Philosophical Productive Discussion

[Eric Cartman]

Is your assumption that any gains this minority group has made is due to a political party that listened to constituents and passed laws/regulations/what have you during the natural course of operating the democratic machine?

Because this is not the case. Every civil rights gain in America has been due to activists fighting and putting outside pressure on a party, until the party either had no choice but to bend, or said activism made the aforementioned civil rights gain politically advantageous.

I'll take this as an admission that things are generally better for minorities today than even just 25 years ago.

So let's test the follow up thesis;
When you say 'fighting' and 'pressure', are you referring to physical, violent coercion to force political capitulation? Also known as 'Terrorism'?
Or are you using those in a more rhetorical sense, to describe lobbying, advocacy, promotion of a viewpoint in the media, etc?

Because one of those is the use of legitimate political power in a democracy - persuading reasonable people as to the rightness of your cause, and gain their votes, and the other is the illegitimate use of force to enforce a mandate through fear.
Of the two, which do you think takes hold more strongly in a society and is likely to last?
Being tricked or strong armed into doing what you're told, or being persuaded to reconsider things?

Let's test this.

Who are the billionaires funding the push for socialized medicine in America? 

If someone wants single payer healthcare, with no compromises, something much of the rest of the world has, is that something "reasonable people will never acquiesce to"?

Many of those billionaires either made or perpetuate that wealth through for-profit medical care. Why would they be pushing for it at all?
All they have to do is say "If you want universal healthcare you're gonna have to pay for it in taxes" and chuck in some insinuation how you're also going to be paying for junkies fentanyl chasers.

If you WANT reasonable people to vote for it, you make a reasonable argument.

Let's say, "Hey, even if you really believe you can bootstraps your way out of sickness, what about people who legally can't have bootstraps? Why don't we say everyone too young to legally work gets free healthcare?"
Becomes a lot harder for someone reasonable to say they'd rather a 10 year old die of a treatable leukaemia than skip a gingerbread spiced soy chai latte a week.