. then I believe that the federal government has a responsibility to unite the states on certain important issues through the use of legislation that requires all states to abide by certain laws. Everyone in America has voted for the president of the USA, therefore he is represents the whole of the United States, under the current voting system. Legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act was relevant for every American state and it was appropriate that every state should have the same stance on the issue. It was not dealing with an issue that only applied to certain states, it applied to every state in America. For many issues perhaps government measures do not always change opinions and values but it does send out the message in the case of the Civil Rights Act that, as a whole, the United States condemned racist behaviour, recognised it was wrong and showed that they were trying to make a difference. Government measures cannot alone ensure that attitudes change but at least, in this case, it made discrimination on the grounds of race illegal and ended enforced segregation which gave the opportunity to the following generations in America to grow up side by side, white or black. Of course open discrimination continues to this day, the law cannot end that alone, but it did legally recognise the rights of black Americans and surely that cannot be a bad thing.