Affirmative Action may be on the way out

[aeghrur]

Did I ever say that? That's about the moral equivalent of having no government at all. Unfortunately, government is necessary for any type of mutual trade to exist between two people.

I said regulation should be reduced to the protection of the interests of individual citizens in the free market, and just that. We've never had a truly 100% free economy because government regulation is out of control.

Ah, my fault then.
I assumed you meant no regulation at all in the economy by your previous posts. =/
Of course, the interests of individual citizens means that you would be allowed to sell cocaine and meth in the free markets if you wanted...
So, more regulation than that...

 

[RDK]

So you agree the market needs rules to follow?

Rules that protect the rights of the individual citizens, yes.

Just like how I can't go out and simply murder someone just because I "feel" like it; that would be infringing upon the rights of another person.

Beyond that? The government should have no place telling me what I can and can't produce and how or why I produce it.

 

[aeghrur]

Rules that protect the rights of the individual citizens, yes.

Just like how I can't go out and simply murder someone just because I "feel" like it; that would be infringing upon the rights of another person.

Beyond that? The government should have no place telling me what I can and can't produce and how or why I produce it.

Then what is your ruling upon drugs?
As on one side, you should be able to produce things like meth in the free market.
Yet on the other, the government is protecting citizens of their right to life as meth will kill.

Also, what about affirmative action? It's telling you who you can hire, yet it is also giving certain people a chance for their pursuit of happiness. =/

 

[RDK]

Then what is your ruling upon drugs?
As on one side, you should be able to produce things like meth in the free market.
Yet on the other, the government is protecting citizens of their right to life as meth will kill.

It's not the government's job to protect me from harming myself, just like it's not the government's job to dress me or feed me. If I want to buy meth and kill myself, that's my prerogative.

Also, what about affirmative action? It's telling you who you can hire, yet it is also giving certain people a chance for their pursuit of happiness. =/

Since I own my private business, I can hire whoever I want using whatever criteria I please. Why should the government be able to tell me what my workforce should consist of?

And even that's beside the point. The Affirmative Action we have today is wrong in every way possible. It achieves the exact opposite of what it set out to do. It needs to get trashed if anything.

 

[Aesir]

Not to nitpick because I don't want to put you on the spot.

But in a racist society wouldn't the free market approach wrongfully be discriminating? Without any sort of mandate to pressure desegregation what incentive does a business have at hiring a black person? or a woman? And wouldn't that further racism in the country?

I'm not saying affirmative action is okay, I do feel some sort of mandate needs to be present though.

 

[RDK]

Not to nitpick because I don't want to put you on the spot.

But in a racist society wouldn't the free market approach wrongfully be discriminating? Without any sort of mandate to pressure desegregation what incentive does a business have at hiring a black person? or a woman? And wouldn't that further racism in the country?

I'm not saying affirmative action is okay, I do feel some sort of mandate needs to be present though.

This is true; and my answer would probably be that in a free economy, I would have no reason whatsoever to include a possible employee's race as one of my hiring criteria. In any situation, it should be about that person's merit and skills in the workplace.

If a business doesn't hire for skill and merit, then it will probably suffer because of it, and rightly so. Kind of like the article Jam referred to at the beginning of the thread; because possibly less competent people were hired just on the basis of race, lives may be lost.

 

[Hive]

oops mispost

 

[aeghrur]

It's not the government's job to protect me from harming myself, just like it's not the government's job to dress me or feed me. If I want to buy meth and kill myself, that's my prerogative.

Actually, it doesn't matter if it's your prerogative. Because you gave up your right to absolute freedom when you signed the social contract that gave away your absolute freedom to establish a government that protects your natural rights (john locke anyone?).
Anyway, point is, you can't do anything you want because it's the government's jobs to protect everyone's life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc right? Well, by dealing/buying meth, your potentially threatening others lives along with your own. Also, the dealing of drugs is quite an unsafe thing, and creates dangerous insecurities (word missing) about your natural rights. This means it not only threatens your right to life, it threatens others too. That is why, even by your idea of what the government can or can't do, you can't deal meth, lol. Also, it's the government's job to feed you, as it protects your right to life&pursuit of happiness. Dress you, not so much.

Since I own my private business, I can hire whoever I want using whatever criteria I please. Why should the government be able to tell me what my workforce should consist of?

And even that's beside the point. The Affirmative Action we have today is wrong in every way possible. It achieves the exact opposite of what it set out to do. It needs to get trashed if anything.

I agree on this.

 

[Mewter]

Not only that, but even schools in my area judge on the basis of race. Perfectly fine non-white people are forced into English classes at the elementary school next door just because of their race. Don't know if we covered this yet, but it annoys me to no end.

 

[RDK]

Actually, it doesn't matter if it's your prerogative. Because you gave up your right to absolute freedom when you signed the social contract that gave away your absolute freedom to establish a government that protects your natural rights (john locke anyone?).

Wrong. In giving my consent to the government, I was consenting to allow it to protect me from others; not me from me. I can do whatever the hell I want to myself in the privacy of my own home. Hell, I can pretty essentially ingest meth in the privacy of my own home, and unless it becomes a threat to my neighbors (like if it evolves into a meth lab), then nobody's really going to bother me about it.

Anyway, point is, you can't do anything you want because it's the government's jobs to protect everyone's life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc right? Well, by dealing/buying meth, your potentially threatening others lives along with your own..

Uh, wrong again? Alcohol potentially threatens other people, but only when I decide to drive drunk.

Just like how I could use a sharp pencil to potentially stab someone in the jugular. Does that mean pencils should be banned?

You're basically arguing for the government to lock us up individually in padded cells so we don't hurt ourselves. I'd like the freedom to potentially hurt myself, thank you. Makes life more fun.

I agree on this.

Sweet.

 

[aeghrur]

Wrong. In giving my consent to the government, I was consenting to allow it to protect me from others; not me from me. I can do whatever the hell I want to myself in the privacy of my own home. Hell, I can pretty essentially ingest meth in the privacy of my own home, and unless it becomes a threat to my neighbors (like if it evolves into a meth lab), then nobody's really going to bother me about it.

No, no, look, this is saying it's your OWN. Your using I, me, my, etc. I couldn't care less. I, initially, never came in arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to use meth. I'm here saying people can't DEAL it. Why? Because it's protecting YOU from that GUY THAT SELLS METH. It's protecting your right to life from an outside source, two in fact, one is that guy dealing the meth. Another is that substance called meth itself.
Finally, when your around others/in public, meth itself makes people insecure, and threatens their safety. You're not allowed to threaten OTHERS securities/feelings of safety, which is why your not allowed to swear in school.

Uh, wrong again? Alcohol potentially threatens other people, but only when I decide to drive drunk.

Just like how I could use a sharp pencil to potentially stab someone in the jugular. Does that mean pencils should be banned?

You're basically arguing for the government to lock us up individually in padded cells so we don't hurt ourselves. I'd like the freedom to potentially hurt myself, thank you. Makes life more fun.

First point, alcohol is not only threatening to others when you drive drunk, but you also become more violent, stupid, and make others feel UNSAFE when your drunk. Again, this is in public. I couldn't care less if you get drunk off your ***. Of course, the reason alcohol isn't prohibited is because it's an utter failure.
Pencil thing=did I say that? No. Did I imply that? No. Unfair extrapolation.
Again, did I say that? No. Did I say you can't hurt yourself? No. Again, unfair extrapolation. I'm saying your not allowed to sell illegal drugs to others, or take them near others if it threatens their safety.

Sweet.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Oh man I luv John Locke, but I think aeghur is misquoting him. The Social Contract is the agreement made between men to sacrifice some of their freedom to form society and escape the dreadful State of Nature. These sacrifices were chiefly the right to do whatever the **** you wanted with someone else's stuff. Furthermore, according to John Locke, the role of the government is to protect the property of the people from other's. These is nothing said about protecting your property from yourself. That would be essentially taking away your property. My body is my property. The government has no right whatsoever to dictate what I can do with my own property providing that it doesn't affect anyone else's property.

Futherfuthermore, if a government does not accomplish the task of protecting property, or does worse by taking it away by affecting our jobs and income unnecessarily (ties back to AA), then, according to Locke, the government should be removed. The people deserve their freedom of anarchy back if they don't get their half of the social contract (the protection). NOTE: I am not advocating revolt against the U.S. gov't, although John Locke very well might.

So far I basically agree with everything RDK is saying, but when we cross swords over religious arguments... funny thing, eh?

 

[illinialex24]

Oh man I luv John Locke, but I think aeghur is misquoting him. The Social Contract is the agreement made between men to sacrifice some of their freedom to form society and escape the dreadful State of Nature. These sacrifices were chiefly the right to do whatever the **** you wanted with someone else's stuff. Furthermore, according to John Locke, the role of the government is to protect the property of the people from other's. These is nothing said about protecting your property from yourself. That would be essentially taking away your property. My body is my property. The government has no right whatsoever to dictate what I can do with my own property providing that it doesn't affect anyone else's property.

Futherfuthermore, if a government does not accomplish the task of protecting property, or does worse by taking it away by affecting our jobs and income unnecessarily (ties back to AA), then, according to Locke, the government should be removed. The people deserve their freedom of anarchy back if they don't get their half of the social contract (the protection). NOTE: I am not advocating revolt against the U.S. gov't, although John Locke very well might.

So far I basically agree with everything RDK is saying, but when we cross swords over religious arguments... funny thing, eh?

Are you serious?? Let me tell you the story of a man I know. He felt the government shouldn't get its money from taxes and we should just borrow money to pay all our bills, including borrowing money to pay for borrowed money. He thought that we could do this indefinitely. The truth is, once people realize they aren't gonna get paid back, they'll stop lending us stuff or if our currency falls because we have to print more money, the government will be in a very bad state.

The government needs money to function. It NEEDS money to function, to protect our property. If you say build a military with no money, its gonna be very difficult to do so. Then there are things which the government can provide much more cheaply for the people than the average person. Like water facilities. And trash removal. These are generally considered to be a government's role at some way or another. That needs money.

 

[pockyD]

um, meth doesn't magically appear... making it is a dangerous process that puts everyone near the location in harm's way

 

[aeghrur]

Oh man I luv John Locke, but I think aeghur is misquoting him. The Social Contract is the agreement made between men to sacrifice some of their freedom to form society and escape the dreadful State of Nature. These sacrifices were chiefly the right to do whatever the **** you wanted with someone else's stuff. Furthermore, according to John Locke, the role of the government is to protect the property of the people from other's. These is nothing said about protecting your property from yourself. That would be essentially taking away your property. My body is my property. The government has no right whatsoever to dictate what I can do with my own property providing that it doesn't affect anyone else's property.

Futherfuthermore, if a government does not accomplish the task of protecting property, or does worse by taking it away by affecting our jobs and income unnecessarily (ties back to AA), then, according to Locke, the government should be removed. The people deserve their freedom of anarchy back if they don't get their half of the social contract (the protection). NOTE: I am not advocating revolt against the U.S. gov't, although John Locke very well might.

So far I basically agree with everything RDK is saying, but when we cross swords over religious arguments... funny thing, eh?

You totally missed my argument.
A government is here to protect 3, by john locke's natural rights theory, the three natural rights known as LIFE, liberty, and property.
Okay, you can do with your property as you wish, UNTIL you threaten or harm others NATURAL RIGHTS.
As Pocky said, meth doesn't come from nowhere. Making it, makes people unsafe, threatening their right to life, threatening their right to feel safe. Dealing it MAKES PEOPLE UNSAFE. Even having it around people will make them feel unsafe, as they will feel like they're in an unsafe environment. It's the same reason you can't bring something like a toy gun or a pocket knife to school, because it threatens others safety and their security. If your alone, go ahead. As for the selling of drugs, it should not be done as it threatens others security. As a government, the US gov'ts job is to protect EVERYONE'S lives, not just yours okay?

 

[illinialex24]

You totally missed my argument.
A government is here to protect 3, by john locke's natural rights theory, the three natural rights known as LIFE, liberty, and property.
Okay, you can do with your property as you wish, UNTIL you threaten or harm others NATURAL RIGHTS.
As Pocky said, meth doesn't come from nowhere. Making it, makes people unsafe, threatening their right to life, threatening their right to feel safe. Dealing it MAKES PEOPLE UNSAFE. Even having it around people will make them feel unsafe, as they will feel like they're in an unsafe environment. It's the same reason you can't bring something like a toy gun or a pocket knife to school, because it threatens others safety and their security. If your alone, go ahead. As for the selling of drugs, it should not be done as it threatens others security. As a government, the US gov'ts job is to protect EVERYONE'S lives, not just yours okay?

Exactly, and that requires money. Oh yeah......

 

[LordoftheMorning]

You totally missed my argument.
A government is here to protect 3, by john locke's natural rights theory, the three natural rights known as LIFE, liberty, and property.
Okay, you can do with your property as you wish, UNTIL you threaten or harm others NATURAL RIGHTS.
As Pocky said, meth doesn't come from nowhere. Making it, makes people unsafe, threatening their right to life, threatening their right to feel safe. Dealing it MAKES PEOPLE UNSAFE. Even having it around people will make them feel unsafe, as they will feel like they're in an unsafe environment. It's the same reason you can't bring something like a toy gun or a pocket knife to school, because it threatens others safety and their security. If your alone, go ahead. As for the selling of drugs, it should not be done as it threatens others security. As a government, the US gov'ts job is to protect EVERYONE'S lives, not just yours okay?

The only reason meth is dangerous to others is because it's illegal. It certainly has the power to mess with your own body, but that's your property, and the government has no right to tell me I can't **** myself over. Where it all falls down is that it's about infringing other's rights. I can infringe upon my own rights all day. The fact that meth's illegality makes it dangerous is just another reason why it should be legal.

Ben Franklin once said that "He who would sacrifice his freedom for his safety deserves neither". I quite agree.

The government needs money to function. It NEEDS money to function, to protect our property.

That was a pretty useless argument, seeing as how I already conceded it.

if a government does not accomplish the task of protecting property, or does worse by taking it away by affecting our jobs and income unnecessarily