http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com/articles/racist-persecution-of-african-american-high-school-students-in-jena-louisiana-along-with-its-relevancy-to-the-political-positions-taken-by-ron-paul/

Some excellent points in your comment. I believe you hit the nail on the head with this:

“In other words, pick your poison, because both have the potential to be just as bad.”

This is exactly the reason why leaning towards state power over federal is most important.

When states violate rights, people still have an opportunity to “vote with their feet” and escape the tyranny.

When the federal government violates rights, we’re all affected, and we have no place to go.

You give the example of the federal government suppressing Jim Crow Laws in the South — another example could be when Lincoln decided to prohibit slavery in newly-created States, which ultimately caused succession of the south, and the Civil War. Personally, I feel that each event was the moral, justified thing to do.

However, one thing that your article fails to mention is that there are also examples of the federal government superseding state laws or actions that I happen to be in favor of; or, at least do not have a problem with. In states like California, and even in my fair city of Denver, there is legislature that allows (to some degree) the smoking/owning of marijuana. Unfortunately, federal law prohibits them from being exercised completely. Another example would be the federal government prohibiting Colorado from damming our own rivers for hydro-electric power (even though it was voted on by those in the state) as other states down-river, use that water. On these issues, I feel the federal government has stepped beyond its intended purpose, and should not supersede the states’ (or local) decisions.

So, to your point, yes, it could be said that if there was no federal intervention, states, theoretically, could turn a blind-eye to crimes against minorities. However, in giving the majority federal government the power to intervene, there’s nothing to stop it from imposing laws which may counter-act, supersede, or even disenfranchise those of the minority state, and local governments.

In other words, pick your poison, because both have the potential to be just as bad.

Passage of a hate crime bill which is only exclusive to specific races , creeds, or orientations, etc, is not an example of inclusive protection for all people.

I do not want people to be charged with a hate crime for their views and speech of them. I want to debate them and to tell them why I disagree.

That is a free society.

If they want to harm me unjustly because of my views, I want them to be prosectuted just like any other criminal for a violent crime would be.

I don’t however, believe that I should be allocated any additional rights or protection, because of my race or orientation, than any other member of society.

Further, as far as rights being expanded by families and friends, I wonder why every major advancement of Civil Liberties has involved Federal legislation?

Ultimately, Russell Cole’s real disagreement in this article, is about the philosophic argument Ron Paul employs in making his stance. Ron Paul defends the rights of individuals to hate other individuals for whatever reason. This is the libertarian position, and contrary to what Cole implies at the beginning, this also the libertarian argument. This leads Cole, inevitably to attack negative rights, suggesting because people do not always respect these rights that we should throw them to the wind in favor of positive rights, that is the subsidizing of revenge and/or the coercive reprogramming of society through the violent means of the state.

I am not going to bother presenting the argument here, but I will say that libertarians like Paul believe rights are absolute and true by the existence of our reason. We do not believe that governments get to decide what rights people have based on some Utilitarian calculation. We believe that people have these rights even when the government says they don’t, or even violates them on a regular basis. Most of all, we feel the only role the government can possibly have is to enforce these rights in the most objective way it can. That is what libertarians mean by small government.

Beyond rights, it is the responsibility of the people to fight for propagation of good ideas and the deconstruction of bad ones. Charities, foundations, community organizations, friends and family, these are the types of organizations that change the world for the better, and it is through them, not bureaucracy or military and police might, that we spread truth and promote morality. You can’t Legislate away bigotry, but that doesn’t mean you can’t change the hearts and minds of others through peaceful means.