> It seems likely that you don't believe in the rights, the negative individual rights, that these Americans believe in; rather, you are willing to subordinate

> It seems likely that you don't believe in the rights, the negative individual rights, that these Americans believe in; rather, you are willing to subordinate them to a cause which you believe is a good cause. (It might even be a good cause in fact. > If this is the case, then it is "tiresome" because, old as these ideas are, they are working exactly as intended: they are presenting a stumbling block to your utopian designs. Modern history is full of movements promising utopias by systematically violating human rights. That comment directly applies to this situation and proves it. You're against property rights (a negative individual right) for a 'good cause' (anti-racism), and in favor of letting it be subordinate to positive rights. A history of property rights being 'tied' to racism doesn't mean that we should repeal or lessen property rights; we should ensure property rights apply to everyone. The only issue with America's human rights was that they were not equally applied to everyone. My ancestors were essentially enslaved for several hundred years and now my grandmother, father, and mother all own a bit of property. We won't be letting anyone take that, or any part of property rights, away from us. I appreciate that you're in favor of this for a noble reason but nobody needs a savior to take away others' rights.