Affirimative Action Vs. Individual Liberty
Affirmative Action Vs. Individual Liberty
By: Jeremy Tyler
Affirmative Action plays a huge role in the world and especially in the United States of America. Affirmative action historically has been the thought that the government should set regulations to promote education and employment for non-dominant groups (usually minorities or women). There has been much support for Affirmative actions in the United States, but there has also been much resistance to it on various viewpoints. In this Essay I will show why I support Individual rights and property rights over affirmative action and collectivism.
Affirmative action as far as law goes started with John F. Kennedy's speech in 1961 about the civil rights issue. This was all started during the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and early 70's. The idea of affirmative action is to, through the state, to force businesses and schools to accept a certain amount of the non-dominant groups as employee's or students. This is thought to create equality. A lot of people would say affirmative actions gave blacks and other minorities (including women) a chance. It is true that those groups have gone up in percentage involving better employment and better jobs.
While that is true, it is also true that white men have declined in percentage of them having jobs and getting higher education. Some would say this was fair for the fact that the other groups received discrimination before, so it's only fair that it is made sure that those groups have a chance and the dominant group does not. But I ask you, is this not a form of discrimination? Groups discriminating against another group.
Affirmative Action forces businesses to hire a certain amount of certain groups of people, and school the accept admissions of them as well. While these groups have been discriminated against before does that give them just action to discriminate against the once dominant group? One might state that it is not discriminatory, but just gives these once dominated groups a fair chance. I ask you this though, if a black woman was better qualified for a job, but could not get it because she is a black woman, but instead they hire a white man because the state forces them to. Is that not discrimination? It is one group, through force of the state, dominating another group. So using that situation vise-versa, would it not still be discriminatory no matter how you look at it? It's this mentality of group vs. group that causes division and rifts in rights among people.
Another point I want to bring up is that of property rights. Barry Goldwater ran as republican presidential candidate in 1964, with one of his issues being that he was against affirmative action. Not because he wanted to be discriminatory, because he was very socially liberal. But because he believes in equal rights, and that no one has the right to take one's property rights away. He viewed businesses as one own personal property, and that it would immoral to use force of government to tell that person what to do with that property as long as it was not violating someone else's natural rights. He viewed affirmative action as taking away property rights.
The core of all these problems is our way of thinking of people as groups. Racism and sexism is a form of collectivism where we view people as groups, and derive those rights from those groups instead of deriving rights as individuals. To quote Ron Paul "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather then individuals. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. We should understand that racism will continue to endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups, and start thinking in terms of individual liberty." If we start thinking in terms of individuals with all equal natural rights, then things like racism and sexism would disappear. No one's rights would be violated due to the thought of collectivism.
In short if you want to stop discrimination, a good way of doing it would be follow Martin Luther King Jr. example of threatening to boycott a business if they don't give equal treatment to all individuals who apply, it doesn't use force nor does it affect anyone's individual natural rights. Since everyone has equal rights, no persons equal rights should be taken away for compensate for another’s being taken away. This mindset of collectivism, focusing on groups, is wrong and further propels racism. If we focus on individuals and their own liberty, then that is the only way to stop this mentality of discrimination.
"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people." - Ron Paul
By: Jeremy Tyler
Affirmative Action plays a huge role in the world and especially in the United States of America. Affirmative action historically has been the thought that the government should set regulations to promote education and employment for non-dominant groups (usually minorities or women). There has been much support for Affirmative actions in the United States, but there has also been much resistance to it on various viewpoints. In this Essay I will show why I support Individual rights and property rights over affirmative action and collectivism.
Affirmative action as far as law goes started with John F. Kennedy's speech in 1961 about the civil rights issue. This was all started during the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and early 70's. The idea of affirmative action is to, through the state, to force businesses and schools to accept a certain amount of the non-dominant groups as employee's or students. This is thought to create equality. A lot of people would say affirmative actions gave blacks and other minorities (including women) a chance. It is true that those groups have gone up in percentage involving better employment and better jobs.
While that is true, it is also true that white men have declined in percentage of them having jobs and getting higher education. Some would say this was fair for the fact that the other groups received discrimination before, so it's only fair that it is made sure that those groups have a chance and the dominant group does not. But I ask you, is this not a form of discrimination? Groups discriminating against another group.
Affirmative Action forces businesses to hire a certain amount of certain groups of people, and school the accept admissions of them as well. While these groups have been discriminated against before does that give them just action to discriminate against the once dominant group? One might state that it is not discriminatory, but just gives these once dominated groups a fair chance. I ask you this though, if a black woman was better qualified for a job, but could not get it because she is a black woman, but instead they hire a white man because the state forces them to. Is that not discrimination? It is one group, through force of the state, dominating another group. So using that situation vise-versa, would it not still be discriminatory no matter how you look at it? It's this mentality of group vs. group that causes division and rifts in rights among people.
Another point I want to bring up is that of property rights. Barry Goldwater ran as republican presidential candidate in 1964, with one of his issues being that he was against affirmative action. Not because he wanted to be discriminatory, because he was very socially liberal. But because he believes in equal rights, and that no one has the right to take one's property rights away. He viewed businesses as one own personal property, and that it would immoral to use force of government to tell that person what to do with that property as long as it was not violating someone else's natural rights. He viewed affirmative action as taking away property rights.
The core of all these problems is our way of thinking of people as groups. Racism and sexism is a form of collectivism where we view people as groups, and derive those rights from those groups instead of deriving rights as individuals. To quote Ron Paul "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather then individuals. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. We should understand that racism will continue to endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups, and start thinking in terms of individual liberty." If we start thinking in terms of individuals with all equal natural rights, then things like racism and sexism would disappear. No one's rights would be violated due to the thought of collectivism.
In short if you want to stop discrimination, a good way of doing it would be follow Martin Luther King Jr. example of threatening to boycott a business if they don't give equal treatment to all individuals who apply, it doesn't use force nor does it affect anyone's individual natural rights. Since everyone has equal rights, no persons equal rights should be taken away for compensate for another’s being taken away. This mindset of collectivism, focusing on groups, is wrong and further propels racism. If we focus on individuals and their own liberty, then that is the only way to stop this mentality of discrimination.
"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people." - Ron Paul