http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02....ap/index.html
What are your thoughts?
Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02....ap/index.html
What are your thoughts?
Lol, like Michael Jackson.Quote:
"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the application, issued by the university's College Republicans.
I think its unusual just because it is for 'whites' but not racist.
There are it seems grants, loans, funds for people of other ethnic backgrounds which exclude white people.
I think it is probably the word 'whites' as you dont see it often.
I think they do make a good point, where I live they pay minority groups to simply go to school, but not white families which may be even poorer than those in the minority. The payments should really be made based on incomes, not on whether they are in the minority or not.
I think the way the went about making the point was perhaps the wrong way of doing it.
bout time.
I read that before. I thought it made a good point. I don't think they should base scholarships on race, only on how scholarly you are, and how much money your parents make.
EDIT:
I thought it was perfect. Its only a $250 scholarship, so it's not like it's anything big that non whites would be missing out on. It's just to make a point.Quote:
I think the way the went about making the point was perhaps the wrong way of doing it.
thats great!
Where i am, there a lot of ethnic only scholarships. Black only, jewish only etc, but you never see a white only one. Personaly i think its fine, its there money so they can do with it as they see fit.
Wow, I've been waiting for that scholarship to come around for a long time.
It's so hard for white, middle-class males to get scholarships. Together, my parents make decent wages, disqualifying me for many need based scholarships. However, they are also sending my two sisters through college, paying for most of their tuition, taking out loans, etc.. College stuff sucks, it should be free.
echo ober
i also echo ober
You realize that affirmative action was put into place to offset white injustices with above equal compansation to minorities. That said I think the question is when has the dept to minority groups been paid? When will all of America see people as just people not "black people", "white people", et cetera.
Even though affirmative action may not seem fair it is merely trying to accelerate the process of giving minorities back theirs.
This subject is a touchy one so approach it with great care. I just look at getting shafted for being white as equal to a small group of minorities being shafted for being black or mexican or native american or chinese or japanese or whatever some time ago.
Scholarships should be based on need and not race.
It can never be repaid. Taking away's one freedom is not something you can go "oh sorry" and throw some money at.Quote:
when has the dept to minority groups been paid
IMO as long as there is AA there will be a sense of entitlement with some minorities.
My main concern with affirmative action is that may stir up some problems with younger generations of Americans since they may grow to have a dim view of races that have priority over them. Now I realize this isn't necessarily the case but lets face it all of us talking here are more or less the intellectual type, which isn't an accurate judge of what everyone else thinks. But I've see (white) people become very ........ed off do to the inability to get something (i.e. a scholarship) do to the ethnicity.
>>Even though affirmative action may not seem fair it is merely trying to accelerate the process of giving minorities back theirs.
back theirs what?? what are you alluding to that is theirs?
Affirmative action is no longer appropriate in our society. It is an oxymoron of the struggle for equality at this time and day.
echo axon. Give me a break. Special treatment for certain groups is just as much racism as what happened to minorities 20/30/40 years ago.
It's over. I'm sick of minorities today thinking they need to be "repaid" or recieve some kind of benefit for what happened to their ancestors. STFU.
Agreed. And in reponse to axon 'theirs' is just a placeholder for what ever it is that they have been deprived of. Some groups were slaves while other groups were robbed and slaughtered.Quote:
Originally posted by ober
I'm sick of minorities today thinking they need to be "repaid" or recieve some kind of benefit for what happened to their ancestors. STFU.
However, the reason for affirmative action isn't necessarily to give back something for some past injustice, rather its to show that despite past injustices its not too late to accept sed group. Of course, I think using an overtly racist techinique to show that we as a society aren't racist is a little much, but if you understand why the system is in its current state you can perhaps see it as a necessary evil.
hmm i am not implying anyhting.. but this is similar to the benifits given to the dalits(the so called lower cast) in my country(India)...
A dalit student get a lot of scholar ship etc etc even priority in government jobs..even if he can aford education.. But what the academics say is that they deserve some kind scholar ship for another 10 years.. the reason.. our ancestors kept them down, never gave them the proper freedom and stuff which made them loose out in the race to be equal with the rest of the people..
SO we are paying for our grandfather mistakes... But our constitution will says this reservation will be removed after some time .. by then according to them the dalits should have reached equality with the general population...
THough i am angered that a dalit student gets more benifit i feel its right when i think in his terms.. He dint get a fare chance since his parents were not educated due to my ancestors fault.. so my tax money goes to educate him for free..
something to think about...
and sorry for my vauge english.
Actually your english is fine. Its nice to know our country isn't the only one that applies such backward logic. At least in India there is a finite time frame. As for the US I'm sure the only way to stop it would be to initiate some sort of ammendment to the constitition. But if I haven't already made it perfectly clear what would we ammend it to? I know that paying for past mistakes isn't completely fair but I think the only reason it is done is because it is the simplest way to try and be fair without anyone paying large amounts of money to a group.
