I say we need to destroy all races not in a violent way but I say we must destroy description of all races is to insure we have a country of people not a country of separate races creeds or nationalities .We are all Americans first this will insure we stick together so we may not be controlled by a government who keeps us apart just this way.
Until we as a family nation are truly able to see each other as equals we can never precede we fixing the problems our government has created. What happen in history is truly in the past this is why it is called history. What happen was wrong yes it was. Each and every race has suffered some more than others but remember what has always happen was people from our own races sold us ,cheated us killed us used us. We should want to put these things in history.
So grow up and get over it.
THE ONLY REASON THIS STILL GOES ON IS BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT KEEPS IT GOING .KEEPING US ALL FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER AND THEY GO ON AND DO WHAT THEY WANT. THEY WANT US TO KEEP LOOKING FOR THE HANDOUT IN THAT WAY THEY ARE ALWAYS IN CONTROL.
This has to stop we must become a family this allows us to see each other as equals. Just look at a mixed family everybody is equal because no one sees color or race. Until they have to go out in society they see no differences and can deal we real issues. If we as a people could come together as a family we could really take hold of our country and deal with the real issues.
As a family we will stand together as a truly free and powerful nation. HELP RIGHT THE WAY AND BECOME A PARTY MEMBER.
In America we have lost our true path .People sit in races and blame each other for their problems. As a country of races we will fail as a family we will have a chance to survive.
Our country is failing due to the political objective of separating people in races. We must stop the government from continuing this objective .Our voices must be heard .The saying Divide we fall, United we stand is true. We as a family must stand together so we will not be swept away under the assumption we can not fix the government ourselves and continue to let them destroy our way of life.
As a family we will be able to shed our races and be able to stand firm against a government who has lost its way. As a family we would be able to reshape our government back to the way it was formed by the people for the people.
We pick the wolf because it is the most family oriented of all mammals' even humans. They show what strength is as a united family, pack or clan whatever you want to call it. No matter what color the fur is they are all family and we always work together to survive.
As a nation we are failing our children, we must come together as a family so our children will have a government that will truly voice what the people need and want. We must stop politician from getting paychecks for doing what they want and not what we want. This is our government not theirs. They vote themselves raises while putting our needs on the backburner.
While we struggle they sit high on top laughing at us because we can get along long enough to really look at what they are doing. They slap us every time they pass a new budget think how good everything is for them. How do they know what is good for us they left our family as soon as they were voted in. They are not apart of our family they are the predators the killers of families.
The monies we have worked for they are spending any way they want and this is not in our beat interest. They take our lives for granted.
Other nations are now benefiting from our sweat while we have hunger and sickness. They allow other nation to take the sweat off our backs and use it for their good. We as a family of many colors must make a stand stopping the madness of our country's government. We must close our country until we fix our country. We must have a true democratic nation not what they want us to believe this is.
WE MUST RISE ABOVE THEM AND GO BACK TO WHAT OUR FOREFATHER WANTED THIS COUNTRY TO BE. A TRULY FREE NATION WITH A DEMOCRACY THAT IS FAIR AND TRUE TO IT'S PEOPLE.
We must take back our country from the greed that runs it so we may once again be a great nation that is respect worldwide and not the laughing stock we have become. The first step is we must vote on everything no more giving the government free reign over our lives. Supervision of our government is a must without this we will never succeed. They are destroying us as separate races this must stop we must become family to survive the onslaught.
Our forefather started a revolution on one saying NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESETATION . We have no represetation in this government our political system has failed the people we must take right the ship and take back what we have given them.
They are always blaming the big business for our problem while all the time they are the ones lining their pockets.
In this new party we will dictate policy. We will pay a fare wage to the elected official of our choice. We will vote every year on what they are doing we will be able to fire them if they do not do what the party believes is right. As a party we will have volunteers picked by the party every year to vote on what kind of job our elected official did. Government will not be able to pull our official to their side because we will have control. Our party will not be a sit and watch party we will be active in all phases. We will pick who works for our official not the official. We must bring back the government to us... WE MUST BECOME FAMILY NOT SEPARATE RACES.
Pursuit of Happiness--
Government and Conflict
Walter E. Williams
January/February 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 1 •
Human differences such as race, ethnicity, religion, and language have always been sources of conflict. Despite arguments to minimize the importance of these differences, people still exhibit preferences in these areas when choosing a spouse, friend, business partner, employee, neighborhood, and other associations. People do not associate randomly. Efforts to deny such assortative behavior in the name of political correctness are foolhardy.
Far more worthy of our efforts is to acknowledge, not necessarily sanction, assortative behavior as natural. We should ask: How can we minimize the probability that such preferences will produce conflict?
