Replies

Of course not. Enough already with the language of individual liberties! It was a barbaric practice that had to stop.

I'm sorry I keep mentioning individual liberties, but I think it's very relevant to the discussion. And I must point out that you were the one who first brought them up. If you'd prefer, I'll use different terms so my writing won't be as repetitive.

I'd also like to point out that it was you who brought up barbaric practices. The only specific practice I mentioned were anti-miscegenation laws. While those laws may not have been fair or just, I don't think you could call them barbaric. The state of Virginia wasn't killing black citizens for trying to marry white citizens, they just didn't recognize those marriages. It's not quite the same as the ritualized murder in India.

These are upheavals. You can't generalize from that type of crazy times to narrow questions of political theory.

It's always a crazy time in some area of American life, and political theory has to address those areas as well as the normal ones. Some would argue that our own time involves sexual upheaval or an upheaval in our understanding of security and civil liberties (aka the "post-9/11 worldview"). These upheavals have to be addressed just like the civil rights upheavals of previous decades.

Judges didn't end slavery or bans on mixed marriages. The culture did. Judges played their role, not always to the good. You do recall Dred Scott and Plessy?

Until the Supreme Court got involved, a black woman and a white man could not be married in Virginia. The law prohibited it, and that was a reflection of Southern culture. After the Supreme Court got involved, Virginia could no longer prohibit these marriages...and neither could any other state. It seems clear that the Supreme Court did end laws against mixed marriage.

But you are correct concerning Dred Scott. The Supreme Court did not end slavery. They actually protected that institution, and struck down the Missouri Compromise as unConstitutional. We both agree this was the wrong decision.

What do you think the right decision in that case would have been? Would it have been better to recognize Scott's right to freedom, or should the Court have deferred to the legislature on this cultural and political issue, and made no decision?

I objected to government shaping the culture because it is the other way around. You seem to be looking for universal, culturally neutral government. It doesn't exist.

I know a perfectly culturally-nuetral government can never exist. Culture influences the government, and the actions of the government will have ripple effects on the culture. I DO think it is possible for a government to keep from explicitly and directly trying to shape the culture.

Let me illustrate the difference. During WWII, the government's war effort required more industrial production. Workers were drawn in to the cities as industrial labor, and the rural character of the country was reduced. I'm fine with this. Yes, the culture was affected, but it wasn't the point of the government's actions. It was a side effect. The point was to produce the materials needed to win the war.

During the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao decided to force urban students to live in the countryside to promote "egalitarianism" and fight "intellectualism". I would be very opposed to this kind of action, as fighting "intellectualism" is not a legitimate end of government.