Simply put I am not a fan of affirmative action. Though my comments may make it seem like otherwise is true I am not. However, I truly don't see what else could be done. If affirmative action were to be removed this very second I am sure there would be backlash. And I'd prefer being screwed from time to time over living in a divided nation where people may assume because you don't want affirmative action you are a racist. I don't believe it really has an intellegent place in our country today but I think it would be stupid to say that removing it would be a seamless act that everyone would be okay with.
Food for thought though, my moms family is Irish and immigrated here during the potato famine. The Iris are a poor group of white people who were treated just as badly as many other minority groups but in all truth this doesn't make me mad nor do expect people to treat me differently nor do expect anything that I didn't earn myself. The bottom line is that for every one of me there are at least (and i'm being conservative) two people who will "say you should fight back!"
I've got a couple of short points to make.
First of all, another echo to ober, I was thinking the exact same words.
Second, I never had slaves. I never forced segregation. I shouldn't be excluded from scholarships and college application benefits because I'm white. That's just more discrimination.
Third, having been to Africa very recently, and having seen how the blacks live there, anyone who is expecting repayment for having been taken out is an idiot. Yes slavery was tough, but that was for the ancestors of today's African-Americans. Where they are now, they're way better off. If anything, you should only be asking for repayment on things that happen now.
Four, about things that happen now. Don't expect legal immunity because you're black. As soon as a black celebrity is arrested for something like child molestation, the race card is played inevitably EVERY time.
Thank you to those of you (axon, sean, and ober) who stated my thoughts in a much better way.
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism/m...?msg=27434.120
I suggest all of you that "echo[ed] ober" should read this post made in response to a thread on the same topic, in particular the last half. It is quite long so I will qoute the relevant portions here
Quote:
In an ideal world, what one wants is equality both in procedure and in outcome -- we want people to be treated the same, and we want them to end up getting the same level of goods. But we're not in an ideal world, and the historical record seems clear that if we implement race-blind policies, we don't get race-neutral outcomes. Instead, we get harm done to minorities -- fewer blacks in the top universities, fewer blacks in important positions in companies, fewer blacks owning their own businesses, fewer blacks voting, fewer blacks living in better neighborhoods, and so on.
Those are bad outcomes, and presumably we think they are outcomes which wouldn't occur in an ideal situation. We thus want to make those outcomes stop happening. That requires abandoning race-neutral treatment for a time, in order to achieve race-neutral outcomes. The manner of abandonment, as Adrian has rightly stressed, can be very different in different situations. In some situations, we admit to universities minority applicants whose manifest academic record is less strong than the average admittee, on the theory that the latent intellectual capacities of the minority applicant may not be well-expressed by the academic record, since the applicant has had to deal with an inferior educational background and greater extra-academic obstacles. In employment, we treat as prima facie evidence of discriminatory hiring practices simple numerical disparities in racial makeup of a company's employees. In government practice, we make available business startup funds to minority applicants that aren't available to the general population.
I don't see why it would be surprising for such actions to reduce discrimination in outcome. It seems to me that the reduction of discrimination in outcome is of greater importance than the reduction of discrimination in procedure and attitude, both because people frankly suffer much more from discrimination in outcome than they do from discrimination in procedure and attitude and because discriminatory attitudes typically piggyback on discriminatory outcomes -- so long as, and largely only so long as, blacks are poorer, segregated, and less well educated, they will be treated as socially inferior by many people.
The thought that perfect legal neutrality in treatment will lead to neutrality in outcome seems to me to be a simple historical fantasy. If you take all the cultural goodies and give them to one person, and then tell everyone "OK, now play fair, and don't take more than your share", then the one initial beneficee is just going to keep doing better -- in fact, better and better over time, as he reaps the benefits of his starting capital.
There are, of course, legitimate questions to be asked about the propriety of particular implementations of the general strategy of affirmative action, and there is a genuine need for a careful statement of the underlying rationale of affirmative action (I hope I've at least gestured in that latter direction here). But I admit to finding it distressing that such a simple-minded and misguided critique of affirmative action as the "whites only scholarship" represented could win any support at all from intelligent people (a CNN poll showed that over 65% of people thought it made a good point). I'm left thinking that we leftists have failed terribly in making our case properly to the American people.
oh just shut up, no sane rich white land owner is going to read that.
The purpose of affirmative action was to speed up the process of bringing equal chances to minorities. It was supposed to be a temporary measure, but was found to be too good of a political tool. The result is that it has become a purposeless initiative that is used to win votes. It should not be used to "repay for trangressions against the ancestors of minorities" or what have you, but rather to bring equal opportunity. Once that goal has been achieved, it should be eliminated... Unfortunately, as I said it is too good a political tool.
As for the whites only scholarship, I think that their attempt at a protest is rather stupid, but then again, stupidity is their prerogative.
Well duh...when well over half of America is white, of course there are going to be more white people at a university.Quote:
In an ideal world, what one wants is equality both in procedure and in outcome -- we want people to be treated the same, and we want them to end up getting the same level of goods. But we're not in an ideal world, and the historical record seems clear that if we implement race-blind policies, we don't get race-neutral outcomes. Instead, we get harm done to minorities -- fewer blacks in the top universities, fewer blacks in important positions in companies, fewer blacks owning their own businesses, fewer blacks voting, fewer blacks living in better neighborhoods, and so on.
I don't know the exact numbers for America as a whole, but I do know the numbers for Houston, TX, which are about 50% white, 25% hispanic, 12% black, 12% asian. Texas is particularly diverse, it would be much different in other states.
So I will assume (don't take this number as a reality) that 66% of America as a whole is white, and the rest is hispanic, black, and asian. Of course there will be more white people at universities and businesses, etc., but that is simply because of the proportions of the population, not because of racism at all.
(Anybody have the actual percentages on ethnic proportions in America as a whole?)
>>Well duh...when well over half of America is white, of course there are going to be more white people at a university.
Oh dear.... I think you know good and well he meant in proportion.
bleh, no matter if its good or not, its still racial in my opinion...
everyones equal, why cant the world just see that -_-'
>>It seems to me that the reduction of discrimination in outcome is of greater importance than the reduction of discrimination in procedure and attitude<<
It seems to me that the reduction of all coercion is more important than reducing discrimination.
If I own a business, it is my right as a business owner to hire whoever I please based on credentials I establish; if I'm a racist bigot who doesn't want a Mexican working for me, the Government shouldn't force me to hire and work with Mexicans in my business.
If some people own/manage a private college, it is their right as a college to accept whoever they please based on their own credentials; if they run KKK University, the Government shouldn't coerce them into accepting a certain proportion of blacks or Jews (or anyone else for that matter).
The only real place there is any room for the argument for affirmative action is in Government and Government-financed jobs. I personally believe the Government should hire its employees based on merit and leave race out of it.
See, I would just blame the British.
It is OUR fault people were slaves, and now OUR fault we do give too much precedence to ethnic minorities.
In England we can say black, but not white, in a whole load of scenarios.
I guess we are sick of it.
So the original question stands, my original reply stands, and most people agreed until someone, someone implied there may be racial motives.
Get real, how can it be racist when 'Ethnic minority' people are awarded the same stuff, which excludes white people?
Its all bollocks.
Somebody said STFU. We ALL should do.
If we dont-many more law abiding, decent people in UK will vote for the BNP at next election. I cant stand their policies, but hey-lets dish out our hard earned tax money equally.....ie not favour ethnic minorities who have not paid a fraction of the taxes 'the whites' have.
Western countries are too soft......
>bleh, no matter if its good or not, its still racial in my opinion...
Perhaps, but as was stated earlier, racism in procedure is much more desirable than racism in outcome. And at the present time no racism in procedure will not produce no racism in outcome
>if I'm a racist bigot who doesn't want a Mexican working for me, the Government shouldn't force me to hire and work with Mexicans in my business.
One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities. And one of those rights is to not be discriminated against when looking for employment. So the government has a duty to force business owners to not discriminate in their hiring practices.
As the saying goes, "one persons personal freedoms end where another's begins" (or something like that)
>If some people own/manage a private college, it is their right as a college to accept whoever they please based on their own credentials
I do think private colleges do actually have that right
How many all white colleges do you know of? Yet there are all minority schools. So yes they can setup their own credentials but only to a degree.Quote:
>If some people own/manage a private college, it is their right as a college to accept whoever they please based on their own credentials
I do think private colleges do actually have that right
That duty also includes ensuring that said businesses have qualified personnel. Forcing a company to hire someone that is less qualfied than someone else applying for a job is WRONG. Plain and simple.Quote:
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities. And one of those rights is to not be discriminated against when looking for employment. So the government has a duty to force business owners to not discriminate in their hiring practices.
exactly, you know what the problem is in America? It is that everyone expects to get their "fair share". The constitution gives the right to pursue happiness, not obtain it always.Quote:
hat duty also includes ensuring that said businesses have qualified personnel. Forcing a company to hire someone that is less qualfied than someone else applying for a job is WRONG. Plain and simple.
Everyone faces prejudice at sometime in their life, for example computer programmers, who are often the nerds of school, who are picked on etc., I don't see an affirmative action plan for nerds. If I don't hire minorities, it is my business. why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education, when over 80% of them cannot read by the time they get out of highschool, a group that although it represents 12% of the US population as a whole, commits 59% of the homicides, and represents around half of all welfare recipients. I would not be rascist, I would be logical, would you hire a white person who: could not read or write, was a convicted felon, and was a beggar? I don't think so.
