Why is Ron Paul against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I guess laws wouldn't exist in anarch-cap society.  But humor me on this one.  From the point of view of Ron Paul's libertarianism, why would he be against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Would it be more apt to support civil rights focusing on individual rights as opposed to grouping folks per race or gender?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

This is why he opposes it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II

"Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce"

I.e., it violates private property rights.

ViennaSausage:

I guess laws wouldn't exist in anarch-cap society.

Sure, laws would exist.  But they would be laws that people voluntarily accept and follow, not laws created and enforced by a legislative body and goons with guns. Look up common law, or the Merchant law for historical examples.

ViennaSausage:

 Would it be more apt to support civil rights focusing on individual rights as opposed to grouping folks per race or gender?

Only individual rights exist.  Thus, "civil rights" as historically used are merely a collective fiction.  It would be most apt to support the rights of the individual, even when he is in a minority

Yikes, I sure hope laws exist in anarcho-capitalism!

Because it violates property rights, is paid for (enforcement, paperwork, etc.) with illegally obtained funs / unconstitutionally funded, an extention of the illegal 14th amendment, made government even bigger and invaded the providence of the heart.

Good question though, I'm sure we'd hear more about this junk if he was even close to winning the white house.

It's hard to critisize the Civil Rights Act without being called a racist, that's why Ron Paul should try to stay away from the topic. Political suicide at it's best.

ChaseCola:

It's hard not to critisize the Civil Rights Act without being called a racist, that's why Ron Paul should try to stay away from the topic. Political suicide at it's best.

 Very true.  You also can't say that the attacks on 9/11 were a direct result of our intervention in the middle east without being called "unpatriotic" or "soft on terrorism".

 Paul is right in his opinions.  The Civil Rights Act went to far.  Outlawing segregation and discrimination on the basis of the color of your skin is wrong, but it is a right you are entitled to.  Banning discrimination in public works I agree with, but in private industry; That is an outright attack on the owner's rights to chose with whom he does business.

Edited for clarity.

ChaseCola:

It's hard not to critisize the Civil Rights Act without being called a racist, that's why Ron Paul should try to stay away from the topic. Political suicide at it's best.

Libertarianism as a whole is political suicide.

Stranger:

Libertarianism as a whole is political suicide.

The mass of people like freedom but only their brand of it.  As long as you agree with their ideology you can be "free".  If you don't, well...their gonna make life hard for you.

Even though it is evil, Civil Rights did allow for a more non-racist society. I think we should repeal it now that the vast majority of society accepts people of different backgrounds. Keeping it one the books just creates more worship of the state for ending racism, when it was really society that did.

Plus it would be social suicide and uneconomical to only hire select races of people. But if someone wants to, that is perfectly fine.

Andrew:

Even though it is evil, Civil Rights did allow for a more non-racist society. I think we should repeal it now that the vast majority of society accepts people of different backgrounds. Keeping it one the books just creates more worship of the state for ending racism, when it was really society that did.

Plus it would be social suicide and uneconomical to only hire select races of people. But if someone wants to, that is perfectly fine.

No it didn't.  Legislation makes people neither moral or immoral.  It doesn't make them rascist or non-racist.  Racism was a dying ideaology before the government stepped in (with our money and their force) to "stop" racism.  Never forget that it was the state that made oppression of other races legal with their Jim Crow laws.  There was a great awakening in the 1960's by the young people who said, "hey wait a second!  These black people are no different than I am."  And the black population rose up and demanded to be treated equally.  Rascism, if left to the "market", will die out.  As each generation teaches each successive generation that hating someone because of the color of their skin is bad.  My little nieces don't even notice "race".  I asked one of them about their "black friend" and she gave me this weird look like I was from another planet and said "no...I think he's more brown."  She doesn't even call him her "black friend."  Just friend.  That's the way the younger generation is seeing things these days. 

My mother had a great story.  She worked for the IRS (sucks I know) and had to go to a required diversity training.  In that class the instructor told them that they had to now recognize that "Jim is a black man, and I recognize that, but he is no different than me."  She stood up and said "Since I was a little girl I was taught not to see race to just see the person.   I've been working with Jim for seven years and never cared that he was black and never thought about what color he was.  But now you're telling me I have to recognize that Jim is black and that I must think to myself everytime I see him that 'There's Jim.  He's black but that's ok with me.'"  So there you go.  The state only serves to remind people that we are all different.  Instead of natural forces ensuring that everyone believes we are all the same.

Thanks for the insights everyone.  It is challenging to not support laws that appear to bring more freedom to individuals, but after further study, appears to hinder individuals freedom.  Ron Paul is a strict, a very strict, constitutionalist.  While not entirely libertarian his interpretation and actions is closer in philosophy and doctrine to libertarianism/classical liberalism.

Stranger:

Libertarianism as a whole is political suicide.

funny.

Morty:

This is why he opposes it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II

"Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce"

I.e., it violates private property rights.

Seems like a perfect example of vulgar libertarianism to me. Look, property rights are customarily unaccounted for. No free market exists. No propetarian society exists. Why do you insist on blaming the victim for this?

Sure, if it ever was a free market, the rule would be immoral - though if it were a free market it would seem that the rule would not exist, period... However, it is not a free market and if Paul devotes any energy to opposing it, he is the racist the "ghost letters" made him out to be at worst, and just wasting everyone's time at best.

Niccolo, should we nationalize health care because government control in the health care industry makes it unfair for consumers? No, we should fight to remove the government control!

I'm suprised that you of all people would support additional government control in order to fix previous government control! Yikes...

Ego:

Niccolo, should we nationalize health care because government control in the health care industry makes it unfair for consumers? No, we should fight to remove the government control!

I'm suprised that you of all people would support additional government control in order to fix previous government control! Yikes...

I didn't say that. It isn't an either or scenario where you support the establishment of the CRA or you oppose them. I take no stance on the issue of CRA. I do, however, take a stance on supposed "libertarians" taking one.

Niccolò:

I didn't say that. It isn't an either or scenario where you support the establishment of the CRA or you oppose them. I take no stance on the issue of CRA. I do, however, take a stance on supposed "libertarians" taking one.

Whats wrong with a liberal denouncing a statist policy? Ron Paul wouldn't support the CRA for the same reason he wouldn't support eminent domain or a bill to ban flag burning, because they violate property rights. Certainly his not supporting a statist policy does not make him a racist either!

I love this quote from Mencken which would seem appropriate: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of ones time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that opressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is stopped at all."