Ron Paul on Civil Liberties - "Can a private owner not serve Blacks?"

Will Republicans Vote for Ron Paul?

January 8, 2012 

Fox News Sunday - Talk Show

This week on Fox News Sunday, Ron Paul stops by and talks with Chris Wallace. One topic they touched on was: Civil Liberties.

Back in 2004, Ron Paul gave his view on the 1964 Voting Rights Act. He said that, "The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."

Chris Wallace asked, "Are you saying that it is okay for a private restaurant should be able to decide whether or not to serve Black people?"

Ron Paul wants people to distinguish between what private property means. His believes that government enforced laws - like the forced integration laws were evil. He says that one's civil liberties are protected by his/her properties. One example he gives are bedrooms. "If you want to protect sexual preferences, you protect the property of the bedrooms."

Chris Wallace then again asked the questions that was not answered. Is it okay to not serve Blacks in a private business? Ron Paul says that it is okay because of property rights, but it is morally wrong. If you want to get into that, you need to change people's minds and views, he basically says.

Wallace asked if he wanted to go back a century where government did not intervene -like enforce racial integration. Ron Paul laughs at the remark. He does not want to go back where there was slavery and Jim Crow laws - imperfect gold standards. He wants to build back the rights that the Founders gave us.

He concludes that America is losing its Civil Liberties - National Defense Authorization Act: the arrest of American citizens, all civil liberties will be endangered if we don't reverse this.

Ron Paul's view on Civil Liberties could be viewed in many ways. He is against government intervention - government does not have the right to tell a private business to not discriminate. He believes that the owner should just have better morals.

I totally disagree with him on this example. Government should be allowed to set standards for anti-discrimination in private properties. Sometimes, people put their racism ahead of money - and thus would tell a specific race group to not enter. Government intervention controls those views and ensure equality, one of the rights guaranteed by the government. However, is he saying that one could win the fight for gay rights by defending property rights? If so, this may be a new way / path in fighting for not just gay rights, but others as well.