The fact that there was a revolution, which lead directly to the hostage situation in Iran, pretty much tells you that the people in Iran weren't exactly happy that their sovereignty was messed with by the US.
Some weren't and some were. Nobody knows, how many exactly, nor is it really relevant... America's intervention helped saved Iran from the horrors of Communism, and that's a (very) good thing in itself.
I wish, the US, France, and Britain (the post-WWI winners) could get their act together in 1917-19, when there was a chance to squish the USSR's Communists right then and prevent (or greatly reduce the impact of) both the WW2 and the subsequent Cold War...
If the NY Times could figure out a system by which they'd know who is reading which copy of their newspaper, who is peeking over shoulders to read it and who hands it to someone else, they'd use that system to charge everyone who takes a look at their property. The only thing that's stopping them is that this is currently not feasible. The MPAA and RIAA are just lucky that their product migrated to digital format much sooner
Uhm, well, yes. Is there anything wrong with it? You don't say, that there is, but I feel, you imply it...
Because if we don't, we'll end up paying for everything every time we get in contact with it.
True, but, again, there is nothing obviously wrong with the situation... In fact, I think, this would be a considerable improvement. If the content-creator (or whoever they sell their creations to) is paid every time the creation is read/watched/listened, the system would be much better at rewarding good creations and punishing the bad ones. It is doing so already, but the technological/legal advances you are forecasting promise to make it much less crude.
In books it is especially unfair, because the author's reward is determined only by the amount of first sales. This means, a book that stays in a family for generations and one, that's thrown out after the first read, reward their authors equally and cost their readers the same... At least, with videos the authors/makers get something every time a movie is rented.
The US ally you referred to that ruled Iran was installed by the US government after an operation by the CIA to overthrow a freely elected leader. To Iran, the US is seen as terrorists, mostly for meddling with the sovereignty (sp?) of other nations.
The overthrow, which we helped happen, prevented Iran from becoming the 16th Soviet Socialist Republic of the infamous Union (USSR). Or, at least, a satellite-state like Mongolia, Bulgaria, etc.
Their current theocracy sucks, but it sucks much less — in terms of both individual freedoms and the economic prosperity — than Socialism did or than the current post-Socialism does in the countries, where we weren't at least partially successful.
When you stick something up like a db of criminals and their houses, you effectively remove this protection, and create a society of fear, which becomes a society of hate.
The above is nonsense piled upon more nonsense.
But to make time for RIAA-orchestrated...
Oh, yeah, that's right. "RIAA" — this must be the reason for the "Insightful" mods. Let's see, is vi better than emacs?
There is of course the failure in the whole system.
Gee, right. Whenever "the system" makes a ruling you don't like, it must be a failure with the system, right?..
In this case it is not the juries position to punish anybody, it is a civil court not a criminal court, they are there to evaluate the evidence and make a verdict as to whether the plaintiff supplied sufficient evidence of guilt, and make an award based upon the damage demonstrated and evidenced by the plaintiff.
Which is exactly what they did, thank you very much. Plaintiff convinced them...
Basing the award upon the damage is not the same as making it the same as the damage. Look up "punitive damages" for more information.
[...] instead of the difficult-to-measure financial damage
So, when a lying cheat gets on the hook for "sharing" other people's works of art without permission with millions, Slashdot decries the ruling as "disproportionate to the actual damages" and moreover, that RIAA failed to demonstrate having sustained any damages.
But when a spammer is nailed in proportion to their rake instead of the "difficult to measure" actual damage, we are all cheers...
That's a bullshit argument. Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Right there in the title: "Constitution of the United States of America".
None of the inmates in Guantanamo were serving in the American land or naval forces, or in the militia.
So? They did serve in the militia (or even land forces) — the exception in the Amendment does not say the force has to be American for the exception to apply. And for good reason — the Amendment does not apply to prisoners of war either.
The sixth amendment provides the right to a speedy and public trial to anyone accused of crimes.
Yes, it also requires the trial be held in the district, "where the crime shall have been committed"... It is patently obvious, that the Amendment is intended to civilian criminal cases only.
And if these people are not accused of crimes, why are they being held prisoner?