This is pretty easy to beat. If I have two people, woman A, women B, competing for a business administration position:Quote:
One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities. And one of those rights is to not be discriminated against when looking for employment. So the government has a duty to force business owners to not discriminate in their hiring practices.
Women A is a graduate of harvard university, obtained a 4.0 GPA, and worked with Alan Greenspan during the course of a year internship.
Women B is a graduate of the University of Arkansas, obtained a 3.0GPA there, and has no internship/employment records.
This is often what is on people's resumes in summation. Who am I going to choose, or even interview? Woman A, or woman B? It does not matter what race they are. However, by affirmative action rules, if I have a place that has only 30% blacks working, and Woman B is black, I have to HIRE HER over Woman A, or not hire at all. How does that make sense?
>How many all white colleges do you know of?
who in their right minds would want to go to a "all white" (by design) college. It would not succeed.
>Yet there are all minority schools.
I dont know of a single school that rejects applicants simply becuase they are not of a particular minority race. Please give some examples.
>Everyone faces prejudice at sometime in their life, for example computer programmers, who are often the nerds of school, who are picked on etc.
Thats not prejudice.
>why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education, when over 80% of them cannot read by the time they get out of highschool, a group that although it represents 12% of the US population as a whole, commits 59% of the homicides, and represents around half of all welfare recipients
Now this is! Firstly, where the hell are you getting these stats from? Secondly, attitudes like this is why we still need AA today.
No one is asking you to hire an illiterate person for a job that requires one to be able to read.
> That duty also includes ensuring that said businesses have qualified personnel.
>This is pretty easy to beat. If I have two people, woman A, women B, competing for a business administration position:...
You are citing an extreme case. A much more likely senario is given two qualified applicants for a particular job, one minority and one not, a business would have to hire the minority if their workforce didnt meet a certain race distribution.
>>A much more likely senario is given two qualified applicants for a particular job, one minority and one not, a business would have to hire the minority if their workforce didnt meet a certain race distribution.
And you're trying to tell me that that isn't racist? C'mon! Given the two equals, a business should not be "forced" to pick one or the other. The decision should then move onto other characteristics of the individuals (attitude, presentability, etc.)
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you're a minority. Am I right?
Have you ever been in debt from college while a less deserving (in terms of financial need) minority recieves scholarships that you could have gotten if they had been open to you? That's not affirmative action, but it's the same damn concept.
STFU.
Echo Clownpimp.
echo ober
:D
Well, I thought you already said they're equal...if they really are equal, then you've already weighed all of the possible qualifications to determine that they're equal, and subsequently if you need to meet a race distribution then I could see, in this case, why it is somewhat reasonable to pick the minority person. Otherwise they're unequal, and they should be chosen by the superior qualifications.Quote:
The decision should then move onto other characteristics of the individuals (attitude, presentability, etc.)
STFU
hehe, jk :)
EDIT:
I just want to re-iterate (after re-reading your college scholarship example) that I really do think merit should be based on performance and qualifications, not race (either for or against any race)
Quote:
Originally posted by sean_mackrory
I've got a couple of short points to make.
First of all, another echo to ober, I was thinking the exact same words.
Second, I never had slaves. I never forced segregation. I shouldn't be excluded from scholarships and college application benefits because I'm white. That's just more discrimination.
Third, having been to Africa very recently, and having seen how the blacks live there, anyone who is expecting repayment for having been taken out is an idiot. Yes slavery was tough, but that was for the ancestors of today's African-Americans. Where they are now, they're way better off. If anything, you should only be asking for repayment on things that happen now.
Four, about things that happen now. Don't expect legal immunity because you're black. As soon as a black celebrity is arrested for something like child molestation, the race card is played inevitably EVERY time.
Hmmm.... isnt this a bit rude... And i agree with some of your points.. but if i am right.. wasnt the legal system biased against the blacks for some time....
i might be worng...
>>One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities.<<
Actually it's not. The purpose of government is to prevent coercion. If I hold a gun to your head and say "Let me work for you, for at least $5.25 an hour, or I'll blow your brains out." that is a form of coercion and I have no right in doing that.
Whether its me or the government, it's wrong.
>>"one persons personal freedoms end where another's begins"<<
This is absolutely correct; apparently you don't know what this quote means.
We live in a capitalist society, not a socialist one. If I start a private business or institution, it is well within my rights to conduct that institution how I see fit.
If people don't like the services or products I offer, then they do not conduct business with me. If potential employees do not like the terms I set forth in my business (rate of pay, rules of conduct, etc.) then they do not apply for employment. If, for any reason, I do not like a potential employee it is well within my right to not hire that employee.
It is not within the government's right to tell me how to run my peaceful, private business/institution.
>>The constitution gives the right to pursue happiness, not obtain it always.<<
This is a very good point. I have the right to free speech, but I do not have the right to compel others to provide my forum. I have the right to earn a living, yet I do not hold the right to compel others to provide my living.
>And you're trying to tell me that that isn't racist? C'mon! Given the two equals, a business should not be "forced" to pick one or the other. The decision should then move onto other characteristics of the individuals (attitude, presentability, etc.)
As I stated in my first post to this thread i agree that it is a form of racism. But racial bias in procedure is much more preferrable than racial bias in outcome.
>I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you're a minority. Am I right?
Yup.
>Have you ever been in debt from college while a less deserving (in terms of financial need) minority recieves scholarships that you could have gotten if they had been open to you? That's not affirmative action, but it's the same damn concept.
Well, no. Minority only scholarships are created by private organizations. AA is enforced by the federal government. There are scholarships for all kinds of things: being disabled, knowing how to fly a plane, being the child of a member of a certain organization, being an avid square dancer, etc. Minority only scholarships are no different.
>STFU.
calm down d00d.
>Actually it's not.
Actually it is. Why do you think we have the Bill of Rights?
>If I start a private business or institution, it is well within my rights to conduct that institution how I see fit.
Yes, but you dont--and shouldnt have the right to discriminate.
>It is not within the government's right to tell me how to run my peaceful, private business/institution.
It is if Congress says it is =P
That has to be the greatest quote in this thread so far.Quote:
See, I would just blame the British.
j/k :D
maybe we should blame the French instead... ;)
>>Why do you think we have the Bill of Rights?<<
I'm sorry; I suppose I mislead you. Of course the Government should protect rights of minorities. But they should protect the rights of everyone else also...and equally I might add.
(BTW, Madison--the chief author of the Bill of Rights--believed adding the Bill of Rights was redundant; he thought every right the BoR affords to Americans were already embedded into the Constitution. Just some food for thought.)
>>and shouldnt have the right to discriminate.<<
Are you kidding me? People forget that not all discrimination is bad. Discrimination is why we have women bathrooms and men bathrooms. It's why we catch many criminals; witnesses are able to say "It was a white short dude." or "It was a tall black dude."
We Americans have the right to discriminate.
If I have a business, and you come to me asking for work, I have the right to not hire you because you're a minority. (I wouldn't ever do that, mind you; I'd assess your employment based on merit alone, but I'm trying to prove a point here.) Besides, you wouldn't even be at my doorstep in the first place if it wasn't FOR ME OWNING THE BUSINESS.
You're crazy if you don't think I should be able to hire who I please based on what I please. You also insult me as a business owner myself.
When the Government forces me to hire someone, it implies that it has a higher claim on my business than I do. Are you saying that the Government owns my business more than I do?
>>It is if Congress says it is =P<<
I assume you're joking; in that case, funny. However, if you're serious, Congress once upheld the assertion that slaves were not citizens, had no rights, and were the rightful posessions of slaveowners.
where did I get it? the US statistical Abstracts by the US Census bureau, of course I guess they are rascists...Quote:
cloudpimp :
Now this is! Firstly, where the hell are you getting these stats from? Secondly, attitudes like this is why we still need AA today.
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/
EDIT: PS I was slightly wrong, it is close to 42.8% for homicide
Congratulations on finding the root of the problem.Quote:
why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education
> People forget that not all discrimination is bad.
I mean discrimination in the sense of choosing or not choosing someone because of their race.
>the US statistical Abstracts by the US Census bureau, of course I guess they are rascists
I didnt say that the statistics were discrimination, I said your statement was discrimination ("why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education....")
>If I have a business, and you come to me asking for work, I have the right to not hire you because you're a minority.
Again, businesses do not and should not have that right. You need to look back 100 or so years and see what practices like this did to minority groups, specifically blacks.
ClownPimp, though I agree with you for the most part, I disagree with this. That statement wasn't discrimination, rather it was a sad statement of fact. The thing is, if education was handled properly, not much of this would be an issue. The portion of minorities that were better prepared, trained, or educated for these businesses would very likely start to bring the numbers closer together (becuase, more minority candidates would be more qualified), so this would not be much of an issue.Quote:
I didnt say that the statistics were discrimination, I said your statement was discrimination ("why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education....")
STATISTICS are like a mini skirt....they show a lot, but the most important part remains hidden.
See, I try to inject humour, and the thread is still going downhill as per usual.Quote:
Originally posted by DavidP
That has to be the greatest quote in this thread so far.
j/k :D
maybe we should blame the French instead... ;)
And blame the French for everything else, except this!
:)
>>Again, businesses do not and should not have that right.<<
One of the fruits of my labors when I start a business in a free society is running that business how I--the owner--sees fit, provided I do so in a peaceful manner that does not step on other people's rights.
Denying a person employment solely because of their race is stupid, but it's well within the realm of a business owner's rights--it IS NOT infringing on the employment-seeking-person's rights: again, earning a living IS a right; however, compelling others to provide one's living is NOT a right.
