I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[Lonestar_logic]

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

Yep, the whole dern south just turned from dixiecrat demo to connie pub in the blink of a few 'lections, and Miss Scarlett, I jes cain't figger it out, cause only three of them Dixies 'ackchewally changed pawties.

Oh! Fiddle-de dee!

In other words you cannot provide the names of the dixiecrats that you claim became republicans.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't think Kevin wants that. I also don't believe he's a racist. I do believe he is misguided when he elevates the rights of a business above the rights of an individual.

As far as I can tell the constitution is not about guaranteeing rights to business.

I think a business can and should be allowed to do whatever it wants as long as it does not violate someone's civil rights or cause harm to the populace.

But a business owner has rights too does he not?

How about the right to hire the people he wants to hire or to fire the people he wants to fire?

If a business owner only contracts out to other businesses that only hire ______ (insert the race or gender of your choice here) are both business owners violating someone's rights?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

TRY FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE YOU LIBERAL NUTJOBS!

Well this liberal nutjob passes the test. I think the KKK should be allowed to march down the streets of Skogie if they wish, I think Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage et al, should be allowed, nay, promoted even - to be given the loudest bullhorn they have to spew their bile hatred, I think even the bastard God Hates Fags people should be allowed to protest funerals, marriages and fungi, whoever they want...

I don't believe any book, paper, periodical or media should be banned - outside of a danger to our national safety or a compelling personal privacy & safety issue and I think any law that inhibits Free Speech is unconstitutional, including any and all pornography [that does not involve minors].

I have found though, it is often conservatives who appear to be the ones who practice moral relativism more than liberals.

Just my experience.

You must also support KKK members being elected to the senate.

 

[Ravi]

I don't think Kevin wants that. I also don't believe he's a racist. I do believe he is misguided when he elevates the rights of a business above the rights of an individual.

As far as I can tell the constitution is not about guaranteeing rights to business.

I think a business can and should be allowed to do whatever it wants as long as it does not violate someone's civil rights or cause harm to the populace.

But a business owner has rights too does he not?

How about the right to hire the people he wants to hire or to fire the people he wants to fire?

If a business owner only contracts out to other businesses that only hire ______ (insert the race or gender of your choice here) are both business owners violating someone's rights?

As a private citizen a business owner has rights. As a business not as many.

Like I said on the other thread, I don't think anyone has a right to be hired so I don't think a business owner should be forced to hire anyone. Heck, I even think a business owner can hire an illegal immigrant if he or she so desires.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

Apparently, Rand Paul.

Except, and this too funny for words, but I'll use words anyway, Rand was just on CNN saying he WOULD have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Straight up question and he gave a straight answer, lol,

the politicos advising him must have really worked him over overnight.

It was almost funnier than last night.

So, with that, all you clowns who stampeded to his defense thinking he was FOR allowing segregation to continue can now attack him for being against it. lol

He's never said he was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he said he would have tried to modify one out of the ten titles.

Wise up you stupid hack!

 

[paperview]

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

Yep, the whole dern south just turned from dixiecrat demo to connie pub in the blink of a few 'lections, and Miss Scarlett, I jes cain't figger it out, cause only three of them Dixies 'ackchewally changed pawties.

Oh! Fiddle-de dee!

In other words you cannot provide the names of the dixiecrats that you claim became republicans.

Your concession is duly noted.

I wish I was in de land of cotton,
Old times dar am not forgotten;
Look away!
Look away!
Look away!
Dixie Land.
In Dixie Land whar I was born in,
Early on one frosty mornin,
Look away!
Look away!
Look away!
Dixie Land.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think Kevin wants that. I also don't believe he's a racist. I do believe he is misguided when he elevates the rights of a business above the rights of an individual.

As far as I can tell the constitution is not about guaranteeing rights to business.

I think a business can and should be allowed to do whatever it wants as long as it does not violate someone's civil rights or cause harm to the populace.

But a business owner has rights too does he not?

How about the right to hire the people he wants to hire or to fire the people he wants to fire?

If a business owner only contracts out to other businesses that only hire ______ (insert the race or gender of your choice here) are both business owners violating someone's rights?

Well however testy - snotty? - some of our members are, and most have been pretty civil - I do wish to concur with those who say in most cases a business, once it opens itself to the general public, cannot refuse to serve somebody because of race, gender or whatever. I will still defend the right of a property owner, so long as he conforms to the prevailing laws and does not infringe on the rights of others, to use his property as he chooses. Therefore, if he wants a private club or enterprise restricted to a certain membership, and not open to the general public, that should be his right. I have no doubt such situations are challenged in the courts on numerous occasions.

But if we could set the issue of racism aside for a momemt. . . .
. . . as long as the prevailing law is obeyed, can everybody not see that we must respect the right of a person to use his property as he wishes, or we have no rights at all?

I think that is where Rand Paul stands and it is not a racist stance in any way, shape, or form. And that is where I think he stands on one clause of the Civil Rights Act. I don't know if I could support him or not--I couldn't support his Dad on some of his opinions/convictions--but I think trying to paint him as a racist is wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A business who opens their doors to the public is not private property like a home.

I know you know this. Why do you repeatedly make silly invalid comparisons?

So ownership of business is less than ownership of a home simply because you're "open to the public?" I know that many people believe this, but I reject it. I reject it because the term "open to the public" simply means that there is an implied invitation for people to come into your business and purchase your goods or services. If you're discriminating against a certain segment of society then that invitation towards those people obviously does not exist, and since it is their property I see no reason why a person can't invite whoever they wish onto it.

It's not "less" or "more" - but it is different. When you are open to the public, engaging in commerce with that public, there are, and have always been, different rules than for your private abode.

Kevin, in the Civil War threads, after much time and debate, I have given you the benefit of the doubt your neo-confederate sympathies were simply based on constitutional grounds; your recent forays into the Civil Rights Act aversions lead me to believe my initial conceptions about you may have been correct however.

Sadly.

What I am gathering from you now is you are more than content to return to these days:

What I'm gathering is that you know better than to think I support segregation, or that I'm racist, but I don't know why you'd bother trying to label me as such. I oppose the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds as well, since no where in that document is the federal government given the authority to tell people who they must allow on their own property.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't know if anyone has already made this point.

Think about the real-world application of this. A restaurant hangs a whites-only sign out front. A black man comes in and sits down. The owner comes up and tells him 'you need to leave', but he doesn't leave. So the owner calls the police to have him removed from the property for trespassing.

Police officers are public employees paid by tax dollars. Should every local tax payer have their money go toward the enforcement of discriminatory practices based on race, gender, etc?

If no, this little fantasy of private property trumps all is then unenforceable and meaningless.

If yes, then you probably need to get out more.

 

[paperview]

I don't know if anyone has already made this point.

Think about the real-world application of this. A restaurant hangs a whites-only sign out front. A black man comes in and sits down. The owner comes up and tells him 'you need to leave', but he doesn't leave. So the owner calls the police to have him removed from the property for trespassing.

Police officers are public employees paid by tax dollars. Should every local tax payer have their money go toward the enforcement of discriminatory practices based on race, gender, etc?

If no, this little fantasy of private property trumps all is then unenforceable and meaningless.

If yes, then you probably need to get out more.

Excellent point.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know if anyone has already made this point.

Think about the real-world application of this. A restaurant hangs a whites-only sign out front. A black man comes in and sits down. The owner comes up and tells him 'you need to leave', but he doesn't leave. So the owner calls the police to have him removed from the property for trespassing.

Police officers are public employees paid by tax dollars. Should every local tax payer have their money go toward the enforcement of discriminatory practices based on race, gender, etc?

If no, this little fantasy of private property trumps all is then unenforceable and meaningless.

If yes, then you probably need to get out more.

Excellent point.

True story. When the country was still battling with those resisting desegregation, there was a very small town in the Texas Panhandle in which no black people resided. The downtown restaurant, a favorite community meeting place, was busy the day a very well dressed young black man came in and sat down to order lunch. In retrospect, considering how out of place his manner of dress was for that area, I now think he was probably a civil rights plant checking the place out. But at the time he was just a nice looking young man who wanted to order lunch.

The owner ordered him out and he left. That didn't set too well with most of the other patrons of the restaurant who also left in protest. And they didn't come back until the owner recanted and apologized for his behavior. The next black people who came in were served politely and efficiently, the restaurant again was a thriving community meeting place, and all was well.

