3 ms·

> Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a

by mmooss 2y ago

> Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a government powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. We live in different bubbles, it seems. I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. The majority can always protect itself by changing the law. Edit: > https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis.... I skimmed through this. The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. And look at this piece of doublespeak: When I talk about civil rights, the reader should not get the impression that I’m friendly to segregation, or hostile to the civil rights movement as it existed for the whole of the 20th century up until 1964. In fact, I’m very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation for equal citizenship that went on up till then, but there were problems in the Civil Rights Act that were not evident at first. They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution. They are "very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation", however. :)

rayiner 2y ago
> I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. That’s the same argument from the other direction. The federal government, as designed, wasn’t powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. Those rules entailed a major expansion of federal power. Indeed, you can see the seams in the civil rights laws. For example, Title VI’s ban on discrimination in public education is implemented through conditions on federal funding. Because the federal government can’t legislate such a ban directly. > The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. That’s exactly the civil rights era retconning of the constitution I’m talking about. The statement that “all men are created equal” has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip.... The statement is about self determination: the right of a people to determine their own form of government. The equality being referred to is the equality between Britain and its monarch and the colonists. The founders said almost nothing about protecting minorities from the majority, except perhaps in the context of religious freedom. Their concern was exactly the opposite: that a minority cabal in the government would oppress the majority.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > The statement that “all men are created equal” has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after ... The context before and after is quite well known; I don't have to read it. What they say is that 'all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, among those life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And to protect those rights, governments are instituted among men.' (from memory, probably a few errors). All means all - minorities included. The equality is for "all men"; rights are for "all men". Nothing is said about Britain and its monarch, except in your dreams of rationalizing oppression. The language is plain and clear, part of the reason it is so well-known.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    That seems inconsistent with the history of slavery in the US. The evidence is that the people writing that didn't actually mean "all men" - if I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United... it suggests 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves. That seems like strong evidence that the literal text was being interpreted with implicit caveats. A document cannot simultaneously holds all minorities to be equal with a right to liberty and accommodate slavery as it existed in the 1700s. Some of the signers may personally have disagreed with slavery but it seems difficult to say that the document itself represented a repudiation of the practice.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  Their concern was exactly the opposite: that a minority cabal in the government would oppress the majority. That's a unique take fundamentally at odds with the very concept of the Senate.
rayiner 2y ago
> The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. But I think leftists would share the same premise! They would phrase it differently, they’d say something like: “the founders were white men who wanted to limit government power so the government wouldn’t be powerful enough to do things like end slavery or take their property.” But that’s the same argument. The traditional view is a small government of enumerated powers. The post-civil rights view is a powerful federal government that can protect minorities from democracy. > They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution. That doesn’t logically follow. The analogous mistaken argument would be saying that those who insist on due process for deportations must support illegal immigration, because “they don’t offer any other solution.” Of course that argument is wrong. Those people simply aren’t willing to compromise on due process to address illegal immigration. Similarly, you can be unwilling to compromise on federalism and limited government, even if it’s to address oppression of minorities. That doesn’t mean you support such oppression, simply that you prioritize other values more highly.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > That doesn’t mean you support such oppression, simply that you prioritize other values more highly. Yes it does, in fact. And while people can try to doublespeak and have everyone parsing it out, all that matters is where you end up.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Even if you think that all that matters is “where you end up,” your logic still doesn’t work. Adhering to principles of federalism and limited government also changes other aspects of society, in ways that people might deem desirable.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      A solution that leaves people under cruel, evil oppression for generations tells you everything you need to know about the people supporting it.
fallingknife 2y ago
Prior to the civil rights movement it was assumed that by freedom of association, it was beyond the scope of the government to prevent things like segregation by private citizens. e.g. if a business owner did not want to serve black customers, then that is his right. So yes, someone who does not support the government having that power to infringe on freedom of association will not support any government intervention to prevent voluntary segregation. This is why he distinguishes between the civil rights movement before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was only concerned with preventing government enforced segregation.
- mmooss 2y ago
  He opposes any known solution to the terrible evil of segregation, and doesn't care to offer any other. If you stand by while someone is drowning, eating a hot dog, you can claim 'I do support agitation for drowning victims', but the facts are plain.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Even in your analogy, that just means you’re not willing to jeopardize yourself in any way to help, not that you affirmatively want the other person to drown. In fact they recommend that you don’t try to help drowning victims, because they often cause their rescuers to drown as well. More generally, not caring about other people isn’t the same as affirmatively wanting to harm them.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > that just means you’re not willing to jeopardize yourself in any way to help, not that you affirmatively want the other person to drown. In life, in practice, there isn't meaningful difference. They still drown because you abandoned your responsibilities.

