NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't suppose I was explicit enough. I was talking about the military, which does have career firefighters, as well as a number of other physically challenging fields, some of which I mentioned.

Then I shall assume that the military sets appropriate physical standards for those fields.

This is not relevant to the basic point, however. I agree with you, 100%, that where particular physical abilities are required to perform a job, it would be ludicrous to lower those standards for women. For jobs, however, in which the basic requirement is physical health and fitness, then the necessary scores should be scaled to the abilities of men and women, so that men's tests measure men's fitness, and women's tests measure women's fitness.

It all depends on what is the relevant qualification. I believe in equal qualifications, which does not necessarily mean equivalent test scores.

None of this changes my opinion, that affirmative action is like slapping a band-aid on a gaping wound. It's the wrong course. I believe attacking poverty would be a better use of federal time, energy and funds.

I agree wholeheartedly that the government should spare no effort in fighting poverty. However, I also know that studies have shown that race is a more significant factor than poverty in all the relevant indicators. In other words, poor whites still do significantly better than poor blacks.

What "expense of the majority"? Do you see the white majority suffering?

In short, much to my chagrin, yes. We are verbally abused, essentially barred from certain regions by virtue of our skin, disposed of in all applications in favour of the immigrant, and yet informed we are the priveliged majority who oppresses the truly benign below us.




In what fantasy world are minorities "superior legally" to the white majority?

The world wherein I, a memebr of the majority, the original inhabitants of our fair Isle, may be racially abused for daring to be fully British, but my riposte is considered illegal. The very same world wherein the right and the fascist is stifled for advocating nationalism, but no labour politicain will overtly interdict the advocation of anti-white pogroms.

...
None of this changes my opinion, that affirmative action is like slapping a band-aid on a gaping wound. It's the wrong course. I believe attacking poverty would be a better use of federal time, energy and funds.

There are some concerns with the affirmative action stratagem, at least so far as it applies to university and higher education enrolment rates (regardless of how any of us feel about affirmative action itself). The concern here is that there might not be enough 'qualified' applicant's to achieve the desired outcome (with or without the AA in place) if there is simply be an inability to find qualified applicants to make the AA efforts successful.

Meaning: The cause of a lack of qualified applicants to Universities (and gainful employment thereafter) is more likely linked directly to over-representation in high-school drop out rates than to any other single reason, including racism in the society at large. For example: If 10% of a community is a minority group which suffers a drop out rate of 40% and this groups exists in a society at large that suffers from less than a 5% high-school dropout rate (like in the Twin Cities where our community colleges cater to underprivileged and adult returning students) then some of our minority groups (we have 71 recognized languages spoken at home in the family groups of the students in our city public schools system) these groups with high drop-out rates will by default be equally under-represented in higher education enrollment ratios despite out best efforts with AA programs or not.

We cannot stabilize higher education enrolment rates and percentages to match the community population percentages until we can get the community population in the high school graduation rates to match those percentages first.

In our community (I live and work in the Twin Cities) we are trying to address some of these issues today. We are promoting and pushing our free ESL courses and free community remedial courses (basic essentials like math and reading comprehension) in an effort to re-attract these lost young people that have already slipped through the system and have not graduated from high-school, or, if they have graduated they may not be academically able or ready to prosper in a higher education environment. We are also attempting to fight the hopelessness in high-school students before they have decided to drop out, discouraged that they will never be able to afford college or achieve gainful employment (frequently thinking this falsely mind you) but discouraged by thinking that they won’t qualify for assistance or scholarships and grants, so they don’t ‘bother’ to apply themselves and they don’t try to graduate from high school prepared for higher education.

In fact, this very month, we just had our ribbon cutting ceremony to establish “The Promise of You,” a program for inner city high-school graduates. It is essentially a promise to all of the current public high-school students in Minneapolis and St. Paul that if they graduate from high school and speak to one of our counselors and allow us to help them apply to every Pell grant and scholarship program that they may be qualified for, our new “The Promise of You” program will pick up any of the costs and fees for all of their credits or books that are above and beyond any other monies they can get first, (meaning they will go to school for free one way or the other). We are betting that they will get most of their financial educational needs met from the standard systems already in place before our monies are used).

This is the initial release of this program so I don’t have any results to reveal yet. This program is funded entirely from local community business and private donors, with the collaboration of both of the Twin City mayors and both school boards, but we are not using any public education money at all. We only require that the students go to one of the three sponsor schools participating in the foundation trial (two community Colleges and one inner city University). I personally hope that systems like ours will be able to directly have an impact on minority population education ratios and thereafter, gainful employment. Either way we will be to immediately help the large percentage of the forgotten minority (and poor) masses that have been ignored or unhelped by the AA systems for the elite schools and programs already out there.

If you want to know more about the situation we are trying to address in the Twin Cities, you can read more here:
http://www.mcknight.org/hotissues/framing_censusd.aspx

Studies like this have resulted in the program I mentioned above, things do not happen overnight.

The Power of You:
http://www.minneapolis.edu/powerofyou/index.cfm

Article in local paper about the “coming out” party:
http://www.startribune.com/1592/story/172266.html


Back and forth tit for tat with Disraeliland 3 post number 231

Was this post supposed to be funny? If so, well done. However, it looks more like you are being serious, and if so, it should be pointed out to you for future reference if you are going to go through someone’s pose, dissecting it sentence by sentence, and accuse the other person of doing so and so a thing wrong such as “transposing bad examples for good ones” etc., you shouldn't actually do it yourself in the self same post.

When reading this particular post 231 in this thread (not your argument otherwise or other posts in this thread), the reader gets the feeling that they think if they were to print out your post they could essentially draw a line from each of your accusations against Disraeliland 3's arguments to a place in your post where you are guilty of the same feat.

Amusing.

Not capitalist, statist.

Libertarians and anarchists are at their worst when they simple-mindedly parrot one word as the explanation of all problems: "the state! the state!" Admittedly, I went through this phase myself. Eventually you have to realize that the problems of the world are not that simple. More importantly, you have to understand that "getting rid of the state" is not only a difficult practical problem, but a severely problematic theoretical proposition as well. Don't pretend that it's simple.

The only reason this raping takes place is because the people in charge of those countries either don't know how to do their job or just don't want to.

Are you pretending a complete ignorance of the history of imperialism and post-colonialism? ... Are there corrupt and incompetent rulers and politicians in Third World countries? Yes, undeniably. Is the political, cultural, and economic Dark Age of the Third World largely the result of Western European historical practices? Yes, also undeniably. Have these nations, and the corporations that inhabit them, actively sought to take advantage of the resulting situation in the 20th century? Yes.

It's not hard to guess that a lot of major corporations will need to seek cheaper labor, especially as hiring restrictions/guidelines are enacted domestically.

You are contradicting yourself, as usual. At one time, it is natural that corporations "seek cheaper labor." At another, corporations generously compensate their workers, so that minimum wages and maximum hours laws should not be necessary. Which is it?

Also, that's something of a broad brush. I don't think the restaurant I worked at had any "superprofits" off which to distribute my benefits.

The theory of colonial and post-colonial economics is, of course, more complex than individual firms. The superprofits generated by global corporations provide higher wages and benefits to their employees in the home countries--generally the United States and Western Europe. Since these employees are able to purchase consumer goods--such as restaurant food--superprofits are distributed to other consumer businesses at home, who in turn have large enough profit margins that they can afford to pay their employees higher wages and benefits. It is a broad economic phenomenon, not one isolated to individual firms.

It did some serious damage to their labor costs, but that's how the owners chose to ran their business.

They sound like generous people. I have admitted that there are some generous business owners with the resources to spread the wealth to their employees, above and beyond what labor competition demands. However, your anecdote does not contradict the generalized practice in the market to pay employees as little as possible.

Exactly. What exactly is your problem with this?

I have no problem with supply and demand, on principle. As I have stated before, I like the benefits of a consumer society, in general. Indeed, I actually quite like the notion of a market in labor, under economic conditions favorable to such a market. In an agrarian society, as in early America, relatively fair wages are produced by the market. More importantly, from a theoretical perspective, under conditions of relative economic equality the labor market would tend to produce higher monetary wages for the worst jobs rather than the best--a very interesting possibility for the prospects of market socialism. "My problem", however, is that market relations are not "equal" in industrial and post-industrial economies. Thus, employers are able to exploit laborers for longer hours and less pay, and laborers are unable (individually, at least) to negotiate on equal terms with employers. The laissez-faire belief in an unrestricted freedom of contract was founded, from the very beginning, on the notion that employers and employees should be "free" to negotiate terms of employment advantageous to both. When employers are in a coercive position with respect to employees, however, this assumption breaks down. It is the reason it broke down in 1930s America.

Under capitalism, you get fewer resources if you [i]fail to do your job or don't do a job at all;

What you seem to miss is that capitalist relations are more complicated than simple meritorious rewards. Yes, I should earn less if I do less. However, I may also earn less if there is a large group of unemployed people who can do the same job and are willing to do it for less than I am. Thus, I may be a very hard worker, but if someone is willing to do the same job (perhaps, even, not quite as well) for less money I may lose out. Indeed, under conditions of high unemployment employers have almost unrestricted freedom to set wages however they like... unless, that is, one of two things happens: 1) Laborers successfully organize to negotiate higher wages; or 2) the government steps in to set wages comparable to the worker's cost of living. In reality, usually it has come down to a combination of both.

under socialism you get fewer resources if your neighbor has a baby or if her mother falls ill.

Why do you continue to insist upon the false dilemma between pure capitalism and collectivist socialism? Obviously, most real economies are a combination of both; more importantly, there are other possibilities, including market socialism. If you see only black and white in the world, for practical purposes you may as well be blind.

Did you pay any attention to what I was saying?

The situation I was describing would be the case if and only if businesses operated as you were suggesting, nothing else. The above claim only solidifies my point: if employers were only interested in paying their laborers "enough to survive," no wages would exist above the minimum one.

Clearly, you did not pay any attention to what I was saying. I explained that the reason for high wages in many lines of work is not the altruism of the employer, but the scarcity and value of the employee. Wages are subject to the laws of supply and demand. But this means that for unskilled labor, which was my concern and the concern of most wages/hours legislation, employers are able (and certainly willing) to pay much less than the laborer needs to maintain her/himself. This is due, again, to supply and demand: the supply of people capable of doing unskilled labor is high, and under conditions of unemployment the supply of people willing to do unskilled labor for whatever they can get is always higher than the number of people actually doing it. For this reason, the employer can effectively pay "whatever he wants."

