been away for a few days.

I wasn't calling Mr Goode racist on Callum's thread, http://www.solopassion.com/node/4897#comment-54287, just pointing out one pitfall of political correctness. I think Richard may have a little still embedded from Uni but I don't have evidence (yet).

Thank you, Lindsay ...(I remember you explaining it on the radio)

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

The background to the Voltaire quote is explained here which I've restickied just for you.

Richard, no, if it were up to me there would not be laws against publicans putting up such signs.

Glad to hear it, Elijah. But, no, I wasn't referring to you.

Richard, no, if it were up to me there would not be laws against publicans putting up such signs.

The minute the Publican puts up such a sign, the publican at the pub down the street will put up a sign saying "We welcome Maoris" and money will talk.

I have said this before...but, my main objective is freedom...and freedom means freedom for everybody.

An indication of how 'free' New Zealand is will be when 500 people feel 'brave' enough to form and register the New Zealand Nazi Party, dress up in homo-erotic SS uniforms and hold bizarre rallies in Aotea Square recreating the Nuremberg rally, and can do so without fear of arrest or imprisonment.

However bizarre that sort of nonsense may be...it is actually a sign of a 'truly' free Country.

I have no intention of attending such rallies, or even condone it, but think "each to their own"; and those who disagree should also be free to say so with a counter rally..rather than a Politically Correct attitude of "you know what you are doing is evil and wrong.." (etc) and engaging in mind control and telling people what they 'know' and what they should think and why things should be banned because others are offended and so on.

I say 'no'....I say 'mind your own business'...I say that if someone wants to be a Nazi then good luck to them; and New Zealand will not be free until that moment.

(Now I shall sit back and wait for 1001 people to claim I just advocated Nazism...I have placed a $100 bet with Damien as to how long it will take)

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

But that doesn't change how I feel about the bad Dr Goode.

Neither it should. He's immoral, but shouldn't be illegal.

Dammit.

"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770

Thanks, Lindsay, that's probably the most succinct distinction I've read regarding the difference between the philosophy and the political wing.

Then I shall concede the point.

But that doesn't change how I feel about the bad Dr Goode.

Actually, no you weren't, old boy...

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

You to Goode:

If all AA is racist, then you're saying libertarianism isn't *morally* opposed to racism. Please explain.

On this occasion Goode is correct. Libertarianism isn't morally opposed to anything, except the initiation of force, which opposition it treats as axiomatic. That's why Objectivism has a problem with libertarianism. You can't get to NIOF with impunity without a conscientious chain of inductive and deductive reasoning. It cannot be an article of faith. For Goode, it is, as it is for Christians who believe in it. Where I depart from American Objectivists is that I believe for narrowly political purposes one can make common cause with the Goodes of this world, since we'd all allow, legally, things of which Objectivists disapprove morally. I expect I'll be a long time in Purgatory for this, and the more I see of them the more I think I deserve it.

I was paraphrasing Voltaire.

Please explain.

Libertarianism is a political ideology, not a way of life. It's a view on the proper role of government. Libertarianism condemns state-sponsored racism. But Libertarianism does not condemn private racism as such. Indeed, under a libertarian government, there will be no law against publicans affixing signs to their premises saying, "No Dogs or Maoris".

But don't ask me. Ask the "Number 1" libertarian in New Zealand. He's right here on this thread.

Richard, I do not mean to be nitpicky...(so unlike me)...but I think you may be paraphrasing Evelyn Beatrice Hall

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

If all AA is racist, then you're saying libertarianism isn't *morally* opposed to racism.

Please explain.

[edited in response to your latest post]

if AA is racist how do you reconcile the fact that, according to you, libertarianism isn't opposed to it on moral grounds?

To paraphrase Voltaire, "I disapprove of private employers giving preferential treatment to Maori job applicants, but I will defend to the death their right to do so."

who is?

Just because a disturbingly large percentage of Maori come out of state-run schools illiterate, don't blame the schools. It's about time Maori saw the value in education themselves and took responsibility for improving their own lot.

Perhaps if they concentrated on English instead of Maori more of them would be able to read and write in a language that may be useful to them in employment.

As it stands, Decile One schools get by far the largest portion of funding. The school my daughters go to is a Decile Ten, which means they get a pittance. Instead of concentrating on teaching and learning they're always doing fund-raisers to buy the stuff my taxes should be covering.

It's bullshit. And it's racist.

Matty said,

I will however clarify that I haven't fully condoned Affirmative Action. As a libertarian, the practice isn't inherently opposed to my political ideology.

Glenn said,

Ah, but it is, Matty

I said,

No, it's not. Affirmative action isn't inherently opposed to (or by) libertarianism. Only affirmative action by the state is.

Linz said,

What, then, is your point here? Is it not to at least defend, if not advocate, private AA, whatever that might be?

Talk about context-dropping. It's perfectly clear, from the context of my remark, that I was defending Matty's claim that one can both condone affirmative action and be a libertarian. I was defending neither affirmative action nor libertarianism.

The only ones slithering are my accusers.

Since I'm not judging!

Lindsay: "I may indeed see a white applicant as having more ability and better character than a brown, but take on the brown one anyway without that being racist, since my criteria are not ability and character. "

If your criteria is not based on merit, but rather the colour of his skin, then surely that "means, in practice, that [he] is... judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

If you pick the brown applicant over the white one because of some "moral, social or political" redress, it's racist ~ surely.

I am pleased Lindsay brought up employment.

I must admit, as an employer of 23 people over the years, I have discriminated on numerous occasions.

For instance, as a rule of thumb, I am more likely to employ a female than a chap...(visualise the scene of two applicants, one a female, the other an 18 year old chap which is more likely to allow me to keep my mind on the job, and will therefore get the job? ha ha)...yet having done so, I have broken an absurd PC law several times.

That is wrong. I should be allowed to employ whomever I like without a potential penalty.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

"I meant, and should have said, personally I'm against it."

Yes, your obfuscation is bloody tedious.

But here's the rub: if AA is racist how do you reconcile the fact that, according to you, libertarianism isn't opposed to it on moral grounds?

Linz - who should know better - says, "Goode... is advocating private AA." Again, I ask, where's the evidence?

What, then, is your point here?:

Affirmative action isn't inherently opposed to (or by) libertarianism. Only affirmative action by the state is.

Is it not to at least defend, if not advocate, private AA, whatever that might be?

Glenn is right. You're slithering around like a slimy eel. Quit pomowanking and state your actual position. Just for once, state YOUR actual position, not just what you think is wrong with someone else's.

As to Glenn's other point that private AA is still racist—well, remember what racism is:

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

As a private businessman I am entitled to have a racial quota in whom I employ for reasons that have nothing to do with character or merit but with rectifying what I perceive as past injustice. No character or merit assessment on my part need be implied by whom I take on under that policy. I may indeed see a white applicant as having more ability and better character than a brown, but take on the brown one anyway without that being racist, since my criteria are not ability and character. The government, properly speaking, on the other hand must pick the person of greatest ability and highest character. Its selections must and do imply character and merit assessments, and if made on the basis of race, are therefore racist by Rand's definition.

Edited to add - sorry if any of this is redundant. Several new posts went up while I was typing it.

"They have access to free education (at least, for those Mordi who don't pay taxes) where they can learn to read and write if they choose."

Government run schools, particularly those in lower income areas (remember school zoning) are infamously shitty. Except for Aranuis drama department which fucking owns every other school in the country come Shakespeare festival every year.

Lets say a private school offers a scholarship to an impoverished Maori who's showing interest in his poorly run, government funded classes. That's more what I'm talking about. No one's saying he needs help because he's inferior. They're saying he needs help because he doesn't have much of a chance in his current situation.

I'm not advocating AA at the moment. I'm playing devils advocate to a degree because I don't see it as racist on anywhere near the same level as say, National Front.

Right now though I'm thinking any AA program should probably be geared toward helping those without money as opposed to those of a certain skin colour. That would seem to make a lot more sense and it would seem a lot more fair.

