What's happening in Maryland in 2008 has nothing to do with seperate but equal laws in the south in the early '60s.
I'm not engaging in the discussion of the original topic (at this time), just clarifying something you said in a previous post; the "everyone deserves the same education" argument does not hold well.
I'm not even a big RonPaulinator p) or anything, and I don't see whats wrong with that article. Sounds fair to me. One thing I have to say I did enjoy about Paul, is that although his views on some things differed from mine (ie: abortion) his policies were not about trying to push those views on others. He was more about the rights of individual states to choose their own paths. Which, to me personally, sounds like a better system than the one we've got goin' on now. Just my 2 cents. *shrug*
The Articles of Confederation were actually a much better system of government than the Constitution is. Now that the federal government is huge they make sure that the Constitution is viewed as the better document, by having a monopoly on education. I actually don't believe in equal "opportunity" for children. No one is entitled to anything in this life except for the respect of their rights. By saying that children are entitled to an education you are saying that other people are obligated to educate them. Education is not a right. In fact, public education infringes many rights. Intelligent people would want to better our society, and in a free world the intelligent people would be the one's with the power and money. They would fund these educational facilities and there would be competition between these schools. Education would become more valuable because of that competition, and our world would be a better place.
An example of one problem with Federally mandated public school taxation, in Connecticut public schools cost $11,000 annually. This is a huge burden to the middle-lower classes of Connecticut residents. It is especially insulting since the median costs of private schools are between $4,000-9,000, and they consistently provide better results than the public indoctrination system.
There is a balance that must be found between liberty and equality. In my opinion, anybody who favors all of one while none of the other is very scary. You, my friend, are very scary. But if you don't want equality at all, there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. It's an abstract and trivial argument.
while I agree with paul's argument you have to come to the realization that humans are imperfect and some things must be forced upon us unfortunetly.
Nonsense. Possessing marijuana doesn't initiate aggression against another person, neither does driving over the speed limit, yet you don't have the right to do either. Just as you do not have the right to discriminate based on race, sex, or any other non job related factor.
So our founding fathers were scary people? The fact that you think rights are defined by our government makes me giggle.
All people should have an equal opportunity to get a job or further themselves in life, but that does not guarantee that they will succeed. A minority has a right to the opportunity before them, but by all means they do not have any more of a right TO GET the job than the majority candidate. Employers should base their judgements on the quality of the candidate and not race, but if he does choose his hire by race, then it is his own responsibility if his company crumbles into bankruptcy. All men are NOT created equal, but that does not mean that they all shoudn't have the opportunities that this country has available. I firmly am a believer in non-discrimination and to discriminate based on race alone I think is rediculous, but we live on planet earth and we are HUMAN beings. Racism will always be around us as long as humans are still alive. The best we can do is deal with it peacefully and continue on in life. /rant. Thank you for listening and now I'll shut up and listen to the rest of the discussion.
Or shudder. As for the original debate, it may or may not be necessary for forced integration to exist to level the playing field. You can say that such laws are fair on a general level if that's how you feel, but there's no question that it can be brutally unfair to an individual level. It's possible for a white applicant for a job to be passed over solely due to race, regardless of whether or not such a person ever committed a racist act, or even had a racist thought. In such a situation it is definitely reasonable for the person passed over to complain about this unfairness, in the same way that it was reasonable (many, including myself, would even say necessary) for disenfranchised black people to fight against racist practices that hurt them. It's inherently unfair for people to suffer for a situation that is not at all of their making. It was true in the 60's, and it's true today as well.
Why is this the government's job? If someone does everything for you, you learn nothing of consequences, never learn from mistakes. It enables one to continue on in the perverted mindset they began with. Protecting those right would have been simply saying "everyone is equal". It is illegal to treat one person as if they are inferior to you. Forcing quotas isn't the same thing. If you have two starved, psychotic dogs in separate kennels, and say "Ok look, we've made this piece of paper that says that you two must coexist peacefully, you're both the same, you just have different fur.", it isn't going to change anything: If you put them together, expect some fighting. Could this not be done by removing the laws which allowed segregation and racism?
Speaking of Ron Paul, all day today on CSPAN-2 is his "Rally for the Republic", a bunch of libertarian speakers, musicians, and then the good Dr. himself. I just started watching and it's pretty interesting, I recommend checking it out.
+rep to you +rep to you too. Sorry it took me a while to respond to these, my response was all typed up then my computer shut down .
Hey Tray, thanks for the info. Always good to have more information. I guess the problem that bothers me is this. One reason that we have a racial divide that is so strong is because of slavery. Now, consider this. A large reason for slavery was a way to make the elite more comfortable, and cost them less. It may sound crude, but thats essentially what it is. Fast forward -- the same mentality, and social class, were responsible for this. They have created a problem, attempted to fix it through the system, and liberties and freedoms are diminished because 'the man' had to have his hand in the cookie jar. It just seems so hypocritical. And the ones who created the problem seem like the heroes. And we pay the price.
Paul is pointing out how "the government" (or what he really wanted to say - the elite controlling our government) is twisting things like civil rights, homeland security, the patriot act etc. into sounding like the American people are benefiting from it. In reality, we're loosing our ability to fight back against the powers that be, more and more. If you want to know how much of a puppet you really are... watch the link. If you already know the real origins of Christianity skip to 40:41. The movie is in 3 parts. 2 and 3 are usually pretty shocking to people. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&ei=F8q-SNnlCIjyqwP85In-CA&q=zeitgeist
We are all puppets, but boo Zeitgeist. The Christianity and 9/11 conspiracy aren't necessary, and a lot of the movie is not trustworthy.