>>I mean discrimination in the sense of choosing or not choosing someone because of their race.<<
That is the definition of "racism" more or less. I doubt enacting laws against racism will prevent it. And at the same time you're taking rights away from businesses that only want to hire the person best for the job. Congratulations, you're a jackass.
I reiterate: When the Government forces me to hire someone, it implies that it has a higher claim on my business than I do. Are you saying that the Government owns my business more than I do?
0\/\/n3|)!
There are numerous regulations governing what companies can and cannot do, how is a racial quota any different?Quote:
I reiterate: When the Government forces me to hire someone, it implies that it has a higher claim on my business than I do. Are you saying that the Government owns my business more than I do?
To rectify the negative racial discrimination that exists in a society some form of positive racial discrimination does not seem to me particularly unreasonable.
We have a scenario where minorities are more likely to be born into poverty and have a poor education hence minorities have a higher percentage of criminals which further pushes an already existing racism that reduces the job prospects which acts to reinforce the poverty and the poor education cycling on and on..
Positive discrimination whether in the form of quotas or ethnic specific grants is there to break this cycle.
Wow.. an explanation i was not able to explain.. I agree completely with Clyde..
We tend to see many policies , rules etc from our viewpoint where we are the sufferers... We miss out the real intention behind them...
Society cannot afford to have one section move up the ladder and the other left behind.. The gap created will create havoc in the future.. A society will function well only if all the participtant are on the same scale of living..
the US is based on capitalism, which tends to leave some people behind. What you are describing is communism, which has societies that don't function well cause anything they do, they get the same money. Go to medical school and become a specialty surgeon which takes 12+ years after highschool, get paid the same as the person shovelling manure.Quote:
Society cannot afford to have one section move up the ladder and the other left behind.. The gap created will create havoc in the future.. A society will function well only if all the participtant are on the same scale of living..
well you have misunderstood me.. or my english is so bad i was not able to convey my thoughts...Quote:
Originally posted by EvBladeRunnervE
the US is based on capitalism, which tends to leave some people behind. What you are describing is communism, which has societies that don't function well cause anything they do, they get the same money. Go to medical school and become a specialty surgeon which takes 12+ years after highschool, get paid the same as the person shovelling manure.
I am talking about situation where one section is fully educated and the other is not.. leading to higher crime rate in a capitalistic economy..
My pointless irrelevant contribution to this thread is...
In California, everybody's a minority :P
EDIT:
To make it less pointless...
The reason that they would hire the minority in a situation is because of common racism lawsuits and other things.
They don't want to seem racist.
Thank you for watching today's episode of "Observing the Obvious."
>>There are numerous regulations governing what companies can and cannot do<<
This is correct, and most of them are in place for a good reason: they prevent coercion. Affirmative action laws are not in place to prevent cooercion, as you continue to say:
>>Positive discrimination whether in the form of quotas or ethnic specific grants is there to break this cycle.<<
The part we disagree on, Clyde--you being a devout liberal and me being a devout libertarian--is government's role in breaking this cycle.
The sole role of government (force) in a free society, Clyde, is to prevent the initiation of force: coercion. The only acceptable forms of government (force) in a free society are defensive force and retaliatory force (a.k.a. justice).
If I were to rob you, I have initiated force against you--I have infringed apon your rights. Government can step in and take action against me using retaliatory force (justice), and this would be acceptable in a free society.
However, if you come to me asking for work at my PRIVATE organization/company/institution and I refuse to enter into a mutual contract with you (hire you), for whatever reason, I have not initiated force against you--I have not infringed on your rights. (Remember, it is not your right to compel others to provide your living.) Government, in a free society, has no business stepping in and taking action against me.
So...if you want to debate whether we live in a socialist society or a free society, fine. I'd personally rather live in a free society than a socialist one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hillbillie
>>There are numerous regulations governing what companies can and cannot do<<
This is correct, and most of them are in place for a good reason: they prevent coercion. Affirmative action laws are not in place to prevent cooercion, as you continue to say:
>>Positive discrimination whether in the form of quotas or ethnic specific grants is there to break this cycle.<<
The part we disagree on, Clyde--you being a devout liberal and me being a devout libertarian--is government's role in breaking this cycle.
The sole role of government (force) in a free society, Clyde, is to prevent the initiation of force: coercion. The only acceptable forms of government (force) in a free society are defensive force and retaliatory force (a.k.a. justice).
If I were to rob you, I have initiated force against you--I have infringed apon your rights. Government can step in and take action against me using retaliatory force (justice), and this would be acceptable in a free society.
However, if you come to me asking for work at my PRIVATE organization/company/institution and I refuse to enter into a mutual contract with you (hire you), for whatever reason, I have not initiated force against you--I have not infringed on your rights. (Remember, it is not your right to compel others to provide your living.) Government, in a free society, has no business stepping in and taking action against me.
So...if you want to debate whether we live in a socialist society or a free society, fine. I'd personally rather live in a free society than a socialist one.
In a broder view if you are not hiring a person due to his color, race or any such reasons. you are then discriminating him/her... which is a legal offence..
Thoug the govt does not owns your business.. the govt has the right to see that you run your business in a fair manner.. So if the govt feels your running of a business is creating discrimination in a society it has every right to influence how you run it.. and i think that is happening now..
This may be the case in India, but that is so far from the truth in the USA. I think several of you are missing one single word that HB keeps highlighting. "PRIVATE". This means no government funding/regulation. Most times any regulation in such a case would involve meeting regulatory requirements for products.Quote:
Originally posted by vasanth
Thoug the govt does not owns your business.. the govt has the right to see that you run your business in a fair manner.. So if the govt feels your running of a business is creating discrimination in a society it has every right to influence how you run it.. and i think that is happening now..
Again, I'll reiterate what HB said. If I set up a PRIVATE company and set out to hire a few people to help me, I am not obligated to hire ANYONE I don't feel like hiring. I'm with HB when it comes to what the government should and should not have its hands in.
such as a religious organization that is private. If they are a Christian organization/business/church, they should not be required to hire muslims and jews just to balance things out. This is a type of discrimination...at the surface, but dig deeper, a muslim or jewish person is not going to contribute as well to the groups goals, be it evangelizing/maintenance of flock/etc.Quote:
If I set up a PRIVATE company and set out to hire a few people to help me, I am not obligated to hire ANYONE I don't feel like hiring. I'm with HB when it comes to what the government should and should not have its hands in.
There is no evening out in capitalism, people get what they can through competition, this is why getting into good schools is so hard, cause alot of people want to compete. You are telling me that some place like MIT(doesnt really fit as they have a large minority student population,mostly asian however) should set aside 50% of its student admissions to minorities, even if the minorities are not competent in the requirements? You will end up like the University of Michigan, where being black was more important than having perfect SATs(20pts to 16pts respectively before the change in policy).
Basic Overview: If you have the competency to compete for a job, you will get the job in this nation, rascism isn't half as prevalent as some people would have you believe. This is why at the very most, affirmative action should affect you BEFORE college. Make sure black kids get equal education as white children in K-12, which they are not currently. Do not wait till they can't read or write then give them a job that they cannot do.
Funny you think of me as a devout liberal, over here atleast among my peers my views are usually seen simply as common sense.Quote:
The part we disagree on, Clyde--you being a devout liberal and me being a devout libertarian--is government's role in breaking this cycle.
There is stuff wrong with the world, the question is what can be done towards fixing it.Quote:
So...if you want to debate whether we live in a socialist society or a free society, fine. I'd personally rather live in a free society than a socialist one.
If taking action X removes (or more realistically reduces) problem Y, and the consequences of action X are not too horrible (ie. they are not worse than problem Y) then action X is worth considering.
Your "free society" versus a "socialist society" seems to me a caricature of the issues because it simplifies them to the point of absurdity, surely as with most political ideologies there is a continuum rather than a simple either or situation. I don't agree with your strict - free society - any more than i do with communism, though i dislike them for quite different reasons ultimately it comes down to having far too simple a political ideology superimposed on a highly complex human society.
I think we are far better off evaluating individual issues as they come rather than sticking blindly to an essentially arbitrary set of 'political principles'.
Why should governments only role be to prevent initiation of force when they could do so much more? Governments are the most powerfull institutions that exist they are the mechanism by which societies act as a group, they have the power to solve or at the very least improve numerous social problems, why waste that power?
>>why waste that power?
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...Quote:
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.
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.
No NO NOO!
You always do this. You broaden a topic to the point that you cannot be wrong.
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.
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.
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. 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.
Same applies for the day when I launch my own company and start looking for qualified programmers. I have yet to see a resume/CV with a person's race on it. And I certainly wouldn't judge who should get the job depending on what a person looks like. I'd judge it on who can do the job best. And I don't think my governing body should have a problem with that.
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.
And with that, I wave the 1 finger salute and step out of this thread. :o
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?
... 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.Quote:
You always do this. You broaden a topic to the point that you cannot be wrong.
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.Quote:
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 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.
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.Quote:
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
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
I don't think that just because private buisnesses are private buisnesses mean that they are above ANY sort of consideration.
... there is simply nothing i can say to something like this.Quote:
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.
actually, now that the situation has turned towards general compensation towards minorities, I am agreeing with you Clyde. Ober, look at this, you pay federal taxes and register with federal organizations when you start your business, no matter whether or not it is private. Therefore, you abide by your business licenses terms, which usually include anti-discrimination policies. Starting a business without a license will get you sent to jail I do believe.Quote:
I don't think that just because private buisnesses are private buisnesses mean that they are above ANY sort of consideration.