You're NOT saying that as a libertarian. You're saying it as Richard Goode.

Indeed.

I meant, and should have said, personally I'm against it.

"I just see justification for helping some of them if they show interest and motivation but don't have the financial means to access the kind of tools and education they require to succeed."

What the...?!!! They have access to free education (at least, for those Mordi who don't pay taxes) where they can learn to read and write if they choose. There is nothing in their genes stopping them from going all the way to university if they choose. If you're advocating giving them financial assistance in higher education based on their race then you are advocating a racist policy. End of story.

"When I think of racism I think of a view that people of a different race are superior to another due to their genetics alone. As I said the quote doesn't apply here because AA claims no such thing."

AA holds the view that people of certain races are inferior. Racist.

"..Don't believe everything Linz says. I'm not really an evil slime-fuck..."

Oh, perish the thought ...*cough* *splutter* 

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

You're NOT saying that as a libertarian. You're saying it as Richard Goode.

You're slippery, Goode

No, Glenn. You jump to too many (wrong) conclusions about me. Don't believe everything Linz says. I'm not really an evil slime-fuck.

I said that private affirmative action isn't inherently opposed to (or by) libertarianism. And it's not. Under a libertarian government, there will be no law against private employers giving preferential treatment to Maori job applicants.

as a libertarian, what the fuck is your position on affirmative action

I'm against it. Affirmative action is racist. Period.

"..When I think of racism I think of a view that people of a different race are superior to another due to their genetics alone..."

About that we are in agreement, Matty.

That is my view of racism, too, and something I do not agree with (because it is absurd to suggest one race is superior to another)...and it is the "White Urban Liberal" types who believe this nonsense and think up feel good wankfest ideas to 'bridge the gap'..[because they believe brown people are inferior]...whereas I am against affirmative action because I do not believe in racial superiority, but feel that each chap should get stuck in and make something of himself on his own merits, and therefore has no need for favouritism or handouts.

I say again...there would be no Ministry of Education badges if the Civil Servants in charge did not believe Maori were inferior to White people...(as do all Labour voting, White Urban Liberal trendy types)

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

"In 2000 Labour poured $126.5 million into it's "Closing the Gaps" policy and it failed. Even the dumbasses who voted for Labour could see it was racist. When the electorate balked at it, Helen Clark quietly let it die."

Interesting links. This might indicate that affirmative action doesn't work or it might indicate that the government doesn't know how to run it. I err to the latter simply because that's pretty much always been the case in the past. I could quote you failed health plans by the government but that could hardly be considered as a good reason why health care in general is a stupid idea. My suspicions that the plan may have failed due to sheer incompetence become even more justified when I read shit like this:

"— $11.2 million (over four years) on programs like mentoring schemes to help young Maori participate more fully in the school system. "

What the fuck does that mean??? If it means more crap like these ridiculous motivational badges then no wonder the plan didn't work out. The government can just have 100s of millions of dollars at the drop of a hat without any fund raising effort so they feel comfortable just pissing it away on useless feel good campaigns that have no practical benefits. A private charity is sure to be more careful with 11.2 million dollars because it takes a hell of a lot of effort for them to raise that kind of money.

"The Mordi need to get over it, and so do you: every time a white guy
like you bangs on about these historical injustices, you make them feel
like their special privileges are a god-given right. It's people like
you who perpetuate their dependency."

Well if that's the case I'd be happy to tell 'them' they have no such god given right. I just see justification for helping some of them if they show interest and motivation but don't have the financial means to access the kind of tools and education they require to succeed. I put that part in bold because I'm not one of those who choose to blame everything on wrong doings of the past. Many are born poor but no one is born lazy, there's no excuse for that.

"What is your definition of racism"

Actually I think Rand is rather spot on. When I think of racism I think of a view that people of a different race are superior to another due to their genetics alone. As I said the quote doesn't apply here because AA claims no such thing.

I did read your post, but it doesn't alter the fact that AA is racist - irrespective of who's paying for it.

But let me answer some of your points.

