quote:A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action.
The application for the $250 award requires an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness."
I'm opposed to the idea of racially discriminatory affirmative action programs at schools, so I don't think I can condone this. However, if such programs are going to exist, it's at least nice to see this school is willing to unfairly discriminate more equally. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you're going to give money away in a scholarship you can set whatever requirements you want. If I wanted to set up "Bob's Big Boob Bursary" and give it to the up-and-coming woman who I felt was best endowed I would be within my rights to so.
I see no problem with it.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you're going to give money away in a scholarship you can set whatever requirements you want.
I am in total agreement with this statement. The problem is that the government is giving away other people's wealth, as it has none of it's own. So will we allow it to promote racial, gender, or wealth based favoritism?
(edit) This case just points out how the government acts to those who refuse to see it. Those students are protesting government racism, by showing people what it truly is.
posted
White-only scholarships are hardly new. Heck, I've even seen scholarships that were limited to Anglo-Saxons. Like Tresopax said, I don't like rewards for ethnicity, but as long as they exist, I think they should exist for everyone.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea behind ethnically centered endowments is that non-white students have not had as much opportunity academically, and thus merit more assistance.
I have no problem with my taxes being used to support scholarships that my children (and myself) will never be able to qualify for.
CAVEAT: As long as those scholarships are regulated strictly and honestly.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have no problem with my taxes being used to support scholarships that my children (and myself) will never be able to qualify for.
Do you have a problem with those who do not wish to support such racism not supporting it? Is it okay to use the force of government to take wealth from one group, and give it to another, based on a majority vote?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Robespierre, that's what my money goes to:
-public school funding even though I never attended a public school. -social security, even though I may not live to see it. -roads in places I never drive -activities for children younger than me etc
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> The problem is that the government is giving away other people's wealth, as it has none of it's own. <<
You know, the government does foster an environment in which people can generate wealth. Without government, I have a hard time believing that most people could generate any wealth. So I don't view taxation as "the government taking part of my paycheque," because I never considered those tax dollars mine to start with.
I think a lot of people would feel much better about taxes if they thought about it that way.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"but you could access those things if you wanted to" as the retort may be.
okay. given time I'm sure I could trounce up a half dozen other benefits that the government gives people that would never apply to me. However, that alone does not mean that the government should not be giving those benefits.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think a lot of people would feel much better about taxes if they thought about it that way.
That is likely to be correct. However, in the USA, we have a constitution that forbids most of this type of spending. The 9th and 10th amendments basically say that if you don't see something specifcally mentioned in the constitution, the government has no business being involved with that something. Taking money from people, in order to "right past wrongs", is not included in the duties allowed the US government.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Robespierre, that's what my money goes to:
-public school funding even though I never attended a public school. -social security, even though I may not live to see it. -roads in places I never drive -activities for children younger than me etc
A good point. There MANY things that the government need not be involved in. All of those are perfect examples of government overstepping its bounds.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I think it is interesting as a conversation piece, this "whites only" scholarship is not really saying or doing anything new.
In fact, I think the "different prices for donuts" thing on Boston Public was a far more apt analogy to the affirmative action issue.
Scholarships offerred by private organizations can do what they like. I, myself, applied for the (no joke) Moonraker's Tall Club scholarship - for which you had to be 6' 3" or taller (for men, not sure the height for women).
Scholarships are intentionally discriminatory so they can limit their pool of potential candidates. Children of police officers, children of veterens, children of certain cultural backgroudns (italian, irish, etc), children of certain race, etc, etc.
Out of the hundred or so scholarships I looked through in high school, the only one I actually qualified for was the Tall Club.
...
Now, if a public university offered a scholarship based on race (i.e. a scholarship for those of latino descent, or something) and the student group proposed a "whites only" scholarship to be offered by the school, and then took it to court or something, that would have been more poignant.
As it is, I'm going to put in to be a judge for Bob's scholarship. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have a problem with those who do not wish to support such racism not supporting it?
Well, when you spin it that way. . .
Yeah, I do. Education affects everyone in society-- so everyone in society should have a financial interest in making sure that it is run optimally.
Hey, Robespierre-- can you create a new thread detaling exactly WHO is responsible for the distribution of funds for public services (roads, public education, etc) if not the government?
[ February 16, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm torn on the issue of such scholarships, because ethnicity is a bonding trait that can build communities. For example, a scholarship set up by Hatian refugees who have become successful and want to help others in their situation seems like it makes sense to me. But the idea is "icky" to me because I am suspicious of most racial distinctions.
However, my firm belief is that government funding should not acknolwedge the race of the recipients. If the government is trying to help people who have "have not had as much opportunity academically, and thus merit more assistance," they should establish criteria that really determine if the applicant has had less opportunity than most.
