Yes. I have often wondered if the marginalized sectors, ie blacks, latinos, gays, etc. actually measure the benefit of being a marginalized sector. The real benefactors seem to be the liberal policy makers in how they are able to emote the feelings of guilt from their followers and loyalty from the marginalized. Would it ever be beneficial for the liberals to "solve" the problems in these communities? I think not. Better to let the problems persist, and hold out the promise of solutions, rather than actually deliver them.
If we are equal, than we are equal, none should have preferential treatment. As an example, Affirmative Action was more of a curse than a blessing. It spawned a sense of entitlement and created tension between employers and employees. Instead of enforcing quotas, blacks should have been encouraged to start their own businesses and fulfill needs in their communities.
I dunno if you have to slap term on it like conservative or liberal, it is what it is... human nature. People want what they want at the expense of others, yet are unwilling to pay the same price for others to have the same.
How many fathers have the "that's my boy" attitude when their sons have a litany of girlfriends, yet the same fathers would sooner lock up their daughters in a convent.
Think of it this way: the state is like a set of strings that's forcibly attached to us at birth by an overlord and permanently connected at his evil lair. As the years go by, different people control those strings.
Who's at fault?
Obviously, BOTH the overlord who forcibly attached and maintained the connection of the strings, as well as the people who manipulated the strings against each person's will, are at fault.
There are two ways you can deal with the problem, you can replace the people controlling the strings time and time again only to have them be replaced with someone just as bad if not worse, as history has shown is the case... or you can learn from the past and cut the strings permanently with a pair of scissors.
You'd have CHAOS, until someone managed to claw their way to the top of the heap and crown themselves "king", then you'd be right back in pre Magna Carta Europe
I think I'll just keep agreeing with Knuckle until he starts arguing the other side - just to have the argument continue. I do believe if we had no state, it would change who owned the land and the food.
The ones with the biggest army wouldn't protect the citizens from aggression. How would that benefit them? The more powerful would just take over whatever land and other resources they decided would be beneficial to themselves.
You could hire protection for yourself. But, if the aggressive people had a more powerful army than you could afford - I think you get my drift.
The wars would be like the gangs of today. Who would stop it? The one that gets control of all the power.
Knuckle, I freely admit that I'm a Liberal. It's not, at all, the dirty word some attribute it to mean. I feel that the same government that provides security and MediCare can also provide some kind of life for those who are less financially equipped to live here. If one has been foreclosed upon, losing his house or job, the government provides some help to keep him, and his family, afloat.
The welfare system can be abused. So can any part of the government. But, corruption is done by people, not the system. Just like guns don't shoot people.
I'm not here to make you change your views about which laws to obey or how to apply your benefit/risk formula to some issue. That's your business. I do have an opinion about the issues we discuss with regard to the general public and I try to listen to the arguments. Sometimes I see another point of view. That's what I'm doing here.
Maybe my mind isn't as open as I think. Do you ever fall into that trap? Maybe we do need to define what "true freedom" is, first.
Comments
If we are equal, than we are equal, none should have preferential treatment. As an example, Affirmative Action was more of a curse than a blessing. It spawned a sense of entitlement and created tension between employers and employees. Instead of enforcing quotas, blacks should have been encouraged to start their own businesses and fulfill needs in their communities.
How many fathers have the "that's my boy" attitude when their sons have a litany of girlfriends, yet the same fathers would sooner lock up their daughters in a convent.
Who's at fault?
Obviously, BOTH the overlord who forcibly attached and maintained the connection of the strings, as well as the people who manipulated the strings against each person's will, are at fault.
There are two ways you can deal with the problem, you can replace the people controlling the strings time and time again only to have them be replaced with someone just as bad if not worse, as history has shown is the case... or you can learn from the past and cut the strings permanently with a pair of scissors.
I do believe if we had no state, it would change who owned the land and the food.
The ones with the biggest army wouldn't protect the citizens from aggression. How would that benefit them?
The more powerful would just take over whatever land and other resources they decided would be beneficial to themselves.
You could hire protection for yourself.
But, if the aggressive people had a more powerful army than you could afford - I think you get my drift.
The wars would be like the gangs of today. Who would stop it? The one that gets control of all the power.
Knuckle,
I freely admit that I'm a Liberal. It's not, at all, the dirty word some attribute it to mean. I feel that
the same government that provides security and MediCare can also provide some kind of life for those who are less financially
equipped to live here. If one has been foreclosed upon, losing his house or job, the government provides some help to keep
him, and his family, afloat.
The welfare system can be abused. So can any part of the government.
But, corruption is done by people, not the system.
Just like guns don't shoot people.
I'm not here to make you change your views about which laws to obey or how to apply your benefit/risk formula to some issue. That's your
business. I do have an opinion about the issues we discuss with regard to the general public and I try to listen to the arguments.
Sometimes I see another point of view. That's what I'm doing here.
Maybe my mind isn't as open as I think. Do you ever fall into that trap? Maybe we do need to define what "true freedom" is, first.