Racism

We will end with unacceptable discrimination!

Many people are able to stand up to you and strongly defend the view that discrimination from the state is unacceptable, the state should combat discrimination by all possible means throughout society, and therefore massive redistribution is needed, even through progressive taxation, so that the poor are not discriminated against. to education or further. The question is: how can one defend so many contradictions at once?

Discrimination is discrimination, there is nothing more in it. Racial discrimination distinguishes by skin color, age discrimination by age, and so on.

I certainly agree that the state and its bodies have no right to discriminate. The state is equivalent to any of us as a thief who takes our money without basically allowing it.

So let's take it step by step:

The state should combat discrimination throughout society

You are a racist. I don't like you and I don't agree with youbut be it, we have our opinion and our vision of the world. You don't want to hire a black man, for example - and look, you have a problem right away. The state fights racial discrimination. It contradicts the opinion.

The state is thus committing discrimination of opinion, or not? She is of opinion discrimination by the State is permissible? If so, how do we know "good" and "bad" discrimination? If the state can discriminate - why can't a private, a racist?

Massive redistribution is also needed through progressive taxation

Proponents of progressive taxation can easily imagine how disgusting taxes are - try to give the poor the tax rate that proponents of progressive taxation want to assign to the richest, and see how statisticians suddenly become laissez-faire.

But behold - there is no income discrimination? Which income is good and which is bad? And why? It is permissible to discriminate higher income groups? Why? Talk of "social responsibility" or "solidarity" is just a cover in the system of state redistribution. It is just income discrimination, whatever we cover it up.

And discrimination, after all is not allowedor is it?

So that the poor are not discriminated against in access to education or further

If the state forces one group of people to pay for the services of another group of people, it is a beautiful detonator for "social conflict", or what else to call it modern, although supporters of redistribution are trying to claim otherwise. You wouldn't be pissed off if you were for example, they had to pay petrol to a neighbor, and he still cursed at you, how little do you pay him, and that he won't even get to McDrive?

However, at a time when the state is supposed to provide "education for all," because it "provides education for the poor," so explicitly in the statement we assume discrimination. We assume state distinguishing between rich and poor, payer and payee.

Idea discrimination is thus already included in advance in the whole structure of redistribution. There will always be recipients and payers, there will always be discrimination.

Is discrimination OK?

A perhaps discrimination is right? If we say yes, why is it right "from the state" and by what right does the state act and why is discrimination bad from private individuals? The more the state gained that exclusive rightthat we don't have?

If we say that it is permissible in the case of "social welfare," then I ask: a what is that bliss? Who defines it - most? Is it then the dictatorship of the majority? Who defines the majority? And is it a real majority, or a group that only "mostly" protects itself?

If it was "by the majority" necessary to expel Jews for the good of society, was that right and permissible? It went on correct and permissible discrimination? Does the well-being define a leader, a political leader? And by what right - the right to vote 30 (in our country) or 51 (in the majority system) percent of voters?

Or the welfare is "Pareto" - that is ones that won't hurt anyone, so it doesn't discriminate against anyone? And, however, are the above examples in stark contrast to the "Pareto" definition of the welfare of society?

"3 discrimination is good, 4 not anymore!"

If we say that discrimination is bad, with some exception, how many exceptions are acceptable? Where is the border?

3 are correct, but 4 are no longer?

And why? If something is wrong "qualitatively", an idea, a principle - is it right, if it is in the amount we specify?

There are more such examples. Marriage law discriminates against "men" and "women". Homosexual he complains that he also wants to "get married" or "get married," and so on enforces the law about a “registered partnership” - and would it not be easier, rather than further regulating and tying our lives to another senseless law, to reconsider the relationship between states and the partnership of two adults?

What matters to me is under what contract who enters into a partnership and as he calls it. Have a transgender woman with a transgender man, for example, and call it a "third-kind super-marriage," if they want to.

Enforcing another law just because of a certain interest group is also discriminatory. Therefore, the law on registered partnerships should not have seen the light of day. And the law governing marriage in its current form.

State "protection" of monuments discriminates against legitimate property owners - "You, you can't do anything with your house, but you, you do what you want." The Labor Code discriminates employees and employers, self-employed and others. What does it matter to whom, under what contract and in what way who works? Different state concepts discriminate against different energy suppliers according to the source of their production, industries according to their activity, Schools according to taught fields.

God, if discrimination from the state is unacceptable, why is it on every corner? Why do those so vocal "opponents of discrimination" and "proponents of equality" want to sneak her into every aspect of our lives? What right is it to discriminate against chauvinistic employers? Is it right to discriminate against a "feminist" employer?

Let's get rid of that discrimination!

The state is an organization built on discrimination. They will always be taxpayers and payers.

The right opponent of discrimination thus fights for as little or no state influence as possible. For as little or no taxes as possible. Not the other way around.

Let us finally get rid of that discrimination. Let's indulge in freedom.

Discrimination, that is discrimination, there is nothing more in it. Racial discrimination distinguishes by skin color, age discrimination by age, and so on.

I certainly agree that the state and its bodies have no right to discriminate. The state is equivalent to any of us as a thief who takes our money without basically allowing it.

So let's take it step by step:

The state should combat discrimination throughout society

You are a racist. I don't like you and I don't agree with you, but be it, we have our opinion and our vision of the world. You don't want to hire a black man, for example - and look, you have a problem right away. The state fights racial discrimination. It contradicts the opinion.

Is the state thus discriminating against opinions or not? Is discrimination of opinion by the state permissible? If so, how do we know "good" and "bad" discrimination? If the state can discriminate - why can't a private, a racist?

Massive redistribution is also needed through progressive taxation

Proponents of progressive taxation can easily imagine how disgusting taxes are - try to give the poor the tax rate that proponents of progressive taxation want to assign to the richest, and see how statisticians suddenly become laissez-faire.

But then - are there no income discrimination? Which income is good and which is bad? And why? Is it permissible to discriminate against higher income groups? Why? Talk of "social responsibility" or "solidarity" is just a cover in the system of state redistribution. It is just income discrimination, whatever we cover it up.

And discrimination is not permissible, is it?

So that the poor are not discriminated against in access to education or further

If the state forces one group of people to pay for the services of another group of people, it is a beautiful detonator for "social conflict", or what else to call it modern, although supporters of redistribution are trying to claim otherwise. Wouldn't you be pissed off if you had to pay your neighbor for gas, and he was still cursing you at how little you were paying him, and that he wouldn't even get to McDrive?

However, at a time when the state is supposed to provide "education to all," because it "provides education to the poor," we already explicitly assume discrimination in the statement. We assume the state division into poor and rich, payer and recipient.

The idea of ​​discrimination is thus already explicitly included in the whole structure of redistribution. There will always be recipients and payers, there will always be discrimination.

And is discrimination right? If we say yes, why is it right "from the state" and by what right does the state act and why is discrimination bad from private individuals? How did the state gain that exclusive right that we do not have?

If we say that it is permissible in the case of "social welfare," then I ask: and what is that welfare? Who defines it - the majority? Is it then the dictatorship of the majority? Who defines the majority? And is it a real majority, or a group that only "mostly" protects itself?

If it was "by the majority" necessary to expel Jews for the good of society, was that right and permissible? Was it fair and permissible discrimination? Does the well-being define a leader, a political leader? And by what right - the right to vote 30 (in our country) or 51 (in the majority system) percent of voters?

Or is well-being "Pareto" - that is, one that does not harm anyone, that is, does not discriminate against anyone? And, however, are the above examples in stark contrast to the "Pareto" definition of the welfare of society?

If we say that discrimination is bad, with some exception, how many exceptions are acceptable? Where is the border? 3 are correct, but 4 are no longer? And why? If something is wrong "qualitatively", an idea, a principle - is it right, if it is in the amount we specify?

There are more such approaches. The marriage law discriminates against "men" and "women". A homosexual complains that he also wants to "marry" or "marry," enforcing the "registered partnership" law - and it would not be easier, rather than further regulating and tying our lives to another nonsensical law, to reconsider the relationship between states and two adult partnerships. ?

What matters to me is under what contract who enters into the partnership and what does he call it? Have a transgender woman with a transgender man, for example, and call it a "third-kind super-marriage," if they want to.

Enforcing another law just because of a certain interest group is also discriminatory. Therefore, the law on registered partnerships should not have seen the light of day. And the law governing marriage in its current form.

State "protection" of monuments discriminates against legitimate property owners - "you, you can't do anything with your house, but you, you do what you want." The Labor Code discriminates against employees and employers, self-employed and others. What does it matter to anyone, under what contract and in what way who works? Different state concepts discriminate against different energy suppliers according to the source of their production, industries according to their activities, schools according to the fields taught.

God, if discrimination from the state is unacceptable, why is it on every corner? Why do those so vocal "opponents of discrimination" and "proponents of equality" want to sneak her into every aspect of our lives? What right is it to discriminate against chauvinistic employers? Is it right to discriminate against a "feminist" employer?

The state is an organization built on discrimination. They will always be taxpayers and payers. The right opponent of discrimination thus fights for as little or no state influence as possible. For as little or no taxes as possible. Not the other way around.

Let us finally get rid of that discrimination. Let's indulge in freedom.

0 comments

  1. Its one of those things that will never end… as long as humans live, discrimination's will prevail

  2. It reminds me of an article I wrote on this topic a few years ago - if the honored author or audience were interested:
    http://cover72.net/zasadni/clanek.php?c=19
    Newspeak knows two discriminations, among which there is a strict dichotomy: "discrimination" (which is bad) and "positive discrimination" (which is naturally good). It all follows from a positivist view of human rights, because it implies everything else: if a person is * entitled * to work, it is certainly not possible to discriminate against him; however, if he has a negative right to work, but not a right, then it is a matter of voluntary relations, and there is discrimination not only possible but even appropriate - because, to quote that article, '' Discrimination ', from the Latin' discriminatus', means, in a literal translation into Czech, "differentiation", differentiation, division. So we all discriminate - in the morning you discriminate between whether you travel by car, bus or helicopter; in the afternoon, you discriminate between steak and diet salad in the dining room. And yes, Mr. Bárta and Mrs. Tydlitátová also discriminate - demonstrably, for example, between whether they will publish on the Internet or in Mladá Fronta.
    'Discrimination' alone is therefore harmless - in fact, it is a fundamental building block for 'decision-making', which activities are carried out by more than four billion people every day (despite the efforts of social engineers who would like to make decisions for everyone else). "

Comments are off.