Ron Paul: property rights come before civil rights

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/ ... ty-rights/


This is warming up to a mud-slinging 2012 campain....either way I think I am doing a write in, this year, cause I dont like any of them.

I wonder if that means that employers can dicriminate against those with autism, legally, under Ron Paul's rule??

Well, to make sense of that stance, you have to consider that Dr. Paul's brand of libertarian philosophy views all rights as stemming, ultimately, from property rights. For instance, rights to life and liberty derive from self-ownership and the resultant property rights over oneself.

Yes. Since you have absolute rights over your own property under Paul's philsophy, that extends to allowing discrimination in how you use your private property, whether on basis of race, sex, disability, religion, or anything. Paul's stance appears to be that the only case where non-discrimination can be morally enforced is when public funds are involved- that is, the government cannot discriminate, but private citizens can.

Well in this view are violent crimes just because of property rights...I mean where do you draw the line in the sand between human rights and property rights??

A violent crime would be regarded as infringing on someone else's property rights to themselves. That is, if you physically injure someone, you have caused damage to something they own (themselves) and thus have violated their property rights.


I will not defend this ideology at too much length, since I do not share it, but from my understanding no such line is drawn. The only "human rights" that a hard-core libertarian recognizes is the right to not be physically assaulted by others or have your material possessions violated. They only recognize "negative rights," defined as a right to be free from something- free from unprovoked aggression by others, free from interference in how one choose to live one's life, etc. "Positive rights" in the sense of the right to something, such as the means of survival (food, shelter, healthcare, etc) are not recognized as valid, because they claim that recognizing those rights must ultimately infringe on someone else's negative rights.

If someone is trespassing on your property such as breaking into your home, you have every right to shoot them.

If you invited someone into your home then decide to shoot them when they have made no move to threaten you then it is murder.

The right to acquire and own property is a basic human right.

Without property humans would not be able to have anything other than what they could grab and hold on to. A very limited way of living, yes?


ruveyn

Not exactly. Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the Republican nomination, never mind rising above asterisk level in any sort of national election. I think he had one delegate at the Repub convention in 2008, and that was due to some chicanery pulled in West Virginia, of such stupidity that he ultimately lost supporters.

However, my guess is that both parties are going to be gunning for his House seat in 2012, and pig excrement like the swill posted above might be the opening salvo. And when I say both parties, I mean the Repubs might tacitly even back a Democrat, assuming one can be found who doesn't dwell in Nancy Pelosi's cloud-cuckoo land, e.g. one they can stomach. I'm also betting there will be a Republican primary, and whoever Paul's opponent is will pull in national $$$ like crazy.

Perhaps one of the oddest odd couples in Washington DC history is Paul joining up with Dennis Kucinich on at least one issue they can both agree upon: the Federal Reserve. And looky, looky Kucinich might get re-districted out of office (link), so that'll shut him up, and presuming that happens Paul's voice will be just about the only one seriously questioning Fed policy, live and on C-Span. Assuming he holds onto his House seat, of course.

Anyway, that's my $.02 on what this is REALLY about: the whole "Audit the Fed" business, and the very rich and very powerful who will do whatever they can to see it strangled in the crib. Against whoever they feel needs it, come to that, since you don't get much more liberal than Kucinich. I don't usually do konspiracy kookdom, but in this case I'll try and find a tinfoil hat in my size. Just too many bodies shuttling back and forth from Wall Street (particularly Goldman Sachs) to various Fed roles to high positions in administrations of both parties to really think otherwise, that there's quite a few folks, organized or not, who want that stopped and stopped now.

I understand the need to property rights, but I dont understand the "right" to discriminate based on property rights.

Example: lets say that you had a boss who owned his own buisness and you having AS is severely demoted while everyone else is given a pay raise. This effects your ability to buy groceries to feed yourself and your family, and you have to choose between eating and paying your house payments, thus you and your family become homeless. Then you ask him why the demotion, and he says because you are socially ackward and you have AS. However, you just take it because his property rights are more important than your human rights. You cant get anouther job cause other employees have "AS need not apply" on their application.

Tell me, how is a person's property rights more important that your human rights. This is just wrong on so many levels. Getting rid of civil rights is a slippery slope, first they are giving property owners permission to discriminate, later they will be turing a blind eye towards lynch mobs. Once it starts going down hill, it can snowball into something really ugly and out of control.

Because according to this ideology, what you refer to as "human rights" don't exist.


No, lynch mobs are actively committing violence against someone, and that would still be illegal. There is no slippery slope leading from this to lynching. If you want to attack this ideology, you should do so on the immediate outcome of it, rather than on implausible speculation of some slippery slope.

So, if I shoot someone and take his property, which of us has the "right" to that property?

If you own a business you get to decide who you will hire to work for you and your business.

It is an application of the Golden Rule. He who has the Gold makes the Rules.

ruveyn

Ownership and acquisition of property (by voluntary means) IS a human right. Along with Life and Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness is the other basic human right. This non other than the right to acquire and enjoy the benefits of one's property and labor.

ruveyn

Property rights are a freedom and with freedom comes some challenges.
There's no free ride.....

I would imagine that Ron Paul is in agreement with his son, Rand, that while institutional racism, such as denying blacks the right to vote, hold office, etc. was acceptable in overturning, but that such justice doesn't apply to privately owned businesses. The fact of the matter that both old man Ron and his kid seem to ignore is, there can be no social equality if you belong to a group which is forbidden to eat at a lunch counter, or to sleep in a particular hotel. You will always be perceived as the socially lesser by everyone else. I also imagine he agrees with his son in that businesses that practice discrimination will drive themselves out of business. But that simply doesn't take into account the entrenched discrimination among the populace, which is only encouraged and fed by the "right" to exclude unpopular groups.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I think Paul's view is to apply many of his changes to the Federal Government such as Property Rights Vs. Civil Rights and giving more "sovereignty" to property and business owners.

However suppose you dispute this and think certain kinds of things should be challenged. I think under Ron Paul's view that would be a state issue. In fact under his property rights views he also want the States to have more power as put forth by the 10th Amendment.

I tend to like this as I would prefer to see social issues handled more by the states.