"[AA is] a strategy designed to close the gap between two ethnic demographics by giving members of the disenfranchised race special opportunities if they express real interest, motivation and ability even if that ability is currently a little less than that of another candidate."

In 2000 Labour poured $126.5 million into its "Closing the Gaps" policy and it failed. Even the dumbasses who voted for Labour could see it was racist. When the electorate balked at it, Helen Clark quietly let it die.

"Now I do think that certain minorities have been given a bit of a raw deal as a result of past injustices against their ancestors."

The Mordi need to get over it, and so do you: every time a white guy like you bangs on about these historical injustices, you make them feel like their special privileges are a god-given right. It's people like you who perpetuate their dependency.

"... (I'll remind you I'm not an Objectivist so [Rand's quote on Racism] aren't going to put me in check-mate)..."

What is your definition of racism?

This is where your eel-like behaviour gets you. You come on here in a contrarian flight and refute participants' perspectives without actually offering one of your own.

But let me get this straight: you don't advocate AA even though it "isn't inherently opposed to (or by) libertarianism."?

So, as a libertarian, what the fuck is your position on affirmative action?

I'm gobsmacked.

Glenn accuses me of racism.

I ask him to front up with evidence to support his accusation.

He quotes himself.

When it's pointed out to Glenn that this isn't evidence, he reprints his "complete proof", the key to which is, "We can assume that Goode is an advocate of AA". Assuming as a premise that which you set out to prove is circular reasoning, and blatantly fallacious.

Linz - who should know better - says, "Goode... is advocating private AA." Again, I ask, where's the evidence?

I have not advocated affirmative action. I have not staunchly defended it.

Front up (with the evidence) or shut up.

One must never attempt to fake reality in any manner.

I can't speak for Richard or Craig but I read and considered your arguments VERY slowly and carefully. Did you read my response? Because I've responded to almost all (if not all) of what you've just written.

I think you may be guilty of having skim-read my posts too. For your convenience I'll reprint the complete proof here.

1. What is Affirmative Action (AA)?:

From Goode's own Wikipedia link: "Affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all racial groups) intended to promote access to education or employment... This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs aimed at applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups. In some cases affirmative action involves giving preferential treatment to these groups."

2. We can assume that Goode is an advocate of AA by his staunch defense of it; here is one of his many posts:

Goode: "Affirmative action isn't inherently opposed to (or by) libertarianism. Only affirmative action by the state is."

3. No-one disputes that state-funded AA is racist...

Peikoff: "'Affirmative action' means a quota system by law favoring certain racial minorities at the expense of others. Whatever the motives offered, this is racism by liberals. A system that discriminates for one race today can turn against it tomorrow. The solution to racism is not "reverse" racism, but abolishing the racist mentality. This would require not laws, but an intellectual change, a philosophy of individualism."

4. ... however, the principle of AA remains intact in any context. Whether it's paid for by the state or privately funded, the policy of giving special favours, treatment or consideration ~ negatively or positively ~ to a group or an individual based on their race is by definition racist:

Ayn Rand: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

5. Ergo, when Richard Goode takes affirmative action he being a racist.

You haven't been racist in this discussion. I worry, though, that I didn't convince you re Jim Crow laws where your position was racist and whether you yet believe in your heart of hearts that there's no inherent moral or intellectual difference among chaps because of their skin colour? I mean "inherent" as opposed to culturally induced: no argument from me that an irrational culture can dumb a chap down.

"...not even Eli.."

Some would say "especially not Eli" ...but as I said last night, I think this discussion has been done to death and has reached a natural conclusion.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

... there are any racists here, not even Eli the Evil. Affirmative Action is racist, to be sure, but Goode, in his confused, Humean, PC bleeding-heart way, is advocating private AA only (of which I confess I've never heard—heard of the right to discriminate in one's own life on one's own property, though); he's not supporting government-mandated AA. At least, I hope he isn't!

Eli's badges are not racist, either. They pack a legitimate punch against the original badges, and they're also funny. The usual suspects need to lighten up.

Evidence? Read it again... slowly.

