Detailed market commentary at The Market Ticker and Ticker Classics
(The Year 2012 In Review)
Donations accepted; we offer GOLD ACCESS for enhanced privileges. T-Shirts, caps, coffee mugs? Click here.
BlogTalkRadio - Mondays at 3:30 Central - Yes, TickerGuy has a radio show (kinda)
RSS available You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|MarketTicker Forums Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||Weekend Edition - Politics; entered at 2008-05-17 22:05:09|
Registered: 2007-09-15 Ohio
Crazybook - |
Why should it have? It is not the proper role of the government to see to the morality of it's citizens! We are guaranteed the right of free association in our constitution, and that includes to be borish and ignorant in those choices.
Jim Crow laws codifying a separation of the races in interfacing with the state was a clear violation of equal protection, and should not have been allowed to stand. On matters of private intercourse - such as an individual running a restaurant - that proprieter should be allowed to have whatever conditions he chose to place on conducting association with his establishment. The state should not be forcing indivduals to do business with someone against their will, or forcing an owner who wanted to serve blacks not to do so under penalty of the law.
Jim crow was wrong, as in the aggregate those laws tended to substitute the will of the majority in place of the will of the owner of the asset. The reaction that sought to counteract Jim Crow was just as immoral, again seeking to force individuals to dispose of their property in ways that they didn't choose.
Jim Crow laws were abhorrent, and in most cases, unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is, they should have been struck down, Unfortunately, what we got in respose was a typically tyrannical reaction - to impose the view of the collective as superior to the will of the one with a moral right to decide how to utilize his own property.
In practice, most of what government has undertaken in the quest for equality is abhorently harmful, and in a plurality of the examples, counter-productive to the stated aims in so doing. In practice, it divides us along racial lines, stipulating that the success of one group must come at the expense of another. Even if it were functionally effecacious, that wouldn't change the fundamental immorality of appropriating hegemony over an individual's property simply because you don't like how he'll use it.
Last modified: 2008-05-17 22:30:30 by circpros