reparations

[angelofdeath]

" You are not consistent, except in following a certain version of libertarian dogma. For instance, you said that you wanted to use the courts to fight a polluting factory next to your land, but in another post, you said the court shouldn't guarantee anyone's right to an abortion. Sounds like a contradiction to your code of conduct. "

 

it is totally 100% consistent. abortions are state/local issues, not federal. people who are for abortion, and libertarians simply have some misapplied ideology. the courts basically use a property rights argument to support abortion. this is the same argument that was used to support slavery. i dont agree with it one bit. also, like segregation, they have decided that a certain class of humans, arent humans, and arent entitled to rights. in this case, thier own lives. so yes, im a paleo libertarian, who isnt a regime capital L Libertarian, like the libertarian party, but a lower case l libertarian. because of abortion, and because of the unsecured borders plank.

[russell jones]

"

black IQ levels are approximately 85, the national norm being 100.

 

So let me just get this straight. You are saying that Black people are't as successful as Whites because they are not as smart? This is a yes or no question.

[Guest spectr]

I have to step away from this arguement for a few days...women are the devil...

[fermentor666]

^^ Change your sig first, lol!

 

 

 

good point

 

also Aristotle saw a 'philosopher king' as the ideal ruler which runs pretty heavily against the mdoern idea of a democracy.

 

however in my studies of aristotle i was led to believe that he didnt think a politi was the ideal form of government. from my understanding he thought a kind of meritocratic oligarchy was ideal because he had the view that politics was an area in which not all people could participate because of their lack of ability in the area.

 

 

Yes, exactly. When he talks about a polity, he just says it's a form of government with democracy being the bad version. He does have the view that some are just unfit to rule, it's his whole master/slave idea where some people are naturally born as slaves and others naturally born as masters. I don't think he would have agreed with American slavery at all, but he definitly did not rule out forms of slavery for a successful government.

[WORDISM45]

Now i dont know much about the treatment of Native Americans in the united states but it seems ot me that if anyone has a right to reperations it would be the people whos blood and stolen land the entire modern nation was born on.

 

whats up with reservations are they big enough and are they on prime land or just dustbowls?

[angelofdeath]

indians were exterminated. the biggest reservation was oklahoma, it was originally 'indian territory.' its basically a big dustbowl

[fermentor666]

Sad.

[russell jones]

indians were exterminated. the biggest reservation was oklahoma, it was originally 'indian territory.' its basically a big dustbowl

 

According to my Native American Religions proff, who lived with plains Indians for a while, Native Americans hate it when people say they have been wiped out. They are still there, just in fewer numbers.

[serum]

just to add a bit to the discussion

 

during ww2 the japanese rounded up a bunch of koreans during their colonization. brought them back as either sex slaves or hard labor workers. after the war they had the choice to stay or return to korea. the people that chose to go back were discriminated against because they lived together with the japanese devils. korean culture is pretty strict towards those in the IN group and those in the OUT group. those koreans that chose to stay in japan and at present day still have no passport. no country claiming them. they are neither korean nationals nor japanese nationals. they can attend school but the racism is so bad that most of them chose to go to specialized korean schools that teach hongul and japanese. however the japanese instituions do not recognize these schools as legitimate places of education and they are not permitted to enter university/higher level jobs since they technically didnt graduate from a 'real highschool'. those that do go to japanese schools must recieve the group racism handed down from the teachers to the students. most change their given korean names to japanese and try to assimilate as best they can. its really difficult to tell the difference by face alone. so when highschool graduates apply for universities they are required to provide a family register of where they came from. this is used to discriminate against koreans/chinese as well as burakumin (lower blood japanese). so many are not even allowed to recieve higher education. companies also require the family register and are famous for hiring detectives to look up all their applicants info to see where they really came from. korean women try and marry into a japanese family so that their children will recieve a japanese nationality and hopefully a better future. the men however are stuck in construction jobs and if they marry a japanese woman they do not recieve japanese nationality and nor do their children. so these kids also become limbo children not really japanese or korean.

 

those korean men that ive met personally have immediately told me im korean is that ok? because they are afraid that if i find out later i will drop them as a friend for not being honest.

 

so my reason for sharing is because this in my opinion is true institutionalized discrimination. no matter how much hard work, schools you go to, assimilation, intermarriage that you do you will be forever doomed to be a nothing.

 

whatever happened to the back to africa movement?

[fermentor666]

So their kids aren't made into citizens even though they were born in Japan? That's where you live, right?

[serum]

yeah, from those 'openly' japanese-koreans that i met didn't have any citezenship. i wish i knew more information on the subject. its a topic that im pretty interested in since there is very little known, or thoroughly documented about it. atleast in english. regrettably my japanese isnt good enough to do research on it. but the racism/xenophobia is a taboo subject so not a lot of people want to openly discuss it or write about it. burakumin are another group that are heavily oppressed. systematically lined up for the robot junkyard. my friends that are buraku basically just gave up school in jr high. they knew they'd be wasting their time. theres alot of identity theft here. also i dont have the exact figure but around 100,000 (or more) japanese identities go 'missing' every year. people pay the yakuza and just move to another prefecture and start a new life. but 3rd generation koreans still are not japanese on paper nor are they korean. they might be able to apply for s korean / n korean citezenship but they face racism there too. nobody from their blood line wants anything to do with them yet most japanese koreans still send monthly checks to them regardless.

[Guest spectr]

spectr: In the text of Aristotle's "Politics" that I'm studying, his viewpoint was that when the indigent are the only rulers it has an incorrect constitution. He says there are three correct types of governments: monarchies, aristocracies, and polities. He says that a monarchy is when one person rules and the wrong kind of monarcy is a tyranny, where one person rules for himself instead of for the people. An aristocracy would be where a small group of elites (not just money wealth, but intellectual), and an oligarchy is when they do it for their own benefit instead of for the whole. A polity is when everyone rules by majority, and does so for the benefit of both the majority and the minority--for the benefit of all. A democracy is when the poor rule only in favor for themselves and is what he calls the incorrect form of polity.

 

 

So when he says "Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers", he is giving an example of an incorrect government/constitution. In a polity, which is what we now consider to be a democracy, there are no exclusitivities. I'm assuming you're using his quotation to argue that our democracy should exclude "men of property" and you'd be absoloutely wrong to make that arguement using Aristotle's words because that's the exact opposite of what he thinks is a correct government. In fact, Aristotle actually condones slavery in some forms of government.

 

 

In regards to your signature.

Aristotle described a polity as rule by the many, who are neither wealthy nor poor, in the interests of the whole community. He believed it to be the ideal form of government somewhere between oligarchy and democracy.

 

I think he is saying just that, when the wealthy rule they rule for themselfs, wealth creates greed. when the poor rule they make themselfs wealthy. He was describing the change that happens in democracy by the masses a change that we are currently lacking in this country..

well thats just my thoughts though.. good point though thanks for something to think about for a few days.

[Guest spectr]

"But the poverty rate among blacks fell by half between 1940 and 1960"

 

yes but i love the fact that its ignored that the poverty rates for other races fell by even more.

I went to the cenus bureau and did the math.. you can do it to..

 

"what does some dumb ass neo con, self proclaimed 'jeffersonian' running off at the mouth have to do with blacks committing crime? hell, people call me names all the time, and i dont go around killing people because of it."

 

you took that out of comment.. look at where it is posted.. and that has a lot to do with this country..

 

"d be curious to see some evidence on this" thats in refernce to the harsher sentencing for minoritys. its all over the web do a quick google search and you can make your own decision about if you want to believe the data.

[fermentor666]

He defines a democracy as an incorrect form of a polity in that it rules for the poor. He was definitly not an advocate of this form of government.

[angelofdeath]

hopefully this will address the nature of inequality of results and inequalities of income talked about in this thread. and this is written by a black economist, so save the racist remarks for next time.

 

results versus process

by walter williams

 

Democrats plan to trumpet the income and wealth gap for political gain in this year's elections. According to The Wall Street Journal article "Democrats' Risky Strategy," Democratic candidates blame Republicans for economic inequality.

 

This strategy might sell because, in addition to envy, many people erroneously use income inequality as a measure of fairness. Income is a result. As such, results cannot establish whether there is fairness or justice.

 

Let's look at it. Suppose Tom, Dick and Harry play a weekly game of poker. Tom wins 75 percent of the time. Dick and Harry, respectively, win 15 percent and 10 percent of the time. Knowing only the poker game's result permits us to say absolutely nothing as to whether there has been poker justice. Tom's disproportionate winnings are consistent with his being either an astute player or a clever cheater.

 

 

To determine whether there has been poker justice, the game's process must be examined. Some process questions we might ask are: Were Hoyle's Rules obeyed, were the cards unmarked, were the cards dealt from the top of the deck, and did the players play voluntarily? If these questions yield affirmative answers, there was poker justice regardless of the game's result, with Tom winning 75 percent of the time.

 

Similarly, income is a result. In a free society, for the most part, income is a result of one's capacity to serve his fellow man and the value his fellow man places on that service. Say I mow your lawn and you pay me $30. That $30 might be seen as a certificate of performance. Why?

 

I go to the grocer and ask for 3 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking for something that your fellow man produced; what did you do for your fellow man?" I say, "I served my fellow man by mowing his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it." That's when I give him my certificates of performance, the $30.

 

Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are multi-billionaires. Just as in the case of my mowing my fellow man's lawn, they became very wealthy by serving their fellow man. The difference is they served their fellow man far more effectively than I and hence received more "certificates of performance," enabling them to make greater claims on what their fellow man produces.

 

Their greater income is a result of their pleasing millions upon millions of their fellow man. They created wealth by producing a product that improves the lives of millions upon millions of people all around the globe. Should people like Messrs. Brin and Page, who have improved our lives, be held up to ridicule and scorn because they have a higher income than most of us? Should Congress use the tax code to confiscate part of their wealth in the name of fairness and income redistribution?

 

For the most part, income is a result of one's productivity and the value that people place on that productivity. Far more important than income inequality, there is productivity inequality. That suggests that if there's anything to be done about income inequality, we should focus on how to give people greater capacity in serving their fellow man, and we should make sure there's a climate of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

 

Think back to my poker example. If one is concerned about the game's result, which is more just? Taking some of Tom's winnings and redistributing them to Dick and Harry, or teaching Dick and Harry how to play poker better?

[WORDISM45]

it seems tom could easily have started the game with a thousand dollars worth of chips while dick and harry started with five dollars a pop

[soulkillers]

my thoughts on this subject.i am ot as informed on this as well as you guys but it is the joys of being able to speak my mind.

 

i dont think todays blacks should be paid anything for the labors of there forefathers. slavery sucked yes we all can agree on that. slavery ended over a hundred and twenty years ago. blacks earned there freedom.earned a right to live in a country where they can becaome anythin they want to if they have a drive and determation. that is payment enough.Not all whites had there hands in slavery. more whites had no slaves compared to the ones that did.so it makes no sense for the goverment to pay or as some suggestions to make companys pay reperations. there proabally is not many companys today who are old enough to pay back money in large sums.

 

now yes blacks have been treated unfairl but most blacks forget they are not the only ones who have, native americans have been as well as other white races. slavery was ina time of world domance race between spain and england.go after them not america who in less then 100 years of being a country got rid of slavery. go after the africans who sold thoses slaves into slavery. it is not just a simple as some belive to say america ows us african americans money for what they did to my great grampas great grampa.

 

in closing everytime i hear about this subject you never hear anything good of what has become. you haer the negative. sucha as about the poverty, n which if you want you can change the situation. oh wait i forget the white man keeps the black man down.

[russell jones]

hopefully this will address the nature of inequality of results and inequalities of income talked about in this thread. and this is written by a black economist, so save the racist remarks for next time.

 

 

You keep mentioning that these quotes come from a "black economist" as if that deflects all criticism of being racist. I'll give you a story that explains why that is bullshit.

 

 

 

I used to work at Toys 'R' Us. One day, three black kids came in to the store, with expensive baggy clothes. My new manager told me to watch them. I did not know if he saw anything so I went up to talk to them. I immediately knew they weren't going to steal anything by the way they acted towards me. I've caught enough shoplifters to know the MO. In fact, they bought about $500 worth of stuff. While in line, I told them about what my manager said. Needless to say they understood.

 

So I told the new manager, "Don't tell me to watch someone just because they're black ever again." He freaked and started yelling and screaming at me. So we had a meeting with my store manager. The new manager said that Quantice, who is black, told him about those kids coming in. I said just because Quantice was black, does not make him any less of an idiot or an ass kisser, and it is certainly not a reason to excuse a racist act. By the way, the manager also mentioned that black kids "were doing most of the stealing." Let me just say that I had caught just as many white people as black at the store and my town is 50/50 minority to white.

 

So, in other words, if you truly believe what you are posting from this guy is not racist, there is no need to keep posting that he is black, because being black doesn't stop you from being deluded. By the way, I noticed that you did not touch my IQ question.

[russell jones]

oh wait i forget the white man keeps the black man down.

 

If you think there is no racism in this country, work in retail, or read my previous post.

[russell jones]

hopefully this will address the nature of inequality of results and inequalities of income talked about in this thread. and this is written by a black economist, so save the racist remarks for next time.

 

results versus process

by walter williams

 

Democrats plan to trumpet the income and wealth gap for political gain in this year's elections. According to The Wall Street Journal article "Democrats' Risky Strategy," Democratic candidates blame Republicans for economic inequality.

 

This strategy might sell because, in addition to envy, many people erroneously use income inequality as a measure of fairness. Income is a result. As such, results cannot establish whether there is fairness or justice.

 

Let's look at it. Suppose Tom, Dick and Harry play a weekly game of poker. Tom wins 75 percent of the time. Dick and Harry, respectively, win 15 percent and 10 percent of the time. Knowing only the poker game's result permits us to say absolutely nothing as to whether there has been poker justice. Tom's disproportionate winnings are consistent with his being either an astute player or a clever cheater.

 

 

To determine whether there has been poker justice, the game's process must be examined. Some process questions we might ask are: Were Hoyle's Rules obeyed, were the cards unmarked, were the cards dealt from the top of the deck, and did the players play voluntarily? If these questions yield affirmative answers, there was poker justice regardless of the game's result, with Tom winning 75 percent of the time.

 

Similarly, income is a result. In a free society, for the most part, income is a result of one's capacity to serve his fellow man and the value his fellow man places on that service. Say I mow your lawn and you pay me $30. That $30 might be seen as a certificate of performance. Why?

 

I go to the grocer and ask for 3 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking for something that your fellow man produced; what did you do for your fellow man?" I say, "I served my fellow man by mowing his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it." That's when I give him my certificates of performance, the $30.

 

Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are multi-billionaires. Just as in the case of my mowing my fellow man's lawn, they became very wealthy by serving their fellow man. The difference is they served their fellow man far more effectively than I and hence received more "certificates of performance," enabling them to make greater claims on what their fellow man produces.

 

Their greater income is a result of their pleasing millions upon millions of their fellow man. They created wealth by producing a product that improves the lives of millions upon millions of people all around the globe. Should people like Messrs. Brin and Page, who have improved our lives, be held up to ridicule and scorn because they have a higher income than most of us? Should Congress use the tax code to confiscate part of their wealth in the name of fairness and income redistribution?

 

For the most part, income is a result of one's productivity and the value that people place on that productivity. Far more important than income inequality, there is productivity inequality. That suggests that if there's anything to be done about income inequality, we should focus on how to give people greater capacity in serving their fellow man, and we should make sure there's a climate of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

 

Think back to my poker example. If one is concerned about the game's result, which is more just? Taking some of Tom's winnings and redistributing them to Dick and Harry, or teaching Dick and Harry how to play poker better?

 

Google was an intentional example for the rich guys, because they are a case of rich people who take little of the government's services to build their business. This of course is not always the case. Someone who builds a fortune on manufacturing, for instance, uses much more of the government's services to build their fortunes, such as roads, waterways, infrastructure etc. than someone who, for instance, works for the plant. Therefore, it is justifiable to tax them at a higher rate.

[russell jones]

By the way, how does this economist plan on teaching Dick and Harry to play poker better? I am assuming, and correct me if I am wrong, that you don't believe in free education.

[soulkillers]

If you think there is no racism in this country, work in retail, or read my previous post.

what iwrote is called sarcasim. there is racism in america from all races. and what does working in retail have to do with racism? i honsetly have never heard that before. i am not trying agrue on that point just like i said that is a new one to me?

[angelofdeath]

so, what would you say if i personally have witnessed the same store scenario, but with a black manager and with 2 white kids? whats racist about being cautious? even, using statistics to justify it, your still in the clear. the statistics i posted on the last page went something like...blacks make up 12 percent of the population, and adult males 18-35 have like a 1 in 3 chance of being involved in crime.

 

personally, i judge everyone on thier own merit, performance and the way they carry themselves. i dont care if you are black, white, red, green or blue.

 

how is education 'free?' its not free, its paid for with tax money, read, other peoples money. education begins at home. thats what im saying people should do, stick together, raise thier kids, teach them right and wrong, etc. a big example. 40 years ago, counting change was taught in the 3rd grade. now, the majority of high school grads cant even count change. this 'free' education really does a good job doesnt it?

 

i love throwing in the fact that some of the best race relations teaching is done by black americans. to me they are throwing a big middle finger at the establishment, and it further drives home my point that race doesnt matter. it drives home my point that anyone can be what they want to be, based on thier own merits, and there is not some huge international conspiracy against everyone of color.

[russell jones]

what iwrote is called sarcasim. there is racism in america from all races. and what does working in retail have to do with racism? i honsetly have never heard that before. i am not trying agrue on that point just like i said that is a new one to me?

 

Sorry, what I meant is that white managers in retail stores always watch black kids rather than white kids , because they think the black kids are the ones who steal.

[russell jones]

so, what would you say if i personally have witnessed the same store scenario, but with a black manager and with 2 white kids?

 

 

I would say you were living in fantasy land... BECAUSE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!!!! Which is exactly my point, but I guess you missed that. Perhaps someone else could explain it to AOD? I feel like I am communicating with a brick wall.

[russell jones]

 

personally, i judge everyone on thier own merit, performance and the way they carry themselves. i dont care if you are black, white, red, green or blue.

 

So do I, which was the point of my story about Toys 'r' us, but many white people still don't do that today, that is just a fact.

 

 

i love throwing in the fact that some of the best race relations teaching is done by black americans. to me they are throwing a big middle finger at the establishment, and it further drives home my point that race doesnt matter. it drives home my point that anyone can be what they want to be, based on thier own merits, and there is not some huge international conspiracy against everyone of color.

 

There doesn't have to be some huge international conspiracy, just a bunch of stereotypes, combined with everyday racism like I mentioned in my Toys 'r' Us story, and the other factors that were mentioned throughout this thread that add up to it is harder to get ahead if you are Black or Latino. If you think that is false, then you are just blind.

[Sick Nigel]

"Affirmative action does not mean giving preference to any group. Affirmative action advances a multi-dimensional nature of excellence. It encourages us to recognize pluralism and diversity as a dimension of our value system. Accordingly, a search committee must create a diverse pool of candidates with a significant representation of women and minorities. A candidate's ability to provide cultural diversity to a department, to serve as a role model for students, and to offer a range of perspectives and scholarly interests should be major elements in the evaluation and selection process.

 

 

That's a lovely theoretical, on-paper definition of affirmative action. But that statement is totally inaccurate in the real world. It's no secret or mystery what A.A. actually accomplishes. Bottom line: Affirmative action does not achieve anything remotely close to equality. In fact, completely the opposite: It means that a minority will be hired according to their minority status instead of their qualification and ability. Racial quotas are the driving force behind such hiring/acceptance practices. An employer who hires according to A.A. principles will hire a minority even if they are less able and qualified for the task than a white man applying in the name of "diversity."

 

In the world of affirmative racism, "diversity" is to be achieved at the expense of everything else. It doesn't take much of a brain to realize the facts: The absolute main goal of any workplace or team is to be PRODUCTIVE, EFFICIENT, and SKILLED at what they do. All that is thrown out the window when an employer hires someone based on their skin color rather than their ability to meet the common goal of the team. Last time I checked, there were signs up everywhere stating that "we do not discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, national origin, etc."---They should add, "unless you are a white man." Does anyone else recognize this as the textbook definition of racism??

 

Diversity is a lovely ideal, but it comes after accomplishing goals and doing a GOOD JOB. It may be groovy to have people from several different countries or cultures in your department at work. I totally agree that you can learn more about the world when you are exposed to people from all walks of life. But cultural sensitivity and singing Kumbaya while holding hands across America are NOT the reason we become productive members of society (workers). Promoting diversity as the #1 ideal and object becomes very dangerous when you look at jobs where people's lives are at stake, such as law enforcement, fire fighting, paramedic rescue, etc. Anybody remember the scene in American History X (I know it's a racially charged movie, bad example in this conversation, but the specific point is dead on) where the dad, who is a firefighter, talks about how in his line of work their lives are all in each other's hands and they must have dependable men next to them. He mentions losing some men in a fire because the department hired someone who was UNQUALIFIED over some guys who WERE qualified, because the unqualified man had the advantage of being a minority. People died as a result of someone being less fit for duty when being fit for duty was all that mattered.

 

I apologize if this became long-winded, but it's a such a pressing issue that I see every day and it's so despicable. In the real world it's results that matter, not keeping people's feelings from being hurt or satisfying some idealists' twisted view of the world.

 

To those who argue that minorites should be placed in jobs ahead of someone who is better qualified for that job in the name of an ideal - Maybe someday you will find yourself in a situation where the ability of the man next to you (and not his skin color) will determine whether you live or die. Many people need to pull their heads out of their assholes and realize that there are great things at stake.

[angelofdeath]

"BECAUSE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!!!! "

 

dude. MY EX GIRLFRIEND HAS SEEN IT HAPPEN! your in a state of denial that people of color can be 'racist.' which another reason why i ditched the ARA.

[angelofdeath]

"just a bunch of stereotypes, combined with everyday racism like I mentioned in my Toys 'r' Us story, and the other factors that were mentioned throughout this thread that add up to it is harder to get ahead if you are Black or Latino. If you think that is false, then you are just blind."

 

if it is truely as bad as you say it is (which it isnt by a long shot) why dont these people that are being stereotyped simply straighten the fuck out? what is the deal? if 1 in 3 black males are committing crimes, why do you think someone would pull your toys r us scheme? even if this is some huge injustice, for a manager of a store ( on private property ) to look out for shop lifting, how is this forcing the kids into a life of crime, lack of education and a horrible job? go read some booker t for shits sake.

[russell jones]

"BECAUSE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!!!! "

 

dude. MY EX GIRLFRIEND HAS SEEN IT HAPPEN! your in a state of denial that people of color can be 'racist.' which another reason why i ditched the ARA.

 

 

So you are saying that your ex-girlfriend has seen a Black manager ask an employee to watch two white kids because they were white, and for that reason he thought that they were more likely to steal? I'm not in a state of denial, I just don't see why it would happen.

I never said that people of color can't be racist either, I just don't see it happening in that situation. There is definitely a racist stereotype in sports that works against White people. Just look at the NFL. Until recently, there had been no white players in "speed" positions of defensive back and punt returner. That's changing as people challenge the stereotypes. Now there are a few white players in those positions. In that situation, most of the owners and coaches are white, so the racism against white players is actually being perpertrated by other whites!