Just for fun, substitute the words "American colonists" for "black people" in this passage.
However, we ought not use the power of government in an attempt to force people to like them.
What we're talking about, though, in the context of the Voting Rights Act, is the fact that the power of state government was being used to deny a class of people a voice in their government. Under the principles of the Declaration of Independence that you like to cite, how should blacks have responded to this?
It is a simple principle that the Freedom of Association also permits a freedom of disassociation. Making people associate against their will is just the Government trying to impose morality on people.
So a law allowing black people to vote is "imposing morality"? Really?
Okay, I did. It renders it nonsensical. You have a weird idea regarding what is "fun."
What we're talking about, though, in the context of the Voting Rights Act, is the fact that the power of state government was being used to deny a class of people a voice in their government. Under the principles of the Declaration of Independence that you like to cite, how should blacks have responded to this?
I have no objections for protection for voters, but that act went beyond that. It imposed upon owners of businesses the new Federal morality, whether they liked it or not.
You see, i'm the sort of fellow that doesn't think being an @$$hole should be against the law. (You're welcome.) And I believe that the market and society in general would eventually ostracize and punish businesses that practiced discrimination. I believe that forcing it down people's throats by Federally imposed law, is a bad way to solve the problem. It destroys too many principles, and even now has been turned from a worthy cause (ending discrimination against Blacks, Indians, etc) to forcing businesses to cater to Homosexuals, even if it goes against their conscious or religion.
It became a tool, like the patriot act, to punish people who don't march in lockstep with the government decided morality. In other words, the opinions of High Society in New York.
It *IS*, in fact, how we got the current reigning Ignoramus supreme. He was hired for no other reason than that he was Black. His qualifications are absurd, his background ranges from the pathetic to the evil, he has never accomplished anything in his life himself, and even owes his very education to the fact that he is the beneficiary of this Liberal social experiment.
Once the government mandates the concept of "Affirmative Action", many of the sheeple just jump in lockstep and push it even farther. The Government, by imposing this morality, Normalized the idea of unqualified people being put into positions for which they are ill suited. Again, that's how O'dumbo got his current gig. Had he been white, he would be a nobody. He'd probably be selling cars or something. As his Grandfather (whom he most resembles, and from whom he probably got his charm) was a furniture salesman.
So a law allowing black people to vote is "imposing morality"? Really?
The law which allowed black people to vote was the 14th amendment. The shame is that it took so long for people to finally start enforcing it, but you are focusing only on that one aspect of the Civil Rights act of 1964. Read up on it. It goes *WAY* beyond that. From what I can see, it crosses a constitutional line.
Barry Goldwater (whom I never liked, by the way, because I think Libertarians suck in general) was right to take a principled stand against it. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was basically an enabling act for Federal abuse. One of many more such to come.