Answer:
No, I don’t think the Brown court would have said that people could be separated by race on a train. Brown fought against segregation in schools because it was unconstitutional and violated the 14th Amendment. I can’t see why they would agree with segregation in other institutions.
The Plessy case, which occurred quite a bit earlier than the Brown case, ruled that segregation was okay as long as it was “separate but equal.” If it was Plessy v. Brown, Brown could have made the argument that “If it has to be separate, it’s not truly equal.” There’s no reason to divide the people unless there’s unfair treatment involved.
<span>The Hawaiians greeted Cook and his men by hurling rocks; they then stole a small cutter vessel from the Discovery. Negotiations with King Kalaniopuu for the return of the cutter collapsed after a lesser Hawaiian chief was shot to death and a mob of Hawaiians descended on Cook’s party. The captain and his men fired on the angry Hawaiians, but they were soon overwhelmed, and only a few managed to escape to the safety of the Resolution. Captain Cook himself was killed by the mob. A few days later, the Englishmen retaliated by firing their cannons and muskets at the shore, killing some 30 Hawaiians. The Resolution and Discoveryeventually returned to England.</span>
Answer:
...“The father of modern economics supported a limited role for government. Mark Skousen writes in "The Making of Modern Economics", Adam Smith believed that, "Government should limit its activities to administer justice, enforcing private property rights, and defending the nation against aggression." The point is that the farther a government gets away from this limited role, the more that government strays from the ideal path... How this issue is handled will decide whether the country can more closely follow Adam Smith's prescription for growth and wealth creation or move farther away from it.”
Jacob Viner addressed the laissez-faire attribution to Adam Smith in 1928...
Here is a list of appropriate activities for government, which goes way, way beyond Mark Skousen’s extremely limited – and vague – 'ideal' government. That ... he goes on to attribute his ‘ideal’ list to Adam Smith ... is not alright.In fact, its downright deceitful, for which there is no excuse of ignorance (before attributing the limited ideal to Adam Smith we assume, as scholars must, that Skousen read Wealth Of Nations and noted what Smith actually identified as the appropriate roles of government in the mid-18th century).
Starting a civil war to take power from the senate
