carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/13/85)
In article <> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >How do you define "racism" and "taxation?" "Racism" in social-scientific contexts means something like the belief that one's own ethnic group is innately superior (intellectually or morally) to some other ethnic group. "Theft" usually means an unlawful transfer of wealth. Taxation, of course, is governmental collection of revenues. To repeat the main point of my article: Showing that affirmative action is or is not racism, or that taxation is or is not theft according to this or that definition, does not by itself prove anything about the justice or injustice of these practices. "Aff. action is racism," "taxation is theft," "profit is theft," "abortion is murder," etc. make good slogans but bad arguments, and those who use them as arguments only demonstrate that they can't tell the difference. Richard Carnes
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (05/17/85)
> To repeat the main point of my article: Showing that affirmative > action is or is not racism, or that taxation is or is not theft > according to this or that definition, does not by itself prove > anything about the justice or injustice of these practices. "Aff. > action is racism," "taxation is theft," "profit is theft," "abortion > is murder," etc. make good slogans but bad arguments, and those who > use them as arguments only demonstrate that they can't tell the > difference. > > Richard Carnes "Taxation is theft." doesn't necessarily make a good slogan; especially on this net. I agree with Richard; even if it can be shown that xxx is an instance of yyy via dictionary zzz, it won't even yield a retraction by someone who said xxx is not yyy, *much less* help convince anyone that xxx is wrong. As for what constitutes a good slogan, check out net.jokes for successful slogans that are ambiguous or are otherwise unsuited to motivate the reader to think rationally. Slogans are an example of empty rhetoric. I haven't posted much to net.politics lately; I have been involved in an interesting set of court cases. Perhaps when it is over I will post my interpretation of the political ramifications of the event. --Cliff
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/01/85)
>/* dr_d@sftig.UUCP (D.Donahue) / 11:02 pm May 28, 1985 */ >I'm still disturbed by the concluding sentence in the post. Granted AA, IN >THEORY, is racist, sexist and probably a few other ~~~ist's beside. Mr. >Sykoras final statement in the posting was what threw me off. AA in practice >DOES NOT, I repeat this point for claritys sake, DOES NOT entail the the gov't >having to force all groups to pay for the "ostensible" advancement of one group >(with the implication that the advancement is at the expense of "all" other >groups). Since AA is paid for by the government with funds it has obtained coercively, it entails gov't. forcing some groups to pay for the advancement of other groups. >1) the inaccuracy that AA is designed to perpetuate the advancement of one > group > ONLY I didn't say ONLY. The fact that it is many groups is irrelevant to my point. Clearly, the ostensible reason for AA is not to advance all groups. It does not matter how many are involved, only that some groups are being forced to pay for the ostensible advancement of other groups. >2) The seeming "rightously" resentfull attitude with reference to the collection/distribution of revenue by the U.S. Gov't I don't believe I revealed myself as righteously resentful thru my posting. However, I do get annoyed when I'm robbed, whether the hoodlums are in the street or on Capitol Hill. >Aside from implementation strategies, the idea that AA is, by design, aimed >at the perpetuated advancement of ONLY ONE group, is blatantly ridiculous!!! Read my posting again -- I didn't say "only." > Doug Donahue Mike Sykora