Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?

[Brian Blackwell]

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society
Oliver Wendell Holmes

Should we call it "civilized" to demand a portion of people's labor by threat of violence? That's typically called "extortion" or "slavery".

Is it "civilized" to have people in a constant arena battle over a dangling sword of power which they scramble around like pigs at a trough, hoping they can use it to slash at their neighbor before their neighbor uses it to slash at them?

I think it far more civilized to acknowledge each person's self-ownership, and to use persuasion via sound arguments to elicit their voluntary support. Wouldn't you agree?

Sure, in a utopia. Do you know where I can find one?

You don't find a utopia, you help to create one. Or at least as close as you can get; I don't believe in the idea of utopias, as a "perfect" society implies a limitation on progress.

In any case, your flippant comment does not address the point being made. I have challenged the notion of our current society as "civilized" and you have not satisfied that challenge. How can a society built upon coercive violence ever be deemed "civilized"? I submit that we must either work toward solutions that do not rely on such barbarism, or relinquish the claim to "civilization".

Taxes are not the price we pay to live in a civilized society, they are the protection money we pay to a mob of violent gangsters so they will direct their aggression toward others, instead of us. And they put that money to good use; just ask the people in Iraq how strong those gangsters have gotten with our assistance. But hey, at least we're safe... for now.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I think you're a fruit loop.

And I think you're incapable of defending your position so you resort to insult and dismissal.

 

[BS Filter]

I think you're a fruit loop.

And I think you're incapable of defending your position so you resort to insult and dismissal.

I think you're a fruit loop.

And I think you're incapable of defending your position so you resort to insult and dismissal.

I did defend my position. You're not listening. You're an echo chamber.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cool, then get out of the United States and find yourself a country which will a) take you, b) tolerate your arrogance, and c) tolerate your narcissistic view of the world.

Millions of us served our nation, and in doing so took the oath to support and defend the supreme law of our land. It's not perfect, and is under the threat by someone like you who believes he is the central power.

The genius in our form of government is We the People have never tolerated extremists, and no matter how the ship of state's helmsman goes awry, the people will be sure to change the watch and select a new Captain.

So I am required to leave the place of my birth in order to assert my inherent self-ownership? You believe I should not lay claim to my inherent equality, which dictates that no man is innately superior to myself, and thus his will has no claim over my own in benign personal matters?

Am I really the one who wants to be the "central power"? I am claiming power over my life only, whereas every time someone votes they are supporting a central power over others, and trying to bring it into alignment with their own will. Is it not so?

"We The People" have not tolerated extremists? What do you think Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Henry, et al, would say if they could see how far we've come from the Declaration, or even the less noble Constitution? It was Jefferson who said "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; & that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." And yet we abide our "representatives" to permit the Federal Reserve to blatantly fleece the nation on a scale unimaginable in 1776. We abide incessant wars abroad which funnel billions upon billions of dollars upward toward war profiteers, while destroying millions of families at home and abroad, as warned against by Major General Smedley Butler:



We abide egregious infringements to the 2nd Amendment as gun laws threaten the people's right and ability to defend themselves against tyranny, and the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" (two endeavors so obviously impossible as to warrant skepticism about their motives) ravage the individual liberties "guaranteed" by the 4th Amendment (so much for guarantees).

Change the Captain all you want; your choices for his replacement are carefully selected for you to ensure that the new one will maintain the course toward your enslavement (which, if you are exceedingly lucky, will remain as the free-range variety rooted in willful ignorance rather than physical dominance). You think people with the wealth and power to influence such decisions will simply sit back and let nature take its course? They did not get where they are by being passive. They can finance campaigns and direct the media to present the options they want you to choose. It's child's play to present options that will serve them well regardless of which way the rabble vote. If the people vote Republican, they make progress toward further control along the right-hand path; if Democrat, along the left-hand path. Over time, the progression along both roads is assured, and all the while the spirit of popular revolt is vented by the illusion of choice.

This is your great Democratic Republic. Swear your allegiance to that, if you will.

Good grief, you really are too full of yourself. One example, in the world you want a person can drive as fast as they want, if and only if they do not harm another.

In this same world, the driver would eventually harm another, but the injured would lay where s/he fell, since we are all only responsible for our self.

Libertarianism is an artifact of a 20th century Utopian's dream. Human nature does not change, and will not change in a 1,000 years.

The age of Enlightenment brought us the Social Contract Theory, something akin to the Golden Rule; you want yours, but your and very few others reject personal responsibility for taking care of others.