>>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. :)
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.Quote:
And your position on this that the community is more important than the individual is completely inane
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.Quote:
We live in a free society
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.Quote:
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.
People are also naturally inclined to screw over other people just take a look around the world past and present to see numerous examples.Quote:
'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.
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.
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.Quote:
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!
Quality of life is the quality of living, freedom is simply a subset of it.Quote:
No. It's not.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.
i wonder what scholarships michael jackson would've gotten
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?
Future Molesters of AmericaQuote:
i wonder what scholarships michael jackson would've gotten
I read the first page and this page....
From White Scholarships to Illegal Drugs?
That's one of the biggest jumps I've ever seen in a single thread.
>>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.
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:Quote:
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?
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.
I think most of you are too young (and the wrong races) to have realy experienced racism.
I think ALL of you would think differently if it was you being discriminated against.
Don't be fooled racism exists still.
>>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.<<
Because I remember how it was, and see it lingering still.
The referendum in Australia in 1967 where Aborigines were given citizenship (after they were given the vote in 1965).
How in 1968 Aborigines were still not allowed to swim in the same pools, or sit in the good seats in the cinema.
How they were taken from their parents and sent to mission schools. Their wages collected and kept from them. All in an attempt to wipe them out by 'assimilation'. How we treated the Aboriginal vets of WW1, WW2 and Vietnam makes my blood boil.
I'm sorry for what we did to Aborigines, even if it was done with the best of intentions. I did not do it, but Aborigines are still affected now.
Accept that we still need to discriminate to even the balance. Centuries of discrimination will not disappear in a few decades.
Quote:
Originally posted by novacain
Accept that we still need to discriminate to even the balance. Centuries of discrimination will not disappear in a few decades.
I'm sorry for what we did to Aborigines, even if it was done with the best of intentions. I did not do it, but Aborigines are still affected now.
[/B]
Two wrongs never make a right.
Doris Pilkington, in the book, Rabbit-Proof Fence writes of the oppression caused by a government agency that supported the horrific program of breeding the native blood out of aborigines.
Time and time again, it is the professional do-gooders of the world, under the cover of "protecting the good of society", who use government coercion to cause more human suffering and misery than all the work of petty criminals combined. Who are you to think that you know what is best for other people and FORCE them to abide by your prescriptions? You are no different than those who thought they knew best by "helping" the aborigines.
Why not work to undo injustices, compensate the injured, and work to restore what was wrongfully taken?
Instead you must find new victims to punish for the misdeeds of former misguided government policies with ever new misguided policies!
I don't subscribe to the faith that government will "even the balance" by launching new policies of discrimination, even if not as overtly rapeful as prior government policies.
The solution every time is to stop the cycle of initiation of force by taking the guns out of the hands of dangerous elitist politicians and their minions who think they know how to manage the affairs of everybody else.
I think that is basically what this dicussion boils down to. It isn't fair that a person gets special treatment. I think people forget that there are many inequalities that the government tries to manage. They give preference to certain business to stimulate growth. They give grants if you live in a certain area. Incentives are given here and there for various things. The whole purpose is to encourage a specific trend. If you as a PRIVATE business didn't have special treatment then Huge coorporations in their right to do business could move into your area and monopoloize. Why do you think we have anit trust laws. To protect small business from the big sharks. It wouldn't be fair you couldn't compete with the big guys could you? Now if we didnt' have those special anti trust laws then we would have one big company that could keep out all the little companies. Not very fair is it. Not without those special incentives and protections. If you couldn't break into the marketplace how could you compete? You couldn't you eventually would be squashed and go out of business. If no one wanted to do business with you just because your a small businness and not some big corporation. Now that woulldn't be fair would it. Now if you were a crappy business and you sucked that is different but if the ONLY reason NO ONE would do businness with you is because your a small business wouldn't you think that is an unfair reason not to do business with you. Sort of a discrimination against small business. Wouldn't you want some sort of balance put in place so that you could break in and compete? You wouldn't be able to compete otherwise. You could still try to set up your business but with everyone discriminating against you just because your a small business you won't succeed. You could say that it is a kind of affirmative action for small business. Granted the big companies are not compelled to do business with you just because you are a small business. But if there were discrimintaion against small business I bet there would be a law compelling companies to do business with you, so that you could compete because that would be the only way to ensure that you could compete. Big companies are restricted in how they do business, in order to protect your right as a small business to do business. Now lets say those anit trust laws suddenly dissapeared. What do you think would happen? Congress is full of lobbists trying to convice congressmen that they deserve special treatment because blah blah blah isn't fair. This industry needs a tax break so we can make more money and stimulate the economy or we need to raise tarrifs on imports because our businesses are loosing money to foreign companies. This is just another balancing act because life isn't fair. Deal with it.
This discussion ended SIX DAYS AGO. LET IT DIE.