The Apostles of Ron Paul
How does a 72-year-old conservative Texas congressman become the hottest thing in online politics? Ask the techies, hippies, tax haters, and war protesters who believe that only Ron Paul can save America from itself.
Their candidate, a 72-year-old obstetrician from Lake Jackson, Texas—land of duck hunters, ranchers, and oilmen—has improbably become an Internet sensation. He counts more Facebook and MySpace supporters than any Republican; more Google searches, YouTube subscribers, and website hits than any presidential candidate; and more Meetup members than the front-runners of both parties combined. In recent months he was sought out on the blog search engine Technorati more often than anyone except a Puerto Rican singer with a sex tape on the loose; his November 5 Internet "Money Bomb" event pulled in $4 million from more than 35,000 individual donors, a single-day online-fundraising record in a primary. (The previous best was $3 million, by John Kerry.) "The campaign calls itself the Ron Paul Revolution," notes Republican Internet consultant David All. "And I don't think that's a far stretch."
Indeed, Paul's literature is dominated by the word "revolution," though with the middle letters inverted to make "love"—a hippie touch that would be countenanced by few Republicans other than the congressman, who has been elected 10 times on the GOP ticket (and who also ran as a Libertarian in the 1988 presidential election). The truth is, Paul's revolution is a conservative one, by his own account—and thus all the more noteworthy for Democrats, who until now comfortably assumed that progressive bloggers, YouTubers, and ex-Deaniacs would give them, and only them, an edge online. As it turns out, nobody has more Internet buzz than a pro-gun, pro-life, antitax, and antiwar Republican.
In the Cow Palace, the buzz came mostly from a table of 100,000-volt stun guns; McBride's table was just a sideshow. "I don't know anything about him," said the guy selling Jungle Survivor knives a few tables down the aisle. The national media has mostly ignored Paul, who garners no more than 6 percent of the gop electorate in phone surveys, and Democrats liken his surprising victories on Internet straw polls to the Sanjaya effect: The web loves weirdos.
But maybe the offline world just hasn't seen the right YouTube clips. McBride had downloaded them onto dvds, intending to bring the Net into meatspace. He steeled himself, pocketed the iPhone, and corralled Brian Timpanaro, who was walking by in a bulging stp Oil shirt. "Here's some of Ron Paul's stances," he said, quickly ticking off Paul's position against drug prosecutions, gun control, and the Iraq War. Timpanaro shot back with a cranky denunciation of peace protesters, but walked off clutching a dvd. McBride stacked the remaining discs on his table and called it a day. "I'm one of the more introverted activists you will find," he explained.
And yet McBride is also part of a surprisingly powerful political phenomenon—a shock troop of volunteers who've been working long hours, often within the autonomous confines of their living rooms, to make Paul's online machine the envy of Washington. "You might not know it, but when I'm not eating, sleeping, at work, or taking care of my daughter," McBride told me, "I'm working to get Ron Paul elected."
Paul, a popular doctor who maintained the only ob-gyn practice in his county, was first elected to Congress in 1976. He voted with clinical precision against almost every government-spending bill to cross his desk, even when it meant that his constituents lost out on farm subsidies or money for hurricane protection, earning him the nickname "Dr. No." Politically, his forebears are Senator Robert Taft and Rep. Howard Buffett—the Old Right, pre-National Review. "They understood that war was a big-government program," says Paul's former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, whose website is one of the most popular libertarian destinations on the Net.
By and large, Paul's acolytes are not the kinds of people you'll find in a Republican campaign—or any campaign. Having, in many cases, never even voted, they are driven by an unalloyed certitude that Americans will be won over to Paul by the sheer force of his antigovernment ideas (and judicious use of social-networking tools). You could call them techno-publicans. And while their success doesn't readily translate to the offline world, their passion and organization have made them a force to reckon with. Once Paul is knocked out of the gop contest, will they dissipate, gravitate toward someone else, or reemerge with a third-party bid? (Libertarians have been spoilers for the gop before; in Montana's close 2006 Senate race, a Libertarian drew more votes than the entire Democratic margin of victory.) Whichever way the Paulites go, other candidates would be smart to study their movement's trajectory. It, not Paul, is the real revolution.
