Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.

Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.

Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.

Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".

 

[Goatman saint]

And the argument for poor obese ( or as Paul says poor but have so much food and so lazy they are obese) is that poor nutrients, empty calorie food is so cheap now that the only thing the poor can afford is a low quality, unhealthy diabetes promoting diet.

 

[Paul]

Wrong. The % has more or less remained the same the last 50 years and the raw numbers have increased

I was referring to world poverty. That had steadily been declining.

Poverty in America has been an enigma. It went down in the 1950s and early 60s and then leveled off after 1964 and 1965 (LBJ war on poverty). The war on poverty has been an abysmal failure. I cannot explain why there is a recalcitrant poverty level in the USA and why it is coming down in the rest of the world.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Wrong. The % has more or less remained the same the last 50 years and the raw numbers have increased

I've been reading your back and forth with @Paul as you completely destroy every bit of nonsense he spouts and I have to say that as I was reading this last one, I kept hearing the announcer from the South Park episode where Kenny beats Gadnok Breaker of Worlds.

 

[Dragon]

I was referring to world poverty. That had steadily been declining.

Poverty in America has been an enigma. It went down in the 1950s and early 60s and then leveled off after 1964 and 1965 (LBJ war on poverty). The war on poverty has been an abysmal failure. I cannot explain why there is a recalcitrant poverty level in the USA and why it is coming down in the rest of the world.

Maybe because the US do so little to help those who are in need get back on their feet? You know that "democratic socialism" bit you despise?

 

[SystemShock]

I was referring to world poverty. That had steadily been declining.

Poverty in America has been an enigma. It went down in the 1950s and early 60s

Hmmm.... I wonder why....

 

[SystemShock]

Corruption happens in all human activities. You also find corruption among those that favor socialism. Despite the corruption this is the most prosperous time in world history.

What does corruption have to do with anything @UriUT said?

You keep repeating "this is the most prosperous time in world history". What does that even mean?

 

[SystemShock]

Ok, just look at North Korea or Cuba, you know what I mean. Do not play the naive card.

Cuba is communist, but I am sure that was just a slip since you are Latin American and know everything about Latin America.

North Korea is a church.

 

[J-DONK]

I was referring to world poverty. That had steadily been declining.

Poverty in America has been an enigma. It went down in the 1950s and early 60s and then leveled off after 1964 and 1965 (LBJ war on poverty). The war on poverty has been an abysmal failure. I cannot explain why there is a recalcitrant poverty level in the USA and why it is coming down in the rest of the world.

So, let's keep going with this. Is China a capitalist country then? How was that wealth, and equality generated? It probably is hard to explain with your worldview.

 

[Paul]

So, let's keep going with this. Is China a capitalist country then? How was that wealth, and equality generated? It probably is hard to explain with your worldview.

China was dirt poor under socialism. Millions died of hunger. China decided to adopt some capitalistic principles while maintaining the tyranny normally seen in socialist nations. In any event the poverty has been decreasing thanks to capitalism. In the end China resembles a fascist state based on nationality rather than the proletariat.

 

[Paul]

Cuba is communist, but I am sure that was just a slip since you are Latin American and know everything about Latin America.

North Korea is a church.

They are tyrannical repressive states based on socialism. NK worse than Cuba.

 

[Paul]

Maybe because the US do so little to help those who are in need get back on their feet? You know that "democratic socialism" bit you despise?

Some think that the war on poverty created dependency. What do you suggest? What should be done for the poor?

 

[Paul]

Maybe because the US do so little to help those who are in need get back on their feet? You know that "democratic socialism" bit you despise?

Poverty was steeply coming down in the 1950s and early 60s and then leveled off with the war on poverty programs. That is fascinating.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Oh for a bad words sake, just for informational purposes for those that are actually intellectually honest and can be reached...

The anti-poverty programs were constructed and passed when Johnson was Senate Majority leader in the 50's. That is why there was such a rapid decline in poverty. In the 60's he focused on black poverty because he believed the Great Society required reducing minority poverty as well. This is why you see such a steep decline in black poverty from the 60's on.

@Paul; simply doesn't have the basic knowledge needed to engage in these conversations and lacks the intellectual curiosity to learn what he doesn't know.

 

[insidejob]

Holy moly. I spent a good bit of yesterday afternoon when I wasn't busy reading this thread and wrapped it up this morning. Some of you have patience and tolerance for unbelievable levels of intellectual dishonesty and laziness that I can't even fathom. I don't think there is anything left to be said in this thread since the only dissenting view doesn't even have a basic understanding of pretty much anything that he's talking about. Somehow, it's gone on for 23 pages and I feel like I need a nap. Too bad napping at my desk at 9:06 AM would likely be frowned upon so I'll just cover it up with a massive cup of coffee and thank the heavens that I didn't participate in this cluster of a thread. I'd have gone insane if I had. Big applause for those of you who have managed to keep a cooler head than I can and keep pounding it against a brick wall.

Coercion!!!!

 

[coldseat]

Holy moly. I spent a good bit of yesterday afternoon when I wasn't busy reading this thread and wrapped it up this morning. Some of you have patience and tolerance for unbelievable levels of intellectual dishonesty and laziness that I can't even fathom. I don't think there is anything left to be said in this thread since the only dissenting view doesn't even have a basic understanding of pretty much anything that he's talking about. Somehow, it's gone on for 23 pages and I feel like I need a nap. Too bad napping at my desk at 9:06 AM would likely be frowned upon so I'll just cover it up with a massive cup of coffee and thank the heavens that I didn't participate in this cluster of a thread. I'd have gone insane if I had. Big applause for those of you who have managed to keep a cooler head than I can and keep pounding it against a brick wall.

Coercion!!!!

I stopped a while back and changed the thread title because I didn't want to be associated with this thread any longer. Now I just post my spiffy commentary here and there, lol.