You're contradicting yourself here. I thought that most people were moral but here you're saying that enacting or abolishing a law doesn't make people moral(true!).
I'm not sure I see the contradiction, could you change the wording a bit or explain it a bit differently?
So the contradiction is that you're arguing that laws are a top-down imposition but here you're saying Jim Crow laws were bottom up.(imo this is historically innacurate)
So, whites just came up with more creative ways (like segregation) to keep blacks from advancing (economically or socially)
I mean it did technically free them which is a step in the right direction but it didn’t change the feelings whites had towards blacks.
oh ok, thanks. I think you’re right Jim Crow was top-down?
I'll defer to Dinesh D'Souza on this one. It's a deep deep rabbit hole of rewritten, hidden and spun history. Start with the shock doc "Hillary's America"
Sorry! >_< I mean to say that you've indicated(I think?)that the NAP is independent of laws but then abolishing slavery(was that adding or removing a law?) didn't help to free anyone.
My point is legislating morality creates a sharp divide in an otherwise smooth transition.
Change does happen, I think people are becoming more accepting of others as the world becomes more connected.
