Stan in San Diego

Stan in San Diego

Lee, maybe an additional degree in sociology and/or history might help. I guess I don’t have as much faith in Mr. Sowell or Mr. Friedman as you do. You never addressed my argument regarding the slaveowners. Were they virulent racists who built their empires on stolen land and stolen labor or were they intellectual morons who didn’t understand that slavery was actually costing them (an argument still being made by the way) and that freeing the slaves to sell their own labor was to the slaveowners financial profit?

Stan in San Diego

*shrugs*
yeah, what the hell do i know. i just have a master’s degree in economics. guess i better notify my alma maters and ask for a refund.
hate to break it to you friend, but you have no clue what you’re talking about.
later.

I stand by my statements. Reread what you wrote to me. I didn’t misread you. Your thinking is somewhat illogical and historically innacurate. Thanks for the dialogue.

Stan in San Diego

obviously so. i guess i’m not communicating my point clearly enough.

—You said that discriminators paid a financial price.—

in a free market. a free market that includes labor.

—How? Slavery DID operate in a free market because the slaves were a commodity to be bought and sold.—

i disagree.
simply b/c a commodity can be bought and sold does not prove that the market in which that commodity is bought and sold is ‘free.’
the slaves had no ability to bargain with their labor.
the market, as such, was not free.

—Constitutionally, they were property. Arguments have been made by others that slavery was unprofitable to slave owners. That would mean that slaveowners were discriminators AND morons.—

the first point is beside the point.
the second point brings up studies that have been largely discredited by economists.

—As for schools and universities having the right to discriminate because they are not-for -profit…then why are we so upset about affirmative action.—

i never said schools and universities have the right to discriminate. i said they wouldn’t suffer an economic penalty from discrimination. you are putting words into my mouth.
discrimination of any sort is not ‘right.’ but that doesn’t mean universities or colleges will suffer economic penalties for such discrimination if their budgets are largely buttressed by tax dollars.

—Your statement would indicate that schools have the right to discriminate against whites or Asians in favor of blacks, Latinos, etc. I don’t understand.—

no.
you have misread my statement.
i merely stated that in the case of universities and colleges, since most public institutions of higher learning are largely funded by federal and state tax dollars as well as tuition, fees, etc. any economic penalty that would come about due to discrimination is severely muted. no one has a ‘right’ to discriminate. some can merely get away with it without a large economic penalty while others cannot.

- lee

The declaration described rights as given by GOD, not government. The constitution is (was?) a document setting definite and limited parameters for the newly created (by the states) Federal government. The first ten articles of which we call the “Bill of Rights”, which again are PROHIBITIONS on the government (can we even imagine today our government being prohibited from meddling in ANYTHING?).

Affirmative action and welfare (both for the poor AND for big corporations) might be well and good, but we must stop pretending that our form of government, involved as it is in so many things not provided for in those documents, is the same as that set forth by the Founding Fathers.

I’m sure your charities are noble, and your giving is reflective of a servant’s heart. But I believe that you are worthy of reproof in this matter of the proper role of government (particularly the Washington gov’t).

Not sure what you’re saying. You said that discriminators paid a financial price. How? Slavery DID operate in a free market because the slaves were a commodity to be bought and sold. Constitutionally, they were property. Arguments have been made by others that slavery was unprofitable to slave owners. That would mean that slaveowners were discriminators AND morons.
As for schools and universities having the right to discriminate because they are not-for -profit…then why are we so upset about affirmative action. Your statement would indicate that schools have the right to discriminate against whites or Asians in favor of blacks, Latinos, etc. I don’t understand.

Stan in San Diego

— Regarding the “fact” that discriminators also pay a financial price for their discriminating, what does that mean? that discriminators are morons and intellectual midgets, incapable of making value judgments in their own favor? What does that say about the slaveowners or the schools and universities and employers that had to be dragged kicking and screaming before allowing even one black student to enroll or one black to work? —

schools and universities aren’t ‘for-profit’ enterprises.
as such, they can discriminate without penalty.
especially if the majority of their funding is through taxes.
slavery was profitable – or it would not have existed.
slavery is also different from discrimination in a free market…unless you consider the institution of slavery to have existed in a free market. do you?

—Were they so educationally challenged in the knowledge of capitalism that they continued to hit themselves over the head for over 300 years to their own financial loss? Is that the choice? Either they were among the dumbest people God ever made or they were discriminators? You make the call.—

obviously, this point of yours is answered adequately above.

feel free to ask any other questions.

- lee

Constitution
“the right of the people to assemble…”
“the right of the people to bear arms…”
“the right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
“the right to a speedy and public trial…”
“the right of trial by jury…”
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights…”
“The right of citizens…to vote…” (4 times)

Frankly, I have never heard your’s or Mark’s interpretations before. Both documents are rather straightforward. And I wonder why you’re taking everything so personally, using LOL over and over again, questioning my charitable giving, accusing me of wanting reparations going back centuries (I never mentioned it). I guess I wouldn’t want to give San Diego back to the “Indians”. Now LA, that’s a different story! Can anyone argue that LA metro is a better place than it was when the “Indians” “owned” it? You really are a good example of the “tough cookies” for losers attitude. Nice to know you know about our wonderful area. Feel free to visit anytime and leave as much money as you can before you leave.

Stan in San Diego

DarkStar-
You’re right. It’s not indicative of racism, though many people out there automatically assume it is. Wow, something you and I can agree about. Knowledge gained from former girlfriends is sometimes priceless. :>

Sometimes comments get “stuck” in the holding area because a word in your post triggered the spam filter. I try to approve “stuck” comments as fast as I can, so if yours doesn’t appear right away, it will show up momentarily. Except for when I’m asleep, which I’m about to be in a few minutes. Good night!