Thread: "white only" scholarship

Because using it infringes upon the rights of others more often than not. Plain and simple. I don't understand how you can't see that.

Using the power of government to say create a more educated and healthy society is a bad thing because it infringes on some set of holy rights? Ok then...

Plus we have to carefully consider these magic rights of yours, for example.

Should governments make it illegal to take drugs like heroin? Isn't that a violation atleast in some sense a form of personal freedom? At the very least we must conclude that some rights are more important than others (perhaps i'm using the term "rights" far too loosely here?). Well what about the right to be treated equally? The right to an education? Don't you consider those rights? Perhaps not, i don't know.

Ultimately it boils down to quality of life, that's what it's about in the end game, preserving quality of life. If we give everyone a quality of life score, then any action that leads to an increase in the total is IMO a good action.

Sorry I didnt have a chance to reply yesterday, been busy.

>>And at the same time you're taking rights away from businesses that only want to hire the person best for the job.

>>Because using it infringes upon the rights of others more often than not. Plain and simple. I don't understand how you can't see that.

Of course the government has the right to take away some of our freedoms if it serves the greater-good of society. Its just a matter of deciding what is worth more, a particular freedom, or the affect taking away that freedom will have.

>>Denying a person employment solely because of their race is stupid, but it's well within the realm of a business owner's rights

And that is one of the freedoms that they decided long ago was worth taking away to serve the greater good of society.

>>That is the definition of "racism" more or less. I doubt enacting laws against racism will prevent it.

Of course government cant legislate away racism, but it can pass laws that reduce the negative affects of racism.

What people dont realize is that, one can help themselves out of trouble. For example, my father knew this one guy at Johns Hopkins that grew up in the ghetto of Chicago, went to a crappy school, but guess what, he decided that he did not want to be there and even though he struggled against some kinds of rascism, he is now one of the most respected/known neurosurgeons in the world(he did the operation on those two Iranian ladies who were joined at the head). He did not get where he was because of handouts, neither do most of the "priveliged" white people in this nation, they got there through hardwork and determination. If you give people stuff like Affirmative action, the cycle WILL not end. Cause they will expect the affirmative action to remain after they are equals in terms of education/pay/etc. because people love freebies, and the black vote is pretty important, so senators/congressmen will be glad to give it to them.

edit: also, can anyone explane why asians are not given affirmative action, we have been pretty bad to them(put them in internment camps during WWII and still have rascism against them), or is the stereotype that they are more intelligent than the other minorities have an influence?

You always do this. You broaden a topic to the point that you cannot be wrong.

... i'm not broadening the topic i'm explaining why i don't like the minimalist approach to government you and Hill appear to be advocating.

The government's policy on what is and is not an illegal drug is a completely different animal than telling a PRIVATE company how to produce a product/service. You cannot generalize this topic like that

You and Hill are advocating a government that ONLY acts to prevent initiation of force, and hence that the reason that some form of ethnic biasing is wrong is because a governments shouldn't be doing that kind of thing - they should ONLY being preventing initation of force.

You then argued that ANY alternative in which a government does more violates people's "rights".

My example of illegal drugs was simply to show that some violation of rights can be worth it.

The question comes down to what is more important, having the right to inject yourself with something, vs. the consequences of allowing it.

What i mean Ober is simply that doing stuff that on the surface looks bad (for example reducing personal rights in the case of drug taking), can lead to a better outcome in the end. You just have to look at the bigger picture.

Things aren't always about what is good for the community, Clyde. Want an example of why that is bad? Look at the Soviet Union from the past. It's called communism. It doesn't work

Thanks Ober there i was thinking communism was a roaring success.... remarkably there is an alternative between having the state doing EVERYTHING, and the state doing virtually nothing.

As i said before there is a continuum, its not an either or situation. Communism fails because society is not a homogenious collective that doesn't mean that we should completely abandon any attempt to act on a societal level.

If every government had your mentality, half of us wouldn't work as hard as we do. I push myself to learn new things and accomplish new tasks because I know that someday I will go looking for a different job, and I want to be able to beat out my competitors.

What mentality is that? Having governments who do more than merely act to prevent initiation of force, or governments who have policies that attempt to offset racial descrimination?

And guess what? I'm not worried about what race they are. I'm worried about what they know. And I'll be damned if you think I'm gonna sit here and think "oh... that person is underprivaliged and I wouldn't be offended if they got the job over me". Hell no.

For a start i'm not sure that quota's in privately owned buisnesses are necessarily the way to go in terms of addressing racial discrimination (i mean in some instances they might be, i'm not sure) what i do think though is that the argument that ANY action to offset racial descrimination is fundamentally unjustified is BS.

I don't think that just because private buisnesses are private buisnesses mean that they are above ANY sort of consideration.

And I'm sick of hearing "they're under privaleged... it's a vicious cycle... they're uneducated and they can't get education." BULL$$$$. In today's world, if you can't get out of your bad situation in one way or another, you can't blame anyone but yourself. It's a dog eat dog world. No one should be forced to give handouts. You get yours, I'll get mine.

... there is simply nothing i can say to something like this.

>>There is stuff wrong with the world, the question is what can be done towards fixing it.<<

Lots can be done, but I don't think government is the solution. We've learned time and time again that private organizations almost always do a better job than government at improving unfortunate situations.

>>because it simplifies them to the point of absurdity<<

And your position on this that the community is more important than the individual is completely inane. We live in a free society, where many people value freedom rather than advancing the good of the community, at least through government.

>>I don't agree with your strict - free society - any more than i do with communism<<

Most people hate, even loathe, the idea of a free society, Clyde!! People want to be controlled; they want to live their cookie-cutter life in a box, and told what to do...otherwise they feel as if their life has no meaning. (In comes religion after that. ) Freedom isn't for everyone, but it's everyone's right. If I can't get you to see that then I guess there's no hope.

>>Why should governments only role be to prevent initiation of force when they could do so much more?<<

'So much more' could be accomplished with minimal government. People are inclined, by nature, to help other people and to advance the ones DIRECTLY around them. I'd be more inclined in giving $100 directly to needy people in my city rather than the federal government so they can give $30 to finance some bloated welfare program that has numerous flaws.

>>perhaps i'm using the term "rights" far too loosely here?<<

I would say you're using them incorrectly. A "right" is something that is afforded to you by simply being a person. A "right" is anything you are allowed to do in a free society that does not infringe apon other people's rights; consequently, it cannot be something that must be "had" at the expense of others.

If you wanna get into the "prove to me we have rights" radical debate I've seen before, leave me out!

>>Ultimately it boils down to quality of life, that's what it's about in the end game, preserving quality of life.<<

No. It's not.

"Government" is another word for "organized force". We have to be careful how we're going to use this organized force. The most fair and humanitarian way to use this force is to allow people to live the life they want, provided they do not infringe on other people's rights, that they do not initiate force against another person or group of people.

You, Clyde, practice this same principle in your everyday living. You do not go around to your friends' houses stealing money out of their drawers, and take that cash to your local Red Cross. You probably agree that is morally wrong, even though the end result is morally right; it's still stealing.

>>Of course the government has the right to take away some of our freedoms if it serves the greater-good of society.<<

NO it does not. Where did this government obtain this "right"? What if I were to come to your house and steal your wallet? "But Mr. Clown Pimp, I was only taking it to give to charities." What I did was illegal, yet for a good reason...still illegal, mind you. Why does the government have a right that I do not myself hold? Simple: it doesn't. (Rights and what is the status quo are two different things. See slavery 150 years ago and government's position on it.)

>>My example of illegal drugs was simply to show that some violation of rights can be worth it.<<

You didn't do a good job. What a person does with their own body is none of the State's business. And certainly YOU (or me, or Ober) shouldn't be telling anyone else what to do with their own body.

Ben Franklin said something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), "A person who gives up a bit of freedom for a bit of security deserves neither freedom nor security." I think the meat of his argument here can be applied to a lot of other things in addition to security.

I think I'm done with this thread. It has become too generalized and the original argument is lost with invisible kangaroos... Good debate though; you guys have forced me to put into words why it is I stand on an issue. Hopefully I've returned the favor at least a little.

And your position on this that the community is more important than the individual is completely inane

I don't think "the community is more important than the individual" what i think is that SOME consideration of wider aspects or greater good is not a bad thing. It's NOT an either or situation.

We live in a free society

We don't live in your "free" society, every single government in existence does a heck of a lot more than just stop its people beating on each other - even the US.

Freedom isn't for everyone, but it's everyone's right. If I can't get you to see that then I guess there's no hope.

Your concept of "freedom" seems to me another simplification, because you appear to be suggesting that ABSOLUTE freedom is everyone's "right" which is of course crazy, even you are advocating enforcement of rules that prevent people beating on each other so immediately we lose the concept of absolute freedom being a "right". What we then end up with is best for most which is exactly what i'm arguing except instead of treating freedom as a special case, i treat it as another factor in quality of life, in fact even that is oversimplifying because there are additional influences like social stability that need to be considered.

'So much more' could be accomplished with minimal government. People are inclined, by nature, to help other people and to advance the ones DIRECTLY around them. I'd be more inclined in giving $100 directly to needy people in my city rather than the federal government so they can give $30 to finance some bloated welfare program that has numerous flaws.

