Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (2 Viewers)

[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".

 

[Paul]

Silly memes is for -----
This is the deal guys. I fully understand your point of view and I see the logic within the madness.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... "

John Stuart Mill

 

[MT15]

Sorry in advance, but I had to put this here. Ole Kurt wants to nationalize the means of production to own the socialist, commie libs, lol. You cannot make this stuff up.

 

[V Chip]

Silly memes is for -----
This is the deal guys. I fully understand your point of view and I see the logic within the madness.

No you don’t.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... "

John Stuart Mill

The thing is we have refuted your arguments and “reason” time and time again. You just ignore it and say the same things you have said over and over again. And then you accuse us of not understanding?

 

[JRad]

I do not disagree with the concept but it is a bastageization of the original definition of socialism.

But is that really a bad thing? If positive socialist programs can exist without the negative influences you’ve mentioned, that seems like a step forward to me, not a bastageization. That is what democratic socialism means to me.

 

[Paul]

But is that really a bad thing? If positive socialist programs can exist without the negative influences you’ve mentioned, that seems like a step forward to me, not a bastageization. That is what democratic socialism means to me.

Great post, I have no disagreements. However, the bastageization of the meaning of socialism is not needed Capitalists recognizes that social programs are important to prevent a greater degree of wealth gap.

In the capitalist system the rich get richer and the poor remain poor. The upper class can reinvest excess earnings whereas the poor have to continue to work and spend every penny they have on living costs. The widening of the gap causes stress and unrest. To make matters worse the upper classes can manipulate the government whereas the poor have no idea on how to do that. We need to avoid widening of the wealth gap to avoid a revolution. If we have a revolution everybody loses.

 

[Paul]

The website does not allow the word bas-tard-ization, LOL

 

[samiam5211]

Saw this and couldn’t help but imagine Paul as the bus driver.

 

[Paul]

Saw this and couldn’t help but imagine Paul as the bus driver.

Yes, capitalism is the best we have in 2021. This is the most prosperous time in world history despite the inequality.

 

[SystemShock]

Yes, but it is done within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is not real socialism.

Then I have bad news for you: there is no real capitalism either. In real capitalism, there is no OSHA, EPA, Title II, federally enforced minimum wage, social security, medicare, antitrust...

 

[zztop]

This is very long vertically so I am putting it in a spoiler, otherwise I think it would be too much.
With that out of the way, this aligns with my thinking as well, but put in better words than I ever could come up with
hopefully I got all the images in order hah

See more

 

[Paul]

Then I have bad news for you: there is no real capitalism either. In real capitalism, there is no OSHA, EPA, Title II, federally enforced minimum wage, social security, medicare, antitrust...

I agree
Capitalism is the jungle, every man for himself.

 

[SystemShock]

I agree
Capitalism is the jungle, every man for himself.

So you agree the U,S. is not capitalist.

 

[Paul]

This is very long vertically so I am putting it in a spoiler, otherwise I think it would be too much.
With that out of the way, this aligns with my thinking as well, but put in better words than I ever could come up with
hopefully I got all the images in order hah

See more

Thanks for the above.
Ultimately wealth is created when someone comes up with an invention that enhances the quality of life of others. Circulating currency is not enough If wealth is not created.

Capitalism needs consumers and sometimes they create contraptions that people do not need but end up buying. What really matters is that the consumer feels there is value. If I buy a good book for $20.00 and I enjoy reading the book then the book is much more than $20.00 dollars. The writer earns money, and the printer does too. Everybody increases the wealth.

 

[Dragon]

Thanks for the above.
Ultimately wealth is created when someone comes up with an invention that enhances the quality of life of others. Circulating currency is not enough If wealth is not created.

Capitalism needs consumers and sometimes they create contraptions that people do not need but end up buying. What really matters is that the consumer feels there is value. If I buy a good book for $20.00 and I enjoy reading the book then the book is much more than $20.00 dollars. The writer earns money, and the printer does too. Everybody increases the wealth.

But you're missing the step that allows the consumer to use $20 on a book Which is precisely what several has tried to make you understand above

 

[Paul]

So you agree the U,S. is not capitalist.

Sure
That was not my point
My point was that Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron

 

[Paul]

But you're missing the step that allows the consumer to use $20 on a book Which is precisely what several has tried to make you understand above

The people have the money to buy because a capitalist set up a business where the worker gets the opportunity to create wealth. The employer pays the worker for the wealth created (obviously not all of it). The employer provides a service or goods and makes a profit.

 

[UriUT]

So you agree the U,S. is not capitalist.

Are you giving odds to whether this will be answered?

Edit: It was answered!

 

[UriUT]

Sure
That was not my point
My point was that Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron

That was hardly your original point.....and this point is highly dubious.