Pay back the black man?

[Leopard]

...now I will probably provoke your ire with this post:

In addition to my last post where I stated how I personally do not discriminate and judge each person I encounter from their actions and individual character, I also totally believe in the absolute right of people to choose to discriminate:

It is a very basic and intrinsic Right of Association. We ALL do it in every segment of our lives. We make very discriminating choices in whom we transact with for love, friendship, business, etc. If someone doesn't want to sell apples to anyone with pierced noses, fine by me. If a group of folks want to (with their own money) create a private club, restricting membership to males/females/whites/blacks/hispanics/punk rockers/etc, fine by me. It is ONLY the using of governmental force to discriminate that I rebel against. I say that all the 'anti-discrimination' laws we have passed have done vastly greater harm than good to our society. I think we would be much further along the path to racial/gender harmony if those laws were not passed. The market will and does 'punish' irrational behaviors much better and effectively than any government/police could. And, although it is a deep seated human nature to discriminate (or fear), it is also an irrational behavior.

how does that strike ya?
michael

[Mia]

I think that's true - one of the black leaders spoke against any measures by whites to help blacks - he said that true parity will only be achieved by blacks building it themselves.

[white rice]

Originally posted by Leopard, ...now I will probably provoke your ire with this post: In addition to my last post where I stated how I personally do not discriminate and judge each person I encounter from their actions and individual character, I also totally believe in the absolute right of people to choose to discriminate: It is a very basic and intrinsic Right of Association. We ALL do it in every segment of our lives. We make very discriminating choices in whom we transact with for love, friendship, business, etc. If someone doesn't want to sell apples to anyone with pierced noses, fine by me. If a group of folks want to (with their own money) create a private club, restricting membership to males/females/whites/blacks/hispanics/punk rockers/etc, fine by me. It is ONLY the using of governmental force to discriminate that I rebel against. I say that all the 'anti-discrimination' laws we have passed have done vastly greater harm than good to our society. I think we would be much further along the path to racial/gender harmony if those laws were not passed. The market will and does 'punish' irrational behaviors much better and effectively than any government/police could. And, although it is a deep seated human nature to discriminate (or fear), it is also an irrational behavior. how does that strike ya? michael

You say that because you're probably a white male that has never been discriminated against in a private function but is afraid some Colored folk will beat you to a job.

Let's extend your reasoning of what's okay. You have this life threatening injury, but the hospital is a privately owned and doesn't want your kind. The next one is too far away and you'll probably lose an arm or leg or worse off, die. So you go to the next one and meet your fate, and the privately owned hospital denies responsibility. So that would be okay to you because that's "Market Forces" at work. It doesn't matter that they turn away business because of irrational behavior, check. It could matter that this hospital recieves government subsidies like all large companies through several state and federal tax breaks and discounted supplies, but that is never the issue.

But let's look at some real life situations rather than your defiant principles.
Here's one article that says people with "white-sounding" names are 50% more likely to get a response to their resume than are those with "black-sounding" names.
http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/diversity...mdiversity.html

The resumes that had less gaps in employment and higher-level skills -- if they belonged to "white-sounding" names -- had a 30% greater chance of being responded to than the less qualified resume. However, this was not true for the same skilled resume of a "black-sounding" name. Names were chosen after a study of birth certificates. "White" names included Kristen, Greg, Neil, Emily, Brett, Anne and Jill. "Black" names included Kareem, Tamika, Rasheed, Ebony, Aisha and Tyrone. Resumes with "black-sounding" names had only a 6.7% chance of receiving a response to their resume, while resumes with "white-sounding" names had a 10.1% chance. The study found as much discrimination in less-skilled jobs, such as cashiering and mailroom attendants, as in more heavily skills-based positions such as regional sales manager and assistant to the president jobs.

It's not about skill or ethic, but to you that would be okay.

Here's another originally from the Wall Street Journal, which always speaks out against Big Business....

http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/diversity...916-wessel.html

Two young high-school graduates with similar job histories and demeanors apply in person for jobs as waiters, warehousemen or other low-skilled positions advertised in a Milwaukee newspaper. One man is white and admits to having served 18 months in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The other is black and hasn't any criminal record. Which man is more likely to get called back? It is surprisingly close. In a carefully crafted experiment in which college students posing as job applicants visited 350 employers, the white ex-con was called back 17% of the time and the crime-free black applicant 14%. The disadvantage carried by a young black man applying for a job as a dishwasher or a driver is equivalent to forcing a white man to carry an 18-month prison record on his back. Many white Americans think racial discrimination is no longer much of a problem. Many blacks think otherwise. In offices populated with college graduates, white men quietly confide to other white men that affirmative action makes it tough for a white guy to get ahead these days. (If that's so, a black colleague once asked me, how come there aren't more blacks in the corporate hierarchy?)

If you were a pure Capitalist, then you'd agree that these businesses are hurting their overall efficiency by not choosing the most competent people available. In other words, we do not function under pure market conditions.

Or if you were a realist, then you'd agree that "Market Forces" are a sham considering the enormous subsidies larger and more established corporations receive compared to smaller or newly formed companies. These companies recieve tax breaks in the tens of millions and have the lobbying power to impede competition. America isn't pure capitalism. Construction, logging, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing are the most obvious examples of government involvment and subsidies. And like the article above says, if affirmative action was making it tough for whites, why aren't there more blacks in the corporate hierarchy? Think of that and consider what you've just read about entry level hiring practices that doesn't involve a strong governmental hand.

I've only written this far because of what you wrote before.

I have grown up believing that each person is due respect they earn, and should each be treated/judged as individuals instead of members of a certain group (be that group a sexual preference, a skin pigmentation, an ethnic distinction, a gender, or whatever).

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Mia, I think that's true - one of the black leaders spoke against any measures by whites to help blacks - he said that true parity will only be achieved by blacks building it themselves.

hmmm, I don't think I agree with that statement, I would refine it by saying that any government measures would hinder their plight and only by forming cohesive networks among folks who felt the same as them (whites and blacks together) will they by able to achieve their goals.

[Leopard]

Hello White Rice! and thank you for your post.

You say that because you're probably a white male that has never been discriminated against in a private function but is afraid some Colored folk will beat you to a job.

Whether I am white or black has no effect on the truthfulness of my argument, for you to suggest so almost amounts to an ad hominum<if I knew how to spell it> but it matters not to me. I have never been afraid of competing my labor against any other person be they white/black/or gender challenged. I take it upon myself to seek out the needs of potential employers and prove to them how it would be mutually beneficial to hire me: I usually will offer to show them my skills by letting me 'work' for them for a week without any pay and them let them decide if they want to hire me or not - my goal during the interview process is twofold: prove how valuable I would be to them AND scare the shit out of them thinking 'what if this dude goes to work for my competitor?'. I rarely have been unsuccessful in finding the work I desire. Remember: each 'employee' is actually a business, we have our skills and talents (products), a sales force (our ability to convince an employer about our benefit to him), and a customer base (all the potential employers out there)... if people were taught these things and understood how valuable human labor is, we would have a miracle economy on our hands.

Let's extend your reasoning of what's okay. You have this life threatening injury, but the hospital is a privately owned and doesn't want your kind. The next one is too far away and you'll probably lose an arm or leg or worse off, die. So you go to the next one and meet your fate, and the privately owned hospital denies responsibility. So that would be okay to you because that's "Market Forces" at work. It doesn't matter that they turn away business because of irrational behavior, check. It could matter that this hospital recieves government subsidies like all large companies through several state and federal tax breaks and discounted supplies, but that is never the issue.

LOL! dang, same old 'stuck in the box' unimaginative thinking (sorry, really not trying to be insultive) - let me ask you this: While writing this paragraph did you ONCE try to imagine what YOU would do in the world you describe? Let me show you: First off, why would you assume that I would desire to live anywhere without insuring that there was proper and adequate medical help nearby which did not discriminate against me? Would you (assuming here that you are a white male) live in a town where the only hospital nearby was one that catered soley to black folks? I know that I would not, OR, I would make sure that there was some other substitute medical facility which would treat me. You forget, you ARE 'market forces'! and yes, they will run rampant all over you if you do not understand them or exercise your market power.

I don't know what or how corporate subsidies got into the picture but I am totally against ALL such market intrusions by the government - it kills people just as sure as hanging them.

If you were a pure Capitalist, then you'd agree that these businesses are hurting their overall efficiency by not choosing the most competent people available. In other words, we do not function under pure market conditions.

absolutely true - we currently do NOT operate under pure free market conditions and this is what I am advocating against! Get the government OUT of the market, take away the immense powers from government to trample upon our rights and so to be naturally used by those with wealth and big business. As long as some agency is above the 'law' and has exclusive and 'legal' ability to do to me things that my fellow ordinary citizens cannot do, then I am in constant danger because that agency, that governmental department, is being run by normal human beings with all of our natural self-interest and unlimited needs/desires and thus are able to be 'corrupted' by special interest money.
It is NOT a corporation which is able to FORCE you to sell your land to them when you do not want to sell - it is the government.

Or if you were a realist, then you'd agree that "Market Forces" are a sham considering the enormous subsidies larger and more established corporations receive compared to smaller or newly formed companies. These companies recieve tax breaks in the tens of millions and have the lobbying power to impede competition. America isn't pure capitalism. Construction, logging, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing are the most obvious examples of government involvment and subsidies.

I can't believe this! We agree - except you fail to see the problem that shows itself in your analysis!!!! First, 'market forces' are not a sham, they operate every second of the day and our very existance proves it. BUT, you are totally correct about subsidies and regulations and tax breaks - these are the root of all evil! Get rid of the governemnts ability to play favorites with whomever gives the biggest bribe and BOOM! we got a truely free market and such a vibrant economy that the world has never seen! I do not blame the companies for using legal methods of getting government favoritism, they are only acting as rational players in this game that the government has set up. It is totally and ONLY the governments ability to steal from me, to evict me, and to incarcerate me for violating 'regulations' that prevent me from truly competing against big old slow and top-heavy corporations - they are NO match for deft, flexible, mobile and ingenuitive businesses on the free market! You want to see the end of mega-corps? Defang their pet guard dogs (government) and they are as vulnerable as a buck in an open meadow...

thank you for listening,
michael

PS: along these lines I must also state that I am against the unscrupulus<sp?> practice of government providing any sort of limited liability to CEO's, Officers, and employees of corporations: people need to be held accountable for their actions and not 'shielded' from any misdeeds or fraudalent activities. People are responsible for their actions, it is simply not acceptable (ever since the Nurnberg trials) to claim 'it is company policy', 'my boss told me to do it', 'I didn't know that the accountants were doing that', sounds much to close to 'I was only following orders'....

[Mia]

White rice, it has also been proven that blacks and hispanics and other minorities are discriminated against in approvals for loans, etc. Despite excellet credit and income, they will be denied based on their last name. It's phenomenonaly stupid and awful - but I send these people to lenders who have no such discrimination and they win by getting business and the customer is no worse off. The bank is hurting themselves, not minorities.

I think this is what Leapord meant but you bring up excellent points as well.

[white rice]

Originally posted by Leopard,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leopard,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Whether I am white or black has no effect on the truthfulness of my argument, for you to suggest so almost amounts to an ad hominum<if I knew how to spell it> but it matters not to me. I have never been afraid of competing my labor against any other person be they white/black/or gender challenged. I take it upon myself to seek out the needs of potential employers and prove to them how it would be mutually beneficial to hire me: I usually will offer to show them my skills by letting me 'work' for them for a week without any pay and them let them decide if they want to hire me or not - my goal during the interview process is twofold: prove how valuable I would be to them AND scare the shit out of them thinking 'what if this dude goes to work for my competitor?'. I rarely have been unsuccessful in finding the work I desire. Remember: each 'employee' is actually a business, we have our skills and talents (products), a sales force (our ability to convince an employer about our benefit to him), and a customer base (all the potential employers out there)... if people were taught these things and understood how valuable human labor is, we would have a miracle economy on our hands. [/b]

In some cases that does work. I'm not trying to take anything away from your example, but for many immigrants who came here loaded with degrees, they have had to work jobs that their education would overqualify them. My father came here with a business Masters after he got accepted into Cornell for another degree. They later rejected his degree and told him to take more classes before they let him in. He ended up scrubbing toilets, being a waiter and cook to make ends meet. No business wants an immigrant with a bad accent; it implies you're dumb and that you don't know your way. If it wasn't for the people of his race helping him out and the money he had stashed, my parents probably wouldn't have made it above the poverty line.

You can supply all the work and talent and advertise it, but if there isn't a demand for it, you will be forced to do things you imagined were beneath you to make ends meet. If you have a family at this time, it's even worse and you might not climb out. The clincher is that this "demand" might not even be fair raging from a favor, nepotism, or irrational hate for your kind.

Originally posted by Leopard,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leopard,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> LOL! dang, same old 'stuck in the box' unimaginative thinking (sorry, really not trying to be insultive) - let me ask you this: While writing this paragraph did you ONCE try to imagine what YOU would do in the world you describe? Let me show you: First off, why would you assume that I would desire to live anywhere without insuring that there was proper and adequate medical help nearby which did not discriminate against me? Would you (assuming here that you are a white male) live in a town where the only hospital nearby was one that catered soley to black folks? I know that I would not, OR, I would make sure that there was some other substitute medical facility which would treat me. You forget, you ARE 'market forces'! and yes, they will run rampant all over you if you do not understand them or exercise your market power. [/b]

Cheaper housing? Victim of circumstance? Not everyone has the ability to choose where they live, or can spend that amount of investment to find a new home.

The problem lies within your perspective. Of course you wouldn't choose housing zones that discriminated against white people. But the thought of that implies voluntary segregation, where races and classes stick with each other by choice. It means that all the blacks in urban neighborhoods chose to live with each other for that reason in the first place. How would that mode of thinking promote gender equality? Off topic, do you believe in assimilation of races, or inevitable ethnic conflict?

Most of all, if you were black and all businesses were openly hostile or exploitive to you as in the case before desegregation and the Civil Rights Act, then you wouldn't even have a choice of where to go or where to live. Times are obviously different now, but corporate and consumer racial discrimination still exists. In reality, it is more likely that businesses will still play to the government for aid than the government regulating those businesses and protecting the consumer and worker in the process. Why should we prematurely give the latter up without any guarantees of eliminating the former?

Originally posted by Leopard, absolutely true - we currently do NOT operate under pure free market conditions and this is what I am advocating against! Get the government OUT of the market, take away the immense powers from government to trample upon our rights and so to be naturally used by those with wealth and big business. As long as some agency is above the 'law' and has exclusive and 'legal' ability to do to me things that my fellow ordinary citizens cannot do, then I am in constant danger because that agency, that governmental department, is being run by normal human beings with all of our natural self-interest and unlimited needs/desires and thus are able to be 'corrupted' by special interest money. It is NOT a corporation which is able to FORCE you to sell your land to them when you do not want to sell - it is the government.

I disagree. The Laizez faire principle was in place in the 17th century up until Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts. It was gross, ugly and didn't serve the public interest. Smaller government, yes. At the expense of public security, no.

Yeah, eminent domain does get abused, but if they're planning to build a highway, then I, the driver, want the best bang for my taxpayer money. On the other end, if I was some rich dumbass schmoe who likes houses on coastlines, I could always look towards FEMA to bail me out if something bad and unpredictable happens, like too much rain and floods....

Originally posted by Leopard, I can't believe this! We agree - except you fail to see the problem that shows itself in your analysis!!!! First, 'market forces' are not a sham, they operate every second of the day and our very existance proves it. BUT, you are totally correct about subsidies and regulations and tax breaks - these are the root of all evil! Get rid of the governemnts ability to play favorites with whomever gives the biggest bribe and BOOM! we got a truely free market and such a vibrant economy that the world has never seen! I do not blame the companies for using legal methods of getting government favoritism, they are only acting as rational players in this game that the government has set up. It is totally and ONLY the governments ability to steal from me, to evict me, and to incarcerate me for violating 'regulations' that prevent me from truly competing against big old slow and top-heavy corporations - they are NO match for deft, flexible, mobile and ingenuitive businesses on the free market! You want to see the end of mega-corps? Defang their pet guard dogs (government) and they are as vulnerable as a buck in an open meadow...

The market forces we have today is not wholly efficient or egalitarian. Circumstances from past generations have as much clout as the talent and work you put in now. Where are the proportional ratio of blacks in the corporate hierarchy if untainted market forces exist? You can call that rational, but it is only fair to correct our mistakes so that it won't repeat itself in future generations.

If you elimate all regulations, then how would you feel about child labor, unsafe working conditions, workers compensation for injuries, elimination of overtime, collusion within the same industries to set lowered wages, or indentured servitude legally bound by contract? Those were all challenges the working American faced before Progessive Era changes were enacted. In that time, people like Herst, Carnegie, Getty, and Morgan owned more than half of the nation's wealth. Some were worth even more than Bill Gates after inflation. They knew how to suppress talks of organized labor and they worked the papers so no one was the wiser. What you're asking for is not a step forward; you're turning back pages in history.

I don't think establishments or expansive companies serving substandard products to one group within a country is helping the market. It is my belief that as companies continue to merge, the local consumer's role in punishing that behavior is lessened. The media is oligarchal and can't be effectively relied upon as watchdog. That's what I took offense and disagreed to in your original reply.

Thank you for your reply michael and for reading mine.

<!--QuoteBegin-Leopard,@

PS: along these lines I must also state that I am against the unscrupulus<sp?> practice of government providing any sort of limited liability to CEO's, Officers, and employees of corporations: people need to be held accountable for their actions and not 'shielded' from any misdeeds or fraudalent activities. People are responsible for their actions, it is simply not acceptable (ever since the Nurnberg trials) to claim 'it is company policy', 'my boss told me to do it', 'I didn't know that the accountants were doing that', sounds much to close to 'I was only following orders'....[/quote]

I agree, but how far the government should play watchdog (the SEC is one of those agencies that lays down most of the rules, not the legislative branch) is something I'll look forward to seeing in your reply.

<!--QuoteBegin-Mia,

White rice, it has also been proven that blacks and hispanics and other minorities are discriminated against in approvals for loans, etc. Despite excellet credit and income, they will be denied based on their last name. It's phenomenonaly stupid and awful - but I send these people to lenders who have no such discrimination and they win by getting business and the customer is no worse off. The bank is hurting themselves, not minorities.

I think this is what Leapord meant but you bring up excellent points as well.[/quote]

Why do minorities need a person to tell them which bank is racist and which ones aren't? Can you imagine holding a list of "inside information" of which McDonald's you can go to or going to the best available non-racist doctor that is half as good as the racist one? What if you couldn't go to Martians Only Harvard Business school? We might be better off having "This group only" signs because it saves the bullshit people would have to deal with.

How inside the box can it get if one thinks it's only one circumstance at that one point in time if we were to have michael's scenario of condoning discrimination?

[Leopard]

No business wants an immigrant with a bad accent; it implies you're dumb and that you don't know your way. If it wasn't for the people of his race helping him out and the money he had stashed, my parents probably wouldn't have made it above the poverty line.

Having a 'bad accent' does have some handicaps associated with it: it makes effective communication with others harder to accomplish. In addition, there will ALWAYS be a certain level of bigotry (discrimination, whatever) in the market simply because it is a part of the current state of human nature - fear of the unknown, instant defensiveness, etc. Beyond those things, from a purely objective worker/productivity standpoint, there is no basic 'hinderance' compared to another person without said accent. This being the case, then yes, there will be additional hurdles to jump through, perhaps restricted avenues of generating income (as you mentioned a few lower wage paying services) or jobs in which the 'accent' or negative effects of having one are minimized or reduced: no telemarketing or direct sales, more 'back-office' work, etc. The example you give regarding your parents being helped out by others of same race has been and will continue to be the 'way things work' (in addition to support from local religious groups or other 'same minded' institutions). This is one way that folks of Japanese decent (or otherwise asian) have been able to get a decent 'foot hold' in America. It works and is one viable strategy for immigrating here. The way to effectively counter social 'injustices' is through social networking - not by government decree. The government is NOT going to change anyones mind regarding their personal biases. These things are items which must come from a general and gradual cultural shift through the free market of ideas.

You can supply all the work and talent and advertise it, but if there isn't a demand for it, you will be forced to do things you imagined were beneath you to make ends meet. If you have a family at this time, it's even worse and you might not climb out. The clincher is that this "demand" might not even be fair raging from a favor, nepotism, or irrational hate for your kind.

Whatever one 'imagines' is beneath them is of no consequence - I can imagine that I am worth $1000/day for me to greet newcomers to my city, but it is not reality. The thing that made america great in the beginning was that there was no hindering regulation so EVERYONE had the opportunity to say 'Scr_w you, Mr. Discriminating Hypocrite! I am going to start my own business and out compete you and your irrational ideas.' - these days, due to regulation and bureaucracy, it becomes an expensive and twisted endeavor to accomplish this. The government has imposed a barrier to entry on the market in general which gives 'monopolistic' advantage to those already entrenched. Want to cut hair out of your home? Nope, you need to be licensed and state certified to do it first. Want to open up a little cafe or restaurant? Nope, gotta not only pass through licensing hoops but also have to comply with many health regulations and paperwork in addition to putting up with zoning and monopolistic liquer licensing. Want to practice medicine? Forget it, even if you could treat a majority of illnesses just as effectively as the 'doctors guild' member can. Want to do anything? Not without permission and volumes of paperwork and bureaucracy, all written in some form of english which the average american (let alone immigrant) can't understand. Strip away governmental ability to hinder business (esp. small business) and the immigrants and poor will then have, once again, an avenue through the free market to show those discriminators and bigots a taste of reality - turn the tables on them and the market will 'punish' them for their irrational behaviors... on the other hand, we can pass some arbitrary law (in addition to the conglomeration of other laws) and the MOST we will accomplish is forcing the behavior underground and perhaps exagerating it.

more to come, gotta go for now
michael

[PatrickHenry]

Great debate, white rice and Leopard! I am thoroughly enjoying your civil, polite and closely reasoned arguments on an important issue.
However,the thread is about reparations to blacks for previous wrongs, settling all claims. Perhaps your discussion of the wisdom of the economic and sociological conventions could move onto it's own thread...

[j_freeman]

Although I'm white as the sky is blue, I do have ancestors who were slaves. (Hence my last name.)

Do I get reparations?

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by j_freeman, Although I'm white as the sky is blue, I do have ancestors who were slaves. (Hence my last name.) Do I get reparations?

OK, how about if you pay yourself? :)

[Fire]

I think Leopard's & White Rice's dialogue belongs here... the thread is simply evolving.

Leopard, I am understanding your point to be about free market, that we should go back to what it was that made America great, no hindering regulations stowed upon the marketplace by Gov't interference. I agree with White Rice, this is not a step forward. This will be a breeding ground for racism to grow unchecked.

Mia, to answer your question about concrete evidence of racism that exists to me everyday. I'm not trying to dodge your question, but I wouldn't want to grant anyone the opportunity to say I cried foul, it defeats the purpose. The acts range in size but its all the same, some days I just shake my head and laugh and other days...

Look at your own daily experiences, I know you've mentioned here of 2 situations you encountered which effected lives of colored people. I know many see them but few feel them.

[Mia]

I wasn't asking you to give examples because I don't believe there are any - the two I gave are only two of many I know exist and honestly there are some I won't know about because the perps know how I feel and won't mention it around me.

The boss I mentioned knew better than to say what he did to me, it was to someone else who then told me.

But from what I have seen, it is worse against middle-easterners right now. The one in our office (who out-produces everyone despite his accent, btw), has dealt with threatening phone calls and the word sand-nigger used right to his face by a co-worker. Half use the term when he's not around.

[Leopard]

Leopard, I am understanding your point to be about free market, that we should go back to what it was that made America great, no hindering regulations stowed upon the marketplace by Gov't interference. I agree with White Rice, this is not a step forward. This will be a breeding ground for racism to grow unchecked.

Fire, I understand your position - basically, if I may genericise<sp?> and summarize your point as I understand it, it would be:

Human beings, without any sort of moral guidance forced upon them by others, will tend to act irrationally and self-destructively. it is only through the forceful actions of government that human beings can learn and improve their lives and become more 'enlightened'.

I know this sounds quite different from what you stated, but it lies at the heart of your above statements.

Here is my most fundamental position:
Human beings will tend to act in their self-interest in all areas of their lives. The singularly most important discovery in all of human history was the realization that trade, unhindered and uncoerced, between two or more humans was not only the most efficient and beneficial method of interaction, but also increased both parties wellbeing instead of a one-sided affair. It was at this point that 'violence' was displaced as the ipso facto method of getting what one wanted. This 'displacement' has yet to fully occur to humanity as a whole, but the reality and the implications continue to seep through, from year to year, century to century and there is no other destination in the future which is possible than for humans to finally and totally recognize thi universal truth.

In accordance to these, it is logically extrapolated that 'truth' and the reality of nature will eventually filter to all humans. As it IS truth that discrimination and bigotry are irrational (since violence has been proven as as less useful method of dealing with people compared to trade) those that choose to adhere to these practices will be 'harming themselves' and this will be plain for all to see. We ARE a 'learning' species. We CAN and DO modify our behaviors when we are shown it is in our best interest. We continue to discover the sovreignty of the individual versus the state is not only preferrable, but the only morally consistent method of forming society.

So, if a totally free market existed tomorrow, would we still have discrimination 3 days from now? Yes. In 100 years? probably, but it will be reduced if not totally marginalized. Can the government change the attitudes of people by 'legislating' morality? No. But it can have a negative effect by 'hiding' the true effects of actions thus prolonging our 'learning' curve in discovering truth in regards to interacting with each other and the natural world. This 'prolonging' is not just a procrastination... its effect can directly be counted in lives lost: the FDA delays approval for a drug for over 5 years during which time over 110,000 people/year die who could have been saved (true story, got references if desired). In fact, EVERY dollar which is confiscated by government and spent in a non-market determined manner, harms each and every one of us and many following generations to come. We cannot go back in time and change the past, but we CAN deal with the present and make changes to effect a more rapid transition to a pure free market. I consider this the highest of alturistic goals for a human to do once they make this realization themselves: educate others about freedom.

so, yes, I am evangelizing!

michael

[Comrade]

Pay back the black man?

I am white. I assume that I will be the party responsible for paying the "black man?" Regardless that neither I nor anyone today was alive during the time period in which slavery was legal?

Yes, African Americans are often economically disadvantaged because of history. Taking money from people just because they were born into the race that once enslaved Africans and giving it to blacks is not a reasonable way to deal with it.

By this arguement, the British owe us a great deal of tax money taken before the Revolution, which is a bit absurd.

By the way. Tea LEAVES. They did not have those little Lipton packets back then. Leaves.

[white rice]

Patrick Henry,

I see the reasoning behind reparations is about correcting one of our country's sins and creating an equal society. Actions like affirmative action and strong government involvement in equality further that goal without complicating ourselves in the logistics and misery of carrying out reparations.

Originally posted by Leopard,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leopard,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The example you give regarding your parents being helped out by others of same race has been and will continue to be the 'way things work' (in addition to support from local religious groups or other 'same minded' institutions).  This is one way that folks of Japanese decent (or otherwise asian) have been able to get a decent 'foot hold' in America. [/b]

I find the way things currently work objectionable to people who don't have the same opportunities as I do. You assume market forces will correct this entirely on their own, but you haven't strongly considered the discriminatory articles I provided. Yes, you could work twice as hard or stick to your own color for jobs (despite having more than 90% of publically traded companies headed by predominantly white board of directors). But the minorities would be restricted by their own numbers, and the de facto assumption would be this product is for blacks only, or this product's company discriminates against my kind. We're working with an economy of scale, so the minority's product couldn't be maintained across national levels without large captital in advertising and penetration. There might not even be an alternative choice for the minority group in some regional, so they're forced to buy a racist product or work at a discriminatory wage. Finally, assuming your scenario and working on current levels, the advantage would be kept and maintained by the majority.

Originally posted by Leopard,@ It works and is one viable strategy for immigrating here.  The way to effectively counter social 'injustices' is through social networking - not by government decree.  The government is NOT going to change anyones mind regarding their personal biases.  These things are items which must come from a general and gradual cultural shift through the free market of ideas.

In the 70's, we implemented civil rights legislation after 100 years of discriminatory actions through government decree- seperate but equal, Jim Crow laws, suffrage, and immigration quotas on select nationalities and races. Thirty years is around one generation compared to several generations of open discrimination. The people or businesses' mindset hasn't even changed yet, just the attitude and approach.

Open social networking is denied when people already have base assumptions on how hard you work and how smart you are. In fact, you would work on flawed and irrational network that isn't efficient or gives you as much access or opportunity as a free network.

If you assume that's how the way things worked before with people sticking within each other's kind, then how can you optimistically predict change for the better? There is no guarantee and the burden to change is hindered by the actions of the past.

<!--QuoteBegin-Leopard,
Whatever one 'imagines' is beneath them is of no consequence - I can imagine that I am worth $1000/day for me to greet newcomers to my city, but it is not reality.  The thing that made america great in the beginning was that there was no hindering regulation so EVERYONE had the opportunity to say 'Scr_w you, Mr. Discriminating Hypocrite!  I am going to start my own business and out compete you and your irrational ideas.' - these days, due to regulation and bureaucracy, it becomes an expensive and twisted endeavor to accomplish this.  The government has imposed a barrier to entry on the market in general which gives 'monopolistic' advantage to those already entrenched.  Want to cut hair out of your home?  Nope, you need to be licensed and state certified to do it first. Want to open up a little cafe or restaurant? Nope, gotta not only pass through licensing hoops but also have to comply with many health regulations and paperwork in addition to putting up with zoning and monopolistic liquer licensing.  Want to practice medicine?  Forget it, even if you could treat a majority of illnesses just as effectively as the 'doctors guild' member can.  Want to do anything?  Not without permission and volumes of paperwork and bureaucracy, all written in some form of english which the average american (let alone immigrant) can't understand.  Strip away governmental ability to hinder business (esp. small business) and the immigrants and poor will then have, once again, an avenue through the free market to show those discriminators and bigots a taste of reality - turn the tables on them and the market will 'punish' them for their irrational behaviors... on the other hand, we can pass some arbitrary law (in addition to the conglomeration of other laws) and the MOST we will accomplish is forcing the behavior underground and perhaps exagerating it.
[/quote]

I agree with some parts about having too large a government. While you account heavily in the nature of businesses, you forget about how people themselves naturally act. The bloated bueracracy (sp?) is because the people demand liability when something goes wrong. The consumer is litigious and they want compensation for their suffering. A doctor's license is his credibility 90% of the time. If there's no license, then there's no assurance of competence and on an inate level collateral in case of malpractice.

Again, this happened in the past when quacks would sell tonics and futuristic products that were cheaply constructed; It didn't deliver what was advertised, and the product could even be deadly. They didn't face "market penalties" because they sold it fast then skipped town to repeat it again. There was no credibility, no liability for the aggrieved, and no accountability. The rules are bloated in part because of the abuses of conmen and their consequences.

'reparations' of the kind you are referring to are nothing more than a handout, and produce no real integration into society. you're black, here have 300 bucks. that's not gaining social respect or good educational tradition or any of the permanent and intangable things that represent social success.

if you want to give a hobo a nickel, you may buy his coffee that morning, but you haven't given him a job or a home or respect.

[Mia]

Why can Asians and Arabs come to this country and in one to two generations outpace "whites" in education and income but blacks, after several generations, still want help?

Before you say government assistance for the others or more discrimination for blacks, Arabs are designated as white and therefore not granted minority status and therefore not given squat for education or to start businesses. And they face as much or more discrimination here.

And blacks get as muchor more help than Asians.


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[white rice]

Originally posted by Mia, Why can Asians and Arabs come to this country and in one to two generations outpace "whites" in education and income but blacks, after several generations, still want help?

Asians and Arabs can't get here by walking. There are some who come here by boat, but most need a significant amount of capital uprooting themselves from their home, buying a plane ticket and having enough for several months rent or even spending money for a business. In other words, the Arabs and Asians that do come here already have money and most likely an education in the first place to get here. The likelyhood of them being poor and "disadvantaged" is very low because there would have be an extreme case of luck for them to get here.

But there are poor Asian and Arab families and the concept of the group as a whole outpacing whites ignores the fact that you're comparing a small population sample with t