Originally Posted by sugarkang
Possible? You suppose? No. You severely distorted what McWhorter said to unrecognizable Orwellian doublespeak.
I don't have time to explain this to you. And even if I did, it wouldn't convince you. I can only hope that someday you'll try to understand the issues from a different perspective. I am glad for the Civil Rights movement. I suspect Ron Paul is as well. But the movement and the CRA are two different things.
I think the 1964 CRA should be repealed. What? Do you want to call me a racist? I'm not racist but I support racists? No. The 1964 Act should be repealed and the 1875 Act, which is nearly identical, should be reinstated. The 14th Amendment should be restored to its original intent (to protect blacks after the Civil War). Then all the separate but equal doctrine would die. Why? Because Jim Crow could only exist with a weak 14th Amendment.
Ron Paul may not have the same idea that I do, but I'd guess it's something along similar lines. And even if he wasn't, we have freedom of association in this country. If we didn't, the government could control which races you could marry. Freedom isn't free.
You hate libertarians because you don't understand them. They may be wrong, but they do not have the malicious intent that you think they have.
I definitely wouldn't call you a racist. But, your argument highlights a broader point: there are many different perspectives in the civil rights dialogue, and they are complicated by a wealth of constitutional and moral arguments. Jim Crow, the CRA, or the 14th Amendment don't exhaust the possibilities. They are compromises that have created real facts and constituencies.