Matthew D wrote:You argument here is that segregation was supported by the government. It says nothing about how segregation would have played out in your governmental vision.
Even if I buy your argument that the government oppresses (which I either don't or don't have an issue with), I'm still wondering what oppressive force would replace government if we were somehow to replace it.
This whole vision is based off of an argument against government. It's never an argument for anything.
I did not say that there should be "no" government.
The Founders deliberately set up "balance of power" in the design of our governments. Everyone knows about the co-equal 3-branches: Congress, President, and the Courts. They also split the Congress into 2 houses to give more power to less populous states. This was to support the idea of Federalism, which splits power between Federal, State, and Local governments, plus the individual citizens who might organize privately how they saw fit.
This careful balance as gone out of kilter.
Federalism has been weakened by the 17th Amendment, which set up direct election of Senators instead of their appointment by state legislatures. These reduced the power of states with respect to the Federal government, and also tends to nationalize issues that should be more local. One way it does this is be making it easier for interests outside of the any particular state to help elect its Senators. This often makes Senators more beholden outside interest groups when they should be representing there states interests.
By far the biggest decrease in Federalism was the 16th Amendment authorizing the Federal income tax. This allows the Federal government to bribe us and our state and local governments with our own money, and has directly led to the colossal Federal Government that we have today, telling folks what kind of toilets they might have, what kind of clothes washers, what kind of light bulbs, right down to telling them that you need Federal permission to raise bunny rabbits and marijuana.
The Federal government started growing exponential at that point, with no break in sight. This makes the outcomes of Federal elections vastly more important than they used to be. And since the invasions of Federal power into our personal space has increased, the results of Federal elections have become more personal too. This leads to the acrimonious debates that we have today.
Then there is also the corruption, and that is an accurate word, of the Federal Courts. The "living constitution" virus has infected many, including much of the Supreme Court. I used to believe in the "living constitution" BS. But then I realized, if the Laws and Constitution didn't mean what they were written to mean, then we had become a country of "men", of aristocrats, instead of a democratic republic of laws.
With the Courts giving themselves the power, with the support of one of our great political parties, to say what laws mean, instead of upholding what the laws are written to mean, then we have be autocracy, and not a republic.
This also serves to make our national elections more acrimonious, as he who whens elections, can appoint this autocratic judges, and then take undemocratic shortcuts to there policy goals. This is not democracy in action.
So, let's look at Jim Crow. The states violated the 14th Amendment by passing these laws that differentiated their populations based on race, and there proxies, like income and educational attainment. The courts substituted their judgement for that clearly written in the Constitution, and didn't strike down these laws as they clearly should have been. Anybody for freedom, should not want a "living constitution".
but also speaking as one who lived through the civil rights battles of the '60s, this is the exact approach that institutionalized racial segregation in the South for a century after the Civil War. Yes, segregation was a matter of law; but it became so because it was the wish of an empowered minority to control the majority.