In a perfect world that is the best way to handle racism and help it disappear until it is only a blip in our national history along with other parts of our cultural heritage that are no longer the norm. Police, activism, etc. usually get the job done, but residual resentment and hard feelings are difficult to pry out of the national psyche, especailly when some are motivated to keep them alive and well.

 

[paperview]

So ownership of business is less than ownership of a home simply because you're "open to the public?" I know that many people believe this, but I reject it. I reject it because the term "open to the public" simply means that there is an implied invitation for people to come into your business and purchase your goods or services. If you're discriminating against a certain segment of society then that invitation towards those people obviously does not exist, and since it is their property I see no reason why a person can't invite whoever they wish onto it.

It's not "less" or "more" - but it is different. When you are open to the public, engaging in commerce with that public, there are, and have always been, different rules than for your private abode.

Kevin, in the Civil War threads, after much time and debate, I have given you the benefit of the doubt your neo-confederate sympathies were simply based on constitutional grounds; your recent forays into the Civil Rights Act aversions lead me to believe my initial conceptions about you may have been correct however.

Sadly.

What I am gathering from you now is you are more than content to return to these days:

What I'm gathering is that you know better than to think I support segregation, or that I'm racist, but I don't know why you'd bother trying to label me as such. I oppose the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds as well, since no where in that document is the federal government given the authority to tell people who they must allow on their own property.

I'm sorry Kevin.

If you are oppose the Civil Rights Act, you implicitly accept legal discrimination and segregation.

A business open to ALL the public and engages in IC, is not simply a private property matter. Want to open up a private membership club or restaurant or hotel - catering only to whites, more power to ya, but if the doors are open to the guise of being open to the general public, they ARE Open to ALL.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's not "less" or "more" - but it is different. When you are open to the public, engaging in commerce with that public, there are, and have always been, different rules than for your private abode.

Kevin, in the Civil War threads, after much time and debate, I have given you the benefit of the doubt your neo-confederate sympathies were simply based on constitutional grounds; your recent forays into the Civil Rights Act aversions lead me to believe my initial conceptions about you may have been correct however.

Sadly.

What I am gathering from you now is you are more than content to return to these days:

What I'm gathering is that you know better than to think I support segregation, or that I'm racist, but I don't know why you'd bother trying to label me as such. I oppose the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds as well, since no where in that document is the federal government given the authority to tell people who they must allow on their own property.

I'm sorry Kevin.

If you are oppose the Civil Rights Act, you implicitly accept legal discrimination and segregation.

A business open to ALL the public and engages in IC, is not simply a private property matter. Want to open up a private membership club or restaurant or hotel - catering only to whites, more power to ya, but if the doors are open to the guise of being open to the general public, they ARE Open to ALL.

Of course it is. You're saying that a person has no right to only have those they wish on their own property, it's a ridiculous notion.

 

[Ravi]

Not if they are open to the public, it isn't.

Business cannot discriminate against individuals. What you are saying basically is that no one has an inherent right to be black, or white, or whatever.

 

[jillian]

I'm sorry Kevin.

If you are oppose the Civil Rights Act, you implicitly accept legal discrimination and segregation.

A business open to ALL the public and engages in IC, is not simply a private property matter. Want to open up a private membership club or restaurant or hotel - catering only to whites, more power to ya, but if the doors are open to the guise of being open to the general public, they ARE Open to ALL.

The problem with idealogues, especially very young ones, is that there isn't any room for nuance. no room for thinking that maybe in every instance, what they believe to be the 'purity' of their belief system isn't always the right way to go.

also, sorry, kevin, you know i like you, but you know nada about the constitution until you figure out what living in a common law country means.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What I'm gathering is that you know better than to think I support segregation, or that I'm racist, but I don't know why you'd bother trying to label me as such. I oppose the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds as well, since no where in that document is the federal government given the authority to tell people who they must allow on their own property.

I'm sorry Kevin.

If you are oppose the Civil Rights Act, you implicitly accept legal discrimination and segregation.

