3 ms·
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 b
by fallingknife 1y 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 1y agoHe 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 1y agoEven 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 1y 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.