CSolarstorm
New spicy version
So a while back, the Pauls were grilled by the media for not supporting the Civil Rights Act. Ron Paul's website claims that
Paul suggested that instead of federally enforcing racial equality, that buisinesses that treated everyone as equal would prevail over buisinesses that were exclusive to one race. Not only is it unconstitutional, he argued, but also not necessary or the federal government to meddle in private businesses for the purpose of fighting racial inequality, because buisinesses would eventually reflect public opinion, which was already turning toward equality, and racism would naturally become unpopular and die anyway.
This might be the case with racial inequality. But can we extend this libertarian reasoning toward other federal laws that violated property rights, such as maybe, the Americans With Disabilities Act?
Signed in 1991, this act required all public places to be wheelchair accessible, which, it can be reasoned is an imposition on buisinesses, because government shouldn't tell them how they should build their property, who they should cater to, or what they have to pay for.
From Wikipedia:
Obviously, I am biased, because I use a wheelchair, but today, I see the ADA as utterly indispensible, because I love that city buses have wheelchair lifts, and that almost every corner of my city has a wheelchair ramp for me to use. Thank you, President Bush Sr., you have made it possible for me to live my life. And being formerly a liberal, and now an anti-war independant, that gratitude is incredibly ironic.
But can Ron Paul say the same thing about the ADA that he said about the Civil Rights Act, that public opinion would have eventually put a wheelchair ramp on every corner and a lift in every bus anyway, because without all the handicapped people buisinesses would...suffer? This reasoning does not click with me. How much power does compassion have over buisiness without it being signed into law? Do people with disabilities and their adovcates have the power to pressure buisiness to be wheelchair accessible on their own, or do we need to rely on a government mandate? Or, since the ADA was passed, will we ever know? : /
And I would argue the Civil Rights Act is indispensible as well. How far can public pressure go when it comes to fighting for the rights and opportunities of others? Is leaving buisinesses alone and letting the public determine which succeed going to the give us the same equal opportunity environment that the government tries to by lawfully enforcing equality?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (...) was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. 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.
Paul suggested that instead of federally enforcing racial equality, that buisinesses that treated everyone as equal would prevail over buisinesses that were exclusive to one race. Not only is it unconstitutional, he argued, but also not necessary or the federal government to meddle in private businesses for the purpose of fighting racial inequality, because buisinesses would eventually reflect public opinion, which was already turning toward equality, and racism would naturally become unpopular and die anyway.
This might be the case with racial inequality. But can we extend this libertarian reasoning toward other federal laws that violated property rights, such as maybe, the Americans With Disabilities Act?
Signed in 1991, this act required all public places to be wheelchair accessible, which, it can be reasoned is an imposition on buisinesses, because government shouldn't tell them how they should build their property, who they should cater to, or what they have to pay for.
From Wikipedia:
The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be “enormous” and have “a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive”.[16] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA “a disaster for small business.”[17] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was “an expensive headache to millions” that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.
Obviously, I am biased, because I use a wheelchair, but today, I see the ADA as utterly indispensible, because I love that city buses have wheelchair lifts, and that almost every corner of my city has a wheelchair ramp for me to use. Thank you, President Bush Sr., you have made it possible for me to live my life. And being formerly a liberal, and now an anti-war independant, that gratitude is incredibly ironic.
But can Ron Paul say the same thing about the ADA that he said about the Civil Rights Act, that public opinion would have eventually put a wheelchair ramp on every corner and a lift in every bus anyway, because without all the handicapped people buisinesses would...suffer? This reasoning does not click with me. How much power does compassion have over buisiness without it being signed into law? Do people with disabilities and their adovcates have the power to pressure buisiness to be wheelchair accessible on their own, or do we need to rely on a government mandate? Or, since the ADA was passed, will we ever know? : /
And I would argue the Civil Rights Act is indispensible as well. How far can public pressure go when it comes to fighting for the rights and opportunities of others? Is leaving buisinesses alone and letting the public determine which succeed going to the give us the same equal opportunity environment that the government tries to by lawfully enforcing equality?
Last edited: