Yes, the power negotiation in Misouri produced outcomes we found unfair. If you want to rephase it, the whites and blacks had a political fight over the post civil war political order, and the blacks lost. Just as in Iraq the sunis and shias had apolitical fight over post colonial political order, and through Saddam the Shiites lost.
Both were not particularly kind to the loser of the political battle, though Saddam was probably crueler.
Having stated that cruelty to a political loser was taking place in a local political conflict, could you now outline the moral principle at play is that justifies outside involvment?
Once we have the clear principle, then we can figure out if it has a slippery slope to socialism, or at least if its properly libertarian in any way.
Because right now, it seems to be some sort of white mans burden granting an infinite right and duty to interfer in anyone's matter when we don't like the outcome of local conditions, which basically mandates Socialists taking power.
No.
"Rules for thee but not for me" are an affront to Common Law.
Do they? England seemed to manage that not too badly for a few hundred years.
By the way, have you at all stopped to consider that enforcing discriminatory laws requires an, if not more, intrusive government as well? The Jim Crow laws were atrocious and had no business on the books.
What are you talking about? You believe equality before the law by any reasonble definition of that term was a core part of the laws made in the Times of peasants, yeyomen and barons?
Or that equality was a core part of england for hundreds of years? Is wives not really having property separate from their husbands and about 5% of the population voting equality?
By raw share of the population which could vote, the deepest part of the South of the 1910s was a good 10x as democratic as England of the 1910s and probably much more "equal" too, having only 2 broad classes of people, who had their own separate power structures.
England in 1910 might have been a nicer place to be than the deep south (though I'm sure some of the awfulness is exagerated, in the way the Irish famine stands in for what it was like to live in Irland under British rule, which in sure was not quite that consistently awful). But, Englands pluses did not come from being more democratic or equal than the deep south, since it was neither.
I am a bit confused how one can be high Tory and pro democracy and equality. It seems somewhat contrary with what they fight for by my understanding.