The Equality Lie and Diversity Myth
There is a misguided belief in the US (especially) that pretends somehow everyone is equal. People should be equal in the eyes of the law (one of the reasons i'm against "hate crime" laws) but extending it much further than that is delusional and irresponsible.
People are strange animals, but they do not inherently have the same value to society. People have their own strengths and weaknesses, competencies and failures. Not everyone can do everything, and they should not try.
Take economic value, should a CEO be paid more than a burger flipper? Yes, there is no doubt (i will touch on that more in a future section). Economic equality is a failed concept from the beginning.
People who better use resources deserve to profit from their competency, foresight, and risk-taking. Trying to level the playing field just disadvantages everyone. Some people are better suited for certain roles than others.
Diversity was sold to the US mainly because the country was newer and needed additional workers. However, diversity is not really a net benefit.
Look at the Scandanavian countries (before the refuge idiocy); they have little ethnic diversity, but a happier population. Diversity leads directly to conflict and self-segregation. A major problem is the lack of assimilation into a common culture.
In the earlier days if the US, people of different backgrounds, faiths, etc. were willing to chase after the concept of success known as the American Dream. The dream largely consisted of being comfortable economically and having a fulfilling family life. As time went on, the groups further fractured and sort of self-segregated (especially racial groups).
Diversity actually shrank allowing groups better opportunity to become disenfranchised and blame their failures on another group (whatever group had the most control). Eventually, you get into the cycle of crime, poverty and moral decay. It is not racism, for the most part, but economic stagnation and a lack of personal responsibility that have led to most of the problems - whether it is the trailer park, the ghetto or the barrio.
Diversity only works well with common goals. You don't want everyone to think the exact same way (complete group think) though.
I am not necessarily talking civil rights here. As i have stated previously, prejudice is stupid and counterproductive in an economic sense (though there is one area).
Are men and women equal? No, they are how they are for biologically for evolutionary reasons (a little thing called the continuation of the species). Can they do many of the tasks men do? Of course, they can, but their biology can make some jobs more difficult to do.
Should females and males be paid the same for doing the same job? No. Females should be paid less than males because there is greater risk with them (pregnancy and child rearing), though how much depends on what they do and their competency. Training and replacing workers is expensive (so i hear). There is also more risk of sexual harassment claims (and baseless gender-based discrimination claims).
I have a problem with Civil Rights laws. My problem is that it is not necessary to codify specific rights based off of membership in certain demographic categories. There is an economic incentive to hire minorities (whatever that is anymore). Government intervention is not needed.
Part of this is that there will tend to be an incentive, for congress in particular, to pass prejudicial programs or bills that discriminate in the name of "equality" or worse "equity".
Hate crime laws are a prime example of this stupidity. Hate crimes punish someone attacking a minority for being a minority (why they did it has no relevance unless it establishes premeditation). That essentially gives a higher value to the life and security of a person in a minority group than the majority enjoys (and there are no hate crime penalties for minorities attacking members of the "majority").
The concept of "protected groups" is repugnant to the Constitution and the concept of equality under the law. Some of these programs are things like disparate analysis and affirmative action. Hiring quotas are wrong. Should employers treat all workers roughly the same? Yes. However, there will always be innate biases (this is part of human nature, you can't change it no matter how hard you try).
Government crosses the line when they require private businesses and organizations to comply with their "laws". It should be solely the private business' right to determine their customer and employment policies without government intervention. Not every business caters to everyone.
I get offended when i hear some black woman sues somebody like Abercrombie and Fitch for not having enough minorities in their catalog (when they are not the target demographic) [originally written <=2013]. Minorities are not entitled to anything because they are minorities.
LGBTQ+ (or whatever, the alphabet people)
Another wrinkle on civil rights laws... the homosexual community is a good example of this (now dominated by the insane Transgender crowd). The phenomenon i'm talking about is plastering their message all over everything and going out of their way to make the "majority" nervous (even plowing through their agenda in the courts).
i am not sure if homosexuality is a born condition (kind of like a birth defect, at least from an evolutionary perspective) or a choice. The female dominated "sexual fluidity" is deeply confusing.
Basically, i don't care what you do in the comfort of your homes (provided it is legal). However, when you go out in public and start attacking religious institutions like marriage, you have gone a little too far.
How is this a protected group? Some members are obvious, but you can never really be sure about a person's sexuality unless they tell you (much like a fake psychic detective). Don't ask, don't tell should be the policy in the workplace. i will probably mention gay marriage later.
The whole normalization of the gay rights movement was not about equality, it was about an attack on organized religion and traditional society. That is why they went after gay marriage so hard - marriage one of the keystones of a religious society.
Militant gays abused the court system to get their way. Even now they go out of their way to attack try and force people to accept their lifestyle choices. Something like trying to have courts compel religious people to bake gay wedding cakes (religious persecution).
Now they have completely dropped the mask and displayed their craven nature. Getting taken into the schools and pop-culture have tried to normalize, it's not really homosexuality - more sexual and gender confusion. A social contagion. Teachers trying to openly recruit their students into their bizarre self-loathing lifestyle (and further weaken the family unit).
There is no such thing as transgender. There is such a thing as mental illness. Like much of life, you don't get to choose what you are (you just are). I don't care what you think your pronouns are or "dead naming".
It Doesn't Take A Village
There has been a pushing of the idea that it takes a village to raise a child since before the Hilary Clinton book. The government hasn't taken it to its ultimate conclusion yet though (take the children away from the parents and indoctrinate them in government run facilities until they are 18 or 21).
I will touch some of this later, but schools have no right to instruct students on what moral values they should have (if any). The family is the group responsible for raising the children.
The concept that you need a village and everyone in it to train a child is patently false. Supposedly, this is from an African proverb. In a more primitive context this may be more accurate (though many will be directly related). Though, for an industrialized economy, it misses the mark.
The village hunters have to train the kids to go out hunt to guarantee their own survival. This is just a way of deflecting the responsibility that the parents have for raising their kids, by turning it over to the government (to create obedient drones).
Now for a bad segue. It doesn't take a village; it takes a family.
No comments:
Post a Comment