[detbuch]

QUOTE=spence;1033507]Everything should be judged on its m[erit, but this isn't an academic exercise.

Is this actually in response to my post about your fear of oligarchy? If so, please do discuss the merit of "business" having the power to override individuals' fundamental rights. That would not be an ethereal "academic" exercise. That would be directly to point of the power of others to use government to control you.

Should we go back to the days where a black person was denied the same services? The only big difference is that it's not always obvious if someone was born gay.

-spence[/QUOTE]

This is all the fruit of poisoned seed. Once you diverge from the straight and narrow path, you can continue down a different road, or return to the path you intended to follow. Continuing down the divergent path leads to a different destination.

The Constitution laid out a clear path to individual freedom from the coercion of oppressive government. But, in order to get all to agree, it had to contain the poisoned seed of slavery. It was the worm in the bud which went counter to all the promise and beauty of the flower of freedom granted in the premise that all men were created equal--equal before the law. There was a divergence from that path immediately instituted in the original document. The road to the straight and narrow was repaved in the blood of the Civil War.

But the power to do so led to a new divergent path. The power of the Federal Government to change direction against its own prescribed bounds was inviting to those who wanted to go that way, under the premise that even more and greater improvements to the old road could, and should, be made. But, in order to do that, the old limitations placed on it had to be removed. It was evident to those who followed this new path, that the old way of The People, of individuals, deciding to go their presumably untrammeled way was too disorderly. That if a true "equality" was to be achieved, that equality would have to be prescribed and defined by government as it evolved, not by a static document.

And so long as differences remained among The People, those differences could, and surely would, lead to advantages of some over others, of "oppression" of some by others. The abolition of slavery was not enough--just a beginning. The "more perfect union" spoken of in the old document could now be transformed into "a perfect union."

Freeing the slaves was not enough. How could they fare in a world that was new to them and in which they did not know how to survive. Actually, they did know, black towns that formed were doing well until destroyed by racists.

To make a novel length story short, if the freed slaves actually had the equal protection of the law, they would have eventually done well without further government assistance. If they had been allowed to freely enter upon the old constitutional road, no further "assistance" would have been necessary. No laws would have been necessary to force racist businesses to accommodate them. They were capable of creating their own businesses. An actually "free" market would have given them the power to live their lives and compete for customers. A free market would make it attractive to serve them in every way.

But anti-free, discriminatory laws which ran counter to constitutional equality stood in the way and retarded the growth and ability of blacks to grow in equal status. More poisoned seeds.

Now a cascade of bad seed stemming from the idea that without government various groups or classes of people cannot flourish without special government assistance and protection. Among the many corrupted seeds was the Federal Government's legalistic and fiscal intrusion into marriage which inspires the need for Federal sanction of various groups to "marry" to receive benefits. The old constitutional path, if followed, would not have allowed the Federal Government into the equation. And that intrusion was probably inspired by "conservatives." All facets of the political spectrum seem to want to illegally insert themselves into the constitutional system and overload it with new subjective likes and dislikes to the point of unworkable obsolescence.

Not only does this lead to the destruction and divergence from the old path and its destination of individual freedom, but it ensures that there is no return to it. The new destination is the over-arching security of all-powerful government prescribing in ever expanding detail what exactly we are free to do, or not do. And it is presumed that without achieving this goal of government control we will always have to worry about a black person being "denied the same services."

The Constitution, the old way, if followed correctly, would require individuals, and the groups to which they belong, to flourish or retard on their own merit, and would prohibit others, including the government from interfering. Whether someone was born "gay" or drifted into it would be irrelevant. If they wanted to contract with each other and call it marriage, they would be free to do so without government intrusion or "assistance." If someone wished not to serve them others would, and they certainly have the capability to create businesses that would cater specifically to them as well as to others. They most certainly have the where-with-all to create, produce, and market whatever they wish as they have prolifically demonstrated. The old way would allow everyone regardless of race, religion, or gender, etc. to participate in the free market without over-reaching control of Big Brother.

The new way tells all what they are allowed--in order to create "equality" and a paradoxical form of totally regulated "freedom."