People are also naturally inclined to screw over other people just take a look around the world past and present to see numerous examples.

Your hypothesis is infact falsified by the observation that in countries with more minimalist governments direct charity does not offset the lack of public spending.

If you're "needy" you're way better off in Europe than in the US for that reason.

I would say you're using them incorrectly. A "right" is something that is afforded to you by simply being a person. A "right" is anything you are allowed to do in a free society that does not infringe apon other people's rights; consequently, it cannot be something that must be "had" at the expense of others.

If you wanna get into the "prove to me we have rights" radical debate I've seen before, leave me out!

You reference rights to your hypothetical "free society" but no such society exists. As far as i can see "rights" are simply a set of allowances that a society agrees every member should have. They are not carved into the laws of the universe, and they are frequently debated, certainly over here the debate about whether people have the right to a good education often rages.

No. It's not.

Quality of life is the quality of living, freedom is simply a subset of it.

We have to be careful how we're going to use this organized force. The most fair and humanitarian way to use this force is to allow people to live the life they want, provided they do not infringe on other people's rights, that they do not initiate force against another person or group of people.

That's only part of the story, communists would use this force for everything, such a system is completely unworkable, that doesn't mean we should completely avoid using it to benefit society.

Lets just think about your world, there is no public education, there is no public health, there is no social security, there is no public transport.

Private chariy is not going to solve the large social problems that such a policy is going to throw up: Even today where the US government is far less minamalist than your suggestions we can see that the needy are pretty screwed over.

In your world, if you were born poor you would have no escape, no access to education, no access to health care. To me your vision of the world seems truly horrendous.

You, Clyde, practice this same principle in your everyday living. You do not go around to your friends' houses stealing money out of their drawers, and take that cash to your local Red Cross. You probably agree that is morally wrong, even though the end result is morally right; it's still stealing.

In your attempt to rationalise human behaviour you have created a model which is too simplistic, its very true that i don't steal my friends cash and send it to the red cross, why? Because i like my friends and they'd be ........ed off if i did, plus i'd be fairly hypocritical since i don't give everything away. Am i really practicing your principles? Or are your principles an attempt to rationalise my behaviour?

You didn't do a good job. What a person does with their own body is none of the State's business. And certainly YOU (or me, or Ober) shouldn't be telling anyone else what to do with their own body

Your world would destroy itself, even if heroin is not powerfull enough to destroy soceity, it is beyond reasonable doubt that a substance strong enough to could be created given time.

When rats have an infinite supply of heroin they will simply continue taking it in preference to food and correspondingly starve. Heroin has similar effect in humans but i don't think its quite as pronounced (though heroin alone is still probably enough to destroy us) but one can easily conceive of a designer drug made specifically to stimulate the brains reward pathways, in today's world such a drug would never be researched in the first place and would be illegal if ever discovered. Your world would be powerless to stop humanity killing itself- in some instances people need protecting from themselves because our brains are not adapted to the world we find ourselves in.

Social stability is thus another factor, see its not simple there are numerious complex issues.

As technology progresses humans are made more and more redundant, it started with the industrial revolution, but the same process is continuing, what do you think would happen long term in your world? Do you really think private charity is going to pick up the slack? How effective has private charity been at solving social problems to date?

Your ideas like communist ideals only work in a world populated by ideal human beings but that is not the real world.

>>NO it does not. Where did this government obtain this "right"?...Why does the government have a right that I do not myself hold? Simple: it doesn't.

Sure it does. Government has plenty of rights that we as individuals do not hold. For example, the right to take someones life or to take away their freedom when he has committed a crime. The government obtains its rights from us, it has the power that we give it (by "we" I mean the decisions our elected representatives make on our behalf).

And I use the word right in the same sense that Clyde uses it.

Clyde, just out of curiosity, what would you say (generally) is the role of government? From where does it get its power? And, where does its responsibility lie?

Bear in mind that i have not given politics a great deal of thought so the following is essentially off the top of my head and may have glaring errors in it:

I don't know what the ideal role of government should be, but i don't think very simplistic models such as the minimalist or the maximalist (that is so not a word) approach work very well. As far as i can see all Western governments tread a path that lies somewhere between the two, ultimately i think the further left we move (state does more) the more unworkable/inefficient the scenario becomes and the further right we move (state does less) the more inhumane the scenario becomes.

Hmm where does it gets power.... well democratic government gets its power from the tacticit agreement of the people it represent to go along with its judgements, if the people hate the judgements then they'll just go and elect another party that will undo them. Of course there is some measure of control of this process through control of media and spin.

I suppose a government's responsiiblity is in theory to maximise the wellbeing of its constituents, i say in theory because in practice governments are not totally oblivious to other people in trouble i think its good that aid is given to 3rd world countries.