El Queso:
I don`t think the violent in the ghetto is looking for an appeasement hand out from the government.
I think their resentment will build up even more hearing such a degrading argument .
And this is exactly what the problem is !
Now, it`s clear that the 1st option is dead.
We are left only with the 2nd option which is:
Let us forget it, ... declare Democracy dead and start separated and segregated homogeneous societies.
Khairy, my resentment at people who continue to blame me for their problems, and continue to demand money from me to fix their problems, continues to grow.
I don't consider what I said a degrading argument. I'm not even saying it is 100% their fault, nor taht all of them are in the same boat, even. Nor that they are consciously seeking it, but rather that they have been "enabled" for at least the last half century, told that they can't pull themselves out of their rut by their own government, that they must depend on the government to fix their problem. Is it degrading to tell an alcoholic that he is destroying his or her life? Or is it more a slap in the face and an attempt to bring the person to reality? The government has managed to keep a whole class of people in bad condition by these policies by creating dependencies. Read something other than neo-liberal propaganda (and not neo-conservative either - i would suggest true liberal writings, which haven't been espoused, at least in this country, for a couple of hundred years). Also try to understand how addictive dependencies work and how the government's policies have made things worse, not better, as they cause people to become addicted to government a the way to solve all problems.
I've never said, BTW, that democracy is dead. I have said it sucks. I have also agreed that it is the best form of government that we have managed to put together, as humans beings, to date. I've also said I don't believe that governments are necessary and indeed cause most of the problems we have, including forcing people with different opinions and values to work and live together whether they want to or not.
The US was created by a group of people (mostly true liberals, BTW, at least those who drove the changes) who had a whole lot more in common, i.e., was more homogeneous, with each other than the population of the US today. It was a whole lot smaller, too. Way more independent on an individual basis. Yet it didn't take very long for that government which espoused freedom, liberty, the right to pursue happiness (and remember; in the Declaration, they didn't seem to think people were guaranteed happiness by the State, but rather "merely" guaranteed the right to pursue it!) and all that jazz, to write into their very laws the support of slavery. They began slaughtering indigenous people. Invading other countries or territories. Things that didn't happen so much, on such a scale, when the country was smaller, before a concentration of power and wealth allowed the worst of them to exercise their truly evil power over others on a scale greater than was possible before the US government formed (on that continent). How long do you think, for example, that settlers who moved west would have survived killing "Indians" to take their land if the government didn't back them up and protect them by force of superior arms and movement? In many, if not most, cases, people lived in peace with the indigenous people until the government got involved and allowed the white man to take the land all the way to the west coast by murder and deceit.
Every time you want to enact a law to help someone else over any other group, you are creating a disparity in the other direction. In theory, that's fine because it's done ostensibly to create a balance. In practice, it's like communism and doesn't work. It doesn't take into account human nature, on many levels. The government's (any government) motives aren't usually pure, considering the government, at least the part that makes the laws, are made up of people who are seeking power and are literally bribing a group of people to vote their way so that group of people gets special treatment. And once those laws are in place, the bureaucracy tends to implement said laws with an inhuman distance and it never ends, whether things work or not. And that worked great for the white people first, BTW, until other politicians realized that they could use black folk for their own purposes - only problem is it didn't really help black folk.
Until everyone realizes skin color doesn't mean shit, there will be racism on both "sides".
So as long as people tell me that I have to believe that reverse racism is good, that giving money to people who the government says need it by taking it from others by force, and continuously trying to enact laws that are against our best interest as individuals and against the "social contract" that the entire framework is supposed to based on, yeah, I think separation is the only way to go.
And I would bet my life if I had the opportunity, as an example, that in one part of a country where I would settle that allowed people to live as they want as long as they didn't hurt others, a country where the government didn't continuously rob money from its people and give to whom they consider worthy of receiving it, that black, white, yellow, red and whatever-color people would live much more harmoniously. To the point where people could wear guns and have a much lower homicide rate than other places - and would be ready to defend their land from both external invasion and internal tyranny.
And I would also bet that a country where the government continued to push and rob and force people into whatever it considered as the proper course of action would continue to have social problems. (yes, in my opinion, this is what causes most of teh strange problems the US has these days with mass murders and such, not people carrying guns).
It's a shame I'll never get a chance to prove that bet, because governments on this world are so greedy that they will never let it happen, at least on this planet, within my lifetime.
