Why Discrimination Is Important In A Free Society

In the United States, there are many laws and regulations that seek to level the playing field for those considered to be less fortunate. When using a term such as “less fortunate,” one is most often referring to those who are “poor,” or discriminated against based on social or racial determinations. In order for the previous statement to be meaningful in any way, it must also be qualified.  To accomplish this, it must first be determined who will decide the definition of “poor” and who will decide exactly which behaviors are “discriminatory.” Once an “arbiter” has been determined, then the business of deciding what constitutes “poor” or “discrimination” can be concluded. The problem is that these criteria must be determined by a human being, and as such are relative and in the end discriminatory in and of themselves.

Discrimination is a fundamental component of freedom by which Individuals within each society determine with whom they will do business with, and associate with. The only type of true equality that will ever be obtained is the equality of freedom, which requires the ability to discriminate. In order for a society to have maximal freedom, the right to discriminate must be left in the hands of the individual and not transferred to the state. If one prefers freedom, then discrimination is not only good–but it is also necessary.

Ironically, the harder we reach for economic and social equality through government intervention, the further we remove ourselves from liberty–truly the only kind of equality that is obtainable.  “Economic Justice” and “Social Justice” are doublespeak; and as George Orwell defined it, “Language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth” (“Doublespeak,” def. 1A). The true intention of such “justice” is to redistribute wealth and opportunity through its own form of discrimination backed by government force. Ostensibly, the claim is that it will more evenly distribute freedom; however, what is not discussed is the coercive discrimination required to obtain this result. Discrimination has not been eliminated, but instead placed into the hand of a central group of individuals who, by using “right think,” will determine who should be discriminated against. This ensures that the “right group” of individuals are discriminated against and that a monopoly on discrimination has been given to government.  Discrimination has in no way been reduced or eliminated, but instead legitimized as a coercive tool of the state. It is because of this that a society that practices “economic justice” is in no way more just.

Morals are important to this argument, as well as ethics. As a society, it was decided a long time ago that breaking into your neighbor’s house and making off with the valuables would be wrong, and that mugging people under the threat of violence was immoral.  If so, then is it more ethical if two people mug you? What about three people? How about sixty people? It could be surmised that most individuals would feel that it would be wrong no matter how many people were involved. The removal of one’s property at gunpoint is considered wrong, regardless of how many people were to do this. Most civilized human beings determined some time ago that property must be protected, and that due process was required to remove it. In short, not even a group calling themselves “government” has the right to confiscate wealth from individuals, even if every citizen but the one with the property supported it. When a government begins telling individuals how they must manage their wealth, and with whom they must do business, it is reasonable to assume that these individuals are being treated as if they do not actually own their property. Government laws that allow an external entity to dictate how a property owner interacts with employees or customers should rightly be considered fascistic, regardless of their purpose. This does not include acts of non-defensive violent force committed by the property owner against others, of course.

Considering that economic justice in the United States often requires government agencies that hire to make discriminatory decisions based on race, social, and economic criteria, economic justice ironically becomes unjust. In order to even the “playing field,” an injustice must be done to one person in order to make it more “just” for another. The very term “Economic Justice” implies that somewhere, an economic injustice must have been done. If government is allowed to determine for property owners that a person must be hired for a job or given a loan solely based on race, and another person is denied these things based on race, one could argue that no economic or social injustice has been avoided. The determining factor against either party is race, which is outside of either’s control. Either side would truly be justified in feeling wronged. If the determination is made that there are more poor people of one racial group than another, and therefore the poorer of the two groups must have economic justice, then a moral injustice is done to the individuals of one group to help the other. Can you really have justice through injustice? The injustice committed against one to create justice for another is no justice at all, but also results in no economic progress at all.

The second problem with economic justice resides in the fact that as human beings, all value perceptions are relative’ and determinations of concepts like poverty and fairness change from one individual to another. It is because of this that one might find it is very easy to approve of taking from others and giving to themselves; and this is a primary failing of democratic representative government, especially when attempting to implement “social” or “economic justice.” Those in the majority are typically fond of voting themselves portions of other people’s property. This is always grounded on relative justifications of fairness. Economic Justice is a prime example of what Frederic Bastiat was referring to when he said that “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” It is one group of citizens and their supporters obtaining portions of the property of others through government intervention. This expropriation is often in the form of outright property confiscation through imminent domain, arbitrary business regulations, and graduated taxation, which is a tool first advocated within socialist circles and fascistic economic policies which limit one’s ability to discriminate or make fundamental free choices on the desired ends resulting from property usage.

For instance, under fascism, it did not matter who owned the means of production so long as they were bent to the will of the state. To this end, government regulations were a powerful tool used under the guise of stopping the excesses of capitalism. However, its real use was to control the outcomes of market transactions and thereby use the market for political purposes.

