Well, guess what. It did in fact do that in certain places. And then it self corrected...
Hasn't worked well for healthcare - UK consensus among healthcare experts is that there is little/no role of private companies in healthcare provision. Growing consensus also for train transport given lack of competition that can realistically occur on 1 line.
Just curious. If we all followed your moral advice, and disallowed what you call "racist stuff," then wouldn't the counter argument to your advocacy of progressive social spending (your words "societal investment") be quashed before it was heard?
Seems that would not be good, right?
If I understand you right, I think this is about whether racist opinions should be heard and ignored or banned. Usually the former I'd say. I think the argument is that one can listen to then dismiss racism arguments as being very flawed and toxic. Agree that censoring those views perhaps not helpful, may re-inforce their paranoia.
It's close enough. More correctly is that in a democracy he's got the right to say he doesn't want to vote for candidates or programs that give black people money, just like you or I have the right to say we do want to vote for programs that give black people money.
More correctly, the calling of racism seems to be very one sided and used for advantage in debate or framing of arguments, where there really isn't a good argument to present....ergo, shut off the debate by screaming "racism!" (see....your response about Flynn etc. already reframed the argument presupposing "racism"....)
something like that....