Glenn - I read the evidence you link to, and the thing that struck me was it was written by you. Where is your evidence that Richard is a racist? I was hoping to see that rather than you quoting yourself.

you're indulging in something that's not only racist, it's collectivist.

Evidence? Read it again... slowly.

This thread has certainly brought everyone out of the woodwork!

A couple of questions in response to discussions taking place in my house this evening....

1. Graham Capill...former Christian Heritage party leader, jailed for paedophilia, a man who made a career out of hysterically and vehemently attacking the very things he secretly was engaging in on a regular basis.

Does that remind you of anyone?  (living in Wellington, to narrow it down a bit) ...is anyone 'protesting too much' on this thread?

2. Why is it that petrol stations in Manukau City are on 'pre-pay' whereas the petrol stations in Remmers are not?

But, yes, thanks to everyone for their contributions to this thread....after more than a week I consider this discussion to be at a close (can anything 'new' be said from now on?) but it has been fun and informative.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

I see you post here just to invite casual banter. You got me there goode fellow. For a while back there I actually thought you were serious.

Silly me.
Ok...Hit me with another line or two...I'll see if I get it this time round.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

Good, good.

Nope

"I study on a campus with a lot Maori's present and worked for a boss,
who was Maori, Adrian Kenny, CEO of At Your Request, former CEO of
Green Acres. There are Maori who find this PC babble incredibly
embarrassing, further stigmatizing and hindering to their cultures
progress."

OK, that's fine Kasper but are you trying to counter something I've said with that?

The point is that when it comes to the current social behavior of most indigenous tribes, we all know there's a problem, stats or no stats.

More stupid, stinking collectivism... the social behaviour of most indigenous tribes?!

Stop denigrating entire groups of people on the basis of their ancestry.

Just say NO to racism.

Libertarianism is no philosophy, it's a political movement based on different philosophies and as such lacks a proper moral ethical foundation...

A lot of people around here think that Objectivism can provide such a proper moral foundation. They're deluded.

And Goode, in a political context there can be no such thing as private affirmative action, whether Hume says so or not.

What's Hume got to do with it? Not that I mind having my name associated with the greatest philosopher since Aristotle...

reason is a small and feeble flame

Speak for yourself.

Elijah isn't the racist here: you are.

You called me a racist.

It's time for you (and anyone else who's called me a racist and hasn't had the decency to back down) to front up with the evidence or withdraw and apologise.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to front up with the evidence, because there isn't any.

I read you as saying Hilton had backed up his wording with his stats, that's why i included you. Anyway, the owned remark is retracted.

"Fact is that our social morbidities, something we have to care about because we get billed for it, are largely to do with Maori. End of story.... yeah?"

There's no doubt Maoris are disproportionately represented in crime. No one denies that, it's a fact. I took issue with 'most' and I thought Hilton's general painting of the Maori 'tribe' was sloppy. I come from a school of thought that says If over 51 percent of a race doesn't exhibit certain traits you probably shouldn't go labeling them with said traits. Still, I'm sure he had pure intentions.

"The over political attention and money spent on Politically correct interventions which are so gutless, like these badges, are wasteful."

Yup.

"And Matty, Libertarianism is no philosophy, it's a political movement based on different philosophies"

I know that and have said that. I have no set philosophy and I'm not going to adopt one that I don't agree with across the board for the sake of having the upper hand in an argument.

Haha Matty. But I'm not 'owned'. I didn't make the sloppy cock up of "most Maori......"
The word representation was used for the statistics.
Fact is that our social morbidities, something we have to care about because we get billed for it, are largely to do with Maori. End of story.... yeah?
The over political attention and money spent on Politically correct interventions which are so gutless, like these badges, are wasteful.

Matty you said: "and I assume I would feel the same if I were a member of a minority with a social stigma."
I study on a campus with a lot Maori's present and worked for a boss, who was Maori, Adrian Kenny, CEO of At Your Request, former CEO of Green Acres. There are Maori who find this PC babble incredibly embarrassing, further stigmatizing and hindering to their cultures progress.

