01-30-2017, 01:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2017, 02:11 AM by Eric the Green.)
(01-29-2017, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-29-2017, 08:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Whoops. Yep. Sorry. I made the mistake of answering Warren's post above without fact checking it.I think we both meant 13, 14 and 15.
Wrong again. I meant 16, 17, and 18, exactly as I said. The "early 20th century" part should have provided a clue; amendments 13, 14, and 15 were passed in the 19th century, not the 20th.
Maybe you could start paying attention to what people actually say, rather than what you incorrectly assume they meant to say?
I see what you meant. You were talking about classical liberalism (which I identify, on the economics part at least, with neo-liberalism and all those other names it has), which was superceded by "liberalism" of the 20th century kind (watered-down democratic socialism). Actually, the 16th and 17th amendments were capstones of the new "liberal" progressive era, as was the 17th. The progressive movement had already been active in the Democratic and Populist parties since the 1890s at least, and acted upon in the 1900s with many other reforms. The 18th (prohibition against alcohol) is not a part of modern liberalism from that era to today; it had been considered a "reform movement" dating back many decades, especially to the 1840s. Of course women's suffrage also got its big start in 1848. I don't know why you were talking about classical liberalism though. I'll have to check that out
Yes, to some extent in the 20th and 21st century, "property rights" are used as an excuse for discrimination, especially in the arguments against fair housings laws. I remember all the way back to the campaign over Prop.14 in CA, which is a campaign I worked on in youth. "No on 14" is a slogan I remember well.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Propo...ate_(1964)