Since I believe firmly in the right of people to spend their money with as little interference as possible, I don't think such scholarships should be prohibited. But it's OK to call them tacky, racist, or whatever.
Dagonee P.S., What is "white heritage," exactly. Is there really that much common to the mere fact of being white? The majority of blacks in America are descendants of slaves and have a common heritage of official oppression that only began to end 50 years ago. Is there anything that powerful at the core of "white heritage?"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yeah, I do. Education affects everyone in society-- so everyone in society should have a financial interest in making sure that it is run optimally.
So does housing. Does everyone have a financial interest in providing housing to everyone in society? How about food? How about healthcare? How about nutrition? How about Exercise? How about transportation? Do we have a financial interest in buy everyone a car or a treadmill or a juicer or a house?
Is it okay to teach our children not to rely on the government to solve our problems?
quote: -public school funding even though I never attended a public school. -social security, even though I may not live to see it. -roads in places I never drive -activities for children younger than me etc
quote:All of those are perfect examples of government overstepping its bounds.
You're kidding, right? Really?
'Cause the US gives every child a free education. Social Security covers many things, not just old folks in retirement. The upkeep of roads does impact people even if they don't drive on them personally--what about trucks that transport goods that a person may purchase/use? Activities for children younger than a said person? You were young once, yourself and people older than you funded them. Why? Children can't exactly fund those activities themselves.
The view that the government should supply no social services is one that is is called "residual" by sociologists. Residual how? Those people that must access those services are not the "norm" they are the "residue" of the rest of society. This philosophy is part of a larger problem. Welfare to work requires that single mothers receiving welfare work off the money...to do so, many work two jobs at 70 hours a week up to an hour away from their home and still don't make ends meet. While they are working those long hours, the child is left without a parent around.
The society DOES have a responsibility to take care of the sick, poor, and needy. The government provides that through funds from taxes. Social security is not only retirement supplement and Medicare to old folks.
People pay into the social security system--you get out of it what you contribute. One issue arising from this is that women by and large did not work for as much or as long as men in the generation currently receiving social security. The men die first and when the spouse dies, the woman received much, much less and hits below the poverty line if she has no other income.
Social security also funds medicaid--insurance to those people who cannot afford health insurance or have a job that does not offer health insurance or are out of work for a significant amount of time. Social security gives people a stipend if they are significantly disable and unable to work.
Even with that stipend, welfare, full time job, and trying to finish a GED, an 18 year old kid with schizoaffective disorder STILL cannot make ends meet. And he isn't sitting around on his ass. Instead, he's working his ass off and the social "security" net falls far, far short.
The government has backed too far off its bounds.
Another illustration is the issue of medicaid paying for psychotropic medications. The new atypical antipsychotics have far less side effects and allow those with a mental illness to become far more productive, live out of a state hospital, secure jobs, etc. However, these newer medications cost more than the first-generation antipsychotics. So the government in New Hampshire is considering only covering the first-gen antipsychotics.
This is quite short sighted. These antipsychotics have severe and long lasting side effects--tardive dyskinesia (TKD) is one of them.
Afflicted by this disorder, those people who were once productive are relegated back to hospitals at much GREATER cost to the state.
But the first-gen medications are cheaper in the here and now.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: can you create a new thread detaling exactly WHO is responsible for the distribution of funds for public services (roads, public education, etc) if not the government?
No need, there already is one. If you have any questions, pose them in here.Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, have you even run across the idea of a "minimum necessary condition?" So, for example, individual juicers may not be necessary to meet a minimum threahold of health, but perhaps childhood vaccinations are.
(You can reduce any requirement to absurdity, you know. The "reducible to absurdity" part provides no distinctions.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: have you even run across the idea of a "minimum necessary condition?"
No I have not.
The question becomes one of right. Does the government have the right, moral or legal, to take from the majority, to benefit the minority? According to the constitution, I say that the government has no legal right to do so. I do not stop there, I also say that the government has no moral right to loot the productive and dispense goodies to those with political clout, be they minority groups, corporations, or vague causes.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Highest literacy level in the history of the United States was before the Govt got into the school business. Back then if you did not know Latin, Greek, Spanish, French, and Calculus coming out of High School you were not fit for University.
The Social Security System does somthing all right, it wastes money. If you put the same amount into a mandetory savings plan all you life you would make 50,000 a year instead of 300 a month or whatever it is.
As for the race issue, the question started out with the hidden question, is affirmitive action racism, or should schools have black scholarships, or black frat houses, or black pride week.
Well I think Government Supported afferimitive action is lethal, but if the black community wants to create the other things, its a free county.
quote:The Highest literacy level in the history of the United States was before the Govt got into the school business. Back then if you did not know Latin, Greek, Spanish, French, and Calculus coming out of High School you were not fit for University.
You mean for those few people lucky enough to be able to afford private tutors, not to mention the leisure time to not start working at age 10?
ThePoverty lineFor a family of four, it's $18,850.
I'd recommend you read the book Nickle and Dimed to get a true sense of what the working poor go through to KEEP from having to receive government benefits. And these government benefits still don't raise people above the poverty line.
quote: If there were no taxes, your employer would pay you that much less.
Are you saying that minimun wage is raised in order to accomodate higher income tax? If they got rid of income tax right now, there'd be no legal grounds for an employer to lower wages.
(I'm not in the least in favor of getting rid of income tax. I just question this particular statement.)
I do agree that the government should get LESS money, since they are not a money maker, but a spender, whereas money in the hands of business owners will generate more money. But I don't think that's the topic being discussed here.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Highest literacy level in the history of the United States was before the Govt got into the school business.
By highest level, do you mean "Those that could read knew Latin, Greek, and French," or, "There were more people who were literate before public schooling was available."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not that there would be any jobs, or money, or even a country at all, were it not for government.
So when we have an economic downturn, there must be someone in a government bunker fiddling with the economic dials, right? Since they are responsible for all wealth in the country? Why then, don't they just crank up the dial to full blown bonanza and reap the rewards?
You will find that the answer is that the government is NOT the source of wealth. It only has the ability to confiscate this wealth, and redistribute it. The government exists to at the pleasure of the governed, it is not the source of all the it governs.
Bean Counter, you are spot on.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And these government benefits still don't raise people above the poverty line.
Of course not! They never will. But you can bet we will be asked to spend more money on them in the near future.
quote: If they got rid of income tax right now, there'd be no legal grounds for an employer to lower wages.
The government should in no way interfere with people's right to enter into contracts. An employer should not need "legal grounds" to lower or raise an employee's wage. The relationship between employer and employed should be purely volountary.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The relationship between employer and employed should be purely volountary.
I agree with this in some instances. But the government is what squashed child labor, unfair wages, and I'm pretty sure unions depend on some government (yes or no?) etc. It has done some good for the working class.
Living in a right-to-work state is no picnic. It's as close as you'll get to the ideal you mentioned above. You're lucky if you can find a job that gives you better than a 15-minute break on an eight-hour shift, or even bothers to pay overtime.
We have few rights here. I for one wouldn't mind a tad more governing in some situations, although I agree it should be cut back quite a bit in others.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last month during the snows the roads were cleared by a combination of city, and state government.
they did not clear roads of the rich first, though those in richer communities had better equipment.
They cleared the main highways so that business could go on.
If they did not clear the main highways, but relied on private plows to do so, I would not have gotten to work.
My company would have had few people to work for it and production would have fallen.
But then, they probably would have not paid me for that day, so they would have saved some money.
Or they could have rented trucks to clear the roads to all of their employees.
Of course doing that whenever needed would have been much more expensive than thier present taxes.
Or I could have paid to have the roads cleared. I don't make that kind of money. I could have grouped together with all my local neighbors to pay to have the roads cleared, but that is done with some efficiancy now--its called City and State government.
Of course by now the roads would be privately owned anyway. The costs of transporting goods would increase as the cost of road upkeep, and profit, would be paid per mile of used roads instead of in the present gas taxes and other taxes. Places with a lot of traffic would have good roads, and places like North Dakota and Kansas would be mostly abandoned. Farmers out there could just by rough vehicles to cross the remnants of our highway system.
It would be best if I moved next to my work. That way I could work no matter what the weather, and get the check I would be owed.
It would be best for the company if their workers lived nearby too. That way they would have a steady supply of workers without having to pay travel charges or road cleanings.
Hence Company Towns are rebuilt.
Without a house and property of my own, I certainly wouldn't need most of the stuff I now own. What savigns, no cars or insurance or lawnmowers or patio furniture.
Of course, those people who make cars and lawnmowers and auto insureance will be out of jobs. Profits from those companies will decline.
But hey, the Government does not create wealth. Not even when it clears my roads so I can get to work.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
[That is, it seems to me that reaping the benefits of something -- say, government -- obligates one in some way. One may disagree over the details, Robespierre, but if you partake of the communal pot (such as cleared roads), you incur some obligation. Now, run your operation completely outside governmentally-accrued benefits (including protection from war), and you've got a much stronger claim that you are solely entitled to the profits of that enterprise.]
quote: and I'm pretty sure unions depend on some government (yes or no?) etc
They do depend on government guns to enforce their whims.
Dan, your mello-drama is nice, but state and local governments have their own consitiutions and scope. We are talking about the federal government.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But hey, the Government does not create wealth. Not even when it clears my roads so I can get to work.
Put emotion aside for a second and examine this sentence. You will find it to be literally true. Yet I assume your intent was snarky sarcasm. A state or local government does NOT create wealth when it plows the roads. It must first TAKE wealth from those who consent by living in said location in order to pay for the snow plowing service.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, I don't know about that number. I recently read something about that in the John Stossel book, but he didn't source it, as far as I can see. My opinion is that it could likely be done better by the private sector, but I have not done much rigorous reading in this area, so I won't comment too much about it.
I agreed with his sentiments about social security, race, and non-intervention.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Rob, just to be clear, your opinion regarding labor is: city and state government, good. Federal government, bad.
Did I get this right?
And I laugh at your generalization is that all unions are good for is fulfilling "whims".
Oh I have to add this.
quote: It must first TAKE wealth from those who consent by living in said location in order to pay for the snow plowing service.
No, that's not how government works (or is supposed to): We GIVE our wealth to someone WE VOTE FOR who will do what we don't have time or the resources to, and that's make it so that WE can get to work, so that our families don't starve. WE (should) technically own the government to work for our benefit. It's not the other way around.
BTW, without central banking and income taxes, governments would find it very difficult to wage wars of choice. The biggest mechanism for transfering wealth to the government is the Federal Reserve. If countries had not discovered this magical source of funds, many of the last century's wars would have been either not fought, or much much smaller in scope and casualties.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But now you're arguing something different, which is whether wars were even necessary. Many people would say that they were, many wouldn't. But without the Federal reserve, we wouldn't have even had a choice.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: city and state government, good. Federal government, bad.
The second part is right on. The first part, not so much. City and state governments are more directly answerable to those they govern.
quote: We GIVE our wealth to someone WE VOTE FOR who will do what we don't have time or the resources to, and that's make it so that WE can get to work, so that our families don't starve. WE (should) technically own the government to work for our benefit. It's not the other way around.
Is it GIVING when they can come to my house with guns and make me pay up if I choose not to GIVE?
quote: And I laugh at your generalization is that all unions are good for is fulfilling "whims".
Government backed Unions allow the employed to dictate all the terms of employment. They are not subject to market forces. Their demands may be seen as whims of the workers, backed by government guns. I have no problem with volountary unionism. The problem comes when we allow the government to benefit the few, those working in union jobs, at the expense of the many, those whose right to choose is limited by this force.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, but when you accept that protection, you incur obligation. If you do not wish to obligate yourself, then don't set up your enterprise in a country which provides such protection.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But without the Federal reserve, we wouldn't have even had a choice.
This is a false choice, which removes the whole point of my statement. Some wars ARE necessary, I agree. However, when they require more resources than the government currently has, it should then be forced to make people pay for their own defense in an open and fair way, not through the trickery of inflation. I have no problem with levying income taxes to pay for the defense of the country from an invader. However, when the government levies these taxes, they cause people to evaluate the war situation. When the war may not be necessary, they don't want such attention called on their actions.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rob, I'm getting the idea that you hate most government, but are you aware that if we had none, it's very likely that one much worse than we have would spring up in its place?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you do not wish to obligate yourself, then don't set up your enterprise in a country which provides such protection.
I choose to live here because the constitution outlines a form of government which I agree to be governed by. When those in power mis-interpret that constitution and go wrong, I do not gain by fleeing the country. Personally, my best option is to promote political change through libertarian reforms. Even though I realize its an uphill battle(read dang near impossible).
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, when they require more resources than the government currently has, it should then be forced to make people pay for their own defense in an open and fair way, not through the trickery of inflation. I have no problem with levying income taxes to pay for the defense of the country from an invader.
This statement doesn't jive very well with a previous one you made:
quote:BTW, without central banking and income taxes, governments would find it very difficult to wage wars of choice. The biggest mechanism for transfering wealth to the government is the Federal Reserve. If countries had not discovered this magical source of funds, many of the last century's wars would have been either not fought, or much much smaller in scope and casualties.
[emphasis mine]
First, you blame the problem partially on income tax, then you say you have no problem with RAISING income tax to pay for wars. I think I sorta know where you're trying to go with this, but it seems like you are hopping back and forth a bit to justify each point you make individually.
Is income tax good or not?
Is the federal government allowed to "take" money or not?
quote:I choose to live here because the constitution outlines a form of government which I agree to be governed by. When those in power mis-interpret that constitution and go wrong, I do not gain by fleeing the country.
Why not? I mean, it seems that you realize you are fighting against a juggernaut of sorts, so why not take your resources and start an enterprise in a place effectively under no federal government at all?
What on earth do you gain by staying? I'm serious: why stay here if it doesn't help you at all?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
You are absolutely right, you have caught me in a slip up.
I hold that the only purpose that can justify an income tax is the threat of physical force being used against the governed. If it were only allowed during times of war, the citizenry would be much much less likely to consent to government funded adventures.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