Because we captured them while prosecuting a war, that is still ongoing. Unlike, say, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, whom we released long ago, these guys are not prisoners of war. They are accused of being unlawful combatants, and the international treaties require us to try them by "an appropriate tribunal". Fortunately for the Administration, the treaties don't prescribe any particular time-frame, so, once again, nothing illegal is happening, however ugly it may be nonetheless.
How does paying a content provider to no longer release their content on a competing format "maintaining competition"?
I understand, that reading TFA makes one a dork, but even the Slashdot write-up states explicitly, that Microsoft is accused of
"preventing any one format from gaining a clear upper hand."
The fifth and sixth amendments to the US constitution. Unfortunately, people nowadays think you're a crazy person for mentioning that in an argument.
First of all, none of the detainees in Guantanamo are US-citizens, so the US Constitution does not apply to them. This may be why people look at you funny, when you try to push this argument anyway.
Second, neither of the two amendments you listed would apply even to a US citizen in this case:
The Fifth is out, because it explicitly excludes: "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger".
The Sixth is out, because it applies only to criminal prosecutions.
Give it up — this is a very hard legal question. US Supreme Court will be looking into this issue soon, and what these legal minds decide is anybody's guess.
It would appear, the Administration has found a loophole in the law and is using it. It will be using it until the hole is closed, but there is nothing illegal about their current "exploit"...
Microsoft really can't do anything right, can they? First they got into a ton of trouble for attempting to help on HTML-browser implementation (their own) win — and the web-masters are still forced to maintain compatibility with completely different programs.
And now Microsoft is blasted for maintaining competition — between multiple formats, because forcing the DVD-authoring teams to make versions for various players is somehow "totally different".
Yes, I know, you'll claim, that "there should be one standard and multiple implementations". Well, if the standard is the high-quality TV-picture/sound (and who really cares for anything else?), than the BlueRay and HD-DVD can be considered just different implementations that should compete in perpetuity...
Yes, they did have a choice, and made the choice to punish her severely — although not as severely as some of the jurors wanted. We even know their opinion on the matter:
In the end, "after bickering," they settled on $9,250 for each song.
"That is a compromise, yes," said Hegg, a 38-year-old steelworker from Duluth, Minnesota. "We wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."
During a 45-minute telephone interview, Hegg said jurors found that Thomas' defense -- that she was the victim of a spoof -- was unbelievable.
"She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars," Hegg said. "Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding.' "
"She's a liar," added Hegg, who just returned home following his 14-hour night shift.
There is no way, the number of racist households is hundreds of times greater, than the number of racist business-owners.
While immigrants of all races do rather well upon coming here, the Blacks born-and-raised in this country lag severely behind.
I think we're on the same page here (but I'm not 100% certain as I think we're both misunderstanding the other at times)--this is a symptom of the vicious cycles I was referring to.
Well, the disparity between newly-arriving Blacks and those born-and-raised in this country suggests, that the latter's failure has nothing to do with racism, because racism would be affecting the immigrants just as much.
For the record, I'm not that old (I'm 37), but I'm old enough to have seen improvement in my lifetime and to have known enough older people who have seen even more improvement in their lifetimes.
I'm only a couple of years younger. In my 15 years here, I've concluded, that the legal requirement to treat all races equally inhibits, rather than encourages racial harmony. It has certainly either produced or, at best, allowed to survive the extortionist monsters like Al Sharpton... It has also given some substance to suspicions about every visible black person's success (except for the entertainment stars). At the same time people like Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powel rose to where they are without it (they are too old to have benefited from these laws).
The "freedom to be a bigot" was sacrificed in vain...
If you only had to screw in one screw, you might use a manual screwdriver. If you had to screw in hundreds of screws, you might use an electric screwdriver. That would not make you inconsistent.
Oh, so now you want to argue by analogy. But you are using a wrong one. The number of racist households is, if anything, larger than the number of racist business-owners. In fact, the numbers are of the same magnitude, which alone makes your analogy (of one scree vs. hundreds) invalid.
You better stick to the position, that there is nothing wrong with inconsistency... At least, that would be consistent:)
I agree that the federal government overstepped its bounds with its interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
My stance has little to do with the American Constitution. I quoted (vis. "pursuit of happiness") not from the legal document, but from the preceding political one. It proclaimed the rights of all people, rather than those of US-citizens. These are: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Of all of these rights, the right to discriminate based on skin-color is one I'm willing to sacrifice, especially when it comes into conflict with the more fundamental human right not to be discriminated on based on skin-color.
