With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There can be a major distinction.
Let's say you have a policy goal where everyone with the right level of natural talent is equally likely to reach their full potential. One measure would be whether they're equally represented in elite institutions (CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, congress, acceptance in Ivy League universities, etc.)
The progressive solution is to do a diversity audit but that neglects that some white people will have entrenched resources and be able to hold onto some power, while many won't be able to get that for their children. Joe Biden's grandchild with an IQ of 125 will have a leg up over similarly intelligent children of all races
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
It's because of things like that, though, that there are strong cases to be made for reparations.
Now, I don't agree with reparations to the extent that people just receive payments (unlike slaveholders did after the Civil War to further entrench wealth and power in the new South), I do think that there has to be some kind of solution geared towards repatriating Black populations, in particular, for the systemic and generational hardship they have gone through to achieve things. That could be through Affirmative Action programs or investments in poorer communities. The impact of reparations towards folks that were some combination of talented and lucky (like the Obamas) probably needs to be less of a concern of public policy.
These things might happen, but they aren't necessarily unnoticed nor are they desired outcomes. We do want to try to end these kinds of unearned differences in opportunity, which invariably lead to large differences in outcome. So, using one systemic failure to account for why another systemic failure would be appropriate...doesn't seem quite right to me?
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Wouldn't the LGBT antidiscrimination ruling be more about creating regulations to ensure preferred outcomes rather than reversing regulation?
For example, if the ruling forbids schools from allowing students to call classmates by pronouns that the classmates don't prefer, that's a regulation, even if you think it's a good idea.
My post wasn't really about the question of how to go forward.
There are multiple viewpoints on the right about that specific question. The libertarians would say the government doesn't move quickly enough so they should largely stay out of it. My own view is that the right is necessary to push back against the excesses of the left, so that we don't get eugenics or prohibition but so get greater equality.
That said, looking backwards is hardly unique to Republicans.
With this there's also the risk that people you disagree with get that level of power.
Last edited by Mister Mets; 09-02-2021 at 01:51 PM.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
No it's not unique to Republicans, but it is a prerequisite to being a Republican, or identifying with Republican views. I don't see how this can really be a point of contention. I used to be a republican. I know what it's like.
Looking forward does seem to be unique to liberals, though
Well the US does have the world's oldest constitution, and that isn't because it's somehow perfect and timeless as there are plenty of instances where its clauses are simply outdated or insufficient for governing in the 21st century. Of course, with the number of right wing nutjobs that treat the Constitution as a sacred scripture, even though many of them have probably never even read it, so trying to rewrite the Constitution at this point would probably start a violent revolution.
Okay you can say it is not a regulation because it is a law suit on an existing regulation. Go ahead and split hairs. it is still vert anti LTGB. They can give speeches about how the law was not intended for that and it is purely a legal matter not an Anti LTGB matter. But that is horseshit! And I am pretty sure if the Dems did want to pass a separate law to have these protections rather then have them added to the Civil Rights Act. the GOP would fight against these tooth and nail.
All in the name of being against regulations of course.
This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.
The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
“It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe
Prohibition and eugenics were left-wing positions in the past. It'll take a while for current arguments to be settled so that we can see that we'll get a sense of what's a good idea, what's a bad idea and what's a historically bad idea.
I would generally put socialism in the latter camp.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets