I don't really quite know if we can say that. That's still a point of debate and segregation generally leads to more prejudices. Statistics do seem to side with the other perspective; let's just take a quick cursory glance: which generation is more racist, the one which grew up before or after the civil rights act/desegregation?
Racism in culture is a complex issue, and I don't know if we can rule so quickly on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness or government influence.
This is getting away from the topic significantly, but I wonder if there have ever been any studies done on the degree(s) of racism between countries that did attempt segregation by legislation (e.g. the U.S., South Africa) and those that didn't (I'm not sure, but I think Great Britain would fall into this category). The results could be quite interesting!
I'd be generally inclined to agree with you and I'd like to think I have strong libertarian leanings, but, I might have to ask: are you an anarchist?
Very observant of you. I am practically an anarchist in my political leanings (and yes, not like the skateboard anarchists. On the American scale of political ideologies, with totalitarianism on the far left and the absence of any form of government on the far right - the very definition of anarchy - I tend to be much further to the right than most of the mainstream). However, I'm also somewhat of a realist, too. Like communism, anarchy is one of those "looks good on paper" ideologies that tends to fall apart one human nature is applied. If everyone were nice to each other and left everyone else alone, it would be great! But the real world doesn't work that way. I believe that, in order for society to function, there needs to be some sort of guidepost to indicate what constitutes as "right" or "good," and what constitutes "wrong," or "evil." I don't believe humanity is advanced (evolved?) enough to come up with these on their own.
What do you think are the parameters of government powers? What's the point of having a government? What should they be allowed to do, and why should they have the controls they have?
And more importantly, is one of the government mandates to protect people and their rights from other people?
Now this is getting into complicated territory and possibly straying from the original topic. In terms of the Federal government, I see that there are basically four functions.
1) Border security. Maintain a standing army in order to protect and defend the people of the nation from foreign invaders. (As you can expect, I think our current government has fallen off severely in their diligence of this, and has done so for several administrations.)
2) Maintain the means of transportation for interstate commerce. (The Interstate system.)
3) Have some sort of investigative force for crimes that cross state lines. (I think the FBI does this well - this is a deviation from some of the founding principles, but I think it may be necessary because of the way that crime has evolved so much over the decades. Prosecution should still take place within state boundaries, though).
4) Represent the citizens of the United States in terms of international relations. Note that this does NOT mean serve as the world's police force! If a country isn't actively attacking us, there is no reason why our U.S. forces should be there.
In terms of coming up with the taxes to pay for this, I strongly favor a flat tax - everyone pays the same percentage, regardless of income. That's it. No loopholes, no complicated tax laws and no exemptions (I'm still on the fence about whether or not businesses should pay taxes, too). Anything beyond these duties should be left up to the individual states.