See, I think there's some clear distinctions here that you may not agree on and there's not a way to bridge that divide. I'm considering black activists as entirely separate from what Congress produced and called "civil rights" and shortly thereafter "voting rights" especially considering the black response in the years after those bills when whites were patting themselves on the back for once again solving everything. And the CRA64 still required them to work their cases though the courts, as they still have to bring them. I don't think it was until CRA68 (though Brownell proposed it for 57 and 60) that the Civil Rights Division gained legitimate powers to pursue their own cases and even then it doesn't automatically apply such as with Title II. Or in a recent example, the Martin/Zimmerman case.
Mostly I guess in this instance I'm merely pushing back on the notion, as Jeffries outright stated, that everything was terrible, Title II of CRA64 passes, we no longer have discrimination. Simply because it's a civil violation. If you document and report it. And the DOJ takes it up and doesn't drop it like when they seem to accidentally accuse state officials. And so on...
Or rather, I'm questioning why it's the part of all the legislation of that ten year period that all things hinge upon that hypothetically plucking just that piece out would serve to crumble the whole facade. Considering like, 14th Amendment plus all the other parts of the CRA57, CRA60, CRA64, VRA65 and CRA68.
Or why any of that implies I think blacks should have just stopped and waited without Title II. I don't think they should have been (or were) satisfied with the legislation we got, let alone the enforcement, expansion and evaluation of it since. I don't think it's just J.C. Watts, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell who consider federal housing policy to be an absolute disaster despite CRA68's deliberate response to the disturbances of 1966-68.
Propertarian? Maybe it is. But I approach it instinctively more as ownership of your own labor. And I also have a bias where I consider a lot of legislation and regulation as essential to construct shields to actually protect and hide information by constructing a formal process regime of security theater that pursues safe, easy cases that don't rock the boat.
Or rather, to use the phrasing of our oldest foreign enemy again, for the purpose of the body charged with ensuring such that it can demonstrate "peace, order and good government."