Although we agree, that the first right — to treat others as one sees fit (subject to their own above-listed rights, of course), including the right to be a bigot — exists, I must point out, that the second one — the right to be treated nicely by others — does not... Simply because it would be akin to guaranteeing the "right to Happiness" rather than only to pursuit thereof.
If you really got that [that the success of the non-discrimination laws is limited -mi] from what I said, then that partly explains your world-view.
Well, yes, I got it from what you said. Tell me, how the following could be interpreted any different by anyone — even with a world-view you find agreeable. You wrote:
The vicious cycles still exist, but they have been mitigated somewhat.
Not that an objective person needs your agreement to see the truth of the statement. While immigrants of all races do rather well upon coming here, the Blacks born-and-raised in this country lag severely behind.
A real right was sacrificed in the (vain) hope of achieving racial harmony... What was it about "losing both and deserving neither"?..
If we ever do achieve the racial harmony (a laudable goal, indeed), it will not be thanks to those non-discrimination laws.
It's fine as long as you don't want freedom to choice what you listen to. I'd rather have 100, 1000, even 100,000 options instead of 4.
Yes, I prefer a variety too, but these companies are not mine to control. They are not yours either, but, mysteriously, you feel comfortable telling them, what they can and can not do.
Blocking mergers in the name of preventing monopolization (such as the recent block of Staples' merger with Office Depot) is bad enough, but I'm willing to accept it as necessary evil needed to maintain competition. But there is no reason to impose additional limitations on media companies' mergers.
What media consolidation threatens is not freedom of expression, it's variety of expression, and you're going to be hard-pressed to convince anyone that it's good for a democratic society to reduce the number of different viewpoints that are available.
It is devastatingly bad for a free society to dictate to people, when and how they can sell their property. If you value the "variety of expression", go ahead and publish your own. And if you can not or would not, keep away from what somebody else owns — it is not yours.
Even if the various blogs and Internet-accessible foreign private and state-owned sources of expression were not available, that is...
there have been quite a number of precedents establishing that business "freedoms" can be restricted far more thoroughly and easily than personal freedoms
Yes, unfortunately, there have been. Their number, however, is simply an illustration of how powerless the businessmen are in a society, where everyone has an equal vote. The State is supposed to uphold individual's rights, however unpopular, but politicians are influenced by the majority of the voters (which is why businesses have to resort to the infamous lobbying).
A Democracy, it is said, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. See also "Atlas Shrugged".
Don't pretend that this is about Joe Business Owner selling the company he built at a healthy profit, this is about five or fewer corporations controlling the vast majority of media in the entire United States who want to make it four or fewer (preferably one).
Where exactly does "Joe Business Owner" stop being such?
I would grant you, that one is too few, but I see no reason, why anything other than the usual anti-trust/anti-monopoly rules should apply. Five, four, and even three is still perfectly healthy, and even two may be Ok. When FTC blocked the Office Depot/Staples merger, it was a questionable move.
But five reducing themselves to four is perfectly fine...
In order to defend the freedom of expression, which is somehow vaguely threatened by media consolidation, the opponents are willing to sacrifice the very real freedom of business-owners to sell their businesses to whomever they want to...
Do you understand how the two problems are different enough to merit different solutions?
I understand, that this is your opinion, but I disagree with it. I don't think, the problems are different at all — there are simply fewer business-owners than house-owners, and so businesses are easier to coerce.
In theory, it merely "could be". In practice, it definitely "would be".
And the negative impact would be less than that of any attempts to force the human nature "by decree". But we are back to "practicality" somehow. I maintain, that being able to not deal with anyone you dislike for whatever reason is a basic human right and that the government's coercion, intended to eliminate the "bad" reasons, violates that right.
Whether this coercion actually achieves its goal or not (is it, in fact, "practically" useful?) is a lesser point, although we both agree, that its success is rather limited...
Consistency for the sake of consistency is ridiculous.
First of all, thanks for accepting, that your stance is, in fact, self-inconsistent. For Emerson's words to apply (whatever that's worth), however, you need to demonstrate, that the consistency I insist on is "foolish"...
Racist hiring practices would be part of a truly free-market system.