Growing up in Pinetop, a conservative town of 3,000 in the White Mountains of Arizona, McBride learned to cherish freedom and blast clay pigeons with the family's 10-gun arsenal. Then, for three glorious months in 1992, he found a Marvel Comics chat room and legions of fellow X-Men fans. When his parents looked at the phone bill—and realized that connecting to aol meant a long-distance call—14-year-old David went back to target practice.
In 1994, McBride's father, a physician, was disabled in a car accident. His mother died a year later of a prescription mix-up. The family fell into debt. "That's when I came to the realization that life isn't fair," says McBride, whose shaved head, goatee, and coiled physique contrast with a soft voice and gentle demeanor. At 16 he took a job bagging groceries; unlike his older siblings, he'd have to pay for community college himself.
In 1999 McBride dropped out of school and drifted from a job as a used-car-lot manager in Tucson to a seasonal gig supporting the Intuit software MacInTax. Three years later Intuit brought him to Silicon Valley as an application tester. Now there were no limits to his surfing; for hours each night he sat glued to his iMac, sating a growing Apple obsession on sites such as daringfireball.net. "Everything on a Mac makes sense," he says, "when you are coming from a Windows world."
Outside his operating system, the world seemed ever more inscrutable. He read on Google News about the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and the profiling of Muslim Americans. Through his brother in Tucson, he discovered LewRockwell.com, which convinced him that the U.S. government had brought on 9/11 with its policies in the Middle East. McBride had never gotten much help from the government; now he felt downright threatened by it. He was, in other words, becoming part of the 15 or so percent of Americans who consider themselves libertarians. This group has historically voted Republican—enthusiastically for Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980—but by 2004 many of them broke from the gop. McBride was outraged by the invasion of Iraq, registered to vote for the first time in his life, and cast a ballot for Senator John Kerry, even though he disagreed with his economic policies. "I just thought he would be less dangerous than Bush," he said. "Thousands of people were dying for no good reason."
The next year, after Hurricane Katrina struck, McBride seized on the pressing question on LewRockwell.com: Why had fema blocked Wal-Mart from bringing in supplies? "They understand the environment better, the people better; they know what's needed," he thought. It became clear to McBride that private entities such as the Gates Foundation were more likely to end poverty than the government, that Toyota was best equipped to stop global warming, and that Intuit knew more about taxes than the feds did.
By 2006, McBride was so disgusted with the federal government that he sat out the election, and the new Congress' failure to extricate America from Iraq wiped out his last bit of allegiance to the system. He told himself he'd never vote again. Why bother? Nobody who was against big government, the war, and the Patriot Act could ever win.
During the second Republican primary debate, held on the campus of the University of South Carolina in mid-May, Ron Paul stood at a lectern at the far end of the stage. He'd seldom be allowed to speak that evening, but a rare chance came when Fox's Wendell Goler asked why he wanted the gop nomination given that he opposed the war. Paul said terrorists had attacked the United States because of its entanglements in the Middle East. Murmurs filled the hall. "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?" Goler inquired.
"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reasons they did it," Paul replied. When the bell cut him off a few seconds later, Rudy Giuliani jumped in. "That's an extraordinary statement," he seethed. "I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11." Egged on by the audience's cheers, Giuliani demanded that Paul withdraw the comment. Goler swiveled in his chair. "Congressman?"
What Paul said next would stream from YouTube more than half a million times, and inspire McBride like no other moment in his young political existence. "I believe very sincerely that the cia is correct when they teach and talk about blowback," Paul said. "[Terrorists] don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"
Straw polls on abc and msnbc showed Paul as the debate's resounding winner, and even on Fox's own text-message poll, he nearly tied Mitt Romney for first. For McBride, "It was enough to get me to jump on the bandwagon and say, 'Maybe this guy does have a shot.'" In the following months, the San Francisco Ron Paul Meetup group grew more than thirtyfold; nationwide, more than 60,000 people have signed up for Paul Meetups. Many listed Paul's stance on Iraq as a top reason for their support. While antiwar Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich want to pull out the troops as they are replaced by international peacekeepers, Paul would have them "just come home" no matter what—and, immediately thereafter, kill off the entire military industrial complex along with the "medical industrial complex" and the "educational industrial complex" and the personal income tax. "We can't cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do," Paul said in the debate. On that night, he politicized a new generation of libertarians.
