4 ms·

Unfortunately you continue to conveniently ignore the most important understanding about the human race: "Hatred and the ability to subjugate others is often a

Unfortunately you continue to conveniently ignore the most important understanding about the human race: "Hatred and the ability to subjugate others is often a bigger motivating factor to people than money." It's not just about segregation per se, it's about the bigger problem of oppression. Segregation is just a tool to implement it. And people's ability to distinguish one another for the purposes of oppression is not even limited to skin color. If you travel around the world, you'll even observe people who look totally alike hating and trying to oppress each other. (Go visit the Balkans sometime.) Persecution of minorities -- racial, ethnic, religious -- has been a thing for at least as long as recorded history. This problem simply does not fix itself through free-market solutions.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
The protection of the law with the freedom to contract completely protects people from the oppression you speak of. That is why black Americans, as a demographic, saw crime rates, wages and educational attainment levels rapidly improve until 1960. You take it as a matter of faith that a free society does not work, and the evidence shows that it does.
- otterley 5y ago
  > The protection of the law with the freedom to contract completely protects people from the oppression you speak of. Except it doesn't, and countless wars, terrorism, and other violence and oppression whose root cause was to exterminate "the other," including Jews, Christians, Gypsies, homosexuals, Rohingya, Tibetans, Uighur, Sh'ia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and others have demonstrated otherwise. I'm through with this discussion.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    In all of those cases, there was no protection of the law, so I'm very confused as to how you think your examples support your point. You're pointing to cases where hatred led to organized violence against minorities. I'm saying that upholding the principle of non-violence, and thereby establishing a free society, is an active defense against the kind of coordinated violence you reference. A free society doesn't eliminate hatred. It stamps out aggression, so that hatred cannot be channeled to destructive purposes.
    - otterley 5y ago
      > In all of those cases, there was no protection of the law And yet, you're claiming that protection of the law entails force (as it must in order to be effective against those unwilling to follow the law's dictates) and therefore is to be eschewed. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        I assumed it went without saying that force is justified in retaliation to an initiation of force. It is not okay for the government to imprison someone because they didn't want to rent their house to black or white people, or refused to pay the fine for this choice. It is okay for the government to imprison someone because they threatened their neighbour with violence to coerce them into not renting their house to black or white people.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

The protection of the law with the freedom to contract completely protects people from the oppression you speak of. That is why black Americans, as a demographic, saw crime rates, wages and educational attainment levels rapidly improve until 1960. You take it as a matter of faith that a free society does not work, and the evidence shows that it does.

otterley 5y ago
> The protection of the law with the freedom to contract completely protects people from the oppression you speak of. Except it doesn't, and countless wars, terrorism, and other violence and oppression whose root cause was to exterminate "the other," including Jews, Christians, Gypsies, homosexuals, Rohingya, Tibetans, Uighur, Sh'ia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and others have demonstrated otherwise. I'm through with this discussion.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  In all of those cases, there was no protection of the law, so I'm very confused as to how you think your examples support your point. You're pointing to cases where hatred led to organized violence against minorities. I'm saying that upholding the principle of non-violence, and thereby establishing a free society, is an active defense against the kind of coordinated violence you reference. A free society doesn't eliminate hatred. It stamps out aggression, so that hatred cannot be channeled to destructive purposes.
  - otterley 5y ago
    > In all of those cases, there was no protection of the law And yet, you're claiming that protection of the law entails force (as it must in order to be effective against those unwilling to follow the law's dictates) and therefore is to be eschewed. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      I assumed it went without saying that force is justified in retaliation to an initiation of force. It is not okay for the government to imprison someone because they didn't want to rent their house to black or white people, or refused to pay the fine for this choice. It is okay for the government to imprison someone because they threatened their neighbour with violence to coerce them into not renting their house to black or white people.