Stating the obvious, Western culture made a helova lot of progress re. treating folks of different <whatever> better. Some credit to civil rights legislation, but imo the change was primarily cultural and the legislation was a product of the cultural change. Laws don't change values. Values create laws.
The civil rights laws have some problems, imo. One of them is the idea that my right to force you to bake me a cake trumps your right to refuse me. To me, that's totally at odds with the founding principles of our country. Freedom works both ways. You have a right to be an asshole, up until you do me harm.
If you don't want to bake me a cake, I should not have the recourse of using the law to force you. I should instead get the word out that you don't like charismatic middle-aged white guys and see if the harm to your business helps you adopt a more expansive worldview.
We should not have sacrificed some of our founding principles on the alter of civil rights. Sure, there were lots of corners of the country that would have moved more slowly to see the light re. racism and discrimination, in the absence of federal legislation. That's the downside. But I think that we'd have a lot less friction today if we'd have focused instead on cultural changes. Instead we trampled rights, we created a whole network of discriminatory laws designed to stop discrimination, we created the notion of protected classes, which is ridiculous, etc.
We can always use the power of the federal government to get what we want "right now". We could, tomorrow, in a green frenzy, shut down every engine and process that has the potential to pollute the environment. Or we could remain cool-headed and patient and get to where we want by coaxing folks in our desired direction, vs. using the feds to unConstitutionally "force" others to do things our way. It takes longer that way, but it doesn't damage the very principles that support our nation.
Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart
The civil rights laws have some problems, imo. One of them is the idea that my right to force you to bake me a cake trumps your right to refuse me. To me, that's totally at odds with the founding principles of our country. Freedom works both ways. You have a right to be an asshole, up until you do me harm.
If you don't want to bake me a cake, I should not have the recourse of using the law to force you. I should instead get the word out that you don't like charismatic middle-aged white guys and see if the harm to your business helps you adopt a more expansive worldview.
We should not have sacrificed some of our founding principles on the alter of civil rights. Sure, there were lots of corners of the country that would have moved more slowly to see the light re. racism and discrimination, in the absence of federal legislation. That's the downside. But I think that we'd have a lot less friction today if we'd have focused instead on cultural changes. Instead we trampled rights, we created a whole network of discriminatory laws designed to stop discrimination, we created the notion of protected classes, which is ridiculous, etc.
We can always use the power of the federal government to get what we want "right now". We could, tomorrow, in a green frenzy, shut down every engine and process that has the potential to pollute the environment. Or we could remain cool-headed and patient and get to where we want by coaxing folks in our desired direction, vs. using the feds to unConstitutionally "force" others to do things our way. It takes longer that way, but it doesn't damage the very principles that support our nation.
Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart
Last edited by:
RangerGress: Dec 6, 17 10:38