For me Glenn it's a moral dilemma but not a political one. As both Richard and I have pointed out AA is not opposed to libertarianism as libertarianism is merely an ideology on what the role of government should be. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now I agree with you, if I were given a favor for being white (officially and openly. It's probably happened before without my being aware of it) It would feel kind of creepy and wrong. I assume I would have the same feelings if I were a member of a minority with social stigma but I can't be sure.

Now while I'm sure Rand would be personally opposed to AA on moral grounds regardless of the states involvement (I'll remind you I'm not an Objectivist so her quotes aren't going to put me in check-mate) her quote isn't really relevant here because AA doesn't claim a candidate is inherently superior or more deserving due to his skin colour. It's a strategy designed to close the gap between two ethnic demographics by giving members of the disenfranchised race special opportunities if they express real interest, motivation and ability even if that ability is currently a little less than that of another candidate.

Now I do think that certain minorities have been given a bit of a raw deal as a result of past injustices against their ancestors. Even after laws have been amended to make everybody equal there's bound to be a trickle down effect to future generations of the poverty that was forced upon past generations through the unjust laws of the time.

So the idea that giving say, a poor black kid in LA who has a dream of being a doctor but who has gone to the worst schools one could possibly find and who can't possibly afford to go to medical school the chance to win a scholarship at a good medical school partially on account of his race and financial situation doesn't strike me as obscene. I certainly don't think of it as EEEEEVIL and I absolutely under no circumstances view those giving him the scholarship as just as bad as the grand knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

It is different. Perhaps it's not right...but it's different. and it's hard.

The stats may differ in degree only, but it's not the point.

The point is that when it comes to the current social behavior of most indigenous tribes, we all know there's a problem, stats or no stats.

Ingersoll once, while referring to the power of ideas made a famous statement saying that one should not hate man for having rheumatism, but rather hate rheumatism for having a man, obviously only until said ideas lead to immoral actions at which time one must act towards gaining justice.

I was just pointing out how politicians use tax funded proliferation of ideas to rort the democratic system.

And Matty, Libertarianism is no philosophy, it's a political movement based on different philosophies and as such lacks a proper moral ethical foundation... which has understandably left you with no means to judge when it comes to affirmative action.

As Glenn pointed out with the reprized definitions of Peikoff and Rand, it is racist, pure and simple.

And Goode, in a political context there can be no such thing as private affirmative action, whether Hume says so or not.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

Business card scanner

You're considering two people for one job: a Maori and a white guy.

Let's see how affirmative action directs your choice:

From your preferred resource, Wikipedia [note there's no mention of state]:"Affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all racial groups) intended to promote access to education or employment.

This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs aimed at applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups. In some cases affirmative action involves giving preferential treatment to these groups."

In other words, your policy says you should give preferential treatment to the Maori because he's a Maori - nothing to do with his worth as an individual - the only thing you should be interested in is his tribe.

Ayn Rand: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

If I was the applicant and you hired me because of my race, pride would insistent I tell you to go fuck yourself.

Asian Man Has Thing For Asian Women

Interesting. Racist sexual preferences?

If you give favours to someone based on race that's your choice, but it is racist. Racism is, by definition, discrimination based on race.

Elijah isn't the racist here: you are.

Affirmative action isn't inherently opposed to (or by) libertarianism. Only affirmative action by the state is.

Peikoff's definition is incorrect because it excludes private affirmative action.

"I will however clarify that I haven't fully condoned Affirmative Action. As a libertarian, the practice isn't inherently opposed to my political ideology."

Ah, but it is, Matty: see here.

The 'owned' remark was meant to be light hearted. I thought about putting a smiley face there but I thought that would make it come across as even more snide. However, seeing as you used the words 'most' and 'majority' your statements have still been 'owned' by Phil's stats. Most Maoris aren't delinquents and you'll never find a valid stat to counter me on that because I'm right and you're wrong. Feel free to clarify your wording, I wont hold a simple slip of phrasing against you personally but please don't try to argue that your wording wasn't off base. It simply was. This can be (and has been) proven scientifically.

If you want to argue about affirmative action go to the aforementioned thread, I don't want to get side tracked. I will however clarify that I haven't fully condoned Affirmative Action. As a libertarian, the practice isn't inherently opposed to my political ideology. Personally I'm not yet sure weather or not I think it's right. Go ahead, try to sway me, I'm open to revising my positions on that front.

Gregster, have you read the SOLO Credo? There's a link at the top of each page.

The statistics I quoted above concur with yours - 40% of Maori with no qualifications, 51% of prison inmates are Maori and Maori drink more heavily though less frequently than non-Maori. Also, I don't have anything against the use of alcohol as a recreational drug.

Please do point me to these "vastly different" statistics. So far your statistics concur with mine, and none of them apply to the majority of Maori (i.e. more than 51%).

Phil

I have discovered some rather different statistics and have copied some excerpts as a footnote. Also please note that ethnicity (race) relies on self identifaction and the figure unwilling to disclose this has risen from 4% to more than 25% within the last 5 years. Please let me know if you wish me to point you to or upload the original source.

Judging from firsthand observation and statistics there obviously is a problem among the Maori, Aboriginals, Inuits etc, and what I was trying to point out was that most individuals in these tribes unwittingly and innocently become the brainwashed victims of an infernal scam run by demagogues.

I made it abundantly clear that it was only the ideas accepted by many Maori, and not the atributes of the race itself that led to these statistical anomalies, but all that Goode could accentuate was what he deemed to be vile racial slurs, and this while defecating on the memories of the 911 victims on another of his queasy posts.

At the same time Matty is jumping for joy at Phil's disingenuous statistics, pointing to it as proof positive of me having been owned, as if my intent with that post could in any way have been construed to be mean, and this while he openly condones reverse racism on another thread.

As I said, its about ideas.

A growing proportion of Youth are binging Most Youth, 14 to 18, define themselves as current drinkers (87%). While this does not appear to have changed compared to the result for the survey monitor in November 1998, a greater proportion of Youth, 14 to 18, are now drinking heavily (40%) compared to the result recorded in that survey monitor (31%). In demographic terms, there is a tendency for “Heavier drinkers” (defined as having drunk five or more “glasses” during the last drinking occasion) to be male, have an older age profile, and be Ma¯ori, in comparison to “Lighter” and “Non-drinkers”.

The poor performance of Maori in the education system is being further revealed in the 2006 census results. The statistics reveal just under 40 percent of Maori aged over 15 have no formal qualifications. This compares with 25 percent of the general population. Just under 29 percent of Maori have post-school qualifications, well short of almost 40 percent of the general population. © 2006 Newstalk ZB News

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

Pen scanner

Ms Purchas, but I won't be seeking out the "full text" of this one. Sounds like the opposite to what I understand.

""Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can
never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Humes Treatise, II, III

From The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran... (full text online)

"Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.

If either your sails or our rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.

For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction. "

Rosie

was trying to find Maori stats but could only find comparisons between maori and europeans.

Hilton and Kasper,

Owned .

• 565,329 NZers identified as Maori in 2006. 52% of them identified only as Maori, while 42% identified as both Maori and European.
• 60% of Maori have a school-level qualification or higher, 21.2% have a tertiary qualification, and 7.1& have a university degree. 25% are bilingual.
• 89% of working-age Maori are not unemployed. 82% are not on a benefit. 69.3% are employed full-time.
• 96.7% are not on the sickness benefit, 96% are not on the unemployment benefit, and 89% are not on the DPB.
• 98.9% of working-age Maori are not in prison. This is a high imprisonment rate, but still lower than that of Lousiana and comparable to that of Texas.
• At least 92% of working-age Maori are not gang members or associates (based on the highest estimate of gang members I could find. Based on police figures this is more like 99.5%).
• 57% of Maori mothers are not sole parents.

