Why do liberals think affirmative action is justified?
My family has owned thousands of acres of land since about 1840, spread through West Virginia and Ohio. Much of our economic comfort has been built on its equity, whether through revenue from the farms themselves, loans backed by that land, or more recently, oil and gas revenue from the fracking boom.In the last ten years, my family going out to only third cousins has seen upward of a million dollars in no-effort income simply because out great-great-great-grandparents bought land.Part of my educational expenses were taken against the equity on my parents' home, which was bought in part by their share of equity in the larger farms. That education, though unfinished, has presented me opportunity that I couldn't have gotten without it, and by fortune, I personally owe very little.Because my family was able to own land in 1840.We never had to worry about poll taxes or literacy taxes. Those only went away in the last century; there are Americans today that were directly denied the right to vote, to work, to own property based on their skin color.Until we can firmly say that race isn't a deciding factor in one's momentum, until there aren't racist epithets thrown freely at the first black President, or until Senate candidates don't suggest they want a front-row seat at a lynching, then we need to do something to counteract that.I personally feel that instead of race directly, educational and employment incentives should be granted based on the socioeconomic standing of one's parents and geographical neighborhood. I do think it's unjust to reward black students over white ones with the same performance at the same schools from the same income level.It would still largely benefit persons of color because they are disproportionately included in those lower economic tiers, but it wouldn't be exclusive to persons of any certain race.Because above all, affirmative action as a policy standard should seek to lift people out of a cycle in which they may be trapped, and that crosses any race barrier.
Dou you think that America was justified in its policy of overseas expansion? Why or why not?
Yes, we needed a larger overseas for a long time, and i for one was elated to see our Nation expand it.
Are quotas a morally justifiable action?
When Sweden set quotas for women in government, what was found was that mediocre men were forced out. That is, when women candidates were considered equally with men, they outcompeted the incompetent men who talk a good game, but don't deliver.Better, incompetent people tend to surround themselves with incompetent staff, so those people went away, too.Men tend to be better at selling themselves, at least in our culture. If you have a quota, you're choosing a proportion of your candidates from the people who aren't as good at selling themselves, or who have a disadvantage in the market (say being black or disabled) but who are otherwise equally good candidates.People are likelier to say “well, he talks a good game, but what's he actually done?”Study by the London School of economics: Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man
Is abortion dual or cooperative federalism?
We're doing this project for my government class and we've managed to complete all of the requirements other than answering and justifying whether abortion is considered dual or cooperative federalism. Here are the definitions: Cooperative: a concept of federalism in which national, state, and local governments interact cooperatively and collectively to solve common problems, rather than making policies separately but more or less equally Dual federalism: a political arrangement in which power is divided between national and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the national government I had been under the impression that it would fall under dual federalism because since the ruling of roe v wade, states still have put some restrictions on abortion, however i still want to hear others opinions. (please don't bring in the morality of it, only what it would fall under)
What are the moral reasons behind justifying discrimination based on ability, and not things like race, creed, sex, etc.?
Things like race, caste,creed, sex, religion etc. are not a matter of choice for anyone. Ability/Skill/Education are the things that can be acquired/ enhanced. I think parameters that are within the sphere of control/influence of human being they should be evaluated rather than ones that not in their control/influence. Hence justified, in my opinion.But when do we mostly judge people? When actually do we require the distinction to be made?We have make the distinction we have offer something to someone and supply overruns demand like in a job. In that case I reckon you would agree for the skill to be treated as a fair differentiating factor.Now secondly as a society or individual we may respect or revere someone taking into account his/her set of skills or abilities. Here in this case again we are recognizing a distinction- their ability or level of skill. But this again is justifiable in my opinion because evolution/nature rewards individual or group of individuals who tries to add or enhance skill to make themselves more relevant and hence adaptable. Tendency to recognize distinction in this way may well be a result of evolution.Then are there are traits which can be desirable or undesirable from the perspective of smooth functioning of the society/community. So recognizing some distinction based on traits like honesty, altruism, care etc may well be the way to propagate and expand such traits deeper.