Government should not be allowed to coerce people to do things they don't want to do. "Government" is just an agent of the people, so if you support the government forcing people to do something, then by extension you support my right to force you to do something you don't want to do.
I think it boils down to our right to pursue happiness, and the alleged fact that we were “created equal.” I am ok with the government telling someone they can’t refuse another person service merely on the basis of race. But I do understand the dangerous precedent that can set, so I can sympathize to an extent. From my POV, Ron Paul is only concerned with any sort of repression or coercion if it’s the government doing it. Otherwise, individuals/companies/markets can trample on individuals (within reason).
No, it actually stems from the belief that people own their body and should be allowed to ingest whatever drugs they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. You can disagree with that if you want, but then once again you're trying to infringe on the individual rights of your neighbors.
I have no doubt that this is YOUR belief and YOUR reason for supporting Ron Paul. What I am saying is that this has also been the cover used by Republicans since the late 60's. I'm saying combine this with the other converging lines of evidence.
Keep in mind that you seem to support Big Government while ignoring the fact that all of these racist laws you're talking about (slavery, Jim Crow, Miscegenation etc) were all government institutions. Yet when someone like Ron Paul says we need to limit that very government, people like you complain that we need more, despite the fact that everything government does by definition infringes on the individual rights of others.
That’s the point. All of these things you pointed out happened when the government was in fact, smaller. The fact that slavery can be instituted and maintained when government is less than 10% of GDP (and combined with the fact that some of the world’s most atrocious and repressive governments are in fact, small governments) tells me that there is no real correlation between larger government and a loss of liberty. Small or large, a representative government is only as good as the people who partake in the process.
Far more white people are on government aid, than black people. But if you look at the culture of dependency that generational government aid has created in the black community I would say you'd have to be a racist to continue supporting it.
You are correct about more white people being on government services. But in terms of recipients as a percentage of a whole, it’s higher for blacks. What’s more is, while YOU and I might be aware of the former, many of the race-based voters actually think that the bulk of the welfare recipients out there are black (and there are countless caricatures out there supporting this, the most obvious of which are Reagan’s famed "welfare queen”).
You’re assuming that its “generational government aid” that created this, when there are plenty of other factors involved. But here is the thing: socioeconomic improvement actually happen s more in countries with stronger social safety nets. This is difficult to square with the “government aid hinders social improvement.” Blacks are overrepresented in the lower income brackets AND since upward mobility is less common in the US than in many (possibly most) other western nations. So I would argue that stuff like this is far more likely to be the culprit:
'Black' Names A Resume Burden?
For the record, I am not so much “for” big government as I am skeptical of certain claims. For example, you might think I’m “for” big government because of my statements above, when in fact I’m simply dissecting your claims above (which happen to be anti-big government). Also, I don't believe an unfettered free market is the solution so many seem to think, so by default I guess it sounds like I'm for more government. If there is a 3rd and/or 4th option, let me know.
