Well, you can't actually use legislation to make people genuinely more moral, but you can certainly create a society in which there are consequences for immoral behavior...

"What are you taught in college anyway...that everyone is racist?"

Everyone has a tendency towards bias and prejudice. That doesn't make it okay, but it is still a near universal trait.

Once you've recognized your own internal biases and prejudices, you can make an effort to eliminate and overcome them... or you can deny and ignore them, and thus allow them to dominate and control you. Your choice.

Alright, you do have a legitimate point with the Denny's lawsuit, I'll grant you that. But the other lawsuits that he cites are most certainly frivolous.

The lawsuit by the woman who claimed to have a microchip in her tooth was a frivolous lawsuit.

The lawsuit by the man who was fired for bringing a gun to work was a frivolous lawsuit.

The lawsuit by the 220 lbs. woman against the National Guard was a frivolous lawsuit.

The lawsuit by the couple who were forced off the airplane may or may not be frivolous, depending on whether or not the couple actually had tourette syndrome as they claim. If the couple really and truly did have tourette syndrome, and they could prove it in court, then their lawsuit was legitimate and the airline should pay them damages. But if the couple did not actually have tourette syndrome, and they were just lying in an attempt to get money, then their lawsuit is frivolous, and should be dismissed by the court.

But Harry Browne fails to mention what the outcome of any of these cases were, and as such his usage of them undermines his credibility.

In a free society, it is inevitable that frivolous lawsuits will be brought before a court. The mere existence of such frivolous lawsuits cannot be used as evidence of corruption unless the person making the lawsuit wins and is awarded damages. If the frivolous lawsuit is defeated in court, then that is evidence that the court is not corrupt. But since Harry Browne fails to mention the outcome of these cases, we can't draw any conclusions either way, except to conclude that Mr. Browne is grasping at straws to support his agenda, and making a problem seem worse than it actually is.

I think we should force people not to act racist so that racism is stigmatized as illegal, at least in the public sector. ;)

I consider racism and discrimination to be among the greatest evils that man is capable of committing, and I have no qualms whatsoever about explicitly outlawing it.

I plan to try to address this issue in part of "Roarke's Drift" (I haven't worked it out yet).

Among the many attacks used to try to stop Roarke, the antagonist notices that his crew is all white males. So Roarke is taken to court. As his 'defense' he introduces each member of his crew. "This is my chief engineer. His race is Ernie Pryce... This is my pilot... his race is Freddy Haynes..." and so on. Then he explains how he met each *individual* and why he hired each *individual*.

Don't ask *me* how the court case turns out. I haven't thought that part up yet...

Sorry, but I don't agree with this article at all. The man who wrote that article, Harry Browne, is the author of a book titled "Why Government Doesn't Work," which is simply a ridiculous statement. There are certain kinds of government which don't work (Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc.).

If he had said Communist government doesn't work, he would be right. If he had said Socialist government doesn't work, he would be right. But to simply say that government of any kind doesn't work is such an absurd statement that anyone who makes it can be called nothing but an anarchist. He has no credibility.

Also, I notice that the author of the article conveniently neglected to state the outcomes of the frivolous lawsuits he tried to use as evidence to support his argument. A frivolous lawsuit is proof of nothing if the person making the lawsuit loses their case or if the judge throws it out.

The only legitimate piece of evidence that Mr. Harry Browne uses in this entire article is the example of the white women who was supposedly awarded disability benefits because her fear of black people was not accommodated at work. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Browne could be distorting the facts here, or leaving out important details. But even if he's not, he does say that the incident occurred in Florida, a state which has a long history of racist lawmakers passing prejudiced legislation. And on top of that, even if it is a real case, it is nevertheless only a single isolated incident, and it is not enough in and of itself to outweigh all the innumerable injustices which the Civil Rights Act explicitly outlawed. If this is the one and only time the Civil Rights Act has ever been so explicitly misused, then we've got a pretty good track record. When we pit this one single incident against all the thousands of other incidents where minorities were persecuted, the trade-off is well worth it.