Archive for October, 2008

Affirmative action and hate crime legislation

October 26, 2008

Affirmative action and hate crime legislation are both designed to eliminate racism and discrimination, and they both fail.

Affirmative action essentially means forcing a business to hire party 1 instead of party 2 for the job, even if party 2 is more qualified for the job, simply because party 1 is in a minority group. People may think this will eliminate racism in the business world, but it does not. Not only does this type of law interfere with the rights of the employer, it interferes with the rights of the employed.

If you think about it, it’s just creating a new racism, only instead of the racism being against minorities, it is against majorities. So if you are a majority class person who has worked hard at a business a long time, and your employer was planning on promoting you to a supervisor position because of your qualifications, he could potentially be forced to promote a less qualified minority class person instead, due to affirmative action. Affirmative action does not eliminate racism, it promotes racism.

Hate crime legislation allows a party 1 to be punished more severely if the person he commited the crime against a party 2 that is part of a minority. This is supposedly designed to prevent crimes against minority parties. However, a person cannot be tried for motivation. Not only does it waste tax dollars to try to ‘percieve’ party 1’s motiviations; it is also immoral. A person should not be tried for their motivation, they should be tried for their crime. If party 1 is thoroughly convicted of killing someone in cold blood, then party 1 should be given the appropriate penalty. The fact that not all party 1s who are convicted of this crime are given the appropriate penalty shows that something is fundamentally wrong with our judicial methods.

The fundamental flaw with this type of legislation is that it treats American citizens with different levels of care, which actually causes the very thing it is trying to prevent. This unequal treatment is not only immoral, but is also unconstitutional: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States(…) nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And that is why the future United People party will not support any hate crime or affirmative action legislation.



October 21, 2008

Government is like cake. Everybody has it, and those who don’t wish they did. Besides, of course, those who get stuck with the lesser flavors, like carrot cakenand almond. The government’s cake is usually just one political flavor. Communist, socialist, capitalist, democratic, anarchic, monarchic, etc. And from an economic viewpoint, there are even more different varieties!

But these cakes all share one thing in common: Everyone is forced to eat them. Whether you’re an atheist, Buddhist, Christian, conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, Islamic, gay, straight, agnostic, or anything else, you have to eat the cake of your country’s government. You don’t like it? Tough luck. The only ways to avoid eating it are changing it or overthrowing it(like into a clown’s face on a comedy routine). And if you want to change it, you’d better hope there’s a majority of people who feel the same way as you and who possess the means necessary.

America has many different types of people in it, all of whom want the cake to be their flavor. Not only that, but the USA’s cake is bigger than many other countries’ cake, with taxes rising to 30% or more. People in the government have the same job incentives as anyone else: Expand, enlarge, and grow, which leads to higher taxes and more inefficient government programs. So now not only is the flavor of the cake not one of your choosing, you have to eat more of it by paying more taxes, and by obeying more laws…. and the government favors the voice of the minority rather than the majority. They listen to the voice of the select few more often than the hundreds of thousands. So now the cake is big, of a flavor that you didn’t choose, and on top of it all they are adding in funny textures like peanuts and raisins.

As you can see, this situation causes alot of conflict. Republicans yelling at Democrats, Democrats yelling at Republicans, and Libertarians trying to swipe some votes from both parties. One huge cake, and everyone is trying to pour their own particular flavor into the batter.

Obviously there cannot be a simple solution to such a huge problem, right? It’s too complex. Too many parties involved, too many people… Well, I beg to differ.

Here’s a question: What if the cake was smaller? What if we allowed people to spend their own money the way they want to? What if we got rid of government health, welfare, federal education, and research? Obviously you can’t get rid of some government programs for fear of anarchy, like police enforcement and military, but there are plenty of other things that the individual could choose for himself. What if we paid half the taxes we do now? You’d have alot of extra money sitting around. You could send your children to private schools, even college, and maybe buy yourself a healthcare plan that isn’t so expensive, because healthcare would cost alot less without the government’s FDA paperwork eating up time and money.

So what would you spend your money on? Vanilla or chocolate? Carrot cake or almond? Orange or cherry?

I, for one, would buy a small lemon cake… Mmm, delicious.