My Comparative Politics textbook asks, “Why is it good to have minorities in the legislature?” I ask, “Why does this text state implicitly that it is good at all to have minorities in the legislature?”
OMG! WTF! Call the thought police! We have a racist in the vicinity!
Whoa, hold your horses there, Mr. Social Justice Advocate. If you allow for an open discussion on this concept of race (which you claim to be what you want, even as you subvert everyone who disagrees with you by labeling them a “racist”) you would see that I am not a racist. Indeed, I am the opposite. As I will shortly demonstrate, it is you who border the tenets of racism, not me.
Proponents of "racial justice,” a subcategory of “social justice,” are prone to numerous fallacies. The first of them is the idea that the coercive apparatus of the state must be used to institutionalize racial distinctions through law—thus justifying the claims of racists and racialists that “races” as we know them are fundamentally different and thus deserving of unequal treatment under the law. Worse still, racial quotas and other results of state intervention in the race-distinction business tramples the property rights of employers, violating their natural rights to employ whoever the hell they want to.
[rant]I don’t care if they choose to employ a fucking monkey, a job is the property of its creator, and as such he can do whatever the hell he wants with it.[/rant]
Such laws also transform “minorities” into walking lawsuits, thus making them unappealing for employers and creating unemployment amongst their ranks. This is amusing in a perverse sort of way, because it leaves the ignorant racial distinctionists who believe that the state is the solution to all social ills scratching their heads and concluding that capitalism must be at fault.
The free market provides natural incentives against arbitrary discrimination (defined here as being based upon something other than job performance). If employer A, being racist, forgoes hiring a productive white employee in favor of a less productive black employee, employer A will lose the additional profit that it would have otherwise acquired if it had an equitable employment policy. Employer B, being run by greedy capitalists who discriminate solely in favor of green, hire the more productive white employee. Ceteris paribus, employer A will be less competitive and have lower profit (or higher losses).
When the government provides legal protections to certain groups, members of said groups cease to be viewed by employers as valuable contributors and transform into black holes of litigation not worth the risk. Laws that aim at protecting groups from discrimination make it in a business-owners rational self-interest to discriminate against members of said group (the opposite of free-market incentives).
One mind-numbingly stupid proposition put forth in the text is that political parties should offer voters the choice of a black and a white candidate. There was also a nostalgic reminiscence over the good ol’ days in the Soviet Union when quotas were in place. Such laughable ideas reinforce what racists have been trying to tell us all along—that the various “races” are fundamentally different.
But what of my promise to demonstrate the connection between racism and advocates of so-called “racial justice?”
Both share the same basic philosophical underpinnings of collectivism, a philosophy that judges people based upon what groups they have membership in rather than in their capacity as individuals. Groupism is irrational and must be destroyed if we are to truly enter the much-lauded “post-racial” society. If this is to happen, we must repeal groupist laws such as racial quotas and affirmative action which serve only to justify groupist philosophy by having the state recognize it as legitimate (which it is not).
In truth, races are nothing more than social constructions based upon phenotypic observations and stereotypes. Rational people should dismiss such factors when determining what who to hire or associate with. Society cannot truly progress past the primitive idea of “race” until the government quits making distinctions between “races.” As far as I am concerned, there is only one race: the human race. And coercion is NEVER an acceptable solution to a social ill.
Racism is a sin of the heart. It cannot be legislated away at the whim of those in possession of legalized violence (or “elected officials” as they are sometimes referred to).
