5 ms·

I often felt that 19th century law was usually more humane. I mean, yes human rights were violated on a racial, cultural and financial basis, but if you were in

I often felt that 19th century law was usually more humane. I mean, yes human rights were violated on a racial, cultural and financial basis, but if you were in the in-group then you actually had rights. It seems like once we started earnest movements towards civil rights then the legal discrimination was pushed back to just the financial front, so I guess that's a net gain for most but we still have work to do.

gretj 8y ago
The in-group still actually has rights. Cutoff for membership seems to be around $100M.
- ilovetux 8y ago
  Yes but hard-working middle class people are not in the in-group like they once were.
  - olefoo 8y ago
    There was a brief post-war era where that was the case. But that era ended in 1973 [1] 1. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
    - mjevans 8y ago
      I think it 'ended' before that and that's just the rot starting to set in to provide actual proof.
ljw1001 8y ago
I think it's a mistake to combine progress in human rights and economic rights. While people worked towards greater civil rights, corporations worked to enhance their own power at everyone else's expense. They just happened at the same time. To a large degree, the entire US has become that town in the old Western where the rich were above the law. It strikes me as especially ironic now that people horde firearms against the day when their democratic rights are taken away. They're already gone.