I agree policy can change fast, and betting your whole future on government is not a good idea. It can backfire hard. We saw that with the crack vs. powder era: harsh sentencing and enforcement fell hardest on Black communities while other drug use was framed and treated very differently.

But that’s not an argument for “stop using policy.” It’s an argument for fighting for durable, fair rules and protections, building laws and institutions that don’t collapse the moment power flips.

The whole “Second Reconstruction” point is that fairness required policy: federal enforcement and voting protections are why rights became real in practice. And when the Court removed those guardrails, the result wasn’t “neutral freedom”. It opened the door for states to rewrite the rules. #1288677

Also, “colorblind” language has often been used as moral cover to roll back civil-rights protections while claiming it’s just equality.

So yes, we don’t worship government. But “government should only stop violence and theft” is too thin: rights can be stripped without a punch being thrown, just by changing rules. And we know how that goes.