The Marriage Market
Examination of marriage can provide concrete insights for our discussion. Like many other transactions, marriage is a contractual relationship where goods and services are exchanged under mutually agreeable terms. Most people tend to seek marriage partners similar to themselves in race, ethnicity, religion, language, and socioeconomic status. It may be tempting to dismiss marriage choices as trivial but, given their impact on society, that is utterly erroneous.
Highly educated people tend to marry other highly educated people. High-income people (or those with prospects for high income) tend to marry other high-income people. Just these two aspects of choice create an income distribution more skewed than would be the case if high-income and highly educated people chose opposites as partners. Thus marriage decisions have an important impact on society.
Despite the widespread use of race, ethnicity, religion, and other characteristics as criteria in mate selection, there is very little social conflict or controversy in the matter. It is such a nonissue that people hardly ever think of the marriage contract as an activity rooted in discriminatory choice. Moreover, if the discriminatory features of marriage were brought to people's attention, they would probably respond, "So what!"
One suspects that marriage decisions pose few social problems because they are voluntary. Other than sanctioning the contract once it has been made, government plays only a trivial part unless there is a dispute. Interestingly enough, we only observe conflict in the marriage market when people use government or quasigovernment institutions, like the church, to impose restrictions according to race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or religion.
Different Preferences, No Conflict
Freedom of choice can be found elsewhere. Just as people have strong preferences in race, ethnicity, and religion, they have strong preferences in goods and services. Some people strongly prefer Cadillacs while others prefer Volvos. Despite those differences, we seldom hear of conflict between the two groups. People simply purchase the cars they prefer.
In fact free markets are a great leveler of men; personal attributes have less importance. When a person buys a Cadillac or Volvo, his least concern is the race, ethnicity, or religion of the workers who produced the car. The person's greatest concern is likely to be whether he has gotten the highest quality car for the lowest possible price.
Whenever government allocates resources, there is increased potential that preferences will give rise to conflict. Education is a good typically financed and produced by government, and as such it has been the focal point of considerable conflict. Some parents prefer that their children have a morning prayer in school. Other parents have the opposite preference. Both preferences appear to be legitimate exercises of parental prerogatives.
The problem arises because when schools are publicly produced, they will either have prayers or no prayers. Parents who prefer morning prayers must enter into political conflict with those who do not. There is a lot at stake. Parents who lose will have their kids in a public school not to their liking. Then the alternative is for parents to bear the financial burden of tuition at a nonpublic school, plus be forced through property taxes to pay for public school services for which they have little use.
A conflict-reducing method, if education is publicly financed, is to have it privately produced. Each parent could be given a voucher equivalent to the per capita expenditure on education. Parents who wished for their children to have a morning prayer would simply enroll them in such a school, and parents who preferred otherwise would enroll their children in an appropriate school. There would be little scope for education conflict between the two groups of parents. Instead of adversaries, they could be friends.
The primary reason government allocation of resources enhances the potential for conflict is that most government activity is a zero-sum game whereby one person's gain can only be achieved through another person's sacrifice. Parents who win the political struggle for prayers in school would benefit at the expense of those who were against prayers in school, and vice versa. By contrast, with market provision of goods and services we have a positive-sum game where everybody wins. This applies to any good or service. If the choice between Cadillac and Volvo were decided collectively, we would witness the same kind of conflict that arises over school prayer. Instead of people with differing tastes in automobiles getting their way and living in harmony with one another, those with strong preferences for Volvos would have to organize with like-minded people against those who had strong preferences for Cadillacs.
Race and Ethnicity: Government versus Markets
People have racial or ethnic preferences and will seek to indulge them. They will do so whether there is market or government allocation of resources. However, there is a key distinction. With government allocation part of the costs of preference indulgence tends to be borne by people other than the decision maker. With preference indulgence under market allocation, the decision maker tends to bear a greater proportion of the cost.
Suppose for purposes of simplicity that a black worker has the same productivity as a white worker, but the black worker offers his services for $5 while the white worker demands $8. If the decision maker is a government bureaucrat, the indulgence of his discriminatory preferences for the white worker is virtually free. It is taxpayers who bear the burden of paying $8 rather than $5; the bureaucrat takes home the same pay whether he discriminates or not; his cost of indulging his racial preferences is zero.
By contrast, in the private sector, the owner paying $8 for the work that could have been done for $5 an hour means a lower residual claim of $3. The cost of racial preferences is directly borne by the decision maker. Basic economic theory postulates that the higher the cost of doing something, the less it will be done. Therefore, it follows that we expect to see less racial discrimination in the private sector than the public sector. Similarly, when the political atmosphere changes to favor discrimination in favor of blacks, we expect to see more of it in the public sector.
The fact that it costs something to discriminate explains why those who wish to engage in it typically seek some form of government intervention. Intervention makes discrimination less costly to the discriminator than otherwise. The essential ingredient of intervention that makes discrimination less costly is restriction of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/government-and-conflict/
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment