"one has a right to prefer the better to the worse, or their own to the other."
Thanks. But who decides what's the better if you live in a sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture? The sacred victims – blacks, women, queers, basically anyone unable to compete against white men – want special treatment, while certain white men can gain status by supporting race and sex quotas (as long as they can avoid the consequences).
Not to mention that business owners will necessarily have to match or beat their competitors via cheap foreign labor either by off-shoring or importing said labor. We are seeing this moving up the food chain in real time today, i.e., the Ramaswamy/Musk blow-back.
The sad fact is it may all come down to economics. The rest of the world (ROW) has labor costs that are 1/10th to 1/15th that of the West. And today, there are millions of relatively well-trained people eager to get paid by western companies. Your leaders don't want to tell you this because they want to sell you stuff and get re-elected. But it is the hard, cold logic of the market. The job of the CEO is not to give other people jobs. His job is to make a profit, and if he can't do that the company is goihg out of business.
And this is where the US and all white countries are these days in relation to ROW. Whites out-compete but they are compelled by market forces to compete for cheaper labor. They could have minimized the problem 60-70 years ago by avoiding the sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture beginning with Brown vs. Board of Education. But, they opted for forced integration at the point of a bayonet. And now US embassies fly Gay Pride ane BLM flags. Or used to until Biden thought it looked bad while slaughering people in Ukraine.
Post-Enlightenment white men are the most creative people on the planet but I don't see how they're going to get out of this one. Robots, maybe. Or, they might decide to pull the plug and end it all. Or, they may just burn out like a flare fighting many wars against China and Russia and eventually exhaust themselves.
I was going to say, if I may, that rights are now percieved as privilege without obligation and I doh't think a good idea. I'd prefer privilege, obligation, honor, custom when used strategically, and divine order as a cultural mindset instead. Something more aristocratic, like the Normans.
That's a fair point of view. I do think we should shy away from "natural rights" theory--so you will note I only speak of natural right and not natural rights.
However, it is not a very rhetorically noticeable distinction and so maybe explaining justice by means of honor and obligation would be superior. It's something to think about.
The evils you point out are real, though I don't exactly understand the bearing you believe them to have on the essay. If your point is that the American identity will or probably will fail, that is a possibility. I hope it doesn't.
Whether it does or doesn't, it is better to free oneself from the racial-sensitivity morass. I think this can be done personally by taking it on the basis of natural right, rather than color-blindness or supremacism. And I think natural right justifies the founding generation of America such that, if Americans somehow found a will to an identity, they might reasonably free themselves from the burden of racial concerns by seeing the racial question the way their founders saw it.
Something that I've never understood is that otherwise educated people will bleat about the principles of muh democracy but see absolutely nothing perverse about a certain ethnic group going 90+ percent for a particular party SOLELY along ethnic lines. Towards what greater principle is such ethnic chauvinism in service?
"one has a right to prefer the better to the worse, or their own to the other."
Thanks. But who decides what's the better if you live in a sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture? The sacred victims – blacks, women, queers, basically anyone unable to compete against white men – want special treatment, while certain white men can gain status by supporting race and sex quotas (as long as they can avoid the consequences).
Not to mention that business owners will necessarily have to match or beat their competitors via cheap foreign labor either by off-shoring or importing said labor. We are seeing this moving up the food chain in real time today, i.e., the Ramaswamy/Musk blow-back.
The sad fact is it may all come down to economics. The rest of the world (ROW) has labor costs that are 1/10th to 1/15th that of the West. And today, there are millions of relatively well-trained people eager to get paid by western companies. Your leaders don't want to tell you this because they want to sell you stuff and get re-elected. But it is the hard, cold logic of the market. The job of the CEO is not to give other people jobs. His job is to make a profit, and if he can't do that the company is goihg out of business.
And this is where the US and all white countries are these days in relation to ROW. Whites out-compete but they are compelled by market forces to compete for cheaper labor. They could have minimized the problem 60-70 years ago by avoiding the sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture beginning with Brown vs. Board of Education. But, they opted for forced integration at the point of a bayonet. And now US embassies fly Gay Pride ane BLM flags. Or used to until Biden thought it looked bad while slaughering people in Ukraine.
Post-Enlightenment white men are the most creative people on the planet but I don't see how they're going to get out of this one. Robots, maybe. Or, they might decide to pull the plug and end it all. Or, they may just burn out like a flare fighting many wars against China and Russia and eventually exhaust themselves.
I was going to say, if I may, that rights are now percieved as privilege without obligation and I doh't think a good idea. I'd prefer privilege, obligation, honor, custom when used strategically, and divine order as a cultural mindset instead. Something more aristocratic, like the Normans.
That's a fair point of view. I do think we should shy away from "natural rights" theory--so you will note I only speak of natural right and not natural rights.
However, it is not a very rhetorically noticeable distinction and so maybe explaining justice by means of honor and obligation would be superior. It's something to think about.
The evils you point out are real, though I don't exactly understand the bearing you believe them to have on the essay. If your point is that the American identity will or probably will fail, that is a possibility. I hope it doesn't.
Whether it does or doesn't, it is better to free oneself from the racial-sensitivity morass. I think this can be done personally by taking it on the basis of natural right, rather than color-blindness or supremacism. And I think natural right justifies the founding generation of America such that, if Americans somehow found a will to an identity, they might reasonably free themselves from the burden of racial concerns by seeing the racial question the way their founders saw it.
You make some good points. Thanks.
Something that I've never understood is that otherwise educated people will bleat about the principles of muh democracy but see absolutely nothing perverse about a certain ethnic group going 90+ percent for a particular party SOLELY along ethnic lines. Towards what greater principle is such ethnic chauvinism in service?