It was Mussolini who said that “The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their res­pective associations, circulate within the State” (Doctrine of Fascism, par. 45)The representation of the state’s social agenda and its monopoly on discrimination in its economic policies is the beginning of totalitarian government, in regard to economics and the means of production.

A society cannot practice pluralistic values in regard to egalitarian ideas or liberty. A distinctive choice must be made. If the end desired is liberty, then one will either choose equality of liberty, which will mean equal freedom for all to do as each individual wishes, or economic and social equality, which must place materialism and political power above ethics and morality. There can be no in-between because true liberty dictates that one must not aggress against one’s neighbor so long as that person has no direct negative impact upon another’s property or liberty. It is not a requirement of freedom that each individual must impact their neighbors positively, but instead, only that they do not impact them negatively. In this regard, one individual possessing wealth which another individual does not already possess cannot be seen as an injustice; and therefore, the confiscation and redistribution of wealth simply to enrich every person more equally is an injustice by itself because harm is done where there was ethically none to start with.

Success is neither unethical nor mutually exclusive. In this light, it is not unethical to make choices which are in one’s own favor–and this must be defined on a person-by-person basis. Liberty then should also be defined as the right to discriminate against others on any basis in regard to one’s association, services, and property. Discrimination is not only a necessary thing, but it is also desirable in a free society.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: Obama Is Creating A Secret ‘Race Database’ That He Has Massive Plans For

Big Brother with a big plan to impose big changes in America — changes based on race and “reparations” — that’s what the occupant of the White House is now shown to be as he heads toward the conclusion of his presidency.

In what could prove to be one of the largest and most far-reaching social engineering and “social justice” programs of his time in office, Barack Obama is quietly overseeing the unprecedented collection of massive amounts of personal data on individual Americans, including where and how people live and work.

An article in the New York Post entitled “Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database” reveals that the Obama administration is “prying into our most personal information…for the purpose of ‘racial and economic justice.’”

Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.

At the heart of this vast data mining and analysis by Obama and company is the program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that critics fear will provide the justification for federal bureaucrats to manipulate the socio-economic mix of virtually any neighborhood in any part of the country, urban or suburban.

This ominous HUD program is known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Critics warn that it could theoretically be used to declare that — based on numbers alone — a community is unfairly segregated simply because of its racial mix, not because of any discrimination that may have occurred or prejudice that might have affected who lives there.

In other words, government could order that subsidized, low-income housing be installed in an upscale community where minority families on the lower end of the economic ladder are not “fairly” represented. Choice would, therefore, be taken away from people who originally bought into such a community, deemed inherently “racist” because of who does, or does not, live there.

An article in the Washington Examiner describes Obama’s data gathering operation and HUD’s new “affirmative action” program as a threat to individual liberty and freedom of association that have naturally led to the creation of communities of likeminded people.

But of course, that has not created an America in which every community has the same percentage as the national average of blacks and whites, Hispanics and Asians, marrieds and singles, gays and straights, Protestants and Catholics and Jews and Muslims. Free choice never shakes out that way. Throughout history, Americans and immigrants have tended to choose to cluster with likeminded people.

As the New York Post article notes: “Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.”

But housing patterns and the racial composition of neighborhood populations are only one part of the Obama database that’s being compiled — only one way in which the information being collected on virtually all citizens could be used to fundamentally re-order American society.

“Such databases have never before existed,” according to the exposé in the New York Post. “Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race cops and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

It’s RIGGED: Why You Will Learn To LOVE Hillary

The 2016 Election Season is RIGGED! Its plays are predictable, and the end game is: You will learn to LOVE Hillary!

Here’s how. The nefarious puppet masters behind the scenes know the world loves an underdog. Rocky. Need I say more?

And in politics, insiders betray voters who vote in underdog outsiders that quickly turn into insiders.

Enter Hillary Clinton and her grand coronation to accept her birthright to lord over the great unwashed masses as Queen of the United States—except for one thing. Nobody wanted her. Why? She is the consummate insider with bankrupt liberal schemes that have failed worldwide. So how can they repackage an aging pseudo-Socialist into a youthful reformer?

Easy. Run her against an actual Socialist. Enter Bernie Sander, 6 years her senior, half-bald with white hair.

Here’s the game plan right out of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War: Feign weakness. Show modest crowds at Hillary get-togethers and overflow crowds at Bernie’s rallies. Even the Drudge Report’s lead headline recently was: ‘Hillary Feels the Bern.’

Come on. It’s scripted! They’re packaging Socialist Sanders like… fried chicken! As Hillary’s opening act, they’ll let Bernie have a momentary burst of stardom until the people get scared to death he might actually win. Then they will beg for mild-mannered moderate Hillary, coming up from behind to save us from Socialism! By bringing us…uh…Socialism!

1960’s rock group The Who had it right: The new boss is the same as the old boss.

Before that, the infamous ringleader of The Three Stooges had it right. To get his fellow stooge to forget about his toothache, Moe would stomp on Curly’s foot to give him a foot-ache to forget his toothache.

Put in today’s terms: it’s fake wrestling. So be happy with your toothache, or learn to love Hillary.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Bernie Sanders Wants To Tax Americans At 90%. His Reasoning Is Priceless…

Yes, this is a real thing. No, Bernie Sanders didn’t have a public meltdown of epic, Charlie Sheen proportions. This is what he believes. It’s what he’s always believed.

Remember this when your leftist friends talk about how “radical” the “far right” has become in this country. Please, remember this.

In an interview with NBC News, Sanders stated:

[When] radical, socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.

The interviewer followed up by asking, “When you think about 90 percent, you don’t think that’s obviously too high?”

Sanders replied:

No. What I think is obscene…when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90.
What I find particularly hilarious is that Bernie Sanders goes on to say that conservatives are “so greedy, they’re so out of touch with reality”… as he dines in what appears to be an expensive restaurant in the most expensive city in the country. What’s okay for him is not okay for you!
Also, it’s important to note that the rich not only pay the most taxes in this country, they pay all the taxes, according to one of NBC’s own (albeit buried) reports. When it comes to individual income taxes, “the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent.”
And I’m no economist, but if I knew that I’d be working for 90 percent of the year for free… I might consider retirement. Which would result in forced retirement for all of my employees as well. Again, just little ol’ dumb Crowder using his thinky-think ability.

Again, remember that media narrative that conservatives are becoming “too radical?” Well, allow me to compare the two factions through this scientifically calibrated internet meme below.

BernieCruz Insert

Can you spot the “extremist?”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Bernie Sanders’ Foul Socialist Odor

Socialist genius Bernie Sanders has figured out what’s really ailing America.

Our store shelves have too many different brands of deodorant and sneakers. Just look at all those horrible, fully stocked aisles at Target and Walgreens and Wal-Mart and Payless and DSW and Dick’s Sporting Goods. It’s a national nightmare! If only consumers had fewer choices in the free market, fewer entrepreneurs offering a wide variety of products, and fewer workers manufacturing goods people wanted, Sanders believes, we could end childhood hunger.

Nobody parodies the far left better than far-leftists themselves.

In an interview with financial journalist John Harwood on Tuesday, Sanders detailed his grievances with an overabundance of antiperspirants and footwear. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.”

Try to suppress a snicker: Sanders, Decider of Your Sanitary and Footwear Needs, is casting himself as the Everyman in touch with “ordinary Americans” to contrast his campaign with Hillary “my Beltway lobbyist and foreign agent operator Sid Blumenthal is just a friend I talk to for advice” Clinton.

Blech. By the looks of the 2016 Democratic presidential field, liberals really do practice the anti-choice principles they preach.

At Caracas-on-the-Green Mountains, every business owner’s success robs starving babies of vital nutrition. Because some tummies may be grumbling somewhere across the fruited plains, all must suffer. In Sanders’ world, it’s the “greedy”– America’s real makers, builders, and wealth creators — who must be punished and shamed, specifically with a personal income tax rate hiked to a whopping 90 percent for top earners.

Of course, the wealth redistributors in Washington never bear any of the blame for misspending the billions they confiscate. Nearly 100 million Americans participated in dozens of federal food assistance programs in 2014. The General Accounting Office reported last year that $74.6 billion went to food stamps, $11.3 billion went to the national school lunch program, and $7.1 billion went to the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program, along with $1.9 billion for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and $10.7 million for a federal milk program.

But no, it’s not the fault of command-and-control bureaucrats and their overseers on Capitol Hill that the War on Poverty and the War on Hunger have failed.

In Sanders’ bubble, childhood hunger is the fault of selfish consumers, self-serving entrepreneurs, and rapacious retailers who engage in voluntary transactions in a free-market economy. Just as Sanders believes there are “too many” products on the shelves, President Obama recently opined that families of America’s top earners in the financial industry “pretty much have more than you’ll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use.”

We need not speculate about whether the wealth-shamers’ recipe of less capitalist consumption, fewer private businesses, stifling of entrepreneurship, and more government control over goods and services would result in happier citizens and fuller stomachs. In Venezuela, the shelves are unburdened by “too many” deodorants and shoes and too much soap, milk, or coffee. Food distribution is under military control. The currency of the socialist paradise just collapsed on the black market by 30 percent.

Here in America, dozens of private household goods companies make billions of dollars selling scented, unscented, quilted, two-ply, white, and colored toilet paper that people want and need. In Sanders’ utopia in South America, the government imposed price controls in the name of redistributing basic goods to the poor and seized a toilet paper factory to cure the inevitable shortages. The lines are long. The shelves are empty. The daily battle for subsistence is brutal.

Take it from those who suffer most under the unbridled fulfillment of “you didn’t build that” and “you don’t need that” radicalism: It stinks.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth