I'm not supposed to be able to force my morality on someone else.
Yet that's exactly what happens. Until all property owners have the full right to permit or deny admission based on their personal standards, we don't really have freedom. We have only the government's version of freedom, which is not freedom at all.
I can protect myself from your choices. If that choice puts me in danger.
Is it safer to walk through the children's petting zoo or through the lion's cage?
Is it safer to drive 120 mph while drunk or 65 mph while sober?
Is it safer to live in an area that is 95 percent Black or 95 percent White?
You really can't protect yourself as well as you think. Why? Because life is an exercise in risk management and the government has ensured that the barriers required to increase one's safety have been removed.
The list goes on and on. Every choice we make is an exercise in risk management. When the government says that booze and marijuana are legal, and it forces me to drive on the same roads as drunks and druggies, I'm not safe. Likewise, if the government forces me to sell or lease property to Blacks, it places my White tenants and home buyers at far greater risk or violent crime, and me at far greater risk of sustaining a loss in value of my property.
If a Black business owner wants to say, "No Whites allowed," he should have that right. The concept is called freedom.
If we're going to have freedom, and I think we should, let's extend it to all personal freedoms, including the freedom of choice and the right to discriminate based on personal standards.
In other words, if you want to get high and drive around, fine, but give me the right to build a community where you are not allowed to enter. Likewise, you should have the right to build a community where only your kind is allowed, if you so choose. Understand? |
