3 ms·
If the government making laws is "the very incarnation of threats and intimidation" then you have never really been subjected to threats and intimidation. I ha
by celticninja 12y ago
If the government making laws is "the very incarnation of threats and intimidation" then you have never really been subjected to threats and intimidation.
I hate to burst your bubble but not everyone is from the states, so it is difficult for me to comment knowledgeably on your reply. From what I can see George Wallace was a politician, if you don't like what a politician says you vote against them. I would not condone shooting him or terrorising his family to force a change when there is a legitimate route to address the problem.
Why would my conscience bother me?
- geofft 12y agoSorry, that last line was from a song, "Sweet Home Alabama," that briefly mentions Gov. Wallace. It's decently well-known in the US, but my mistake in expecting everyone would recognize it. :) Anyway, nobody's talking about shooting or terrorizing anyone. But the Civil Rights Act in the US compelled private business owners not to discriminate in their clientele, and that compulsion was behind the (implicit) threat of police response, as with just about all government compulsion. That is way more of a response than anyone's discussing in this thread; the worst that's happening is people losing their jobs and livelihoods, which is pretty bad, but not nearly as bad. But it's not a particularly common belief today that the Civil Rights Act was evil, or that its ends did not justify the means of government compulsion. (It was a somewhat common belief then, and some US politicians did oppose it on those grounds, though who can say if they also privately objected to its substance.)