From: "Alex F. Bokov" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> The Jim Crow era was really a fight between the liberal Federal
> government and certain reactionary state governments. While it does
> cast doubt on the Republican "State's Rights" doctrine it only lends
> support to anarcho-libertarianism, because if there weren't any
> governments passing irrational laws in the first place, intervention
> from an even higher level of government would not have been necessary.
Maybe, sure, but the monster was already alive, big, and growing. Maybe if
there was no slavery ... maybe if ...
But the fact remains, segregation in the South at mid-century was already
knee-deep in monsters, and after hundreds of years of that sad legacy
something more drastic needed to happen other than just letting things drift
along until people smartened up and entrepreneurship to solve everyone's
problems could get a foothold. The problems facing the South (and the
U.S.A.) were monumental. Maybe if the monster didn't exist in the first
place ... but even that's theoretical.
> > Libertarians don't favor
> > > outlawing stupidity, but stupidity should have its costs.
> It does, by definition, except when some do-gooder authority
> decides to redistribute these costs and protect the stupid
> from the consequences of their actions.
I would rather deal with a do-gooder authority than a do-badder authority.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT