More Class Warfare: The Real Point of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition)
Consider the wording of the 18th Amendment passed out of Congress during WWI and ratified in 1919.
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
and then consider what is missing from it.
And the answer is “purchase, possession, or consumption”. All of which remained legal. Which meant that serving alcohol in a private residence whether at a dinner party or a cocktail party or a garden party was perfectly okay, at worst the host would have to claim some “pre-war” stock. Why even Senators and Congressmen and Presidents could (and did) openly consume intoxicating beverages in their offices and within limits at private clubs. Which would raise instant issues of hypocrisy and “goose and ganderism” except for one thing the history books gloss over. Prohibition was all about maintaining maximum productivity on the factory floor by effectively denying open access for workingmen. Because while in theory there would be no barrier to buying beer by the glass, or the beer bucket, or gin by the drink, or the bottle, it was clearly illegal to sell it in any open city or town setting. And it was not like the workingman could afford to have a bootlegger deliver booze by the case to be legally tucked away in some rich man’s cellar.
Which gets me to the point, and one that I barely have even anecdotal support for, though I believe it is out there. Prohibition largely worked for the actual purpose for which the wealthy and powerful ALLOWED it to be put in place. The 20s were the golden era for the new science of industrial engineering and production efficiency. Jobs that a generation or more before had largely been done by craftsmen were increasingly being done by factory workers operating on “the line” with every move under observation by those who would implement improvements based on Taylorism, after Frederick Winslow Taylor the father of time-motion studies. Which efficiency improvements you were not likely to get in the kind of alcohol infused workplace of the century before.
As an indication of the soundness of this theory consider that in reading about the business and social affairs of the American elite in the 1920s there is not a single hint that alcohol use was restrained or repressed, no instead this was the golden age of cocktails. Nor was there any evidence of an upsurge in piety among that group. But there was (and always will be) a class interest in boosting labor productivity and grabbing the spoils. I suggest that was what in part made the Roaring 20’s what they were. A program of prohibition that largely left the elites unaffected while clamping down on at least day time consumption by the working class.
Consider this an open thread on class warfare and labor share. Or whatever. Me, I am going to grab a stiff drink.
While I understand “purchase” was legal, I’m finding it difficult to imagine how one would purchase something that is illegal to sell, assuming everyone is intending to remain compliant with the law.
And my understanding is that the 20’s were the golden age of cocktails because the liquor itself was so bad that people had to find ways to mask the flavor while still achieving the ultimate goal of intoxication.
Related, it would seem the dialectic of your larger point argues for less government interference rather than more. If the elites will always use government at their disposal to craft the world as they want it, removing broad government authority reduces that opportunity. So unless you’re confident that “your guys” are always going to be the one setting the rules, if you advocate for larger government, you’re going to have to live with the notion that some/half of the time “their guys” are going to set the rules.
To boot prohibition was a reaction against the drunken immigrants by the upstanding wasp bodies In particular at that time right about WWI there was a large hatred of germans in the US and their beer halls. See Last Call for details.
The elites managed to enlist some churches in the campaign as well.
A slightly different comment if you look at the UK Drinking was regarded as a major problem in terms of conducting WWI which is why the funny hours for pubs in the UK came about. Drunkenness was thus unpatrotic.
M.jeb on your second point I would say you are drawing a line between ‘elites’ and ‘government’ that has never actually existed. The question is how much, if any, democratic control or even input a given political system allows. But that attempted control is always directed up at elites who always include, by submission, co-option or replacement the controllers of capital.
As to your “difficult to imagine” well that says as much about you as about the situation. Consider this difference. I am a workingman sitting in a tavern/speakeasy where illegal activity is openly taken place. In lot of times. places and jurisdictions simply being in a “place of ill repute” or “illegal operation” is itself a crime. So when the police raid the joint I am forced to flee or be put in the hoosegaw overnight before paying a fine to the local magistrate. But was it ever REALLY likely that I would end up in federal court for a violation of the Volstead Act? On the flip side I am a wealthy person accepting goods at my own back door whose possession is not illegal to me. Nor is my presense on my own property a crime. And it would be a stretch to have the local cops consider it some sort of “place of ill repute”. Indeed if anything the bootlegger is more exposed to the ‘transportation’ component than the ‘sale’.
Lyle your immigrant vs wasp argument full aligns with my factory worker vs factory owner one.
And the elites didn’t enlist the churches. If you examine the history of the Prohibition Movement generally and the Prohibition Party specifically they had their origins in the 1820s Great Awakening Movement and were active through the 19th century. With results that could be summed up to between ‘bupkis’ and ‘null’. Until it was convenient for the elites to allow THEMSELVES to be ostensibly co-opted by the church. Which didn’t it seems to me actually come accompanied by any personal Come to Jesus moments. I don’t think the elites were much bothered by the Salvation Army preaching in their neighborhoods, instead they were given money to put the fear of God into the workingman..
And to the extent I understand your UK/WWI argument it also seems to be the same as mine. I mean drinking could only be considered a major problem in the UK if it was interfering with war production. The actual Tommies fighting the war were across the Channel and presumedly not much burdened by afternoon Closings back home.
Those fat monkeys covered in banknotes
Have champagne and brandy on tap…
http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2014/09/those-fat-monkeys.html
Beverly,
I like this article. It is an exemplar of the problems of allowing a small group of people to determine the moral and economic activities of a larger group, especially when those activities are do not directly infringe on someone else’s negative rights to liberty, property, etc.
However, this classic example of bootleggers and Baptists, got its genesis in the 1820’s peaking in the early 1890’s. The Prohibition Party itself was started in 1869, when the industrial revolution was still in its infancy and agriculture was still the prime employer of people in the States (as it was at the turn of the century). Even by 1920, when the federal law had come into effect, the Anti-Saloon League had already been effective and prohibition of alcohol in 33 states (representing 63% of the total population) was already in place. One could argue that the federal government was late to the party.
I am not convinced that this was driven by elite class looking to increase productivity and capture spoils. Just like I am not convinced the War on Drugs was started by the elite looking to cash in, but rather by puritanical busybodies who like to impose their will on others.
Another reason to limit the powers of the federal government in favor of individual rights and liberty. Individual rights always favor the minority.
K
Bruce, not Beverly. Sorry. Not sure why I had Beverly on my mind when responding.
Prohibition made more sense than the war on drugs, it has the same outcome: rise of organized crime. More people are killed from alcohol and tobacco related health issues…….
As Kai points out, as did Gandhi, voting for the moral does not make it moral.
The Brits were worried about Irish stevedores slowing ammunition and weapons shipment during WW I……….
Bruce
a cute reading of history, and for all I know, true.
But the point I have been trying to make without much success is not that there is no class war but that the “class war” meme is a loser in American politics. It is also a distraction from the issues you can actually do something about if you are smart.
The rich ye shall always have with you. Even if they have to come in the form of commissars after the revolution.
also
i think a fair reading of “history” (whatever that is) would show a good deal of populist energy behind the prohibition movement.
after all, that “inefficiency” on the shop floor also translated into hungry kids at home.
the interesting wording of the actual 18th may well reflect the cleverness of the lawyers of the rich in writing a law that would not inconvenience them, but i think it would be a mistake to think that the poor were not as
seems my computer and AB site have irreconcilable differences.
probably doesn’t matter. point was made.
class war is not only a losing political strategy, it also interferes with ability to think clearly re policy and politics.
so what was the real point of the 19th amendment?
Thanks Kai, this really isn’t my subject and I welcome additional information. But that information can best be put in context via source links.For example:
“Even by 1920, when the federal law had come into effect, the Anti-Saloon League had already been effective and prohibition of alcohol in 33 states (representing 63% of the total population) was already in place. One could argue that the federal government was late to the party.”
But how late? A little Googling brought me this article on ‘Dry States’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_state
And this shows that only five states were Dry at any point before 1900 and that two had repealed prohibition by then followed by another in 1902. The remaining two States of Maine and North Dakota were joined by only five more before WWI, four from the Old Confederacy and Oklahoma. I don’t have population tables at hand but these seven states together were far from a majority of the country and included no urban states at all.
The other States that would make up your “33 and 63%” mostly jumped in effective 2016 whereas Congress passed the proposal in the very next Congress, completing action by Dec 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
So really not so late to the party after all. Also I would like to see a cite for that 63% of population. Because the list of States that did not have State level prohibition included New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, or Michigan. Which latter two States were already IIRC fairly well industrialized by this point with reasonably large urban centers (Cincinnati, Akron, Columbus, Detroit). I would be quite surprised in this combination of Mid-Atlantic and industrial Mid-West states only held 37% of the population prior to 1916.
(Alright Michigan jumped in in 1918, but Texas not until 1919, and California was Wet. Still doesn’t add up at any point to 63%.)
But however you slice it while the Prohibition Movement was active through most of the 19th century it achieved practically nothing until the period from 1909-1918, which as I noted in my original post coincided with the conversion of American manufacturing from a largely craftsman/workshop basis to fully line worker/ industrial factory one.
Dale I don’t think I can have a productive conversation with someone who puts “history” in air quotes. I am aware as anyone that the actual production of history texts was contingent on the economic and political positions of the then current historians. But this is far from saying that all history is just relativistic nonsense that we can correct ex post facto with good old Scotch-Irish Common Sense. Which seems to be the rhetorical stance you are taking here. To me this all smacks too much of the “I am not a Scientist but–” stance of the Climate Deniers. If we are going to have a reasonably objective discussion of past events or of science we have to assume that there is some shared reality, for example that contained in standard encyclopedias, to which we can refer. Otherwise everything devolves to “I know you are but what am I?!”
As to your point. Sure there was a lot of populist energy behind Prohibition and a big part of that was from women. But none of that populist energy actually accomplished anything before WWI and women didn’t have the vote until after the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were in operation. So it is far from obvious what the mechanism was that translated that raw energy into political action. As a result I don’t see this undermining my general thesis.
Plus you are inserting your own definition of “class warfare” into the discussion and then dismissing its efficacy. There is a term for this, hmm is it ‘Tin Man’. I don’t thinks so, maybe something more flimsy and flammable.
heck Bruce
i can’t even agree with you without you getting defensive.
as for “history” i put it in e-quotes to remind people that the story may not be the whole story, as in fact it never is. i read history for fun and occasional insights (my own), but it’s been a long time since i mistook it for the truth and got worked up about past injustices and lost track of the current problem.
similar for “class war” as me and humpty dumpty and Ludwig W know, a word “means” what it means to the hearer. if you can get a real consensus (as opposed to one of those consensuses where no one really knows what the other person means),more power to you.
in the present context, class war means “you will lose the election.”
so let me try again: there has been “class war” since Cain and Abel had their little falling out. There always will be. If it’s not the owners and the serfs, it’s the Commissars and the workers. From time to time you can build a coalition that solves some evils, but you generally can’t build a coalition by calling everyone with any power dirty names.
Let us not forget that a lot of money can (and was) be made off of selling an illegal substance particularly when consumption and possession of said substance is NOT against the law. A lot of political power comes (and came) with said money.
Such behavior continues today.
Dale the funny thing is that you maybe the most defensive commenter AB ever had. I can’t even count the iterations of “Well I didn’t really mean that but your SURELY meant this” that you have deployed over the years.
Or maybe we are both at fault. But labeling “pushback” and “contradiction” and “citing sources” as “defensive” is certainly a move to ad hom. I present a thesis, you object and present an anti-thesis, I either reject your anti-thesis or try to attempt a synthesis, either way by deploying the best evidence and data I have and you reject the whole effort as being “defensive”. Which to me translates “doesn’t agree with the perfect clarity and force of that presented by Mr. Dale Coberly.
Bruce
it doesn’t look to me like you are having any fun at all.
The only tin man i could think of was the one in Wizard of Oz who was sad because he had no heart. But he was the friend of the guy who had no brain. So cheer up.
I was going to say that I was shocked, shocked that the rich found a way to get around Prohibition. After all, I watched The Great Gatsby and even discerned, alone among my contemporaries that Daisy was not the good guy.
Nor was I surprised that they had their lawyers write the needed loopholes into the law, though I hadn’t noticed it until you pointed it out. For which I thanked you.
I wasn’t going to spend a lot of time parsing your logic… mostly because what it looks like to me is the typesetter got mad and threw his case against the wall.
So let me begin with the first instance: you wrote “class war”…
and I replied “class war” is a loser meme.
I wrote “there was populist energy behind Prohibition.”
you wrote “the Temperance movement accomplished “bupkis.”” because, I suppose, those states that had local prohibition were “not the majority” or because they repealed their prohibition.
and I’ll stop there: just what did the 18th amendment accomplish?
sober workers? the “upper class” needed the 18th amendment to enforce “don’t come to work drunk”?
ah, subtle are the ways…
Has anyone here ever attended a meeting of the WCTU? That is the Womens’ Christian Temperance Union, y’all, whose meetings in Methodist Churches conflicted on Sunday nights after church with the Baptists’ Training Union.
Last time I was in Ohio, they were still selling 3.2 beer in state owned liquor stores and some counties were competely dry. A few other states still permit liquor sales only in liquor stores whose operating hours were strictly regulated and forbid sales on Sunday. No alcohol of any kind can be sold here in Thomas County GA on Sunday. And, many local people believe that business that close on Sunday thrive because they are blessed by God. Teetotallers still exceed drinkers by 2 or 3 to one.
The rest of us just have to consume more to keep our package establishments in business. Not all that inconvenient really, especially if you like Stella Artois and stock up. 😉 NancyO
There were a whole lot of forces that got us the 18th amendment. There was the Christian revival movement, the women’s movement, the progressive movement and rapid modernization which included urbanization and industrialization. In many ways it was like the anti-slavery movement in England that started out as a grass roots thing built on the ongoing religious revival and rapid industrialization.
It is telling that the next amendment was the 19th, granting women the right to vote. For the first time half of the nation was urban rather than rural. I’m willing to believe there were wealthy, powerful cliques who wanted alcohol banned so they could have more efficient workers, and that they were more effective than the wealthy, powerful cliques who wanted to sell more alcohol. But I can’t consider that the only cause. It was quite easy to fire a worker who was impaired by alcohol, and there was plenty of cheap factory labor waiting in the wings. It was not as if there was a labor shortage or powerful unions or laws protecting drunkards.
Meanwhile, women were becoming a more powerful force in American politics, even before they had the right to vote. There was an implicit deal during The Great War that if suffragettes shut up for the duration, they would get the vote afterwards. In the US they did, and one of the things they wanted was sober husbands. We also got some of the first aid for women and children laws and some of the first laws to provide disaster relief. Throw in the religious revivalists who had long been anti-alcohol and you had a serious political movement.
Thanks Bruce,
But I clicked on you link and it broadly supported my point that the states and local government were already ahead of the states:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_state
By 1913 nine states had statewide prohibition and 31 others had local option laws, placing more than 50 percent of the United States population under some form of alcohol prohibition
My point was that a large portion of the nation was already ahead of the federal government. This was a populist movement, not driven by the 1%…
K
K,
You are assuming that the 1% work through the federal government only. Perhaps the states and local areas are simply initial testing grounds for possible federal implementation by the 1%.
Fair point Jerry.
From Last Call. The repeal of prohibition was lead by Pierre DuPont. He did not like the income tax, and noted the vast decrease in revenue due to prohibition (It essentially eliminated the tax on alcohol, which had been a source of revenue since the Washington administration. He got the elite on board by saying that if you brought back alcohol the taxes due would allow the income tax to wither. .
Kai it seems that you have a generous definition of “broadly supports”
You start with:
“Even by 1920, when the federal law had come into effect, the Anti-Saloon League had already been effective and prohibition of alcohol in 33 states (representing 63% of the total population) was already in place. One could argue that the federal government was late to the party.”
and end with:
“By 1913 nine states had statewide prohibition and 31 others had local option laws, placing more than 50 percent of the United States population under some form of alcohol prohibition”
and in neither case give any source for your percentage of population cites. Certainly you can’t simply add the TOTAL populations of states that had LOCAL options to your nine, not when this might mean a handful of Dry towns and rural counties in a state that had major urban population centers.
So what you are left with is nine mostly southern and almost entirely rural states who are your fore-runners on Prohibition. Which would seem to NARROWLY support your point.
Particularly since my original post did not bring up the possibility that support for Prohibition in rural states might have something to do with the ability of the elites in those states, largely rural property owners on a large scale, to be generally able to self produce their own beer and spirits on their own private property with good assurance that they would not be bothered by local law enforcement. I would doubt even that any of those state level laws would have prevented the importation for private use of wines, brandies and whiskeys from overseas. But I could be wrong on these last two points, this really isn’t my area and I just wanted to start some discussion.
And along those lines. THANKS KALEBERG! Very informative and I appreciate it.
Bruce,
You state, ‘and in neither case give any source for your percentage of population cites.’
Um…this is awkward but I got the 50% factoid is from YOUR reference which I then cited. Here it is again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_state
‘The debate over prohibition increased in the United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as the drys, including the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the National Prohibition Party, the Anti-Saloon League, and others, continued to support temperance and prohibition legislation, while the wets opposed it.[3] By 1913 nine states had statewide prohibition and 31 others had local option laws, placing more than 50 percent of the United States population under some form of alcohol prohibition.’
Look I am no expert on Prohibition (and either are you from what I have read), but I am simply pointing out that you are torturing the facts and history to arrive at the conclusion you want. There were other forces at work in the US driving Prohibition other than a cabal of rich owners of production seeking more productivity.
In my opinion, it is more likely that the increase in urban populations allowed for better communication and organisation amongst the temperance leagues and anti-saloon leagues, etc. and they drove a populist movement in Prohibition. This combined with WWI ( and the need for everyone to be alert and more productive) and perhaps even owners of factories who wanted more production all added to the mix. I wouldn’t be going on the class warfare narrative alone…it reeks of ideological narrowness.
Look, you have the start of a good theory, and there might be something to it. However, you are making a lot of assumptions based on the facts as they are. You will need to do more support your theory. As of now I am still sceptical…as is just about everyone else on this thread.
K
Okay K, I’ll give you partial credit on the 50%. But–
I find this Wiki adoption of the formula that if there is local control of alcohol ANYWHERE in a state then EVERYONE in that state is somehow ‘subject’ to it a little odd.
And you simply don’t address the 67% claim, which as noted is where you started from.
I’ll also give you credit for your theory about better communication among the various components of the Prohibition movement. I don’t buy it myself because the timing seems off to me. Plus the increase in urban populations doesn’t explain why the leading edge of prohibition prior to the late surge after 2016 was largely concentrated in southern rural states rather than the northeastern and midwestern urbanized ones. But you have as much right to advance it as my admittedly under-referenced and under-supported thesis.
So thanks again. And though it might not be obvious (or given my posting history believable) I was actually being sincere when I thanked you for your first contribution. Even though I disagreed. It is always nice to get a conversation started and people thinking.
Bruce,
You state, ‘I find this Wiki adoption of the formula that if there is local control of alcohol ANYWHERE in a state then EVERYONE in that state is somehow ‘subject’ to it a little odd.’
No less odd than I find it that you think if there is FEDERAL control of alcohol ANYWHERE in a nation then EVERYONE in that nation is somehow subject to it’
Both the rich and the poor easily skirted this prohibition at the local ,state, and federal level just as the rich and the poor easily skirt drug prohibitions today. So? The effectiveness of the laws is not the issue, who drove the laws is. I am saying it was more of a populist (and other factors) movement than a shadowy-cabal-of-capitalists-as-part-of-some-class-warfare-movement.
You go on, ‘And you simply don’t address the 67% claim, which as noted is where you started from.’
Actually I stated 63%. I know you are clutching to this discrepancy in hopes that it might save you face. I find it amusing that this is your major concern when in fact the exact amount of people under prohibition is unimportant since the point is that a large portion of the population was. I am simply pointing out that the federal government was behind in what was already a local and state-level movement, whether 63% or 50% or 35% or whatever, the movement already had legs BEFORE it became a national agenda item and not indisputably clear that it was driven by some shadowy cabal at the top of the federal government looking to improve production. As you rightly pointed out, the early adopters of prohibition were in the South, hardly the seat of shadowy federal-government-controlling capitalists in the turn of the century.
But since you ask, here is one of the links i looked at:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/prohibition.aspx
‘The impetus for the Eighteenth Amendment can be traced to the Anti-Saloon League, which was established in 1893. The league worked to enact state prohibition laws and had great success between 1906 and 1913. By the time national prohibition took effect in January 1920, thirty-three states (63 percent of the total population) had prohibited intoxicating liquors.’
