| sc94597 said: So according to how you framed it here, there is the dichotomy between people who give lip-service to individual rights of marginalized people and don't listen to opposing views that suggest they shouldn't have them vs. a person who doesn't think large groups of Americans who fall in these groups should have rights ("Civil Rights Act was a big mistake", "Homosexuality is akin to alcoholism or drug use", etc) but he was willing to listen to people who think the individual rights should exist, which is the prevailing view that the overwhelming majority of Americans have. And you're wondering why people of marginalized groups vote for Democrats? Hell, I am not a very strong Democrat. I pretty much hate the party. But if it is a choice between people who want to hurt me (I am non-heterosexual, non-white, and have a disability) and those who pay me lip-service and do nothing, I am obviously going to side with the latter. I really don't care if the first group will listen to me justify my existence as a fully equal member of society. I shouldn't have to be arguing for it in the first place. |
In regards to what Charlie said about the Civil Rights Act, He's right. The CRA was a mistake, and that's a view shared by most libertarians. You don't need a federal law to protect individual rights of minorities, when freedom of association and the free market will already take care of that. Hell, I'd argue the Civil rights act is one of the reasons behind DEI mandates of modern times.
Kirk wasn't advocating against groups of people having rights. He was advocating for government to stop enacting nonsense laws like the CRA to fix problems that natural rights of citizens and the free market could already fix.
