Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (567576)	5/23/2010 7:38:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577791

Rules can change over time. No one was arguing that the law has to be totally static. We aren't better for government overriding people's private rights of association becoming the accepted norm. It might be argued that there was a net benefit for it when it happened, because the ending of widespread racial segregation was a very important gain, but even that's rather questionable. Much of the segregation was required. You don't need to require the opposite to attack segregation, you just need to get rid of the requirement and end the injustice to both the business and the people segregated against. Going further than that and outlawing segregation sped up the process of desegregation, but it didn't create it. It would have happened anyway. By now if the laws where repealed or had never happened segregation would be rare. Businesses usually lose money by segregating. More here Message 26559514 Outlawing a small private businesses segregation is at least almost as odious as outlawing non-business private segregation. The government has no business telling you who you have to associate with.