If you want to believe that some employers would still pay unskilled laborers a generous amount, then your case is easy: there are always a few good people in the world, even among capitalists.

If, however, you want to believe that most employers would pay unskilled laborers a decent wage in the absence of wage legislation, then you will have a long argument with history, not to mention the first principles of market economics.

For the purposes of this discussion, I would be remiss in failing to point out what a horrible business decision it is to exclude minorities under racist pretenses: not only are you alienating the members of that race, you're alienating the rest of us who don't happen to like racists.

This would be a fine argument, if racist hiring practices were always obvious enough that potential patrons would be able to make discriminating decisions about which businesses to frequent dependent on their hiring practices.

Unfortunately, in a complex global economy, the number of businesses with which anyone transacts face-to-face business is relatively small. For the most part, do business over the phone, and we buy products off the shelf without ever having contact with the company that produces them.

Now, you may say we can rely on a free press and consumer advocacy groups to provide information about corporate hiring practices. But here you would have to admit that our press has lost most of its muck-raking flare, and consumer groups are primarily concerned with faulty products and/or fraud: consumers want to know if their purchase is going to break or hurt them in a month, and they want to know that they are not getting ripped-off.

For all the efforts to expose some companies for, say, child-labor abuses, rarely have these efforts amounted to much in terms of the company's profits. Sure, there is the rare boycott or scandal that manages to have a real effect, but these are few and far between. As long as people get a product they enjoy at a price they like, they have not proven to be very concerned with the labor standards of the companies from which they buy.

Any attempt to dictate just who we should or shouldn't associate with is tantamount to attempting to define my own attitudes and beleifs for me,

No, you can believe whatever you want. You just can't act on those beliefs to discriminate against racial minorities.

Sorry, but I'm not quite prepared to swallow that.

Well, then you'll have to argue with history. Read some Jefferson, or Madison. Or, if you want to save yourself the work of sifting through their letters and other works, read Richard K. Matthews The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson. Or, if you want a broader overview of the founders' economic and legal notions that treats the history of laissez-faire and the neutral state right up through its demise in the 1930s, try Howard Gillman's The Constitution Besieged.

In any case, your lack of preparation to "swallow" the facts does not amount to much of an argument.

First of all, the Founding Father's predictions about the economy might have been wrong or they might have been right: regardless of that it's sort of hard to deny that the legal framework they created was probably the single greatest catalyst for us having acheived Industrialism in the first place.

Considering that Great Britain industrialized before we did, it would seem that whatever "legal framework" was required was transplanted here with the British common law.

I also find it somewhat hard to beleive that they thought the land they were living on was somehow infinite.

The were under no illusion that it was "infinite," but they did believe that it would last for a very, very long time. This belief was due to the fact that pre-industrial capitalism did not have a) the same tendency to accumulate property in land en masse; and b) the urban-concentration of industrial capitalism. (Yes, the city's were growing, but it was nothing like the exponential growth under industrialism. America was still, essentially, an agrarian society.)

Also, you're fogetting a key issue about minimum wage: together with the income tax system, it allowed the Federal Government to generate its own income to a relatively predictable degree.

You have your history wrong. The income tax preceded the minimum wage, and it was originally opposed as a blatant attack on the wealthy. Today, wealthy conservatives still attack it on essentially the same grounds, since the lowest-paid employees need to pay little to nothing, so that they generally get back whatever they pay in.

Somehow, I would imagine this had more to do with it than any potential for "violent class conflict," which didn't really happen that much [compared to some other countries, at least] even during the goddamn Depression.

You are partially correct, at least to the degree that avoiding class conflict was never a very successful argument for the minimum wage. (Not that people didn't try, during the years that the Supreme Court routinely invalidated state minimum wage laws.) The argument that finally worked was that the state could not remain "neutral" in class relations when one class was actively engaged in oppressing another.

It's true it's not the topic of our debate, but if you're going to go apeshit over Locke, the least you can do is grin and bear it when I mention your moral roots.

It's not the same at all. You are advocating a Lockean theory of property that was designed to support a capitalist conclusion. I am advocating a positivist theory of property that bears no necessary relationship to an economic theory. The first modern theorist of positivist property was probably Thomas Hobbes, and he has generally been taken (quite rightly) as a proto-capitalist. Other theories of positivist property have included those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson who, far from advocating collectivist socialism, argued for a one-class market society.

You are therefore incorrect to identify me, or my "moral roots" as collectivist, communist, or "socialist" unless you mean "market socialism."

If you value market liberty, where do you get off proposing to suggest how it hires people?

Unlike you, I am capable of seeing more of the world than black and white.
Unlike you, I am capable of valuing more than one thing at a time.

If you value market liberty, why don't you allow people the freedom to make their own choices, even if they aren't good ones? If you value market liberty, why are you forcing racial tolerance down the throat of every hiring manager in the country?

These are either false dilemmas or complex questions, depending on which way you cut it. Either way, I will not respond to blatant fallacies.

Look, I've expressed my opinions of racism and I don't buy any of it for a second, but people ought to act as they please where their money and their labor is concerned.

Just to be clear, then... You don't oppose voluntary Affirmative Action programs?

in spite of what the AA horror stories might have you beleive I wouldn't imagine your average college educated black man has trouble getting a job.

Maybe, maybe not. The real question is whether or not he gets as good a job as your average college-educated white man.

Well.... I sort of see where your coming from with part of it, but "early nineteenth century" is a bit of a stretch, if you ask me, since we had slaves on the ground in the New World more or less since it had been discovered. That suggests [to me at least] that the seeds of "modern" racism had been planted perhaps as early as the Renaissance.

The "seeds" yes... but racism took more of a "cultural" form for most of its history, with the belief that if "we" educated and Christianized blacks and other "savages," then they would become "just as good" as white Europeans. "Scientific racism" as it has been called, required a sort of pseudo-scientific mindset that firmly associated "race" with biology, so that certain races were inherently inferior rather than just contingently so.

Another thing we have to consider here is the fact that early America was the first time blacks and whites had even been exposed to each other, at least on a racial or cultural level.

FALSE. European and Middle Eastern traders had done business in Africa since several centuries before the Christian era. In fact, one of the reasons they made such "great" slaves in the tropical Americas is that they were already immune to tropical diseases (an advantage over European workers)... and they were also already immune to European diseases (an advantage over Native American slaves), from long commerce with Europe.

Property is not founded in "positive law." As I've stated multiple times, if someone steals a possession, this does not mean my right to own it never existed, regardless of the legal framework of the country I happen to live in [since laws can obviously be very wrong].

"Possession" and "property" need to be distinguished. More importantly, one needs to distinguish between "personal property" and "private property" as in land. Personal property--property in the fruits of my labor, in gifts or inheritance--is grounded in natural right, on precisely the terms Locke (and Marx after him, you'll note) claimed. Moreover, it has existed for all of human history.

Private property in land and the capital means of production--the very means of existence--cannot be grounded in natural right, and do not exist universally. They are social conventions, adopted for social purposes: that is to say, they are the results of positive law.

If property is based on "positive law," so is everything else: our right to exist, our right to think, and so on.

This only follows if property is more basic than our right to exist or our right to think.

Property also doesn't exist for humankind, it exists because of humankind.

Both clauses are true. More importantly, the statement that property exists because of humankind is closer to the doctrine of positive right than I could ever get you to admit.

If you can find me one shred of text [aside from your "That depends on where you're standing" earlier in this post] that I ignored, I will eat my hat.

Supply and demand, above. You may have typed words on a screen in response to it, but you completely ignored the argument, insisting that businesses would never pay wages higher than the minimum if they didn't want to. This exhibits complete and utter ignorance of the laws of supply and demand... and since I had just explained them, I have to assume that you either ignored my explanation, or you are too stupid to understand it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you had ignored it.

You, on the other hand, have left out enormous chunks of my posts, and contained in several of those passages are points I've either made again since, or they were never answered in the first place.

I see no reason to respond to the increasingly redundant portions of your posts, and I also try to avoid those that lead us too far afield. They only lengthen our already ridiculously long posts, and do not serve to advance the argument.

If there is something to which you desire a response, but to which I have not responded, please post it in a separate, brief post. I shall endeavor to answer.

You, however, may have entered responses to "every letter" I have written, but the degree to which your responses ignore the substance of the text is truly remarkable. To me, this is by far the greater offence.

You attack my philosophical ancestors without even knowing who they are,

I can infer who they are from the substance of your arguments. You may never have read Locke, but the Lockean theory of property is pervasive in America, having been transplanted here by his Puritan relatives, and later adopted in part by the Founders of our independent country. You need not have read him to have been influenced by the Lockean position. If you were not, then you have spontaneously generated a surprsingly close approximation to his theory... but again, since whatever his flaws he still advanced the argument in the best form it has ever been seen, it often makes more sense to attack his argument--the stronger--rather than wasting my time with what amounts to a strawman version of the Lockean theory.

using terms like "natural right"--a phrase which does not exist in my philosophical language--although clearly you're interested in assuming it does.

Philosophy, like any other advanced field, has certain technical terms that have an established meaning in discourse. They are how we manage to communicate without rehashing every argument every time we speak. Yours is, whether you know it or not, a "natural right" theory of property.

The logic follows one statement right after the other. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

Ah, the very definition of "sophistry."

If it's wrong, please tell me how.

I have. In the only sensible meaning for it which I can decipher, it amounts to a truism: only living things have values. If you mean something other than that, please let me know.

If it's meaningless, you're not thinking about it hard enough.

Whenever someone says "you're not thinking hard enough" or "you're not getting it," what they really mean is, "I can't explain it any better."

So... can you explain it any better?

If you mean "Natural right" in the sense that it's a moral principle created by man's existence and awareness [and nothing else] then you're right.

I meant it in the precise philosophical sense of a right determined by the human creature's natural relation to the world (and to other people). Your notion that it is "created" by the human's "existence and awareness" is (despite your repudiation of the philosophical tradition) a more demanding standard than I have ever seen, and it is therefore even less tenable than the many other dubious conceptions of natural right. [As an aside, one might argue that Kant derives "rights" from "existence and awareness (and nothing else)," but this is a misreading of the Groundwork: Kant holds that human beings create the world of moral meaning (ultimately the "kingdom of ends") through the use of reason; but this world can deteriorate and die of people no longer think morally.]

The longevity of a civilization shouldn't always be taken as an endorsement of its policies.

No one claimed that it should. You are reading that into what I wrote. All my argument proves is that private property is not necessary to human life: it cannot be, because civilizations are capable of surviving for a long time without it.

If you're going to argue that we return to a communial society...

FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT ADVOCATING A COMMUNAL SOCIETY AT ALL. Can we stop harping about that, at least?

...simply on virtue of the fact that it's "worked" in the past, one could make the case for reinstating slavery (!) based on its prior success in Rome or Egypt.

You are confusing the issue. I am not making an argument about what kind of society is "best." I am merely discrediting your argument that life depends on private property. It does not--cannot--because people lived for a very long time without it.

Strictly speaking, this makes it an extension of its creator's life, since when you think about it property is what we make by living and everything obtained in said life--be it raw wages, a new lamp, a desk, a chair or a hammock--is an extension of this life because only its effort made that object possible.

Jefferson, Rousseau and I wholeheartedly agree with you... not to mention Karl Marx, who said the exact same thing. Where we disagree is in the notion that this argument somehow also gives you a property right in, say, 1000 acres of land... besides the one that other people agree to by social conventions.

Epistemologically, the largest error he can be deemed guilty of is the assumption that morals and ethics comes from some higher power and not from ourselves.

Okay, you clearly haven't read Locke. His epistemology, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding is quite famous for establishing the epistemological foundation of the Enlightenment by showing, among other things, that there are no "innate ideas" (e.g. ideas implanted by God) and that moral principles result from the combination of experience with reason.

I'm not going to slam Locke--he [i]is one of my more favored philosophers, but it's kind of funny to me that we've gone this far with you heckling Locke while leaving my two larger [and probably more controversial] ethical ancestors untouched.

It would be difficult for them to be "larger" than Locke in the history of political philosophy, unless their names happen to be Plato or Kant. But why don't you play nice and just tell us who they are?

I probably wouldn't read it anyway. I'm sure this is hardly the first criticism of Locke from a leftist:

Ironically, this is to be published in a quite conservative text, the other articles of which you would most certainly enjoy. My co-author and I are their "token" Lefties, so they don't get accused of too heavy a slant... I guess we're benefiting from Affirmative Action, eh? :D

I'm not quite convinced. Drop a baby on a desert island and 20 years later if he's lucky enough to still be alive he will have a sense of self, albeit a crude and misshapen one by our standards. He might not be able to communicate or adapt or be productive, but he will have a "sense of self." Even animals have got that, I'd reckon.

Yes, but we are concerned with the "self" in an ethical sense. We do not suppose that animals must be constrained by moral arguments or ethical duties, because we do not regard them as "moral subjects." Similarly, we would not regard the desert-baby as a "moral subject" to whom our ethical demands would have any meaning.

I apologize on this one: I have been unfortunately unclear. For the record, I am talking about the "moral subject," the "self" that can be considered subject to ethical constraints. This self develops in and through relationships, and it is bound up in loving relations from the first roots of its construction. Significantly, cultural anthropologists have found that the "shape" of the moral self develops quite differently in different cultures. The "I" for me is not the same as the "I" for many other people in the world... which directly supports the notion that the "I" of possessive individualism--the "moral self" as constructed by Western market societies--is more a social construct than a natural fact.

Since life is the root of value, only the individual who lives can have values,

A truism. It gets you nowhere in terms of understanding the values of living individuals.

Some people have value, some don't.

To the contrary, people seem to be inclined to regret the death of a human being just because he/she is a human being. The exceptions (e.g. wanting to kill a death-row inmate) are certainly more rare than not. In general, if we see someone suffering, we feel bad about it--it is inherently bad. We may come up with reasons for not helping them, but that does not contravene the basic feeling that suffering is bad.

Other people might have value, if they choose to act on the best within them as opposed to the worst.

Yet the presumption is that human life is valuable.

I'm not going to invest in some random dude on simple virtue of this decidedly flawed axiom.

No one is asking you to "invest" in "some random dude." If, however, people suffer or die, do you need to evaluate the worth of each one before saying, "gee, that's sad." Indeed, if people were about to suffer or die, and you could do something to prevent it, would you pick through them to decide who was "worthy" or would you rather think it would be a good thing to save them all.

Nothing here suggests you should be rewarding other people just for living, nor that you should feel bad for having more than others. However, it does suggest that you probably do "feel bad" about people literally starving to death... even if you find some reason (which may be perfectly good) to excuse yourself from helping. Even if it's not "your problem" surely you agree that it's "bad"?

In your repeated insistence that I am a "socialist," you seem intent on misconstruing my position as espousing "absolute equality" for people, including those who don't work to deserve it. On the contrary, I believe that individual efforts should receive individual rewards. However, I also argue for a "presumption of value" in human beings to the extent that one should not idly allow them to suffer and die. In addition, I believe that the "social contract" is founded on the mutual consent and benefit of all involved... and while "benefit" should not be construed to imply that everyone should be rich, it is difficult to imagine that the masses of the urban poor (who might, in another society, at least survive on a garden) could ever "consent" to a society that would allow them to starve. Thus, my argument is only that society has the obligation to provide minimal relief from poverty (for instance).

If $EGOSIT approaches a stranger, it shouldn't always mean the exchange will be hostile or otherwise worthless, since it makes sense to afford a basic sense of civility towards other people because of the enormous potential they might have to embody your values.

Ah, but this is just a disguised "hostility" or worthlessness. You assume that the encounter has no value for its own sake, but only insofar as it may serve your ends. You would, if you could, "use" the other person if you could get away with it... it's just that civility may be the first step toward gaining an advantage. I see nothing in your philosophy that suggests you would hold yourself to a higher standard.

The practice I'm opposed to, in its simplest form, is the idea that people ought to be judged with something other than a clean slate.

Almost Locke's word. He said "white paper." ;)

Morally, this means doing away with things like Original Sin, or it's socialist equivalent "debt to society" which can never be repaid and which never involves benefit for the one doing the paying.

You seem bound to a false dilemma here. You seem to think that either one owes NO debt to society, or one owes EVERYTHING to society (as some socialists would have it). I believe that individual efforts should reap individual rewards, but that society makes it possible for individual efforts to reap (in some cases) much greater wealth than they ever could by themselves. You cannot deny that, had you been born in different social circumstances (e.g. a Third World country) your efforts might not have produced nearly as much as they have in this society. I maintain that, as much as you have a claim on your individual produce, society has a claim to some part of that which you have acquired only within the legal framework of that society.

Moreover, since the legal framework precedes the effort, society is (at least logically) free to rearrange this framework without violating any anterior right of yours. I stress that this is logically true, because it may not always be practically true.

You're missing the forest for the trees. My point was that in order to survive, we must benefit off these actions in an ultimate sense. Of course it makes sense that we'd do things like build barns or gather food in groups, since we all know how much faster that goes. My point here is that the very act of survival depends on a certain amount of selfishness, and any sharing we do, we generally do with the presumption [or vague hope] that it will, someday, be reciprocated.

Here we agree. Where we disagree is that you think selfishness is fundamental, caring derivative. I think that both are fundamental parts of the human "moral subject"... and I have even given a plausible evolutionary explanation for why this should be true at the genetic level.

Don't give me this "the way nature intended" shit, because if you want to use that as a lynchpin I get to take up all sorts of radical anti-homosexuality statutes on the grounds that such relations were not "intended by nature."

The arguments are not analogous. We were arguing about human nature, and I pointed out that under certain rare circumstances the conditions you suggest may be true... but that "human nature" appears to be something else. That does not mean that human beings must live in societies--there is no moral wrong in a person being raised by wolves--just that they usually do, and that any argument that presumes they usually do otherwise would be invalid.

Thus, while I would admit that some humans are homosexuals, it would be incorrect for you to construct an argument supposing that most (or all) of us are. Yet that is what you want to do in terms of selfishness.

In a roundabout way, you're suggesting here that nature intended for us to be brought up with a certain set of compassionate values

Yes. I have even suggested an evolutionary explanation of those values.

--whether you know it or not you're subtly suggesting that anyone who was brought up to look after "me and mine" somehow isn't "natural."

The way one is "brought up" is distinguishable from how one is "naturally inclined," which was the subject of my discussion. I have not, with this particular argument, intended to prove that the "me and mine" argument is wrong, but I do think it requires "upbringing." Indeed, "mine" is an undefined term... some education must define it for you, and it may be defined narrowly or broadly depending on your family or society.

Also, this "natural repugnance," while it may be largely true, does not justify putting my life to use for the benefit of others, unless I want it to.

You are getting ahead of the argument. The whole point of this has merely been to show that there is a basis for morality besides pure self-interest... There is, that is, a kind of "caring" about other people distinguishable from "caring about myself" and "what they can do for me." All I want you to admit, at this point, is that someone may choose to put her/his life to use for the benefit of others, regardless of personal gain.

It appears that you have done so.

As strong as this "natural repugnance" might be when we see other people get the shaft, it's probably remarkably more pronounced in most cases when the "sensitive being" being perished or suffering is oneself.

Absolutely. Rousseau said exactly the same thing. The point is only to admit that the "natural repugnance" does go outward and not merely inward.

We can argue in circles about this all we want, as I'm likely to be of the position that nature selects those who produce [rather than those who give],

The issue around which we are circling is evolutionary ethics... and I am more than happy to allow scholars in this very specialized field to make the final determination. For our purposes, it is enough to show that the argument that "human nature" is innately selfish rests on very shaky ground indeed.

since women are biologically drawn to material production--they have to be if they're going to sustain a child.

Again you assume things that are social conventions and not biological or ecological facts. Humans are pack animals. That means that in nature, a woman's ability to sustain a child did not depend on any individual male, but on the entire group. A similar situation holds in communal societies. (Again, I'm not advocating communal society, I am just offering a counter-example to your assumption!)

Women who want to bear children may be draw to wealthy men in an individualized market society... but considering how long it took for such a society to develop, one can hardly conclude that this attraction is "biological." It is social.

Proper use unit of analysis for what? Morality?

No, preservation--which is the basis on which your morality rests.

Suit yourself. Out of curiousity, were you alive while LBJ was president?

No. Does it matter? (If it does, perhaps it will make a difference to you that my father was alive when LBJ was President, and has discussed his negative feelings with me. After much discussion, in which we both certainly learned much of value, he agreed that his opinion was colored by the most heated issues of the day and the fact that he only barely escaped the draft... and agreed as well that, viewed as a whole person LBJ deserves more credit than he has, for a long time, received.)

What I'm saying is that if you weren't willing to "pay the price" for enacting civil rights legislation, you had no business in calling for "Equality" or an end to racism in the first place.