Paul fever soon spread to the popular, tech-oriented news aggregator Digg, where McBride and other enthusiasts began to search, post, and comment on everything Paul, to the point where the candidate now consistently dominates the top 10 election stories on Digg's front page. Paul continues to win major Internet polls with the help of emails and chat-site notes exhorting his troops to vote. His victories have often been such routs—87 percent of the vote in the abc post-debate poll, for example—that some media outlets have spiked the polls or removed his name, and bloggers have wondered if his supporters were unleashing malicious web bots. The true answer is probably far simpler: At the core of the Ron Paul juggernaut are thousands of obsessive techies for whom online organizing is not a special effort, but second nature.
The Venn of Paul: As befits a movement with mainstream aspirations, libertarians have taken a big-tent approach to ideological purity. A pro-life, anti-immigration conservative like Ron Paul is welcome, as is a free-love prophet like the late Robert A. Heinlein—and, of course, libertarian thought overlaps with segments of both left and right.
—J.H.
Page 1 of 2 
A question for you “Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, in which I have yet to receive an answer:
My 80 year old African American mother, who was born and raised in New Orleans, would tell us stories concerning the south’s Jim Crow laws. One story in particular goes beyond belief: After paying full fair to ride the commuter bus system, she would have to exit the bus and enter through the back door to sit in the “colored section”. Questions:
1: How long should she had waited for “market forces” to restore her rights given to her by the constitution;
2: Did the State of Louisiana have a “right” to discriminate against her? Should the Federal Government have not intervened?
biznesschic,
It is unfortunate that your mother suffered as she did. It is shameful to know that human beings, through the power of government, would impose such restrictions on fellow children of God. Be sure, Libertarians and Ron Paul himself would be the first in line denouncing the authoritarian government that imposed such restrictions.
Peace and freedom.
I can't speak for the campaign, but I can only surmise that since your mother's Constitutional Rights were violated by discrimination (and because she was forced to deal not just with discrimination, but with inferior facilities, facilities that she were financed with public money)that the federal government would have been entirely justified in enforcing her Constitutional rights, even if the state of Louisiana disagreed.
A question for you “Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, in which I have yet to receive an answer: My 80 year old African American mother, who was born and raised in New Orleans, would tell us stories concerning the south’s Jim Crow laws. One story in particular goes beyond belief: After paying full fair to ride the commuter bus system, she would have to exit the bus and enter through the back door to sit in the “colored section”. Questions: 1: How long should she had waited for “market forces” to restore her rights given to her by the constitution; 2: Did the State of Louisiana have a “right” to discriminate against her? Should the Federal Government have not intervened?
If it were a private bus system then no the government should not intervene. However, there would be nothing stopping African-American citizens from establishing their own bus system that excludes whites. Faced with the loss of a significant portion of it's passengers the original bus line would be strongly influenced to change it's discriminatory practices.
The point is that the government can not enforce ideals on people it just fails miserably like with the "war on drugs" and the global "war on terror" that only incites more hatred toward the US killing thousands of innocent people in the process.
Market forces will always be superior to central planning and this has been proven over and over again by history.
Your sentiments are touching however, while it is honorable to denounce such practices, would you or Dr. Paul had supported the Civil Rights amendment to the constitution that outlawed Jim Crow?
Nope, the individual states don't have any right to discriminate, because that would violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. Enforcing the protections of the Constitution within the individual states is one of the roles of the federal government.
The Jim Crow laws were already invalid according to the Equal Protection Clause; the clause just had to be properly enforced.
Questions: 1: How long should she had waited for “market forces” to restore her rights given to her by the constitution.
Libertarians think that all people should be treated equally under the law. If the bus company received tax dollars or other subsidies, then it should've been required to treat all passengers equally, regardless of race.
If the bus company was privately owned, with no government subsidies, then they should be free to set the terms for for riding their buses, just as you should be free to decide who rides with you in your car. To mandate how the bus owners used their buses would be to violate the bus owner's property rights and right to freedom of association.
2: Did the State of Louisiana have a “right” to discriminate against her?
No, they did not.
Biznesschic,
The policies that failed you mom are came about in a restless time. The market forces would have won out, had they been given time and not interveined. The role of government is to protect ones liberty, and obviously her liberty was under attack. Ron Paul would not say, well too bad people don't like blacks, its her fault. He looks at everyone and believes they are equal. Since her liberties were under attack, he would have interviened. The state has no right to discriminate against anyone, and if you really read what the man says you would not have to even ask this question. He is the most racially tolorant person running. We all know the war on drugs disproportionitly puts minorities and blacks in jail. He would like to end it because he sees that as not fair and impeading on their liberties, not to mention that its a failure and extreamly expensive. I would ask you to read his book "A forign Policy of Freedom" You will not have to ask random people what he thinks, because you will know for yourself. Thats the best way to really understand Ron Paul. Don't listen to what others say he says or would do, just look at what the man says and his consistant record, and you willknow for yourself.
