Ron Paul is certainly not a racist, but he's man of principle. One of those principles is belief in freedom of association -- that people have a fundamental right to choose their friends, business partners, employees, and so forth.
The notion that people have a right to NOT be discriminated against on ANY basis, including race, is a liberal myth. What is modern liberalism, after all? Essentially, it's the belief that big government should enforce equality of social outcomes. Put another way, it's an offshoot of Marxism, sometimes referred to as "cultural Marxism."
The situation we have now is that whites -- especially heterosexual white males -- are considered "oppressors," and it's absolutely taboo for whites to organize along racial lines. On the other hand, it's considered perfectly okay for "minority" groups to self-segregate and discriminate, because they're "oppressed" by evil whites. Hence, we see African-American student associations, Asian-American student associations, "historically black" colleges, Latino interest groups, etc. -- but the moment whites form a group dedicated to white interests, it's called a "hate group." Why is that any more hateful than other ethnic groups forming similar organizations?
If we could have a truly color-blind society, then I'd be all for it. Sadly, I think separate ethnic groups will generally tend to stick together, and any multicultural society will end up having conflicts. Government can try to keep things stable, but that only leads to loss of freedom. Note how in some Western countries, such as England, you can go to prison for racially offensive speech. In several other European countries, you can go to prison for questioning any details about the Holocaust! (I'm half-Jewish and have relatives who suffered in Nazi camps, but freedom of speech is still a lot more important to me than anyone's feelings, including my own.) I can see such laws eventually being passed in the US, since more and more sissies here are demanding that the Almighty Government protect their "right" not to be offended.
So, what's next? Making it illegal not to shop at a certain number of minority-owned stores? Tossing people into "sensitivity reeducation camps" on suspicion of hate for having too few friends of different ethnicities? How far shall we go to enforce morality and create a perfect Marxist utopia?
Whether people hate other people, for reasons good or bad, is none of the government's business. To whom people sell or rent, from whom they buy, and whom they employ, is none of the government's business. Anything else is pure liberal neo-Marxism. If people want to be despicable or unreasonable and discriminate solely on the basis of race, hair color, taste in clothing, accent, or anything else, then they have that right as long as they're not interfering with the equal rights of others. That's part of what it means to live in a FREE country.
The notion that people have a right to NOT be discriminated against on ANY basis, including race, is a liberal myth. What is modern liberalism, after all? Essentially, it's the belief that big government should enforce equality of social outcomes. Put another way, it's an offshoot of Marxism, sometimes referred to as "cultural Marxism."
The situation we have now is that whites -- especially heterosexual white males -- are considered "oppressors," and it's absolutely taboo for whites to organize along racial lines. On the other hand, it's considered perfectly okay for "minority" groups to self-segregate and discriminate, because they're "oppressed" by evil whites. Hence, we see African-American student associations, Asian-American student associations, "historically black" colleges, Latino interest groups, etc. -- but the moment whites form a group dedicated to white interests, it's called a "hate group." Why is that any more hateful than other ethnic groups forming similar organizations?
If we could have a truly color-blind society, then I'd be all for it. Sadly, I think separate ethnic groups will generally tend to stick together, and any multicultural society will end up having conflicts. Government can try to keep things stable, but that only leads to loss of freedom. Note how in some Western countries, such as England, you can go to prison for racially offensive speech. In several other European countries, you can go to prison for questioning any details about the Holocaust! (I'm half-Jewish and have relatives who suffered in Nazi camps, but freedom of speech is still a lot more important to me than anyone's feelings, including my own.) I can see such laws eventually being passed in the US, since more and more sissies here are demanding that the Almighty Government protect their "right" not to be offended.
So, what's next? Making it illegal not to shop at a certain number of minority-owned stores? Tossing people into "sensitivity reeducation camps" on suspicion of hate for having too few friends of different ethnicities? How far shall we go to enforce morality and create a perfect Marxist utopia?
Whether people hate other people, for reasons good or bad, is none of the government's business. To whom people sell or rent, from whom they buy, and whom they employ, is none of the government's business. Anything else is pure liberal neo-Marxism. If people want to be despicable or unreasonable and discriminate solely on the basis of race, hair color, taste in clothing, accent, or anything else, then they have that right as long as they're not interfering with the equal rights of others. That's part of what it means to live in a FREE country.
Hence, all the claims of, "he's a looney" when he seems to be the sanest of candidates to me.