As usual you see what you want to see. I told you: Afirmative Action long time ago.
And who says that everyone should accept the negative liberty you describe?
What do liberals know about being a man...
Perhaps you're not actually acquainted with the nature of affirmative action legislation? Simply, it is predicated on the fact that blacks (and other minorities) in this country were systematically denied access to quality education and good jobs for hundreds of years. In 1965, President Johnson signed an order requiring the government to take "affirmative action" to make sure that hiring decisions were made without regard to race, religion or national origin. It was sometimes interpreted to give preference to certain minorities in hiring and also in admissions to universities.
I'm one of the people who actually thinks that we've come along far enough that it's no longer necessary. However, I see nothing untoward about considering the socio-economic situation of applicants as one
factor in the admissions process, or in hiring of local police, for example.
If I were on those admissions committees, and was presented with two equally qualified applicants, one of whom had overcome a great deal of adversity to achieve his or her competence, regardless of race, I would definitely favor that applicant over the child of affluent "helicopter" parents who provided every kind of advantage.
In terms of police departments, I think it is to the benefit of society as a whole to have a police department that contains minority members, particularly in situations where the police must interact with people living in primarily minority, disadvantaged, high crime areas.
This has
absolutely nothing to do with encouraging intermarriage between the races.
It is a totally illogical claim. So, you are back to square one. You claimed there are a "zillion" laws promoting racial intermarriage, and you have yet to provide proof of even one.
What you are against is any law which
negates prior segregation laws, because you are afraid that if people of different races come into contact with one another in any kind of equal way in their day to day lives, some of them will inevitably fall in love and get married. You know what, you're right. That's exactly what starts to happen. All of this talk about it only happening as a result of force or war is obfuscation. If you weren't afraid that it can happen naturally you wouldn't be pointing to things like the desegregation laws or affirmative action as fostering it.
The fact is that you want to deny people the freedom to choose to marry people of another race. That would require some sort of coercion, either by law, force, or indoctrination. You
say you are not in favor of the first two.
If we take you at your word, that leaves you with indoctrination. Have at it as far as I'm concerned. You are always and everywhere free to try to indoctrinate your own children. In the U.S. you are even free to stand on a street corner and spout your ideas or give speeches about it or otherwise try to disseminate your ideas. This is a free country. In fact, if, in doing that, you are attacked physically, the law will protect you. This is the price of a free society. However, one act of physical force of any kind and you'll wind up in jail.
Let's see how your ideas fare.