A business open to ALL the public and engages in IC, is not simply a private property matter. Want to open up a private membership club or restaurant or hotel - catering only to whites, more power to ya, but if the doors are open to the guise of being open to the general public, they ARE Open to ALL.

The problem with idealogues, especially very young ones, is that there isn't any room for nuance. no room for thinking that maybe in every instance, what they believe to be the 'purity' of their belief system isn't always the right way to go.

also, sorry, kevin, you know i like you, but you know nada about the constitution until you figure out what living in a common law country means.[/QUOTE]

At least you're not inferring that I'm a racist.

 

[paperview]

What I'm gathering is that you know better than to think I support segregation, or that I'm racist, but I don't know why you'd bother trying to label me as such. I oppose the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds as well, since no where in that document is the federal government given the authority to tell people who they must allow on their own property.

I'm sorry Kevin.

If you are oppose the Civil Rights Act, you implicitly accept legal discrimination and segregation.

A business open to ALL the public and engages in IC, is not simply a private property matter. Want to open up a private membership club or restaurant or hotel - catering only to whites, more power to ya, but if the doors are open to the guise of being open to the general public, they ARE Open to ALL.

Of course it is. You're saying that a person has no right to only have those they wish on their own property, it's a ridiculous notion.

Not if they are engaged in BUSINESS with the general public.

That is NOT simply a matter of private property rights, like your abode is.

It's simple.

I posted this concise concept earlier, pay attention:

While it is privately owned, it is not private property in the sense that it is solely under the control of the owner.

A business is by its nature a hybrid beast that deals with the public under a contractual basis (sells things at a given price, the buyer completes the contract by buying or negotiating) and therefore has obligations to that unwritten (but often regulated) contract including allowing the public to enter into negotiations.

Such entities are also under the protection and regulation of the public tax supported state in a way that is different from private organizations as they are "open to the public."

 

[frazzledgear]

It's not "less" or "more" - but it is different. When you are open to the public, engaging in commerce with that public, there are, and have always been, different rules than for your private abode.

Kevin, in the Civil War threads, after much time and debate, I have given you the benefit of the doubt your neo-confederate sympathies were simply based on constitutional grounds; your recent forays into the Civil Rights Act aversions lead me to believe my initial conceptions about you may have been correct however.

Sadly.

What I am gathering from you now is you are more than content to return to these days:

What I'm gathering is that you know better than to think I support segregation, or that I'm racist, but I don't know why you'd bother trying to label me as such. I oppose the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds as well, since no where in that document is the federal government given the authority to tell people who they must allow on their own property.

I'm sorry Kevin.

If you are oppose the Civil Rights Act, you implicitly accept legal discrimination and segregation.

NO NO NO it does NOT mean anyone implicitly EVER supports discrimination because that is actually a self-destructive business practice. But I DO believe in allowing those who adopt self-destructive business practices to DESTROY THEMSELVES instead of allowing them to hide behind a law and keep us from knowing what kind of asshole is running that business. If that person doesn't voluntarily CHOOSE to serve anyone regardless of race, then it will be his own community and neighbors who will make sure he knows he won't stay in business at all. Suppose government forces the owner of the business in the first picture you posted to take down that sign and serve anyone -do you think that somehow cleanses this guy's racism and he is now someone deserving of your money just because government is forcing him to do something he would never do on his own? In reality government has just hidden the racism of this guy from you and because it is hidden, YOU are being tricked into helping provide him with a living when you never would have done it if you had just known. The use of government force cannot "cleanse" this guy's racism for me and I suspect would not for most people. But it sure can hide this racist from you and prevent you from making an INFORMED DECISION to refuse to patronize his business BECAUSE of his racism. I think I have the greater right to make that informed decision than government has to hide the fact this guy is a RACIST ASSHOLE.

I understand the argument being made on the other side -but think about it. If government forces this guy to serve blacks and whether you are white or black -does that mean you suddenly have no problem helping to contribute to the livelihood of someone who would deny service to blacks if they had the chance? Does the fact you don't know this somehow make it easier for you to help support such a racist when you never would if he had the right to advertise that fact to you? Government force doesn't change the fact this guy is a racist asshole but it will prevent me and everyone else from knowing it and thereby DENIES us OUR economic rights to deny him one cent of ours to help support himself. The use of government force instead tricked me into contributing to the financial support of a bigoted, racist asshole by preventing me from being able to make a truly informed decision.


I can't know he is this kind of asshole unless the guy has the right to tell me he is that kind of asshole. FREEDOM doesn't protect you from the natural consequences of your own bigotry but in order for me to use MY freedom to make an informed decision, the racist must have the right to use his freedom to tell us all what a racist asshole he really is. But using government to force him to serve blacks against his will really means government is hiding the fact he is a hardcore racist who would run his business that way were it not for government forcing him to OUTWARDLY pretend he is not such a racist. Just because government is forcing him to serve blacks against his will doesn't change MY mind about whether he is deserving of MY patronage and money or not though! I am being deceived into supporting someone I would NEVER support if I just knew.

The use of government force does NOT change the fact I do NOT want to contribute to his livelihood. Those who voluntarily choose non-racist and non-discriminatory business practices are deserving of my money while those who would never do so were it not for government force are not. I have the economic right to direct my money and patronage away from the racist. But because government won't allow him to advertise the fact he is a hardcore racist, I am actually being deceived into supporting someone I would instantly reject.......if I just knew.

Using the force of government only deceives YOU into thinking you got the result you wanted faster and easier than allowing the force of freedom to do it. But it is only superficial and is never accompanied by the fundamental change in values and morals that must come FIRST before meaningful and true change can be made. The use of government force is done with the provably false belief that forcing a change in behavior will lead to a FASTER and better fundamental change in values and morals but in reality it actually IMPEDES that evolution than if we had just had the patience to allow freedom to do this.

No one is arguing in favor of discrimination. My argument is that allowing PEOPLE to use their economic and free speech rights to pressure racists into CHOOSING whether to keep to their racist way or watch their business go under will provide a far more meaningful and long lasting effect, send a much better message to all current and future business owners over using the force of government which protects and hides the racist while he will claim persecution by government for politically incorrect opinions but is never forced by his economic reality to fundamentally re-evaluate his decision to allow his bigotry to dictate his business practices to the detriment of his own livelihood.

BUT do I think the law should be repealed NOW and at this date? Absolutely not. But there is a strong argument to be made that resorting to the force of government at that time instead of relying on the power of freedom was never the true impetus for society making a fundamental change in its morals and values as those who wanted to use government force had hoped. In reality it probably delayed that to the detriment of the very people the law was intended to better protect while hiding the very people it should have exposed. Racism is a social ill and for the best result and outcome for addressing that social ill - the most meaningful and profound solution must come from society itself. Not government. Government is just one of many, many institutions OF society abut it is not society itself. That means an institution OF society cannot possibly impose a better result ON society than society itself can do.

We ended up using government as the very means of preventing the far more meaningful and fundamental change in the morals and values of society when using the freedoms and rights of OTHERS would have provided an even better outcome and probably in less time instead of using laws that often ended up all too often harming the very people it was intended to better protect -and protecting and hiding the racists among us who should never be hidden and protected by government.

Which you believe would actually provide the better result will depend on your personal view of our species in the first place. If you realize that the vast majority of people are good, decent people just trying to raise their families and have no desire to harm others at all -you believe in the power of freedom. If you think people with freedom invariably choose to use their freedoms for evil, then you will believe an institution created by man is actually morally superior to its creator. But history has already repeatedly proven that is not only dead wrong, but the very institution those who do seek to do the greatest evil will use as the means for it.

 

[geauxtohell]

NO NO NO..........................means for it.

Do you honestly think anyone is going to read a post that is over 100 words on here?

 

[Sheldon]

NO NO NO it does NOT mean anyone implicitly EVER supports discrimination because that is actually a self-destructive business practice. But I DO believe in allowing those who adopt self-destructive business practices to DESTROY THEMSELVES instead of allowing them to hide behind a law and keep us from knowing what kind of asshole is running that business. If that person doesn't voluntarily CHOOSE to serve anyone regardless of race, then it will be his own community and neighbors who will make sure he knows he won't stay in business at all. Suppose government forces the owner of the business in the first picture you posted to take down that sign and serve anyone -do you think that somehow cleanses this guy's racism and he is now someone deserving of your money just because government is forcing him to do something he would never do on his own? In reality government has just hidden the racism of this guy from you and because it is hidden, YOU are being tricked into helping provide him with a living when you never would have done it if you had just known. The use of government force cannot "cleanse" this guy's racism for me and I suspect would not for most people. But it sure can hide this racist from you and prevent you from making an INFORMED DECISION to refuse to patronize his business BECAUSE of his racism. I think I have the greater right to make that informed decision than government has to hide the fact this guy is a RACIST ASSHOLE.

