3 ms·

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 demographi

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.

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.