Not "would be", but "could be". Perhaps, my sentence was too convoluted for this point to be clear, but I'm glad you derived it from the rest of my arguments anyway.
presumably if you want to allow people to choose who they sell to depending on race, you also want to allow people to choose who they buy from depending on race
No, your presumption is wrong. For a transaction to be non-coercive it must be voluntary for both sides. Just as the sellers shouldn't be allowed to force (would be) customers to buy, the buyers can not force the sellers to sell.
(Unfortunately, in addition to the cases of bigoted seller/black buyer, the government's clumsy attempts to repair the racial relations by legislation also allows Black sellers — such as workers, the sellers of their labor — to force customers — employers — to buy it.)
The vicious cycles still exist, but they have been mitigated somewhat.
"Somewhat"... Ha-ha. So, we lost a significant freedom for a rather questionable gain... We exposed the businessmen to some very nasty potential lawsuits, but the racial segregation still perfectly exists — with the attempts to "mitigate" it, arguably, contributing to the Blacks' own prejudices and complexes and thus perpetuating the initial problem.
Are you going to prohibit people from moving between neighborhoods as they see fit, just as your predecessors prohibited people from rejecting certain customers?
I wouldn't prohibit them
Well, right here your stance is inconsistent and thus wrong... I am all for encouraging business to sell equally to all and to hire workers independently of their race. But I am against legally forcing them to do so — just as you would not legally prohibit white households from leaving a neighborhood, when minorities start moving into it. Consistency requires the approach to both problem to be the same, yet you seem to favor legislation in one case, but not in the other...
Before the civil rights era, this system was maintained mainly without violence (there may have been some, but I'm not aware of any)--simple market forces sufficed.
And this (non-violent) system was worse than the current one because?..
The same market forces are at work today behind the phenomenon known as "white flight"--and no smashing windows or lynchings are required.
And? Are you going to prohibit people from moving between neighborhoods as they see fit, just as your predecessors prohibited people from rejecting certain customers?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not, exactly?
Some weren't and some were. Nobody knows, how many exactly, nor is it really relevant... America's intervention helped saved Iran from the horrors of Communism, and that's a (very) good thing in itself.
I wish, the US, France, and Britain (the post-WWI winners) could get their act together in 1917-19, when there was a chance to squish the USSR's Communists right then and prevent (or greatly reduce the impact of) both the WW2 and the subsequent Cold War...
There are forms of government, that nobody should be allowed to choose. Communism is only one of them.
Sure. Since 1940-ies, when we helped destroy another sovereign nation's choice of government...
I asked to name one terrorist organization funded and supplied by the US. In your reply you failed to named any and thus failed the intelligence test.
Please, read the questions carefully next time. Thank you for trying.
Uhm, well, yes. Is there anything wrong with it? You don't say, that there is, but I feel, you imply it...
True, but, again, there is nothing obviously wrong with the situation... In fact, I think, this would be a considerable improvement. If the content-creator (or whoever they sell their creations to) is paid every time the creation is read/watched/listened, the system would be much better at rewarding good creations and punishing the bad ones. It is doing so already, but the technological/legal advances you are forecasting promise to make it much less crude.
In books it is especially unfair, because the author's reward is determined only by the amount of first sales. This means, a book that stays in a family for generations and one, that's thrown out after the first read, reward their authors equally and cost their readers the same... At least, with videos the authors/makers get something every time a movie is rented.
Name a terrorist organization, that US funds and supplies in either Israel or Iraq. I'll wait... Thanks.
The overthrow, which we helped happen, prevented Iran from becoming the 16th Soviet Socialist Republic of the infamous Union (USSR). Or, at least, a satellite-state like Mongolia, Bulgaria, etc.
Their current theocracy sucks, but it sucks much less — in terms of both individual freedoms and the economic prosperity — than Socialism did or than the current post-Socialism does in the countries, where we weren't at least partially successful.
The above is nonsense piled upon more nonsense.
Oh, yeah, that's right. "RIAA" — this must be the reason for the "Insightful" mods. Let's see, is vi better than emacs?
Gee, right. Whenever "the system" makes a ruling you don't like, it must be a failure with the system, right?..
Which is exactly what they did, thank you very much. Plaintiff convinced them...