The thing is, your assuming this hypothetical business owner values his racism over profit. That may be the case sometimes. But. I think more often than not, a business owner will be guided by profit and will understand the possible--and in most cases, probable--financial hit he'd take were he to ever hang that 'whites only' sign out front.

So there isn't a so-called free market incentive for a racist business owner to advertise that fact, either.

It's a weak criticism of the CRA, too.

I've seen the contention on here that the CRA has made racial problems worse than would be without it. It's an unprovable claim because it's a comparison to something that never happened. I pulled this example yesterday, so I'll do it again: it's like if i were to say "I'm happier in America than I would be in France"; the comparison is worthless because I've never been to France, so don't know for sure if i would indeed be less happy over there. It's possible, but not provable.

The argument that the CRA has slowed the progress of race relations is possible, just like the argument that it has sped the progress of race relations, but neither is provable.

Government is just one of many, many institutions OF society abut it is not society itself. That means an institution OF society cannot possibly impose a better result ON society than society itself can do.

huh?

Government is a product of society. Human beings can't live together without laws, thus government. Laws are a reflection of societal ethics. It's why there's laws against murder, and rape, and theft. And society is not static. Morals and ethics are changing all the time, and are rarely shared universally. But society by and large decided that racism was a wrong in which there should be laws to provide legal recourse to the victims.

Society in general made the determination--think the million man march, etc--and demanded government write laws to reflect that sea change in values regarding racism.

You've got it backwards. Government didn't impose its arbitrary value on society, society imposed its collective value on government by demanding laws that made the Jim Crow's impossible. People called the bullshit on 'separate but equal'. People were tired of seeing blacks get sprayed in the streets. People were tired of seeing whites who sat next to blacks get beat up. Societal values changed and demanded that government respond. Not everyone agreed with it, obviously, but that's the way a constitutional republic works. Not everybody can have what they want all the time. I think my kindergarten teacher told me that.

We ended up using government as the very means of preventing the far more meaningful and fundamental change in the morals and values of society when using the freedoms and rights of OTHERS would have provided an even better outcome and probably in less time instead of using laws that often ended up all too often harming the very people it was intended to better protect -and protecting and hiding the racists among us who should never be hidden and protected by government.

The Deep South had decades and decades to move away from institutionalized racism and discrimination. Yet, election cycle after election cycle, Jim Crow laws were upheld. Why is that? I think it's because racism doesn't drop out of the sky and into someone's head. It's a cyclical product of a social environment. I believe morals and ethics are shaped by that environment, and the environment is in turn shaped by those morals and ethics, and that it can take an external force to break that cycle.

And also, racists are still allow to be racists for the most part. There are still business owners who won't hire a black man, they'll never say it outright but they know they'll always find someone else for the job.

The CRA provides the legal avenue, but society still has the ability to ostracize racism. Government hasn't taken that ability away.

Which you believe would actually provide the better result will depend on your personal view of our species in the first place. If you realize that the vast majority of people are good, decent people just trying to raise their families and have no desire to harm others at all -you believe in the power of freedom. If you think people with freedom invariably choose to use their freedoms for evil, then you will believe an institution created by man is actually morally superior to its creator. But history has already repeatedly proven that is not only dead wrong, but the very institution those who do seek to do the greatest evil will use as the means for it.

And what about the people, like me, who believe that humans are neither good nor bad? We just... are. And freedom from what, of what, exactly? Laws I disagree with? That's not how social contract works. How is freedom defined here?

And the institutions that result from our social nature (collectivism) aren't inherently good or bad; they, too, just are, and can have the capacity to be both at the same time.

In short, what about the people who don't see the world as a false dichotomy?