What planet did you grow up on? If a black person couldn’t even ride buses, what makes you think that lending institutions or municipalities were lending money to African Americans for such an endeavor? What makes you think that the city of New Orleans would even grant a permit to any African American who wanted to start a bus company? This is the fallacy to the Libertarian argument as well as Doctor Paul’s. One’s involvement in this great system of liberty and law means that the pursuit of each individuals happiness should not and can not infringe on the rights of others. That is the role of the Federal Government to ensure that
Paul for the long haul:
the constitution is upheld. You ideology is just that, and unless you start dealing with what is, as opposed to what is ideal, Mr. Paul’s campaign will sink like a ton of bricks.
Nice article Josh. Mostly fair and accurate, with few snide comments.
While its a shame you mother went through that, we have no right at all to tell that bus company what to do. Its a private company and if they want to lose that revenue, then so be it. Having the government tell you you have to do something is against all we stand for. What makes you say market forces didn't eventually win?
It's often ignored that liberty, free markets, and freedom to contract are the only forces that have ever been shown to overthrow racism. Jim Crow laws are a classic case-in-point. They were REGULATION (in stark opposition to free choice). Still, few ever stop to question that if whites in the South had not decided to patronize black mechanics (for example), then there would have been no need for racists to pass Jim Crow laws to forbid blacks from being mechanics. Only freedom is color blind. Government regulation, whether Jim Crow or Civil Rights Acts is collectivist, racist, and is not concerned otherwise. Ron Paul stands for freedom and liberty for all, and also speaks to the means of achieving this--by treating all individuals equally.
BizNessChic...thats exactly what the judicial system is for. That is exactly how Thoroughgood Marshall advanced the rights of so many African-Americans.
Jason
Well there you have it. My hard working mother would not have equal protection under the law afforded to her by the constitution of the United States, because some guy has the right to make money in America, yet discriminate against a fine American. I would advise Mr. Paul to answer that question differently if asked during a debate, (as John Shutt answered correctly). If not, he will become a 15 minute of fame presidential candidate fairly quickly!
The question asked is irrelevant in today's world. As today's laws are quite clear. With modern technology, satellites, internet the rest of the country would be informed what was happening in the South. You have to ask the question in today's world where everyone is equal. If you wish to think in terms of in the past then you will never venture into the future.
A black person shouldn't have to get a 'permit' to start a bus company. If white bus owners want to alienate black customers, someone else will serve them. It's not hard to start a taxi service, all you need is a car - unless the government intervenes by passing regulations that prevent you from starting a business. Boycotts and civil disobedience work.
The bus company is PRIVATE property. How can you justify forcing someone to do something with their private property? Even if they are wrong, which they were, they have that right. Your mother does not have the right to use someone elses private property. If the bus company was a public utility, then the state should have been pounced on by the fed. I gurantee Ron Paul would have been there for her, however, not if it involved private property. This gets much deeper than people riding buses, private property gurantees many of our rights. I would never sacrifice that companies right to tell you mom no, however I would have never told her that in the first place. Its like the saying, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death so you have the right to say it.
biznesschic,
You mention this thing about local government issuing permits for a bus company. What makes you think the government can discriminate or prevent anyone from starting a honest business?
The fallacy of your argument is that you're already talking for granted that the government can and will discriminate in another way. Don't make that assumption and explore the possibilities.
To answer biznesschic,
To discriminate based on age, color, sex, religion, etc. is against the constitution. Now one has the "right" to discriminate as we are all created equal with inalienable rights by our creator (whomever that may be). The bill of rights trump any and all 'state laws'. Let me ask you something, do you think that racism has gone away, or has it simply been hidden? Racism is simply horrible, and it is not dealt with correctly.
Instead of equal rights we rely on the federal government to give special benefits to some and take away from others simply based on the color of ones skin and not the content of ones charicter. Programs like this help breed racism. You can't legislate morality, but you can teach and grow through society. The African America is becoming 'Mainstream' right now, but look what's happening to the illegal Mexican immegrants or those of middle eastern descent.