Really? And what does that have to do with LBJ, who was willing to pay the price? Who are we talking about, if not him?

Giving credit to LBJ for acting on his conceptions of race is like giving me credit for not holding up a liquor store.

No... Giving credit to LBJ for acting on his conceptions of race is like giving you credit for not holding up a liquor store... in a world in which everyone else was holding up liquor stores, and they punished and berated those who did not. In such a world, I would give you credit for standing against the crowd to do what was right.

...perhaps it's the paradox of (ostensibly, at least) trying to end racism in hiring/admissions practices by legislating racism...

quotas suck

Interestingly, we are seeing that change with time. Maybe it's the internet, maybe it's the media, maybe kids are just plain smarter these days, but they're finding that kids have much more rational views on race, sexuality, and gender roles than their parents did.

..snip..

Really? That's funny, just today I was reading an article this morning that said it was showing that 50% of 4 year university students and 75% of two year college students don't have the reading comprehension to understand the benefits and drawbacks between simple brochures, such as comparing two different credit card offers.

I admit that I don’t have proof available to show that their parents were any better, but I’m curious to see who you are talking about. Who is doing the finding that says, kids have a much more rational view of race, sexuality, and gender roles than their parents did, and what is their definition of rational race, sexuality and gender roles? And how did they retrieve the data? It sounds suspiciously susceptible to manipulation by simply being vague.

Darwinism 101: if it exists for a long time, it obviously is good for SOMETHING one way or the other.

That's right, bastardize Darwinism.

Say, how long have human beings had an appendix?

Interestingly, we are seeing that change with time. Maybe it's the internet, maybe it's the media, maybe kids are just plain smarter these days, but they're finding that kids have much more rational views on race, sexuality, and gender roles than their parents did.

For example, more than 3/4 of American youth believe that homosexuals should be able to exercise the same rights as heterosexuals, including marriage and adoption rights. When you look at the older generations, the numbers are closer to 50-50 (unless you add in the option of "civil unions," in which case more adults will agree to go along with a "separate-but-equal" formula).

Maybe some American kids are becoming more ratoinal, but in places with little diversity their views are the same as their parents. Stagnant.

Take Kansas Highschools- teenagers can drive to school with Confederate flags on their cars, clothes, and school books. No other students object. Racism is open. It is not acted upon, there aren't hate crimes, but it is open and most accept it.

Its really a pain in the ass if think about ti

That's right, bastardize Darwinism.

Say, how long have human beings had an appendix?

Longer than you'll live.
Unlike, say, socialism.
You see.. a man could be born in the time of the Czars, and still be alive when socialism got dumped with the garbage.

All the glory of the Reds is now one with the pomp of Nineveh.

That's right, bastardize Darwinism.

Say, how long have human beings had an appendix?

Time to update your 'appendix' argument...

In the past, the appendix was considered an evolutionary leftover. Now however, scientists acknowledge that the appendix helps support the immune system. It does so in two ways. First, it helps tell lymphocytes where they need to go to fight an infection. Second, it boosts the large intestine's immunity to a variety of foods and drugs; this helps prevent inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract.
http://coloncancer.about.com/cs/mainglossary/g/Appendix.htm

And much like the gall bladder, we can remove them without harmful affect, but that does not mean they do not serve a purpose, no matter how menial.

I’m not saying your argument was bad or good, just pointing out that using the word ‘appendix’ in an argument about evolution or not, doesn’t have the desired affect anymore. The existence of an appendix proves nothing because if we didn’t have an appendix it would prove the same thing, meaning the existence of the appendix proves nothing.

We are verbally abused,

Oh, boo-hoo. When it's not enough that white people control political power and economic wealth virtually to the exclusion of all others, they want to be loved for it, too?

essentially barred from certain regions by virtue of our skin,

You're going to have to explain this one to me.

disposed of in all applications in favour of the immigrant,

This amounts to the same mischaracterization of Affirmative Action that has run on now for days. Saying it again and again may drown out, for you, its thorough debunking, but it doesn't make it any the more true.

The world wherein I, a memebr of the majority, the original inhabitants of our fair Isle, may be racially abused for daring to be fully British, but my riposte is considered illegal.

I can't say I can argue with the British experience... this discussion, for the most part, has been about the American one. If there are significant differences that you would care to explain, I would love to read them.

Longer than you'll live.
Unlike, say, socialism.
You see.. a man could be born in the time of the Czars, and still be alive when socialism got dumped with the garbage.

All the glory of the Reds is now one with the pomp of Nineveh.

Do you really think you'll get anywhere by pidgeon-holing someone as a collectivist when he or she has given no indication of such a view... and has in fact explicitly denied it?

Where were you going with this?

Time to update your 'appendix' argument...

Apologies for an attempt to use an out-dated biological analogy. My last biology class ended long before the date on the cited article... and it's not exactly my favorite science, so forgive me if I'm out of the loop.

So, to amend my argument... "pick your vestigial organ," in humans or otherwise. ;)

Oh, boo-hoo. When it's not enough that white people control political power and economic wealth virtually to the exclusion of all others, they want to be loved for it, too?

No, I want the right to respond in turn when racially abused, notably by an immigrant in my nation.

You're going to have to explain this one to me.

You try entering Brixton or Bradford suburbs by yourself as a British individual.


This amounts to the same mischaracterization of Affirmative Action that has run on now for days. Saying it again and again may drown out, for you, its thorough debunking, but it doesn't make it any the more true.


Not in the UK, wherein positive discrimination is suffciently vehement and empowered to the faciliate the rejetion of truly British candidates in favour of Mr. Mbangabanga due to the latter's incapability to converes in erudite English.

I can't say I can argue with the British experience... this discussion, for the most part, has been about the American one. If there are significant differences that you would care to explain, I would love to read them.

We can be racially abused, yet not respond, we can be slurred, yet not retort, our race can be deplored and threatened, yet we may not reciprocate. An impeccable exhibition of the conduct of any labour government.

Do you really think you'll get anywhere by pidgeon-holing someone as a collectivist when he or she has given no indication of such a view... and has in fact explicitly denied it?

Where were you going with this?


GOTCHA!
You call it pigeonholing.
I call it boxing.
I guess you like it as much as I do.

Now, can we stick all the affirmative action crap - impossible to do without boxing and pigeonholing the entire population - where the sun don't shine?

GOTCHA!
You call it pigeonholing.
I call it boxing.
I guess you like it as much as I do.

You attempt to make me out to be something I am not, for rhetorical purposes.

I attempt to treat people as they deserve, recognizing real differences among them.

NOT THE SAME.

Now, can we stick all the affirmative action crap - impossible to do without boxing and pigeonholing the entire population - where the sun don't shine?

The "boxing" as you call it, of Affirmative Action, is a practical attempt to approximate the "boxes" that already exist in reality. It may not be perfect, but it's better than pretending that boxes don't exist.

I want to deal with reality. You want to live in a color-blind fantasy world. (And it seems that in Bizarro World, I am a socialist!)

You attempt to make me out to be something I am not, for rhetorical purposes.

I attempt to treat people as they deserve, recognizing real differences among them.

NOT THE SAME.



The "boxing" as you call it, of Affirmative Action, is a practical attempt to approximate the "boxes" that already exist in reality. It may not be perfect, but it's better than pretending that boxes don't exist.

I want to deal with reality. You want to live in a color-blind fantasy world. (And it seems that in Bizarro World, I am a socialist!)

Let me give you a GREAT real life example just how GREAT approximating the boxes is.
The Dutch, in the 1920-1940 period had a great system for registering religious affiliation of every citizen.
Come 1940, the Germans had a great time of rounding up just about every Jew... since all the details were written down in the population-registry.

No thank you. I prefer box-blindness.
Which coincidentally goes just fine with my rights, along with the Constitutional rights of every citizen.

And that is my whole point: the Government has NO right to even PRETEND the boxes exist.

Come 1940, the Germans had a great time of rounding up just about every Jew... since all the details were written down in the population-registry.

Ooooh, scary!! You made a comparison to Nazis!!

When you learn how to have a grown-up debate, come back to join the rest of us.

Ooooh, scary!! You made a comparison to Nazis!!

When you learn how to have a grown-up debate, come back to join the rest of us.
I'm not making a.. comparison.
I'm pointing out that the gathering of information needed to make boxing practicable is A] Unconstitutional.
B] so fraught with dangers that only a madman would consider it.

Operational definition of madman.
Anyone to the left of Liebermann.

I'm not making a.. comparison.
I'm pointing out that the gathering of information...

Who's gathering information?

If you're black, I don't need an ID card to tell me. Unless you're in the ambiguous areas of mixed heritage, in which case I can only tell if you choose to tell me on, say, your application. In that case, if you don't want the "advantages" of Affirmative Action, don't tell me.

Don't try to make it more than it is. We're talking about voluntary programs adopted by businesses to improve the diversity of their work force. The government is involved, when at all, at the periphery.

Who's gathering information?

If you're black, I don't need an ID card to tell me. Unless you're in the ambiguous areas of mixed heritage, in which case I can only tell if you choose to tell me on, say, your application. In that case, if you don't want the "advantages" of Affirmative Action, don't tell me.

Don't try to make it more than it is. We're talking about voluntary programs adopted by businesses to improve the diversity of their work force. The government is involved, when at all, at the periphery.

What's ambiguous about it?
Now, let us presume I was a 100% WASP.
What makes you think I would be interested in those 'advantages'?

And GIVEN that information gathering is Unconstitutional... who the heck are you to even make a tick on my employee's card?

Voluntary. Are you trying to tell me that each and every person affected by Reverse Racism was VOLUNTARILY so affected? Including the WASP that got rejected for the job?

The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin.

Which part of this is voluntary?

...provide for the common defense...[/qiote]

Equal protection. Seperate but equal was found to be fundmentally unconstitutional.

[QUOTE]
That you engage in any other activity than leaving me the HELL alone.
Sooo.... could I come into your house, and tell your thirteen year old daughter that I'm going to rape her? I think not.
Unless you think I have that right, your statement 'People have the right to tell you whatever the hell they want to tell you' is a Big Fat Lie.


Again, private property is private property. And here, you say it's okay to make laws based on age, when you made the opposite argument regarding child labor. Make up your mind.


That some folks STILL strive for socalled affirmative action, which, as you have conceded, is a violation of my ABSOLUTE rights.


Nope. Because you're not forced to do anything under affirmative action.

Gee.... isn't action against murder quite specifically allowed under the Constitution?

Can you quote that passage? I might also want to direct you to the 14th amendment.


See you in a million years, bubba...


Not in my lifetime, nor yours. Nice thought... but I dont count on it.

If racism takes a million years to eradicate, there's little hope for the human race anyway.

And while I'm at it, not dithering an inch:
Racism, just like Religion, is here to stay. Live with it. I do.
Survival of the fittest is here to stay. Live with it. I do.

Murder, rape, larceny and midget porn are all here to stay as well. Enjoy!

...provide for the common defense...

Equal protection. Seperate but equal was found to be fundmentally unconstitutional.
--> and HOW does that relate to the US Military exactly?

That you engage in any other activity than leaving me the HELL alone.
Sooo.... could I come into your house, and tell your thirteen year old daughter that I'm going to rape her? I think not.
Unless you think I have that right, your statement 'People have the right to tell you whatever the hell they want to tell you' is a Big Fat Lie.



Again, private property is private property. And here, you say it's okay to make laws based on age, when you made the opposite argument regarding child labor. Make up your mind.
--> now I tell the same to your wife.
Am I, or am I NOT, allowed to explain to her in detail my plans for mutilitating/raping/murdering her? Unless you think I have that right, your statement 'People have the right to tell you whatever the hell they want to tell you' is a Big Fat Lie.


Nope. Because you're not forced to do anything under affirmative action.
--> AHA.. as long as we're not FORCED to do something, it does not violate our rights? If that is the case... never mind me as I loot your car. You dont even have to sit still for it.

Gee.... isn't action against murder quite specifically allowed under the Constitution?


Can you quote that passage? I might also want to direct you to the 14th amendment.

-->Murder: HINT: preamble of the constitution.

If racism takes a million years to eradicate, there's little hope for the human race anyway.

--> then you may give up hope. I certainly wont.

Murder, rape, larceny and midget porn are all here to stay as well. Enjoy!
--> who said anything about enjoying?
Abortion is here to stay as well. So why don't you kindly enjoy your right to be aborted? Enjoy!

In the UK, we call this positive discrimination. What is wrong in this instance is to give someone a position on the basis of the fact that they are a member of a supressed group. Not on the basis of their experiance or qualifications. While it is true that experiance and qualifications are not the only mesaurements nessecary, it is also true that you need to have a valid obesevable reason as to why you hire one person over another. And that reason cannot be that they belong to a minority.

Why do you need a reason to spend your money in one way over another? Buying labor is no different than buying soda. Are you suggesting we should make people buy Pepsi over Coke because historically Coke has been more successful and they are "equally qualified"?

Races are terrible ways of grouping people. An individual has no choice what race they're born into and has no way of changing it. There are racial tendencies, but races don't have any common characteristics other than superficial ones. By continuing to isolate minority groups, even after they've been in the country for hundreds of years, we just perpetuate the problems of discrimination. The best way to end discrimination is to eliminate senses of racial identity, not perpetuate them with specially targeted government programs.

And GIVEN that information gathering is Unconstitutional... who the heck are you to even make a tick on my employee's card?

You have yet to cite any portion of the Constitution -- let alone a Supreme Court decision -- to the effect that information gathering in unconstitutional.

Moreoever, it has already been copiously evidenced that discrimination occurs systematically without affirmative action. One need not tick your employee's card to tell if you are male or female. You can be discriminated based upon your perceived skin color, ethnicity, etc. -- whether or not hte percention is right.

Unless you believe all employers are deaf and blind, they will gather information about you.

And, in the private sector, it can't be unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't apply. :headbang:

Voluntary. Are you trying to tell me that each and every person affected by Reverse Racism was VOLUNTARILY so affected? Including the WASP that got rejected for the job?

First, lets be clear your rejected WASP is a fictional character.

Second, you've yet to document there are any victims of "Reverse Racism."

Third, as any idiot could tell, AnarchyeL was referring to the affirmative action program being voluntary on the part of the employer. You claim the state has no business telling an employer who to hire. If so, you cannot then be against private sector affirmative action. (It is sad that you would defend discrimination, but not affimative action, in the first place, but you can't have it both ways.)

The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin.

Which part of this is voluntary?

*sigh*

Whether one is a federal contractor or subcontractor is voluntary, yes?

Why would you have objection to a law that "prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin"?

Equal protection. Seperate but equal was found to be fundmentally unconstitutional.
--> and HOW does that relate to the US Military exactly?

That you engage in any other activity than leaving me the HELL alone.
Sooo.... could I come into your house, and tell your thirteen year old daughter that I'm going to rape her? I think not.
Unless you think I have that right, your statement 'People have the right to tell you whatever the hell they want to tell you' is a Big Fat Lie.



Again, private property is private property. And here, you say it's okay to make laws based on age, when you made the opposite argument regarding child labor. Make up your mind.
--> now I tell the same to your wife.
Am I, or am I NOT, allowed to explain to her in detail my plans for mutilitating/raping/murdering her? Unless you think I have that right, your statement 'People have the right to tell you whatever the hell they want to tell you' is a Big Fat Lie.


Nope. Because you're not forced to do anything under affirmative action.
--> AHA.. as long as we're not FORCED to do something, it does not violate our rights? If that is the case... never mind me as I loot your car. You dont even have to sit still for it.

Gee.... isn't action against murder quite specifically allowed under the Constitution?


Can you quote that passage? I might also want to direct you to the 14th amendment.

-->Murder: HINT: preamble of the constitution.

If racism takes a million years to eradicate, there's little hope for the human race anyway.

--> then you may give up hope. I certainly wont.

Murder, rape, larceny and midget porn are all here to stay as well. Enjoy!
--> who said anything about enjoying?
Abortion is here to stay as well. So why don't you kindly enjoy your right to be aborted? Enjoy!

My bad. I didn't realize you were a troll. *pats troll on the head*

Why do you need a reason to spend your money in one way over another? Buying labor is no different than buying soda. Are you suggesting we should make people buy Pepsi over Coke because historically Coke has been more successful and they are "equally qualified"?

Races are terrible ways of grouping people. An individual has no choice what race they're born into and has no way of changing it. There are racial tendencies, but races don't have any common characteristics other than superficial ones. By continuing to isolate minority groups, even after they've been in the country for hundreds of years, we just perpetuate the problems of discrimination. The best way to end discrimination is to eliminate senses of racial identity, not perpetuate them with specially targeted government programs.

1. As I've already established with copious statistics, minority groups are already isolated due to discrimination -- both past and present.

2. One way that affirmative action helps to end discrimination is that it helps to integrate society (workplaces, schools, etc.)

3. Thus, contrary to your assumption, affirmative action stops the isolation of minority groups and ultimately seeks to end racial identification. Granted, in the short term, it does so through racial identification.

1. As I've already established with copious statistics, minority groups are already isolated due to discrimination -- both past and present.

2. One way that affirmative action helps to end discrimination is that it helps to integrate society (workplaces, schools, etc.)

3. Thus, contrary to your assumption, affirmative action stops the isolation of minority groups and ultimately seeks to end racial identification. Granted, in the short term, it does so through racial identification.

Interesting, but proof of the existence of the illness is not proof that the treatment is working to resolve the symptoms.

Interesting, but proof of the existence of the illness is not proof that the treatment is working to resolve the symptoms.

Fine, then suggest a better treatment.

Fine, then suggest a better treatment.

Hmm... perhaps let society work out these differences by themselves? Without government regulation?

On another note, this thread blows harder than my grandmother blew me last night. :eek:

Fine, then suggest a better treatment.

Actually, I thought I had given an example:

I'll quote myself I guess...

There are some concerns with the affirmative action stratagem, at least so far as it applies to university and higher education enrolment rates (regardless of how any of us feel about affirmative action itself). The concern here is that there might not be enough 'qualified' applicant's to achieve the desired outcome (with or without the AA in place) if there is simply be an inability to find qualified applicants to make the AA efforts successful.

Meaning: The cause of a lack of qualified applicants to Universities (and gainful employment thereafter) is more likely linked directly to over-representation in high-school drop out rates than to any other single reason, including racism in the society at large. For example: If 10% of a community is a minority group which suffers a drop out rate of 40% and this groups exists in a society at large that suffers from less than a 5% high-school dropout rate (like in the Twin Cities where our community colleges cater to underprivileged and adult returning students) then some of our minority groups (we have 71 recognized languages spoken at home in the family groups of the students in our city public schools system) these groups with high drop-out rates will by default be equally under-represented in higher education enrollment ratios despite out best efforts with AA programs or not.

We cannot stabilize higher education enrolment rates and percentages to match the community population percentages until we can get the community population in the high school graduation rates to match those percentages first.

In our community (I live and work in the Twin Cities) we are trying to address some of these issues today. We are promoting and pushing our free ESL courses and free community remedial courses (basic essentials like math and reading comprehension) in an effort to re-attract these lost young people that have already slipped through the system and have not graduated from high-school, or, if they have graduated they may not be academically able or ready to prosper in a higher education environment. We are also attempting to fight the hopelessness in high-school students before they have decided to drop out, discouraged that they will never be able to afford college or achieve gainful employment (frequently thinking this falsely mind you) but discouraged by thinking that they won’t qualify for assistance or scholarships and grants, so they don’t ‘bother’ to apply themselves and they don’t try to graduate from high school prepared for higher education.

In fact, this very month, we just had our ribbon cutting ceremony to establish “The Promise of You,” a program for inner city high-school graduates. It is essentially a promise to all of the current public high-school students in Minneapolis and St. Paul that if they graduate from high school and speak to one of our counselors and allow us to help them apply to every Pell grant and scholarship program that they may be qualified for, our new “The Promise of You” program will pick up any of the costs and fees for all of their credits or books that are above and beyond any other monies they can get first, (meaning they will go to school for free one way or the other). We are betting that they will get most of their financial educational needs met from the standard systems already in place before our monies are used).

This is the initial release of this program so I don’t have any results to reveal yet. This program is funded entirely from local community business and private donors, with the collaboration of both of the Twin City mayors and both school boards, but we are not using any public education money at all. We only require that the students go to one of the three sponsor schools participating in the foundation trial (two community Colleges and one inner city University). I personally hope that systems like ours will be able to directly have an impact on minority population education ratios and thereafter, gainful employment. Either way we will be to immediately help the large percentage of the forgotten minority (and poor) masses that have been ignored or unhelped by the AA systems for the elite schools and programs already out there.

If you want to know more about the situation we are trying to address in the Twin Cities, you can read more here:
http://www.mcknight.org/hotissues/framing_censusd.aspx

Studies like this have resulted in the program I mentioned above, things do not happen overnight.

The Power of You:
http://www.minneapolis.edu/powerofyou/index.cfm

Article in local paper about the “coming out” party:
http://www.startribune.com/1592/story/172266.html
...

Hmm... perhaps let society work out these differences by themselves? Without government regulation?

On another note, this thread blows harder than my grandmother blew me last night. :eek:

Doing nothing has been proven not to work. Much like expecting someone who is suffering from a disease to suddenly get better.

And what government regulations, specifically, are you commenting on?

How about, and this is just a crazy idea, actually reading the thread before you pass judgement on it? Your responses show you really haven't been paying attention.

Your namesake would be disappointed.

Hmm... perhaps let society work out these differences by themselves?

yeah, like through some sort of program. perhaps based on some sort of positive course of action to help various social institutions be more inclusive. that's brilliant!

Doing nothing has been proven not to work. Much like expecting someone who is suffering from a disease to suddenly get better.

And what government regulations, specifically, are you commenting on?

How about, and this is just a crazy idea, actually reading the thread before you pass judgement on it? Your responses show you really haven't been paying attention.

Your namesake would be disappointed.

Well, since it's been proven that doing nothing doesn't work, I'm sure it wouldn't trouble you to provide me with that proof.

As for government regulations; how about some of those acts that require federal agencies to inact affirmative employment?

I've read the thread. Here's a crazy idea... How about you all stop repeating yourselves? Brilliant.

My screenname is a mockery of the real Picard. So yes, he would be disappointed. Have a Yiddish cup of STFU, noob.

yeah, like through some sort of program. perhaps based on some sort of positive course of action to help various social institutions be more inclusive. that's brilliant!

If individuals want to apply affirmative employment in their business, that's perfectly fine. I can always take my money elsewhere.

If the government forces peolpe to employ affirmatively, well, I don't have any choice now do I, seeing as everyone would have to affirmatively employ.

Well, since it's been proven that doing nothing doesn't work, I'm sure it wouldn't trouble you to provide me with that proof.

As for government regulations; how about some of those acts that require federal agencies to inact affirmative employment?

I've read the thread. Here's a crazy idea... How about you all stop repeating yourselves? Brilliant.

My screenname is a mockery of the real Picard. So yes, he would be disappointed. Have a Yiddish cup of STFU, noob.

The proof is in the thread, and your continued insistence that it isn't there is embarrassing. Try reading every one of Cat-Tribes' posts. We'd stop repeating ourselves if you'd stop ignoring what we say.

Yes, I can tell you don't like Picard...he actually payed attention to data (Data.)

We'd stop repeating ourselves if you'd stop ignoring what we say.

That's funny, because I only posted in here recently. The other 19 pages of jabber are decidely not all unique.

That's funny, because I only posted in here recently. The other 19 pages of jabber are decidely not all unique.

And yet, even with 19 pages of repetition, you are unable to grasp the basic facts, which you claim don't exist.

Perhaps shock treatment would work better?

Hypnosis?

Help me out here.

And yet, even with 19 pages of repetition, you are unable to grasp the basic facts, which you claim don't exist.

Perhaps shock treatment would work better?

Hypnosis?

Help me out here.

It hurts my brain when I have to read huge term-papers that could've been reduced to be more concise and to the point. Alas, I cannot stop you all from attempting to appear smarter than you actually are.

I recommend anal insertions; they would do me wonders.

It hurts my brain when I have to read huge term-papers that could've been reduced to be more concise and to the point. Alas, I cannot stop you all from attempting to appear smarter than you actually are.


Well, this thread was not consteructed for your convenience. Others continually contested the points that were already in evidence, so the points had to be repeated

I recommend anal insertions; they would do me wonders.

Unfortunately, your head is in the way.

Unfortunately, your head is in the way.

But the flavor is so great!

But the flavor is so great!

Okay, while we disagree on the particular issue of this thread, I appreciate the good humor with which you're taking my pointed comments. Well done.

Seriously.

Okay, while we disagree on the particular issue of this thread, I appreciate the good humor with which you're taking my pointed comments. Well done.

Seriously.

Come now, I know that being grumpy over losing debates is childish. I come here to learn, not to win.

1. As I've already established with copious statistics, minority groups are already isolated due to discrimination -- both past and present.

2. One way that affirmative action helps to end discrimination is that it helps to integrate society (workplaces, schools, etc.)

3. Thus, contrary to your assumption, affirmative action stops the isolation of minority groups and ultimately seeks to end racial identification. Granted, in the short term, it does so through racial identification.

1. I agree with you, but much present discrimination(almost all present discrimination in the north) is a result of isolation, that came about as a result of developed racist ideology in the South during slavery and afterwards, and is being perpetuated by public figures making race an issue, usually for their own political gain.

2. The benefit that comes from affirmative action integrating society is completely outweighed by increased feelings of hostility towards minorities BECAUSE of the affirmative action program.

3. It increases isolation whether it seeks to or not, you can't eliminate a sense of racial identity by racially identifing.

1. I agree with you, but much present discrimination(almost all present discrimination in the north) is a result of isolation, that came about as a result of developed racist ideology in the South during slavery and afterwards, and is being perpetuated by public figures making race an issue, usually for their own political gain.

2. The benefit that comes from affirmative action integrating society is completely outweighed by increased feelings of hostility towards minorities BECAUSE of the affirmative action program.

3. It increases isolation whether it seeks to or not, you can't eliminate a sense of racial identity by racially identifing.

I disagree. I think AA is being used a scapegoat by those who would exhibit discriminatory behavior anyway.

2. The benefit that comes from affirmative action integrating society is completely outweighed by increased feelings of hostility towards minorities BECAUSE of the affirmative action program.

If such hostility is due to the belief that underqualified minorities get jobs as "Affirmative Action hires," then it is due to a mistaken belief.

The problem is not Affirmative Action, but a lack of education about it. Or, more accurately, intentional attempts to mischaracterize it as "reverse discrimination."

More than likely, the men who now think a woman "must" have gotten a job due to Affirmative Action would otherwise have asked, "who did she sleep with to get this job?" Take away Affirmative Action, and their prejudice will just take another form.

Of course, white men who have opportunities to work with qualified women and minorities may find that their prejudice was unwarranted. Since Affirmative Action programs increase the numbers of qualified women and minorities working alongside white men, it increases the opportunities for some of those men to learn a lesson from experience.

you can't eliminate a sense of racial identity by racially identifing.

Since when was "racial identity" a problem? The problem is racial discrimination.

People can "identify" as Irish or German or Russian or French without necessarily making those identifications the basis for discriminatory practices. Why can't people "identify" as "black", too?

The usual refrain is that those others are cultures, while race is just a "color." Yet this ignores the fact that race has become a cultural and historical identifier above and beyond its physical traits.

My father grew up not knowing that he was half Scottish. When he began to learn about his ancestors, however, he desired to learn more... and now he tends to identify as "Scottish." He grew up with nothing of the culture... his identification had nothing to do with cultural traits that he had "inherited." Rather, he felt a desire, quite natural for some people, to know who his ancestors were, what they were like and what they experienced.

If black people in the Diaspora want to "identify" as "black," to recall that their ancestors were slaves and endured the nastier manifestations of racism... that in the midst of these horrors, black slaves developed complex and spiritual cultures of resistance...

... who are we to deny them?

This is not meant to imply that there is anything "essential" about blackness, or about any other racial/biological trait. Nor is it meant to imply that "all" blacks "should" engage their roots. Rather, it is merely intended to suggest that if African Americans want to trace their ancestry and remember the cultures of their past--and live the culture of their present--then they have as much right to "identify" by race as my father does to identify himself as Scottish. Indeed, most of them in the present -- who are forced to "live race" -- have far more of a right than he to acknowledge what that identification means.

Discrimination by race is unethical and illegal. "Racial identification" is neither.

*sigh*

Whether one is a federal contractor or subcontractor is voluntary, yes?

Why would you have objection to a law that "prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin"?

For the simple reason that I do not accept ANY libbie attempt at social engineering.
If we wanted social engineering we could just become a part of Cuba.

And while we're at it - tell the gum't to summarily terminate ANY teacher who preaches ID, diversity, multiculturalism or otherwise doesn't stick to Reading Writing and Arithmatic.
Call it the No R Left Behind Act.

Oh, and just in case you thought I'd miss it: no other considerations than cost and effectiveness need to be applied to federal contracting.

For the simple reason that I do not accept ANY libbie attempt at social engineering.
If we wanted social engineering we could just become a part of Cuba.

And while we're at it - tell the gum't to summarily terminate ANY teacher who preaches ID, diversity, multiculturalism or otherwise doesn't stick to Reading Writing and Arithmatic.
Call it the No R Left Behind Act.

And if you want uber-capitalistic ultra-libertarianism, you can travel back in time to 1890, because we all know that that was a paradise!

If we wanted that, we wouldn't have progressed.

And if you want uber-capitalistic ultra-libertarianism, you can travel back in time to 1890, because we all know that that was a paradise!

If we wanted that, we wouldn't have progressed.
It was the richest time the world had ever known and the quality of life had never been better. It was the most rapid period of economic growth ever experienced.

And if you want uber-capitalistic ultra-libertarianism, you can travel back in time to 1890.

If we wanted that, we wouldn't have progressed.

Keep Demopublicans in charge, and you will have the same Statecronyism that you had in 1890 and have in 2006 unchanged in 2020.

Democrats want to be your Mother.

No matter how irresponsible and feckless you are, however much a burden or hurtful to others, they still want to nurture and take care of you -- with their own diet of nourishing roughage and edifying nagging, of course.

Republicans want to be your Father.

If you don't do what you're told, you are going to be punished. And even if
the punishment destroys your life, it is for your own good. At least it will put
you in right with God.

Libertarians don't think government is either of your Parents.

As an adult, you are on your own, with your family and others who associate
with you voluntarily; and as long as you leave other people alone and don't damage, steal, or defraud their property, what you do is your own concern.

Keep Demopublicans in charge, and you will have the same Statecronyism that you had in 1890 and have in 2006 unchanged in 2020.

Democrats want to be your Mother.

No matter how irresponsible and feckless you are, however much a burden or hurtful to others, they still want to nurture and take care of you -- with their own diet of nourishing roughage and edifying nagging, of course.

Republicans want to be your Father.

If you don't do what you're told, you are going to be punished. And even if
the punishment destroys your life, it is for your own good. At least it will put
you in right with God.

Libertarians don't think government is either of your Parents.

As an adult, you are on your own, with your family and others who associate
with you voluntarily; and as long as you leave other people alone and don't damage, steal, or defraud their property, what you do is your own concern.

It must be great to live in a world completely of your own invention. You know what history calls extreme individualists?

It calls them nothing, because they inevitably fail.

But hey, have fun living in fantasy land where people leave you alone as long as you leave them alone.

Humans are social animals. We work best when we work together. There have to be rules when we work together. Deal with it.

Troll on!

Yep, if you dont agree with something just get angry and it will go away. Seriously, that was a little unnecessary considering his post was not inflamatory in any way.

Yep, if you dont agree with something just get angry and it will go away. Seriously, that was a little unnecessary considering his post was not inflamatory in any way.

Read his other posts.

Plus, his use of the word "adult" and "parent" were intentionally chosen to insinuate a certain fearfulness and childishness in those who disagree with his point of view.

While I appreciate the arguments from The Cat-Tribe and Gymoor II The Return, I respectfully disagree with them. I'm on the same page as Aggretia.

Suggest a better idea? Let's refocus on eliminating poverty. Rich people of ANY skin color are going to do well in life. They get to live in good neighborhoods, go to good schools, and make good networking contacts. Isn't that the "equal opportunity" we're seeking for everyone? A good chance? Isn't that what affirmative action is trying to accomplish?

Prejudice is a form of ignorance, born of lack of education and lack of practical experience to the contrary. Most people who are well-off and well-educated are NOT prejudiced. Instead of having our government force people to participate in discrimination in order to "tackle" the same (a counter-intuitive idea if I've ever heard one), why not have our government allocate those same resources to try to lift ALL people out of poverty?

Poverty is the real enemy.

Keep Demopublicans in charge, and you will have the same Statecronyism that you had in 1890 and have in 2006 unchanged in 2020.

You know, I find this very amusing.

Whenever communists or socialists attempt to get two words in about their theories of proper government and economics, the Right and libertarians come rushing out with cries of "Stalin! Stalin! Russia! Russia!" insisting that "history has proven" that such theories do not work. They then proceed to ignore or heavy-handedly bash advocate's repeated and sensible pleas that neither the U.S.S.R. nor any other so-called "Communist" or "Socialist" nation ever really tried the theories suggested by communists and socialists.

But when the tables are turned, God forbid anyone should claim that the most unregulated capitalist markets in known history actually constitute "pure" capitalism. "Pure" laissez-faire capitalism has never been attempted!!

Can we agree to NOT have it both ways, people? Can the free market capitalists agree to address communist and socialist theories rather than histories that these theorists repudiate? Can communists, socialists, and advocates of a regulated market admit that the 1890s were but an approximation of market freedom, and not true laissez-faire?

Somehow I doubt it. But it would be nice to have an honest conversation for once.

(Arguments suggesting relevant commonalities between historical events and theoretical constructs would, of course, be welcome. History can teach us, but first we have to see history as it is rather than as our favorite ideologues pretend it to be.)

While I appreciate the arguments from The Cat-Tribe and Gymoor II The Return, I respectfully disagree with them. I'm on the same page as Aggretia.

Suggest a better idea? Let's refocus on eliminating poverty. Rich people of ANY skin color are going to do well in life. They get to live in good neighborhoods, go to good schools, and make good networking contacts. Isn't that the "equal opportunity" we're seeking for everyone? A good chance? Isn't that what affirmative action is trying to accomplish?

Prejudice is a form of ignorance, born of lack of education and lack of practical experience to the contrary. Most people who are well-off and well-educated are NOT prejudiced. Instead of having our government force people to participate in discrimination in order to "tackle" the same (a counter-intuitive idea if I've ever heard one), why not have our government allocate those same resources to try to lift ALL people out of poverty?

Straight and unadulterated Booker T. Washington.
No complaints... provided you tell me how you fund it.

It must be great to live in a world completely of your own invention. You know what history calls extreme individualists?

It calls them nothing, because they inevitably fail.

But hey, have fun living in fantasy land where people leave you alone as long as you leave them alone.

Humans are social animals. We work best when we work together. There have to be rules when we work together. Deal with it.

Troll on!

While I do not agree with many aspects of the Libertarian party, I do agree that the government that governs best, governs least. The only rules needed when people work together are rules that prevent one person from violating another person's basic rights (life, liberty, property).

I'm not sure what that whole tangent on humans = social animals was about... Libertarianism does not dispute this.

BogMarsh, however, appears to be giving the Libertarian party a bad name. 'Tis why I'll blow my load on his face and lick it up for him! :D

Straight and unadulterated Booker T. Washington.
No complaints... provided you tell me how you fund it.

Yeah, whites loved Washington... because he kept telling blacks, "work hard, and whites will appreciate you. Don't demand your 'rights', that'll just make them mad."

He said this all through the 1870s and 1880s... in which, at every step, things were going from bad to worse for African Americans in the South.

There were a few upward bumps here or there over the next half century and more... but do you know when things actually started to turn around for them? When they gave up on "work hard for the white man" as a motto and cooked up something called the Civil Rights movement.

Shutting your mouth and doing your chores doesn't work?
You have to demand your rights to get them?

Funny thing, that.

Whenever communists or socialists attempt to get two words in about their theories of proper government and economics, the Right and libertarians come rushing out with cries of "Stalin! Stalin! Russia! Russia!" insisting that "history has proven" that such theories do not work. They then proceed to ignore or heavy-handedly bash advocate's repeated and sensible pleas that neither the U.S.S.R. nor any other so-called "Communist" or "Socialist" nation ever really tried the theories suggested by communists and socialists.
The problem with this argument is that, contrary to the believes of the USSR / Stalin apologists, the USSR was actually built upon sound socialist principles and Lenin and Stalin both honestly believed in those ideals when they each killed thousands - millions of people, directly or indirectly, in order to enforce their deeply held ideals upon them. On the other hand, no one has ever been rounded up, sent to a Gulag and shot because they refuse to allow themselves to have the freedom to sell produce on the market. No one has ever starved because the introduction of the free market has caused people to destroy their machinery, burn their crops and slaughter their livestock in resistance, because it hasnt.

Lenin introduced a socialist economy in the early years called War Communism, where all excess produce from the farms was taken and redistributed for no pay for the farmers to feed the industrial workers and the army fighting the White Russians. Industrial goods were to be 'redistributed' centrally to the people. This is clearly socialist, is it not? The farmers ended up destroying their property in resistance, thousands were killed by the Red Army and the resulting starvation caused the near-collapse of the entire Russian economy. Lenin was forced to abate and introduce a semi-capitalist internal economy because if he didnt the entire country would have collapsed.

I would agree that pure laisse-faire Capitalism has never been tried, but pure Socialism certainly has and it has failed. The elements of the economies of Western nations that are not Capitalist are Socialist out of social desireability, not out of economic sense. The elements of those economies that generate the wealth are those of the free market. The Socialist elements are just the ones that spend the wealth an alarmingly high rate.

Yeah, whites loved Washington... because he kept telling blacks, "work hard, and whites will appreciate you. Don't demand your 'rights', that'll just make them mad."

He said this all through the 1870s and 1880s... in which, at every step, things were going from bad to worse for African Americans in the South.

There were a few upward bumps here or there over the next half century and more... but do you know when things actually started to turn around for them? When they gave up on "work hard for the white man" as a motto and cooked up something called the Civil Rights movement.

Shutting your mouth and doing your chores doesn't work?
You have to demand your rights to get them?

Funny thing, that.

Wow.... is reverse racism a RIGHT or a voluntary thing?

You know, I find this very amusing.

Whenever communists or socialists attempt to get two words in about their theories of proper government and economics, the Right and libertarians come rushing out with cries of "Stalin! Stalin! Russia! Russia!" insisting that "history has proven" that such theories do not work. They then proceed to ignore or heavy-handedly bash advocate's repeated and sensible pleas that neither the U.S.S.R. nor any other so-called "Communist" or "Socialist" nation ever really tried the theories suggested by communists and socialists.

But when the tables are turned, God forbid anyone should claim that the most unregulated capitalist markets in known history actually constitute "pure" capitalism. "Pure" laissez-faire capitalism has never been attempted!!

Can we agree to NOT have it both ways, people? Can the free market capitalists agree to address communist and socialist theories rather than histories that these theorists repudiate? Can communists, socialists, and advocates of a regulated market admit that the 1890s were but an approximation of market freedom, and not true laissez-faire?

Somehow I doubt it. But it would be nice to have an honest conversation for once.

(Arguments suggesting relevant commonalities between historical events and theoretical constructs would, of course, be welcome. History can teach us, but first we have to see history as it is rather than as our favorite ideologues pretend it to be.)

You will find no argument with me, at least. "Communism" as was implemented by those states you mentioned was a perversion. Personally, I feel to implement Communism would require a large change in the human psyche.

Pure capitalism doesn't require as much of a change in the human nature (since it actually adds greed into its equations) but I think it is too late to establish. The closest we ever came was during the 1890s, but since then our goverment has expanded so fast that I don't think we would be able to ever implement pure capitalism effectively.

Straight and unadulterated Booker T. Washington.
No complaints... provided you tell me how you fund it.

Simple. Switch to a flat income tax. You pay 25% (20% to federal, 5% to state) of anything you earn over $20,000 that isn't sitting in a retirement fund. Period. No exceptions, no loopholes, no credits, no caps.

Businesses pay tax under the same identical scheme, on anything they earn over $100,000 that isn't sitting in a pension fund for their employees.

Voila. You've sliced the IRS down by about 75%, increased tax revenue, put the burden where it belongs - on those who can actually afford it, decomplicated the tax code, made existing programs much more solvent, and rounded up money for an anti-poverty campaign... all in one fell swoop.

I suppose you're spot on, AnarchyL.

See, after the total failure of leftism, most spectacularly in Russia, sensible people have arrived to the conclusion that whatever is proposed by anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman and Angela Merkel is a seriously bad idea, which one tries at one's peril.

Simple. Switch to a flat income tax. You pay 25% (20% to federal, 5% to state) of anything you earn over $20,000 that isn't sitting in a retirement fund. Period. No exceptions, no loopholes, no credits, no caps.

Businesses pay tax under the same identical scheme, on anything they earn over $100,000 that isn't sitting in a pension fund for their employees.

Voila. You've sliced the IRS down by about 75%, increased tax revenue, put the burden where it belongs - on those who can actually afford it, decomplicated the tax code, made existing programs much more solvent, and rounded up money for an anti-poverty campaign... all in one fell swoop.


.... hmmm... make it a tax on consumption instead and you might very well find me persuadable. I still think taxing labour ( I'm not arguing on taxing business at a flat rate ) is a seriously flawed idea in a global economy.

.... hmmm... make it a tax on consumption instead and you might very well find me persuadable. I still think taxing labour ( I'm not arguing on taxing business at a flat rate ) is a seriously flawed idea in a global economy.

What's the difference between taxing a business and income tax?

What's the difference between taxing a business and income tax?

Income tax on what?
( I promise you the question is not irrelevant... )

.... hmmm... make it a tax on consumption instead and you might very well find me persuadable. I still think taxing labour ( I'm not arguing on taxing business at a flat rate ) is a seriously flawed idea in a global economy.

I have considered that as well, maybe something along the lines of the VAT, but I'm afraid of the idea of a VAT in the hands of the US government. Raising the VAT is too easy to do - "Don't want to pay the tax increase? Simple! Don't spend!" - and generates money at a frightening rate. I'm not convinced it's a good idea for the economy in the long run.

What's the difference between taxing a business and income tax?

When people in the US say "income tax," they're usually referring to the income of an individual. And that is what I meant in my original post.

Income tax on what?
( I promise you the question is not irrelevant... )

Sorry, I meant personal income tax. But what is the difference between a corporate income tax and a personal one? Aren't they both taxing labor; one's just doing it on a broader scale...?

I have considered that as well, maybe something along the lines of the VAT, but I'm afraid of the idea of a VAT in the hands of the US government. Raising the VAT is too easy to do - "Don't want to pay the tax increase? Simple! Don't spend!" - and generates money at a frightening rate. I'm not convinced it's a good idea for the economy in the long run.


People cant defer their consumption forever. What you earn in the US will be spent in the US, barring foreign holidays, provided you are a person.

Not so with business profits. Capital is highly mobile.. and will organise itself in such a way as to minimise its taxation.

Ditto for the use of labour in a company. You can easily switch the production of jeans from the US to, say, Poland. GIVEN that US taxation on labour is higher than the Polish taxation on labour, companies will tend to produce their jeans offshore. Cut that taxation, and this propensity will decrease.

We're creating a more level playing field, a more market market economy, if you tax eg clothing WHERE IT IS USED, not where it is made. Meanwhile... what percentage of of your clothing is still made in the US? What about the cars you've owned in the last 20 years?
I'm just having a wild guess.. but I'm guesstimating that profits accrued by the sale of cars and clothing in the US tended to accrue in the treasuries of the PRC and Japan, not in the US.

Sorry, I meant personal income tax. But what is the difference between a corporate income tax and a personal one? Aren't they both taxing labor; one's just doing it on a broader scale...?

Corporate incomes are relatively easy to swap around in a global economy.
You can switch things so that your business income is taxable in, say, Belize.
This is something that eg a producer of Tshirts can easily do, and will.

But you cannot do the same with your personal income ( unles you can afford pretty good lawyers ). A coalminer in Pennsylvania cannot. No matter what you do, the mine cannot be duplicated on the Bahama's.

The difference lies in the opportunities to steer your taxable income in and out of taxzones.

At any rate, I believe funding for poverty elimination can be found in a tax code change. Whether a flat OR a consumption tax, making the tax code more equitable and sharing the burden more equally is key.

And I believe in reducing the negative effects of poverty, we will also be attacking many other social evils, such as prejudice, drug use, and crime.

The problem with this argument is that, contrary to the believes of the USSR / Stalin apologists, the USSR was actually built upon sound socialist principles

Whatever principles it was built on, the point is that socialists and communists today espouse clearly different principles. Or, at the very least, they make intelligent arguments to that effect, which I have seen only a very few capitalist ideologues on these boards even bother to read before shouting "USSR!"

and Lenin and Stalin both honestly believed in those ideals when they each killed thousands - millions of people, directly or indirectly, in order to enforce their deeply held ideals upon them.

Lenin, yes. Stalin... to be honest, I doubt it. He made an ambitious and ruthless power-grab that eagerly sacrificed principles to power. Moreover, he was responsible for the vast majority of the abuses associated today with the tyranny of the USSR. Most honest historians will admit that the USSR still had some hope (if usually qualified by outside historical circumstance) before Stalin took power.

On the other hand, no one has ever been rounded up, sent to a Gulag and shot because they refuse to allow themselves to have the freedom to sell produce on the market.

Ummm.... no one in the United States, maybe. Although we did "round up" a lot of Communists (or suspected Communists) and make their lives as hellish as possible under our own set of laws. (Actually, we probably stretched those laws a bit farther than reason should have taken them.)

No one has ever starved because the introduction of the free market has caused people to destroy their machinery, burn their crops and slaughter their livestock in resistance, because it hasnt.

Luddites, anyone? They didn't starve, because they were smarter than that... but they are just the most famous of the machinery-breaking resisters to industrialization.

Lenin introduced a socialist economy in the early years called War Communism, where all excess produce from the farms was taken and redistributed for no pay for the farmers to feed the industrial workers and the army fighting the White Russians. Industrial goods were to be 'redistributed' centrally to the people. This is clearly socialist, is it not?

No one is claiming that the USSR did not adopt some, even many, substantive socialist proposals. But so did the United States, including price-setting controls beginning in the Great Depression, and peaking with our own war-time economy in World War II. Adopting policies of central management does not make one socialist. But you would think that, a) because you ignore history; and b) because you ignore the communists and socialists who try to explain to you what socialism really is.

Lenin was forced to abate and introduce a semi-capitalist internal economy because if he didnt the entire country would have collapsed.

Yes. But the point is that he did introduce a semi-capitalist internal economy... and indeed began a drift toward what honest theorists of political-economy term "state capitalism," not socialism. Modern socialists agree that Lenin's timing and methods were not suited to a socialist revolution. They generally agree that it never could have worked. But capitalist ideologues don't want to hear that, they want to insist that "history has proven" what happens when you try socialism. No, "history" rarely "proves" anything, because of the paucity of its sample. A few examples prove nothing, especially when the advocates of a theory suggest alternative means to introduce it, which have never been tested.

I would agree that pure laisse-faire Capitalism has never been tried, but pure Socialism certainly has and it has failed.

This is intellectually disingenuous. You agree that pure laissez-faire has not been tried because you can honestly compare the theory to reality and see that it has not existed; but any honest comparison to the theories of communists or socialists will find that history is equally lacking in examples that compare remotely to what they have proposed.

You cannot have it both ways.

The elements of the economies of Western nations that are not Capitalist are Socialist out of social desireability, not out of economic sense.

How exactly do you separate the two?

The elements of those economies that generate the wealth are those of the free market.

Maybe. Economists use a very narrow definition of "wealth" when they make this claim... and even economists recognize significant market failures such that the market fails to produce efficiently without coercive management. (E.g. externalities, collective goods, information disparity.) This is one of the reasons that I am suspicious of claims to distinguish between "social desirability" and "economic sense."

You will find no argument with me, at least. "Communism" as was implemented by those states you mentioned was a perversion. Personally, I feel to implement Communism would require a large change in the human psyche.

I think you're wrong... but I do respect your intellectual honesty. Really.

My disagreement lies with your estimation of human nature, on two grounds. First, it is incomplete: there is a hell of a lot more to us than competition. Second, it is ambiguous: human beings are so competitive that they cannot cooperate, yet not so competitive that they would find ways to compete in the absence of monetary and material competition.

Human beings are so competitive, I believe, that if you take away wealth as a score-card, they will just pick something else... fame, the esteem of their peers, honors, responsibility... you name it. People love to distinguish themselves from others. They won't "give up" and stop working just because you won't let them distinguish themselves by becoming wealthier than others.

(We are getting decidedly off-track. My apologies.)

I suppose you're spot on, AnarchyL.

See, after the total failure of leftism, most spectacularly in Russia, sensible people have arrived to the conclusion that whatever is proposed by anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman and Angela Merkel is a seriously bad idea, which one tries at one's peril.

I don't respond to arguments that use circular definitions, e.g. yours of "sensible."

Simple. Switch to a flat income tax.

A flat income tax is theoretically and economically bankrupt.

If I were on my own, without any social relations, I might have a farm and support myself. Since society clearly hasn't "helped" anyone provide more for themselves for this, anything under subsistence level simply should not be taxed. (I think we agree on this.)

If I live in society, however, and I make 10% more than subsistence, it is not a simple calculation to figure out how much is due to my own effort and ingenuity, and how much I "owe" to the society in which I live. It cannot be all "society's" because plenty of people with similar opportunities to mine make less. On the other hand, it cannot be ALL mine, because people working outside society simply cannot earn so much.

First of all, it's clear that I cannot be taxed more than 10%--that would put me in a worse position than if I had not participated in society at all!

Before suggesting what it should really be, let's consider the case of the extremely successful business-person, who makes perhaps 50,000 times what he could have made without society. He or she clearly benefits from public laws--without which her/his business might not even be possible. But how much? How much can he/she claim as "purely" her/his, and how much does he/she "owe" to society?

The calculations would be impossible to make. What is clear, from a theoretical standpoint, is that the wealthiest individuals in society benefit more from the laws under which they live than do the poorest. Under different laws, after all (say, communist ones, since this is tangential to that discussion), they would have made much, much less... while the poorest might have made only slightly less (or perhaps even more!)...

So, we need to come up with a "fair" way to tax them, that acknowledges the fact that the wealthy probably owe more to society than do the poor.

A proportional tax system is the best way to go... with the idea being that, as near as we can approximate, we tax the same "marginal utility" of all. See, if I have $10000, losing $2500 (25%) REALLY hurts... but if I have $1 Million, losing $250,000--while it does hurt!--does not hurt as much. (This is a basic law of economics, so don't bother to argue.) Since the value of each dollar is diminished as I obtain more, a simple percentage does not capture equivalency in marginal utility.

Thus, the fairest way to tax is not to take the same "amount", which means very different things at different incomes, but to do our best to see that all individuals feel the same "pinch" of social obligation. This means progressively higher taxes as income increases.

Corporate incomes are relatively easy to swap around in a global economy.
... The difference lies in the opportunities to steer your taxable income in and out of taxzones.

Those opportunities are not "givens" of a global market, but are conventions of existing legal frameworks... which can be changed.