Basing the award upon the damage is not the same as making it the same as the damage. Look up "punitive damages" for more information.
So, when a lying cheat gets on the hook for "sharing" other people's works of art without permission with millions, Slashdot decries the ruling as "disproportionate to the actual damages" and moreover, that RIAA failed to demonstrate having sustained any damages.
But when a spammer is nailed in proportion to their rake instead of the "difficult to measure" actual damage, we are all cheers...
Right there in the title: "Constitution of the United States of America".
None of the inmates in Guantanamo were serving in the American land or naval forces, or in the militia.
So? They did serve in the militia (or even land forces) — the exception in the Amendment does not say the force has to be American for the exception to apply. And for good reason — the Amendment does not apply to prisoners of war either.
Yes, it also requires the trial be held in the district, "where the crime shall have been committed"... It is patently obvious, that the Amendment is intended to civilian criminal cases only.
Because we captured them while prosecuting a war, that is still ongoing. Unlike, say, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, whom we released long ago, these guys are not prisoners of war. They are accused of being unlawful combatants, and the international treaties require us to try them by "an appropriate tribunal". Fortunately for the Administration, the treaties don't prescribe any particular time-frame, so, once again, nothing illegal is happening, however ugly it may be nonetheless.
I understand, that reading TFA makes one a dork, but even the Slashdot write-up states explicitly, that Microsoft is accused of "preventing any one format from gaining a clear upper hand."
First of all, none of the detainees in Guantanamo are US-citizens, so the US Constitution does not apply to them. This may be why people look at you funny, when you try to push this argument anyway.
Second, neither of the two amendments you listed would apply even to a US citizen in this case:
Give it up — this is a very hard legal question. US Supreme Court will be looking into this issue soon, and what these legal minds decide is anybody's guess.
It would appear, the Administration has found a loophole in the law and is using it. It will be using it until the hole is closed, but there is nothing illegal about their current "exploit"...
Microsoft really can't do anything right, can they? First they got into a ton of trouble for attempting to help on HTML-browser implementation (their own) win — and the web-masters are still forced to maintain compatibility with completely different programs.
And now Microsoft is blasted for maintaining competition — between multiple formats, because forcing the DVD-authoring teams to make versions for various players is somehow "totally different".
Yes, I know, you'll claim, that "there should be one standard and multiple implementations". Well, if the standard is the high-quality TV-picture/sound (and who really cares for anything else?), than the BlueRay and HD-DVD can be considered just different implementations that should compete in perpetuity...
Yes, they did have a choice, and made the choice to punish her severely — although not as severely as some of the jurors wanted. We even know their opinion on the matter:
No court has convicted them, so what? Your real point is that they are, supposedly, held illegally.
So, just name the law, which is violated by their detention and win the argument instantly.
There is no way, the number of racist households is hundreds of times greater, than the number of racist business-owners.
Well, the disparity between newly-arriving Blacks and those born-and-raised in this country suggests, that the latter's failure has nothing to do with racism, because racism would be affecting the immigrants just as much.
I'm only a couple of years younger. In my 15 years here, I've concluded, that the legal requirement to treat all races equally inhibits, rather than encourages racial harmony. It has certainly either produced or, at best, allowed to survive the extortionist monsters like Al Sharpton... It has also given some substance to suspicions about every visible black person's success (except for the entertainment stars). At the same time people like Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powel rose to where they are without it (they are too old to have benefited from these laws).
The "freedom to be a bigot" was sacrificed in vain...
Oh, so now you want to argue by analogy. But you are using a wrong one. The number of racist households is, if anything, larger than the number of racist business-owners. In fact, the numbers are of the same magnitude, which alone makes your analogy (of one scree vs. hundreds) invalid.
You better stick to the position, that there is nothing wrong with inconsistency... At least, that would be consistent :)
My stance has little to do with the American Constitution. I quoted (vis. "pursuit of happiness") not from the legal document, but from the preceding political one. It proclaimed the rights of all people, rather than those of US-citizens. These are: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Although we agree, that the first right — to treat others as one sees fit (subject to their own above-listed rights, of course), including the right to be a bigot — exists, I must point out, that the second one — the right to be treated nicely by others — does not... Simply because it would be akin to guaranteeing the "right to Happiness" rather than only to pursuit thereof.
Well, yes, I got it from what you said. Tell me, how the following could be interpreted any different by anyone — even with a world-view you find agreeable. You wrote:
Not that an objective person needs your agreement to see the truth of the statement. While immigrants of all races do rather well upon coming here, the Blacks born-and-raised in this country lag severely behind.
A real right was sacrificed in the (vain) hope of achieving racial harmony... What was it about "losing both and deserving neither"?..
If we ever do achieve the racial harmony (a laudable goal, indeed), it will not be thanks to those non-discrimination laws.
Yes, I prefer a variety too, but these companies are not mine to control. They are not yours either, but, mysteriously, you feel comfortable telling them, what they can and can not do.
Blocking mergers in the name of preventing monopolization (such as the recent block of Staples' merger with Office Depot) is bad enough, but I'm willing to accept it as necessary evil needed to maintain competition. But there is no reason to impose additional limitations on media companies' mergers.
It is devastatingly bad for a free society to dictate to people, when and how they can sell their property. If you value the "variety of expression", go ahead and publish your own. And if you can not or would not, keep away from what somebody else owns — it is not yours.
Even if the various blogs and Internet-accessible foreign private and state-owned sources of expression were not available, that is...
Yes, unfortunately, there have been. Their number, however, is simply an illustration of how powerless the businessmen are in a society, where everyone has an equal vote. The State is supposed to uphold individual's rights, however unpopular, but politicians are influenced by the majority of the voters (which is why businesses have to resort to the infamous lobbying). A Democracy, it is said, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. See also "Atlas Shrugged".
Where exactly does "Joe Business Owner" stop being such?
I would grant you, that one is too few, but I see no reason, why anything other than the usual anti-trust/anti-monopoly rules should apply. Five, four, and even three is still perfectly healthy, and even two may be Ok. When FTC blocked the Office Depot/Staples merger, it was a questionable move.
But five reducing themselves to four is perfectly fine...
In order to defend the freedom of expression, which is somehow vaguely threatened by media consolidation, the opponents are willing to sacrifice the very real freedom of business-owners to sell their businesses to whomever they want to...
I understand, that this is your opinion, but I disagree with it. I don't think, the problems are different at all — there are simply fewer business-owners than house-owners, and so businesses are easier to coerce.
And the negative impact would be less than that of any attempts to force the human nature "by decree". But we are back to "practicality" somehow. I maintain, that being able to not deal with anyone you dislike for whatever reason is a basic human right and that the government's coercion, intended to eliminate the "bad" reasons, violates that right.
Whether this coercion actually achieves its goal or not (is it, in fact, "practically" useful?) is a lesser point, although we both agree, that its success is rather limited...
First of all, thanks for accepting, that your stance is, in fact, self-inconsistent. For Emerson's words to apply (whatever that's worth), however, you need to demonstrate, that the consistency I insist on is "foolish"...
Not "would be", but "could be". Perhaps, my sentence was too convoluted for this point to be clear, but I'm glad you derived it from the rest of my arguments anyway.
No, your presumption is wrong. For a transaction to be non-coercive it must be voluntary for both sides. Just as the sellers shouldn't be allowed to force (would be) customers to buy, the buyers can not force the sellers to sell.
(Unfortunately, in addition to the cases of bigoted seller/black buyer, the government's clumsy attempts to repair the racial relations by legislation also allows Black sellers — such as workers, the sellers of their labor — to force customers — employers — to buy it.)
"Somewhat"... Ha-ha. So, we lost a significant freedom for a rather questionable gain... We exposed the businessmen to some very nasty potential lawsuits, but the racial segregation still perfectly exists — with the attempts to "mitigate" it, arguably, contributing to the Blacks' own prejudices and complexes and thus perpetuating the initial problem.
Well, right here your stance is inconsistent and thus wrong... I am all for encouraging business to sell equally to all and to hire workers independently of their race. But I am against legally forcing them to do so — just as you would not legally prohibit white households from leaving a neighborhood, when minorities start moving into it. Consistency requires the approach to both problem to be the same, yet you seem to favor legislation in one case, but not in the other...
And this (non-violent) system was worse than the current one because?..
And? Are you going to prohibit people from moving between neighborhoods as they see fit, just as your predecessors prohibited people from rejecting certain customers?