Tag: collectivism

Categories
ideological culture subsidy

Race-Based Handouts?

collectivism, individualism, race, racism, regulations, welfare

The decision won’t be the end of the matter, but it’s a good sign.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman has ruled that a federal agency established to give subsidies to businesses, in its current form called the Minority Business Development Agency, may no longer use race or ethnicity as a criterion for distributing benefits.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty on behalf of three business owners who weren’t allowed to apply for help from the MBDA because they’re white. The plaintiffs argue that the Agency violates the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law.

According to Judge Pittman, although “the Agency may intend to serve listed groups, not punish unlisted groups, the very design of its presumption punishes those who are not presumptively entitled to MBDA benefits.”

Supporting rights-based governance, I’m no fan of any welfare programs. As long as we have them, though, why should the handouts or the ability to apply for them be determined by race?

Government-imposed racial discrimination is unjust on its face. It should be extirpated wherever it exists. The Minority Business Development Agency is one of those places.

If Pittman’s ruling is allowed to stand, it may have a salutary effect on many other agencies and programs. 

The MBDA’s name presents a problem, however. 

I guess it won’t be too hard to remove the word “Minority” and call the agency the Business Development Agency. 

Or just shut it down.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling general freedom

In the Name of Equity

equity, egalitarianism, collectivism

Last year, I noted complaints by Virginia officials about the high proportion of Asian students attending Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. These students studied too hard, supposedly.

Now we learn that TJ High administrators have been conniving to prevent students who won National Merit awards, issued for excelling on the PSAT, from being informed of this. Principal Ann Bonitatibus and another official, Brandon Kosatka, have been memory-holing the notifications for years.

You can’t report having won a National Merit award on a college application if you just don’t know.

The policy is consistent with the Fairfax County school district’s ugly new Harrison-Bergeronesque ideal of “equal outcomes for every student, without exception.”

Kosatka told a parent that the idea was to “recognize students for who they are as individuals, not focus on their achievements,” a nonsensical proposition. Individuals don’t just sit around being themselves; they do stuff. Kosatka also said that the principal didn’t want to hurt the feelings of non-winners of the Merit awards by acknowledging winners.

Bonitatibus and Kosatka should be fired — at least. Their job is to help students achieve, not to undercut them.

We’ll never rid the world entirely of resentment against achievement — or, for that matter, the benefits that flow from achievement. But we can teach kids that the proper response to disappointment at doing less than their best is to resolve to do better at the next opportunity. 

And to be inspired — not, heaven forfend, demoralized — by the heights that others do achieve.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Created with DALL-E2

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture individual achievement Popular

Abolishing You

individualism, collectivism, you didn't build that,

In a recent Washington Post essay — “Is the individual obsolete?” — syndicated columnist George Will tackled the “you didn’t build that” theme that President Obama blurted out on the 2012 campaign trail, borrowed from a not-obscure-enough (and now former) Harvard Professor, Elizabeth Warren.

“What made Warren’s riff interesting, and Obama’s echo of it important,” wrote Will, “is that both spoke in order to advance the progressive project of diluting the concept of individualism.”

Mr. Will called it “a prerequisite for advancement of a collectivist political agenda,” adding “the more that any individual’s achievements can be considered as derivative from society . . . the more society is entitled to conscript — that is, to socialize — whatever portion of the individual’s wealth that it considers its fair share.”

Some fairness.

“This collectivist agenda,” he explained, “is antithetical to America’s premise, which is: Government — including such public goods as roads, schools and police — is instituted to facilitate individual striving, a.k.a. the pursuit of happiness.”

It’s a great read, but of course, George Will ‘didn’t produce that.’ Without the Post publishing it, without the police preventing progressive lynch mobs from stringing him up prior to typing it up, without the delivery person tossing it on my driveway or Al Gore’s amazing internet . . . I couldn’t have read it. 

To some, these “unremarkable” facts diminish Mr. Will’s work product. To me, it shows just how crucial his contribution is — creating jobs for all these other folks. 

After all, I don’t purchase the newspaper merely to provide jobs for paper boys, printers or the police. That’s simply a beneficial byproduct.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture Popular

Pigment Politics

e pluribus unum, democracy, racism, collectivism, individualism

“VOTE LIKE YOU,” read the Election Day sign from last November, pictured above Dan Balz’s Sunday Washington Post column about identity politics.

The implication is clear: one should vote for the candidate with the same skin color, of the same race as your own.

Uh, really?

We do want our elected officials to be “like us.” But in terms of values. Not pigment.

Race is completely meaningless in judging a prospective candidate. I want my candidate to think like me, not win the Paul Jacob Lookalike Contest.

On the other hand, those seeking a new cultural revolution — like the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but based on racial and gender and sexual orientation grievances — think it’s fine to push race-based voting, so long as you aren’t pushing whites and . . . it helps Democrats.

The latest real “culprit” in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat appears to be a lack of enthusiasm and turnout among black voters. Black turnout dropped eight percent from 2012, when President Obama was running for re-election as the first black president, to 2016, when Hillary Clinton, a white woman, was the Democratic standard-bearer.

Balz looked at the 2018 gubernatorial races in Florida and Georgia, where Democrats Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams, respectively, both African American, lost but performed far better than Democrats have in recent years in those states in such races.

“Would a white candidate have done better?” he asked.

Perhaps not. But the whole approach stinks. Identity politics is openly the politics of division. Surely “e pluribus unum” must not be replaced with “ex uno plures.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. For the Latin, which is not straightforward, see Google Translate.

PDF for printing

e pluribus unum, democracy, racism, collectivism, individualism

Photo Credit: detail from US Capital Building Dome

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard national politics & policies Popular

Socialism’s Idealistic Youth

socialism, communism, China, Red Guard, Cultural Revolution, individual rights, Common Sense, meme

When the protection of individual rights is replaced with vague and pious appeals to the “collective good”… things can get very ugly, very quickly.

The Cultural Revolution, was a social-political movement that took place in the People’s Republic of China from 1966 until 1976. Its stated goal was to purge all remnants of capitalism and traditional elements from Chinese society

In 1966, the Communist Party Central Committee passed its “Decision Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.” This decision defined the Cultural Revolution as “a great revolution that touches people to their very souls and constitutes a deeper and more extensive stage in the development of the socialist revolution in our country.” China’s youth responded by forming Red Guard groups around the country.

Currently, our objective is to struggle against and crush those people in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic “authorities” and the ideology of the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure that do not correspond to the socialist economic base, so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system. —Excerpt from “Decision Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.”

The revolution aimed to “sweep away all the monsters and demons”, that is, all the class enemy who promoted bourgeois (the “capitalist” class) idea within the party, the government, the army, among the intellectuals, as well as those from an exploitative family background or belonged to one of the “Five Black Categories.” Large number of people perceived to be “monsters and demons” (牛鬼蛇神, literally “cow ghosts snake spirits”) regardless of guilt or innocence were publicly denounced, humiliated, and beaten. In their revolutionary fervor, students denounced their teachers, and children denounced their parents. Hundreds of thousands of individuals were persecuted. Many died through their ill-treatment or committed suicide.

According to the documents for the prosecution of the Gang of Four, 142,000 cadres and teachers in the education circles were persecuted, and noted academics, scientists, and educators were sent to rural labor camps. Many survivors and observers suggest that almost anyone with skills over that of the average person was made the target of political “struggle” in some way. The entire generation of tormented and inadequately educated individuals is often referred to in the West as well as in China as the ‘lost generation’.

But doesn’t the success of Scandinavian “democratic socialism” prove that socialism can work? Doesn’t Denmark show that socialism doesn’t always lead to economic collapse, political oppression, poverty and starvation? Find the answer to that question here: Does Denmark Prove That Socialism Can Work?

Click below for a high resolution version of this image:

socialism, communism, China, Red Guard, Cultural Revolution, individual rights, Common Sense, meme

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful,  please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

It Takes a Collectivist

First they told us that we didn’t build our businesses. Now we learn that our kids aren’t ours.

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have,” TV talking head Melissa Harris-Perry argues in the latest MSNBC “Lean Forward” propaganda spot, “because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children: Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”

Yeah, better investments. Like Solyndra. Or . . . the K-12 public education system for which, since 1970, the federal government has increased per-pupil spending by roughly 190 percent, only to flatline test scores in math, science and reading.

“When the flood of vitriolic responses to the ad began, my first reaction was relief,” Perry writes on her blog. “I had spent the entire day grading papers and was relieved that since these children were not my responsibility, I could simply mail the students’ papers to their moms and dads to grade!”

Doesn’t Tulane University pay her for grading those papers?

Claiming to “double down” in her defensive blog post, she actually admits that, “Of course, parents can and should raise their children with their own values.”

Of course.

What does Melissa Harris-Perry not get? That children belong, not to the state or the collective, and not really to their parents, but to themselves.

Is that much individual freedom leaning too far forward?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.