We had an original draft of the Constitution, thanks to Jefferson, that would have made slavery abolished. Unfortunately they found this 'radical' at the time and they omitted this from the constitution.
A libertarian is simply someone that loves liberty. Let's not forget that Ron Paul has almost 30 years as a Republican and only ran as a Libertarian Presidential candidate back in '88. One can be a Republican and love liberty. I wonder why no one has asked why Giuliani isn't running as Independant or Democrat as he ran for BOTH in the '70s. McCain got endorsed by Lieberman, I wonder why no one is asking McCain if he's running for the wrong party.
Liberty is simple, do what you want, accept the consequences. You have the freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't impose on other's freedoms and/or liberties.
So the State of Louisiana was imposing on her liberty, thus they were acting unconstitutional.
Duke Eh—Jim Crow laws were not regulated, it varied from state to state. There were no laws saying the Black couldn’t be mechanics, however, they failed to grant equal protection to African Americans concerning employment practices, police protection, etc. You people can’t have it both ways. The constitution grants certain liberties, (Capitalism, right to privacy), however, you can’t ignore the stipulations that you don’t like. Granting all Americans equal protection under the law!
Silus: Mr. Marshall argued Brown vs. the Board of Ed. In the Federal System, not state courts.
Jon and Tangen--Give me a break about regulations. You need a permit to even drive a car! Need a permit to open a bus company? You bet. That’s the price we pay to ensure the safety and well being of passengers. “The Liberating argument is this: If the bus is unsafe, and kills 50 people, no one else will ride on that bus line again, it will go out of business, so the great market worked again”. Until the next unregulated bus line kills 60 people. Your reasoning does not make much sense!
Tim—I don’t see how letting a person who is paying full fare for a bus ride, yet must leave and enter through the back a “special benefit”
Hello, BiznessChic! The opinion of one man (Jaoson) is never enough to make conclusions. I repeat, you cannot talk about these issues without acknowledging the role our judicial system plays.
You need to look up the inroads made by Thoroughgood Marshall. You cant isolate this to one branch of government.
People are getting sick and tired of the same old song-and-dance from their presidential candidates. See this YouTube music video, featuring horror movie icon, Reggie Bannister, from the international award-winning feature film, "Song of the Dead." It's a great satire on the president, the MSM, and the war on terror. The filmmaker is giving a share of his profits from the film to the Ron Paul campaign.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
Lisa, i'm not sure how the example you gave relates to this discussion.
Why should I have to be regulated if I want to start a taxi service? If I have a car and people want to pay me for a ride, why on Earth is it the government's business? And if it's an unsafe car and people want to ride it anyway, why shouldn't they be allowed to take that risk? What you're suggesting is that all business should be controlled and directed by the government because it can be dangerous, but you shouldn't try to protect people from themselves. They should be allowed to do what they want to do. I wonder, how do you feel about drug laws?
Once again the fear card is being played again be the people who would rather be enslaved and eat maggots than know what real fruit tastes like. The many people who claim Ron Paul will eviscerate civil liberties have never read any of Ron Paul's books, or understand that their tax dollars are murdering people at this very moment.
Ron Paul's supporters are not easily placed in the stereotypical boxes people would like in order to "tell the story" as the journalists would like it.
Ron Paul supporters will certainly be out en mass in the primaries and this will make for a very compelling election.
Check out thisfebruaryfifth dotcom
Because John,
1: Those who contracted for your services do not know that it is unsafe, and are blindly taking a risk,
2: It is not only your passengers who are at risk, but any other car which may be on the same highway, and it explodes because of emissions hazards! This really is a no-brainer! You divulge into ideological arguments instead of truly finding answers to where we can limit government and not jeopardize the health and well-being of our citizenry!
Regarding discrimination. It's sad to see people still make decisions based on someone's skin, but there's simply no way the government can remove this kind of behavior from society. We need to ensure that government is blind, but we cannot force individuals to let go of their baseless prejudices.
Prejudices, no, acting upon them by denying a person’s constitutional right to equal protections under the law—you bet it’s the governments roll to ensure that it doesn’t happen!
If we had more people in this world like David McBride (whom the article is also about) we'd be far better off. It easy to sit at your chair espousing your opinions in a text box - it's much harder (and more noble) to get out of your chair and do real work to make a difference. Kudos to David McBride for actually trying to change things instead of just bitching about what's wrong to anyone who'll listen.
If Ron Paul really believes in the "states rights" meme concerning abortion why the efforts, as recently as Sept. 2007, to ammend the constitution to outlaw abortions and a womans choice?
Uh, capt... Better back that up with some facts and citations before expecting a response.
Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional and in opposition to 'natural rights' which is a concept that Ron Paul firmly believes in and defends. The concept that all people are bestowed with equal natural rights by their creator (of choice) is, in my view, the basis of Ron Paul libertarianism. The role of government is to protect those natural rights and in the case of the Federal government it is to protect those rights when they are infringed upon by state laws. Don't forget that it was government that created Jim Crow laws just as it was government that prevented women from voting. So while it is true that government overturned Jim Crow and provided for suffrage it is crucial to recognize that all it was doing in both instances is what it should have been doing in the first place!
It was mindless for companies to treat their customers like that. The end of such treatment came from blacks boycotting the bus companies, not from FedGov forcing certain policies on private business. Market forces DID make that change, not the coercive force of government. Racial harmony is much more likely when people are left alone. Government's answer is to force together people who do not like each other.
Imagine a white dog and black dog who do not get along. Are they more likely to learn to coexist in the same house by feeling each other out, and giving one another a wide berth for a while, or by being locked in a small bathroom together? Which situation is likely to make things better? All government knows is force, and it rarely works.
Trying to tie Ron Paul's candidacy to whether or not a company should need a license to operate a bus company in a city, county, or state is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if Ron Paul were running for mayor or a county seat or a governorship. This is a local issue and the POTUS has no authority or mandate to be involved. As with all local issues, they are best handled at the local level by the people in a community who will actually have to enforce and live by the laws and regulations. This system allows for referendum and for solutions to be applied that account for the local conditions. As long as local and state laws do not infringe upon the natural rights of all people as protected by the US Constitution it just simply isn't an issue that is relevant to the Federal government, and certainly not relevant when attempting to determine if Ron Paul is a suitable candidate for President.
Ecsii:
Excuse me, but the story I told you about the treatment of my mother during the segregated south entitles me to ask these serious questions. If Mr. Paul or his supporters fail to uphold the Civil Rights amendment, I believe his potential supporters need to know these facts. My family and ancestry has paid with its blood to guarantee that I am afforded every opportunity allotted to the citizenry of this country and quite frankly: I will not be lectured by you or anyone about voicing an opinion or question on this matter!
Nomascerdo:
Driving charter buses on federal funded highways is absolutely a federal issue. If state law is found lacking in safety requirements, the Feds can and will withhold these funds until the requirements are met!
Buzznesschk, I have a real hard time believing what you are saying. You say your mothers rights tramp the bus company rights. Private property rights are what this country was founded on. Please explain how equal rights under the law means your mother can do as she pleases on someone elses property. I do not condone what they did, and I am not racist, but what you are saying is just inconsistant. There is a difference between private and public property. Public property she has any and all rights of use as anyone and the government should have stepped in. Private property is different.
biznesschic: I was not responding to your comment. I was making a general comment to this article. This article is not about you or your mother, it is about Ron Paul and David McBride as a Ron Paul supporter. If you want answers to your questions, ask them on any of the "Ron Paul" sites where many Ron Paul supporters will be willing to try to answer. Better yet, send a message to Ron Paul himself and ask.
Regardless who you ask, don't expect that everyone here is responding to you.
Artis: Only in Birmingham where the bus boycott took place did the bus company relent. However, some of these riding practices did not cease until the Civil Rights act of 1965. My problem with your view is this: How long does a person have to suffer and perhaps die before market forces alleviates the problem. That is not the America that I and so many other want to live in!
Not just alienate black customers, but ALL customers who disapprove of their policies. I would boycott a company that I felt had racist behavior, and I believe many would. That's the reality today. People's individual choices in the marketplace will reflect how society as a whole regards the questions. The Philosophy of Liberty is the most effective method for making the attitudes of the people manifest. You first defend Liberty for all, then work on changing the attitudes.
Jason
It trumps property rights because we don’t live in a communistic country that does not allow you the right to own property. That being said, if you want that right, then you must obey all the rules of the constitution and not discriminate against it citizens. However, you could move to China, own a company under the “cloak" of capitalism, and sell to whomever you want. However, the government has the right to seize your property at anytime for purposes that they deem necessary, but hey, it’s your choice!