by mmooss 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

> I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. That’s the same argument from the other direction. The federal government, as designed, wasn’t powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. Those rules entailed a major expansion of federal power. Indeed, you can see the seams in the civil rights laws. For example, Title VI’s ban on discrimination in public education is implemented through conditions on federal funding. Because the federal government can’t legislate such a ban directly. > The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. That’s exactly the civil rights era retconning of the constitution I’m talking about. The statement that “all men are created equal” has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip.... The statement is about self determination: the right of a people to determine their own form of government. The equality being referred to is the equality between Britain and its monarch and the colonists. The founders said almost nothing about protecting minorities from the majority, except perhaps in the context of religious freedom. Their concern was exactly the opposite: that a minority cabal in the government would oppress the majority.

mmooss 2y ago
> The statement that “all men are created equal” has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after ... The context before and after is quite well known; I don't have to read it. What they say is that 'all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, among those life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And to protect those rights, governments are instituted among men.' (from memory, probably a few errors). All means all - minorities included. The equality is for "all men"; rights are for "all men". Nothing is said about Britain and its monarch, except in your dreams of rationalizing oppression. The language is plain and clear, part of the reason it is so well-known.
- roenxi 2y ago
  That seems inconsistent with the history of slavery in the US. The evidence is that the people writing that didn't actually mean "all men" - if I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United... it suggests 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves. That seems like strong evidence that the literal text was being interpreted with implicit caveats. A document cannot simultaneously holds all minorities to be equal with a right to liberty and accommodate slavery as it existed in the 1700s. Some of the signers may personally have disagreed with slavery but it seems difficult to say that the document itself represented a repudiation of the practice.
gamblor956 2y ago
Their concern was exactly the opposite: that a minority cabal in the government would oppress the majority. That's a unique take fundamentally at odds with the very concept of the Senate.

rayiner 2y ago

> The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. But I think leftists would share the same premise! They would phrase it differently, they’d say something like: “the founders were white men who wanted to limit government power so the government wouldn’t be powerful enough to do things like end slavery or take their property.” But that’s the same argument. The traditional view is a small government of enumerated powers. The post-civil rights view is a powerful federal government that can protect minorities from democracy. > They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution. That doesn’t logically follow. The analogous mistaken argument would be saying that those who insist on due process for deportations must support illegal immigration, because “they don’t offer any other solution.” Of course that argument is wrong. Those people simply aren’t willing to compromise on due process to address illegal immigration. Similarly, you can be unwilling to compromise on federalism and limited government, even if it’s to address oppression of minorities. That doesn’t mean you support such oppression, simply that you prioritize other values more highly.

mmooss 2y ago
> That doesn’t mean you support such oppression, simply that you prioritize other values more highly. Yes it does, in fact. And while people can try to doublespeak and have everyone parsing it out, all that matters is where you end up.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Even if you think that all that matters is “where you end up,” your logic still doesn’t work. Adhering to principles of federalism and limited government also changes other aspects of society, in ways that people might deem desirable.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    A solution that leaves people under cruel, evil oppression for generations tells you everything you need to know about the people supporting it.

fallingknife 2y ago

Prior to the civil rights movement it was assumed that by freedom of association, it was beyond the scope of the government to prevent things like segregation by private citizens. e.g. if a business owner did not want to serve black customers, then that is his right. So yes, someone who does not support the government having that power to infringe on freedom of association will not support any government intervention to prevent voluntary segregation. This is why he distinguishes between the civil rights movement before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was only concerned with preventing government enforced segregation.

mmooss 2y ago
He opposes any known solution to the terrible evil of segregation, and doesn't care to offer any other. If you stand by while someone is drowning, eating a hot dog, you can claim 'I do support agitation for drowning victims', but the facts are plain.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Even in your analogy, that just means you’re not willing to jeopardize yourself in any way to help, not that you affirmatively want the other person to drown. In fact they recommend that you don’t try to help drowning victims, because they often cause their rescuers to drown as well. More generally, not caring about other people isn’t the same as affirmatively wanting to harm them.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > that just means you’re not willing to jeopardize yourself in any way to help, not that you affirmatively want the other person to drown. In life, in practice, there isn't meaningful difference. They still drown because you abandoned your responsibilities.