Ayn Rand was a hypocrite, a dreamer and nothing more than a writer of fiction.

 

[IM2]

AA is very harmful and racist. It's harmful in that it takes away motivation and the struggle to succeed that everyone should go through in life to build character and integrity. Another liberal failure.

Wrong. Before you post again, go study American history.

 

[IM2]

A Dennis Prager video? And we are supposed to take this seriously?

Please don't do that; it diminishes the integrity of public discourse. Refute the argument, not the speaker.

I refute the speaker because of his argument. His opinion degrades public discourse. How can an old white man comment on affirmative action considering the things whites have got only because of race for his entire life? I get a little tired of this fake ass amnesia white people at trying to pull.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another day of Rush Limbaugh 101. Let people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is the road to success and depending on government is both evil and the road to failure. But it's ok to bail out banks, subsidize corporations, let the very wealthy claim the cayman islands as their residence for tax purposes, even allow corporations to declare themselves citizens and say money is speech.

Reduction of taxes is not "subsidizing". Would you prefer the people be housed and fed by government taxes rather that supporting themselves with a job?

Your question is a simple one, which has a complex answer.

The GOP opposes minimum wage laws, labor unions, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, the PPACA and supports corporate welfare. Don't confuse the new Tax Bill as anything which will benefit the middle classes, the working poor or the poor in the long run.

There are solutions to our massive debt, but they require pragmatic, fair and cost-beneficial thinkers. The new tax bill was thought out, but ideological, not pragmatic and will produce a massive deficit and a growing national debt.

It is developed to make the wealthy richer at the expense of the rest of us. If you believe otherwise, you have once again been fooled by a new iteration of Trickle Down Economics and the pittance you will receive for the next couple of years.

 

[kaz]

Just saw this video in my feed and was quite shocked at the stats it puts forward.

AA is helpful to white women. Historically it has been very helpful to white men.

What the hell are you talking about? I doubt you know either

 

[kaz]

Affirmative action hurts those more qualified...needs to end

Dingbat ^^^

Q. [for white people] Would you feel safe if every police officer, deputy sheriff, prosecuting attorney, public defender, fireman, EMT,school teacher, principle and member of the Board of Education in your home town was black?

Yes or no

You're the only one obsessed with the color of the cop you racist sack of shit. It's about whether they do their job, not what color they are at all. Most cops black and white do a good job. The bad ones need to be weeded out regardless of color, grand wizard

 

[kaz]

Another day of Rush Limbaugh 101. Let people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is the road to success and depending on government is both evil and the road to failure. But it's ok to bail out banks, subsidize corporations, let the very wealthy claim the cayman islands as their residence for tax purposes, even allow corporations to declare themselves citizens and say money is speech.

Reduction of taxes is not "subsidizing". Would you prefer the people be housed and fed by government taxes rather that supporting themselves with a job?

Your question is a simple one, which has a complex answer.

The GOP opposes minimum wage laws, labor unions, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, the PPACA and supports corporate welfare. Don't confuse the new Tax Bill as anything which will benefit the middle classes, the working poor or the poor in the long run.

There are solutions to our massive debt, but they require pragmatic, fair and cost-beneficial thinkers. The new tax bill was thought out, but ideological, not pragmatic and will produce a massive deficit and a growing national debt.

It is developed to make the wealthy richer at the expense of the rest of us. If you believe otherwise, you have once again been fooled by a new iteration of Trickle Down Economics and the pittance you will receive for the next couple of years.

Another leftist liar who can't address actual positions. You know you're an idiot because you have to lie

The GOP opposes minimum wage laws - most Republicans support minimum wage laws because they're idiots who don't know that wage limits are hurdles and not tides

labor unions - another lie. Most Republicans oppose compulsory unions, not unions

social security / Medicare - the biggest whopper of all your lies. Republicans overwhelmingly support these programs as they are dependency whores like you are

Medicaid - just another lie, a day at the office for you. Republicans don't oppose welfare, not at all. Republicans grow wealth programs redistribution a fraction of a percent less than your party does and you fall and wail we're all going to die

The PPACA and supports corporate welfare - yeah, socialized medicine is corporate welfare. Actually Obamacare is doing as it was designed to do. Bombing corporations with costs and bureaucracy to make them drop medical care so you can get single payer through

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, I "get to" vote for the person of my choice, and that justifies everything that happens afterward? Very well then... This coming Saturday, I will arrive at your house with my brother. I will promise to beat you with a club, he will promise to whip you lash you with a whip. You "get to" choose which one you want, so whatever happens after that is fair and just - after all, you chose it.

Except, no you didn't choose it; you were never given a choice not to be beaten at all. You see the point?

You are goofy

I’m sure you have no clue. Your attempts to derail this thread need to be ignored

Saying I am goofy and need to be ignored does not address the point being made. You believe that voting answers for all, and I have provided an example that illustrates the lunacy of that premise. If you are so sure of your position, you should have no problem demonstrating how my example fails to make that point.

You are a goofy anarchist
Now, try to get back on topic

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I did defend my position. You're not listening. You're an echo chamber.

Well, if I missed it, please repeat it, because I honestly do not know what defense you're referring to. Here is the comment that has yet to be addressed:

"The delegation of rights to representatives by voters who themselves are not in possession of such rights."

You're answer to this so far has basically been, "They just do". Repeating the civics mythology does not address the core issue here. How does Congress obtain the right to "lay and collect taxes" from the people, when none of the people have that right themselves?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Oh, I "get to" vote for the person of my choice, and that justifies everything that happens afterward? Very well then... This coming Saturday, I will arrive at your house with my brother. I will promise to beat you with a club, he will promise to whip you lash you with a whip. You "get to" choose which one you want, so whatever happens after that is fair and just - after all, you chose it.

Except, no you didn't choose it; you were never given a choice not to be beaten at all. You see the point?

You are goofy

I’m sure you have no clue. Your attempts to derail this thread need to be ignored

Saying I am goofy and need to be ignored does not address the point being made. You believe that voting answers for all, and I have provided an example that illustrates the lunacy of that premise. If you are so sure of your position, you should have no problem demonstrating how my example fails to make that point.

You are a goofy anarchist
Now, try to get back on topic

Ok, so you have no argument to support your assertion that voting justifies everything that happens afterward. If you're satisfied with this, so be it. The question is very on-topic, because the question is "Affirmative Action: helpful or harmful" to which I answer "harmful" because it employs coercive violence to infringe upon the individual's freedom of association, under the fallacious guise of authority. You are arguing that this authority is valid because people vote for the "representatives" who would initiate this violence. I am arguing that voting does not grant valid authority, nor make all actions of the representative just or moral, even if those actions are "legal" (i.e. someone wrote them down somewhere).

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, I "get to" vote for the person of my choice, and that justifies everything that happens afterward? Very well then... This coming Saturday, I will arrive at your house with my brother. I will promise to beat you with a club, he will promise to whip you lash you with a whip. You "get to" choose which one you want, so whatever happens after that is fair and just - after all, you chose it.

Except, no you didn't choose it; you were never given a choice not to be beaten at all. You see the point?

You are goofy

I’m sure you have no clue. Your attempts to derail this thread need to be ignored

Saying I am goofy and need to be ignored does not address the point being made. You believe that voting answers for all, and I have provided an example that illustrates the lunacy of that premise. If you are so sure of your position, you should have no problem demonstrating how my example fails to make that point.

You are a goofy anarchist
Now, try to get back on topic

Ok, so you have no argument to support your assertion that voting justifies everything that happens afterward. If you're satisfied with this, so be it. The question is very on-topic, because the question is "Affirmative Action: helpful or harmful" to which I answer "harmful" because it employs coercive violence to infringe upon the individual's freedom of association, under the fallacious guise of authority. You are arguing that this authority is valid because people vote for the "representatives" who would initiate this violence. I am arguing that voting does not grant valid authority, nor make all actions of the representative just or moral, even if those actions are "legal" (i.e. someone wrote them down somewhere).

Hey Goofy

Your post has nothing to do with Affirmative Action
Stop derailing the thread

 

[bendog]

Oh, I "get to" vote for the person of my choice, and that justifies everything that happens afterward? Very well then... This coming Saturday, I will arrive at your house with my brother. I will promise to beat you with a club, he will promise to whip you lash you with a whip. You "get to" choose which one you want, so whatever happens after that is fair and just - after all, you chose it.

Except, no you didn't choose it; you were never given a choice not to be beaten at all. You see the point?

You are goofy

I’m sure you have no clue. Your attempts to derail this thread need to be ignored

Saying I am goofy and need to be ignored does not address the point being made. You believe that voting answers for all, and I have provided an example that illustrates the lunacy of that premise. If you are so sure of your position, you should have no problem demonstrating how my example fails to make that point.

You are a goofy anarchist
Now, try to get back on topic

Ok, so you have no argument to support your assertion that voting justifies everything that happens afterward. If you're satisfied with this, so be it. The question is very on-topic, because the question is "Affirmative Action: helpful or harmful" to which I answer "harmful" because it employs coercive violence to infringe upon the individual's freedom of association, under the fallacious guise of authority. You are arguing that this authority is valid because people vote for the "representatives" who would initiate this violence. I am arguing that voting does not grant valid authority, nor make all actions of the representative just or moral, even if those actions are "legal" (i.e. someone wrote them down somewhere).

Hey Goofy

Your post has nothing to do with Affirmative Action
Stop derailing the thread

And with respect to Grandpa, he didn't really specify whether he was speaking of govt mandated AA in hiring by both govt and private employers, preferences pubic schools give to various groups of applicants or preferences given by private employers for social and business reasons of their own without any govt coercion.

I avoided the thread since it was so ... large ... the discussion was bound to be unfocused.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government is absolutely the worst form or money handling. It doesn't care about incompetence, waste, fraud, etc. It's not their money. When and if it needs more, it takes it from the producers. The smaller the government, the better.

We have the most effective government in the world

If you disagree, name one that is superior

Our government is the best in the world provided it's not abused. When you have a President or others in his club using our federal agencies to spy and defeat political opposition, it is being abused.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The WeakWhite Supremacists on this board who see no need for Affirmative Action are the same ones that argue for Jim Crow.

Ignorance is Bliss to these unsalvageables.

Really? So who here argued for Jim Crow?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Oh, I "get to" vote for the person of my choice, and that justifies everything that happens afterward? Very well then... This coming Saturday, I will arrive at your house with my brother. I will promise to beat you with a club, he will promise to whip you lash you with a whip. You "get to" choose which one you want, so whatever happens after that is fair and just - after all, you chose it.

Except, no you didn't choose it; you were never given a choice not to be beaten at all. You see the point?

You are goofy

I’m sure you have no clue. Your attempts to derail this thread need to be ignored

Saying I am goofy and need to be ignored does not address the point being made. You believe that voting answers for all, and I have provided an example that illustrates the lunacy of that premise. If you are so sure of your position, you should have no problem demonstrating how my example fails to make that point.

You are a goofy anarchist
Now, try to get back on topic

Ok, so you have no argument to support your assertion that voting justifies everything that happens afterward. If you're satisfied with this, so be it. The question is very on-topic, because the question is "Affirmative Action: helpful or harmful" to which I answer "harmful" because it employs coercive violence to infringe upon the individual's freedom of association, under the fallacious guise of authority. You are arguing that this authority is valid because people vote for the "representatives" who would initiate this violence. I am arguing that voting does not grant valid authority, nor make all actions of the representative just or moral, even if those actions are "legal" (i.e. someone wrote them down somewhere).

Hey Goofy

Your post has nothing to do with Affirmative Action
Stop derailing the thread

So if I start a new thread, will you answer the question?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My choices? Do you think I have a choice in where my property tax goes?

You seem to understand the injustice in taking the fruit of your labor by threat of violence and using it in ways you don't necessarily agree with (or even have outright moral objections to). What I don't understand is why you continue to support such a system. I assume you also recognize that this is wrong as applied to others, even if their priorities differ from your own (in other words, it's equally wrong to force others to pay for those things that you deem important). Why do you abide this injustice? You always have a choice. You can choose to remove your support from this system where possible, and speak out against it; but so far you seem to be supporting the Republican party, which makes you an accomplice in these crimes. Wouldn't you rather be condoning true freedom and self-ownership? It seems that would be more in keeping with your values.

There are only two ways to vote in this country: Republican or Democrat. Voting on anybody or anything else is just throwing your vote away.

Since most of us will never find a person or party we totally agree with, the only thing you can do is vote as close as you can get to what you believe.

Why do I abide by this injustice? Because if I don't pay my taxes, they will see me in court. If I still refuse to pay my taxes, they will sue me out of house and home. Again, no choice in the matter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My parents did not pay for all my education. They raised four kids and paid around $400 a year in real estate taxes. That didn’t come close to paying for our education

I didn’t pay for my children’s education either. What I paid in taxes didn’t come close to what it cost to educate them

Correct, and do you know why? Because the people with no kids in school were subsidizing you and your children's education. Nothing is free. Free to a liberal means no charge to you, and foot the bill to somebody else.