Escii:
Since I was the only person “bitching” on this site, I believe that your comments were directed at me!
"Jason It trumps property rights because we don’t live in a communistic country that does not allow you the right to own property." That does not make sense. You are saying property rights are null because we dont live in a communist country? That is in fact the total opposite of communist. Private rights are natural rights. I think you have a litigimate question, but I dont think you are willing to take letigimate answers. Just because they dont advance your agenda does not make them wrong. If you can explain why your mother should be able to use my car without my permission, then I'll quit.
biznesschic - you have a point regarding federal vehicular safety standards but it still isn't relevant to Ron Paul's campaign nor any Presidential campaign. I am unaware of any plans of his to undue existing federal safety regulations or standards and I am pretty certain that the President does not have the power to do so anyhow so it is a moot point. Any major changes in the law like that would need to be passed by Congress and would require a consensus. I don't think there is a consensus or even a desire (even among libertarians) to dramatically roll back federal highway safety regulations.
Lisa: It's as though you are talking about something entirely different. I simply point out that Jim Crow laws were regulation on the marketplace. They deigned to control who could provide certain services and who others could choose for services. Clearly, such is in direct opposition to principles of free markets. The salient point is that free markets undermine racism, and clear evidence is provided by Jim Crow laws themselves. You argue these laws prevented fair hiring practices. Okay, so ask yourself why would those laws be necessary unless people in the south WERE willing to hire blacks under free market principles. Jim Crow laws were a RESPONSE to the market doing something those in power did not like: providing competition based upon merit, not color.
"How long should she [a black southerner] had waited for “market forces” to restore her rights given to her by the constitution? Did the State of Louisiana have a “right” to discriminate against her?"
They didn't violate her Rights. The Constitution does not give individuals the right to sit anywhere they want on a bus. A just State has no Rights, and equal protection under the laws is just. Louisiana might have been an unjust State, in which case, she should have moved, she should have practiced civil disobedience, or the Federal government should have demanded compliance in return for continued inclusion in the Union.
These are the only three libertarian choices. The Civil Rights Act undermines true justice and liberty because it promotes 'group rights' over individual Rights. The Federal government may interven, but can only demand inclusion in the Union at the cost of compliance. The Federal government has no 'right' to force compliance because only individuals have Rights.
Again it is important to recognize that prior to the Civil Rights movement, government WAS the problem in most cases. Not to say that racist beliefs weren't obviously the basis of government's misdeeds but it was still the power of government that institutionalized and enforced those beliefs with unfair laws. Regarding private property, it is true that any business owner can refuse service to anyone and that right should be protected, otherwise government is infringing on another's private rights. If this is done under a racist pretense then shame on the business owner. Private citizens that are disgusted by the practice can voluntarily boycott the business and encourage others to voluntarily do the same. In today's information age doing so would be extraordinarily easy to do. I would personally never patronize a business that discriminated against anyone based on race, ethnicity, or sex and I think I am with the majority of sensible Americans on that one.
If there is discrimination in public services that is an entirely different story obviously and one that has already been addressed.
"Driving charter buses on federal funded highways is absolutely a federal issue. If state law is found lacking in safety requirements, the Feds can and will withhold these funds until the requirements are met!" -biznesschic
Again - wrong. The Federal government is unjust to with-hold revenue, unless they will allow the State to with-hold payment or secede. To require payment and deny service is a form of theft worse than the type in which the Federal government currently engages. It is the equivalent to taking a guys money for protection and then torching his store anyway. The policy desicions you advocate are the reason that we are slaves. When I am taxed without receiving services, I am ready to start shooting people.
Currently, the Federal government is not bound by anything. It used to be bound by the Constitution, but it worked around that. Then it was bound by public opinion, but it is finding ways around that. You advocate unfettered democracy without the possibility of secession. You advocate the tyranny of the majority.
I have always been so far to the left of American politics that there hasn't been a candidate who comes anywhere close to my position since McGovern. However, given that I am resigned to never finding a candidate I can agree with on everything, I find that Ron Paul matches my position on overseas adventures, the Federal Reserve, and most importantly on the preposterous "War on Drugs". For this I can tolerate the areas of disagreement, and I believe Paul is an honest man.