Please don’t get too caught up in the percentage, just the fact that a lot of people were already subject to authorities imposing the moral will of some on others.
Again, another reason to limit governments’ ability to infringe on the natural negative rights of individuals.
You continue, ‘I don’t buy it myself because the timing seems off to me. Plus the increase in urban populations doesn’t explain why the leading edge of prohibition prior to the late surge after 2016 was largely concentrated in southern rural states rather than the northeastern and midwestern urbanised ones.’
2016? You mean 1916? Why does the timing seem off. This populist movement started way back in the early 1820’s/1830’s and waxed and waned through the 19th century, peaking at points in the late 1800’s. The industrialisation of agriculture helped create larger cities in the South as cities like Atlanta, Savannah, Raleigh, etc started gaining in populations. Granted they were not the size of New York or Pittsburg, but they were big enough to allow critical mass to the religious zealots who wanted to bring alcohol under control. A new influx of immigrants (and an explosion of saloons) combined with even more industrialisation in the North to increase concern in the North and you start to see populist movements in the North gaining in momentum, though with varying degrees of success I will admit. The war probably offered aligned forces (of which factory owners were most likely a minor-to-moderate factor) to bring it to national attention. I could be wrong…but I am probably more right than some theory about the rich and productivity and class warfare.
Like I said there may be something to your theory…you just haven’t met the burden of proof I need to buy it. Develop it a bit more and put more fact and less supposition to some of the claims and I may revisit my scepticism.
K
kai
yes, yes, but when you say
“Again, another reason to limit governments’ ability to infringe on the natural
negative rights of individuals.”
i am not sure what you mean by “negative” rights. moreover, in theory at least, the United States government is designed to limit government’s ability to infringe upon the rights of individuals.
I don’t think you are likely to do better in this world.
though there is always a need for eternal vigilance to protect (and define) those rights, the propaganda against “government” is, in this country and this time, largely eminating from a political class that doesn’t actually give a damn about your rights. what it wants is to reduce YOUR ability to protect yourself from them by the only means availble to you… cooperation with your fellow citizens through something called “government.”
Coberly,
By negative rights, I meaning mean individual rights that are not someone else’s obligation. In other words my right to property is not your obligation to provide me property, my right to bear arms is not your obligation to provide me a gun. As opposed to positive rights, which are right predicated on others obligations to provide them, say right to housing, right to healthcare. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution is pretty much concerned with protecting negative rights not positive rights, despite what people read into ‘general welfare’ when it appears in the document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
You are right, in theory, the government was set up to protect individual rights, however, progressive taxation, PPACA, imminent domain, labor protections, school quotas, anti-discrimination laws, etc are all violations of that theory. It provides some Americans with benefits (gain of positive rights) that come at the expense (loss of negative rights) of others.
I think that would be an argument for another day, right?
Finally, what group of people is stopping me from cooperating with my fellow citizens? The IRS stops teapartiers from getting together and coordinating activities. Schools prohibit speech, if not sanctioned by a politically correct administration. The government will not let me opt out of unions, and in some cases co-opt the government into taking dues I do not want to give out of my paycheque. Is that the shadowy nefarious activities meant to stop me and my fellow citizens from enjoying our individual rights? I bet you you are fine with all of that….it is the violation of some other individual rights you disagree with. You would have an unequal application of negative rights.
I think you are mistaking majority rule and limited government. The constitution was expressly designed to limit the ability of the majority to prey on the minority, hence it listed the negative rights for which people can be assured. Otherwise government simply becomes the tool by which to hurt the minority…ask Blacks under Jim Crow, Jews under the Nazis, etc. Remove the iron-clad protections of negative rights and you open it up to majority abuse.
Individual Rights are Minority Rights!
Again, probably off topic and an argument for another day but I am game to go off topic if you are.
K
K,
Individual rights…..
Quite libertarian, maybe even Randian.
Too many words!
kai
in my parlor, my seminar, and my scientific research conversations are free to go “off topic” as more promising leads develop.
alas, your “topic for another day” is not a promising lead. you are kind of a black hole in the promising lead department. in your system everything leads back to the same dead end.
i will only say i was NOT confusing majority rule with protecting the rights of the minority.
Sure Coberly, let me know if you change your mind…
K