And as for Maori being "alcohol-dazed zombies":
"The principal finding is that while the total volume of alcohol consumed was similar in the two populations, the drinking patterns differed markedly. Relative to Maori, non-Maori drank more frequently but, on average, 40% less alcohol per drinking occasion. The findings are consistent with previous New Zealand research, and with differences between indigenous and non-indigenous people documented in other countries." (NZ Medical Journal)

Many of these statistics are absolutely dire - 51% of prison inmates and 45% of DPB recipients are Maori. But for Hilton or anyone to claim that the majority of Maori are unemployed, uneducated, on the dole, alcoholic, criminal or gang members is completely false (note: the Maori are in a far better position than the Aboriginals who Hilton perhaps is confusing them with).

It's true that proportionally more Maori than Europeans are beneficiaries, unemployed, unqualified, etc. Maori are over-represented in politics too, but it would be just as ridiculous to claim that the majority of Maori are members of Parliament.

But I'm pretty sure most Maoris don't go on to become violent criminals. Most crimes in NZ are commited by Maoris. There's a very important difference there.

Perhaps there's the hope that somewhere some Maori individual happens
onto Objectivism and starts speaking out against these suicidal ideas
that have turned a once proud people into the alcohol-dazed zombies
most of them become.

Hilton, you just said that most Maori become alcohol-dazed zombies.

That's a vile racial slur.

I've come to accept that there's just no pleasing you, because for you as it was for your master ""Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can
never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Humes Treatise, II, III

Your issues with reality are way more serious than your issues with racism, or perhaps you missed my headline which states that its all about ideas.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

OCR 

This has gone full circle several times now and over 3 different posts.

Richard, if the statistics support a contention that the majority of a certain race is represented in crime, welfare and looting of tax money then is that racist?
Because, as has been pointed out before, that if one is labelled a racist for pointing out a legit problem in society which is correlated to a race then we have a problem. If this is racism, then fine.

I agree down below here that no one has set out to be racist. By that I mean what is meant by the convential term: the mindless condemnation of anyone on grounds of skin color or ethnic background simply because they have certain skin or ethnic background. This type of collectivist mindless discrimination is what racism is condemed for.

Behold Hilton telling us that

(1) Most Maori "simply usurped the indoctrination... obviously with the aid of money stolen from the productive."

(2) Most Maori become "alcohol-dazed zombies".

(3) Some Maori are "sub-human welfare recipients".

Sick.

 This whole anti-racist reaction is quite myopic in my opinion.

I dont think Eli or anyone here really hates Maori for being Maori, but rather the actions of the majority of Maori, who due to their cultural inheritance of tribalism together with their isolation from the work ethic of the rennaisance simply usurped the indoctrination offered them by astute polticians supposedly acting on behalf of those self abasing liberals who they seek to apease for the sake of gaining poltical power, obviously with the aid of money stolen from the productive.

Now generations later they have actually come to believe this shit, and labour, having for so long enjoyed the success resulting from the appeasement of liberals are actually upping the intensity on this self serving charade.

To me the Maori are the real victims here, as these poisonous ideas they are being force fed from cradle to grave are in fact diminishing the potential most Maori individuals could have gotten from their lives had they been raised with a rational philosophy instead.

To start off with, the social safety net of welfare support removes the crucial life/death alternative required by humans for the purposes of being able to realise the requisite self esteem from having conquered this challenge.

Perhaps there's the hope that somewhere some Maori individual happens onto Objectivism and starts speaking out against these suicidal ideas that have turned a once proud people into the alcohol-dazed zombies most of them become.

Obviously everything will be done to silence someone like that, if not from the ranks of self serving politicians, then by certain sub-human welfare recipients among the clan who cannot envisage the prospect of having to create value in order to remain alive.

The same goes for the Aboriginals here in Aus.

Judging by the pervasive collectivist poison being fed to our children in public schools I can understand how the majority become self hating liberals, and dont view them as entirely evil for the ideas they have been brainwashed with, but as for the politicians who initiate and then exploit this brainwashing ...I regard them as the lowest scum on earth.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

business card scanner 

Don't go ruining all the good will now Jameson!

But there is one thing I'd like to clear up:

"You haven’t done much to us over the past generation or so..."

No, but we have done so much for you in that time. The multi-million dollar land settlements for one thing. And that dreadfully racist policy of allocating many, many billions to you guys ~ and only you guys ~ for things like special scholarships, special hea