Robin Garr wrote:Steve, I can agree with the first three to some extent, although I would point out that Jim Crow laws merely institutionalized the existing public practice, which by modern standards was immoral and wrong. People weren't bigots because Jim Crow laws made them so; Jim Crow laws were written because the empowered minority espoused bigotry.
Did the Civil Rights acts banish racism? No they did not. The Federal Government finally decided to enforced the 14th Amendment, and abolished the Jim Crow laws. According to your perspective, southern society generally remained racist.
If this is true, and you and I agree that it was, then how did relations between the races improve since then? It's because southern culture was finally able to evolve naturally. Those people who were less inclined to be racist, could go about their business without threat of prosecution for crimes. This is how southern culture finally evolved. It took getting government out of the way to do it.
Segregation also depended on judges to substitute their will for the clear intent of Constitution to rule that Jim Crow laws were legal. Wouldn't it have been great had government not had that authority to criminalize social behavior? And it wouldn't have been great if judges didn't believe in a "living constitution"?
You forget about the vast number of bureaucrats who are basically unaccountable to no one.Robin Garr wrote:Your fourth point rests on the assumption that the federal government is broadly corrupt. I don't buy that, and I think the election of 2008 demonstrates that the majority will throw out a bad administration.
I thought for a minute you were talking about Democrats being in cahoots with the folks who are planning crater the US economy even further by raising the cost of fossil fuel, banning nuclear power, and implementing onerous environmental regulations with dubious scientific evidence.Robin Garr wrote:What's happened since then is frightening, because a major political party has made common cause with a bizarre, extremist splinter group and gone rogue. I hope this won't last and that balance will be restored.
Then I realized you were talking about the Republicans being in cahoots and the folks who want to reduce the size of government so that folks can be left alone.
Robin Garr wrote:I don't agree with number 6 at all. Government goes back to ancient Mesopotamia, and over the ages it has proven to be an effective, if sometimes rough, way for people to band together in communities and, yes, GOVERN themselves. It doesn't always work well - see above - but it has proven superior to anarchy.
I did not say, "no government". I agree that anarchy is not a sustainable system, even when it is backed by a coherent philosophy like anarcho-capitalism. The mistake of Communism is the assumption that humans are completely collective. The mistake of anarcho-capitalism is the assumption that humans are completely individualistic. I just want to move the needle away from our Socialist experiment, which I think is failing, and move it to a more libertarian arrangement. The Founders left us the framework and the tools to do it.
I stand corrected.Robin Garr wrote:Finally, Jefferson didn't say that. Henry David Thoreau did, in Civil Disobedience.
The more powerful the government, and the fewer balancing structures, either other branches of government or private organizations, the larger the threat to minorities -- over the long term. Because without restraint, the majority will have it's will in a pure democracy. That's why our constitution doesn't implement a pure democracy. Instead we have a Federal Democratic Republic. It was designed whit several safeguards against pure majoritarian democracy, with the express intentions to protect minority opinions and minority populations.Robin Garr wrote:Which, by the way, is one way for citizens with deeply ingrained differential beliefs to get themselves heard. At the risk of incarceration by the majority.
I think one of the reasons our politics has become so rancid is that we have allowed some of these safegurds of our liberty to whither.
Robin Garr wrote:I'm sorry, and I don't want to turn incivil, but I'll say it again: As a leading-edge Baby Boomer, I'm old enough to have lived through the civil rights struggle, and although too young to participate in any effective way, consumed it through print media and television. I've seen what happens when "state's rights" dominate governance, and I know that it's not a pretty sight.
The "states rights" in this case was about state laws in violation of the 14th amendment. If there where no state sovereignty at all, then there would be no protection in the various states from governing policies with which there people might disagree.
It's all good when you are in the majority opinion. It's bad when you are in the minority opinion. The states, when they are restored to the full significance, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, will act as a firewall between an majority running rampant. As you know, the majority doesn't need protection.
You like to say there is now a "majority" in favor of gay marriage. Was gay rights less important before you could convince a majority to go along? With a smaller government, and one not involved in regulating marriage, the more socially progressive states could have had "gay marriage" much sooner, probably decades ago. It has been the majority holding it back, until now supposedly.
So, why can't you at least agree that shrinking government can have some positive social benefits?
Robin Garr wrote:Federal action, with support by a national majority, changed things, despite continued efforts by one major party to capitalize on the anger and residual bigotry of a minority. It's no real wonder that the election of an African-American president has re-stoked those fires.
Yeah, it's all good to be in the majority opinion with a big powerful government. It's all high cotton then. It's not so good to be in the minority opinion with a big government telling you what you can, and can't do everyday. A small government protects all opinions. So, the marketplace of ideas can work without government coercion. It's the whole "laboratory of democracy" idea.
Robin Garr wrote: It's no real wonder that the election of an African-American president has re-stoked those fires.
Yeah. It's because the President is black that folks are up in arms.
It's not Obamacare and how it was passed. It's not about record deficits as far as the eye can see with the Federal government borrowing 42% of the money that it spends every year. It's not the 1.5 TRILLION of debt piled on every year. It's not an EPA gone rogue driving by politic instead of science.
Oh no. It's not any of those things. It's because the President is black!
Will there ever be a time when you can concede that your political opposition has deeply held principles? Can you ever concede that everyone who doesn't agree with you is not a racist? Or a homophobe? Or a sexist? Or an uneducated dupe? When are you gonna quit living in the 60's, man?
It is attitudes like yours that make the political debate so poisonous . These are the techniques that are designed to silence your opponents so you don't have to understand them.