I have been listening to the words, tactics and outrages that are promulgated as a means toward achieving a certain end by various operatives in today's debates about various important issues.
The notion of RIGHTS have changed dramatically as this nation has gone through its various states of transformation as a society. In today's world of "Social Justice" the notion of RIGHTS is more closely tied toward entitlements than at any other time in history.
Historically the notion of "rights" was assigned to the notion of those human attributes or privileges that no government or individual or corporate entity can abridge. The "right to free speech", the "right against unlawful search and seizure", the "right toward free assembly". All of these seek to protect the intrinsic FREEDOMS of man.
The first time I came to understand that all otherwise rational human beings don't see RIGHTS in the same way that seem in line with the constitutional understanding is when I purchased and read Jesse Jackson Jr's book in which he listed several constitutional amendments.
Nearly all of Mr Jackson's additions focused upon the "social justice" type of RIGHTS. The right to entitlements. From memory - there was a "Right to quality education", the "right to health care" and several along these general themes.
When I read this perspective I firt questioned how any of these can be guaranteed as "rights". With the qualifier of "quality" - how is it that the government control all who threaten the delivery of "quality" education? Certainly today more instructional hours in school are lost by classroom disruptions than by school books that were handed down from a wealthy neighboring school.
Beyond any nit picking opposition I noted one key point about Mr. Jackson's suggestions - there was no respect for PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Your pursuit of health care entitles the government to come after me for the funds necessary to care for you due to our common membership in America. It is unavoidable to note the inverse relationship between those who promote "Entitlement Rights" to the maximum and the near lack of "Economic Rights"/"Property Rights" that they are inclined to respect.
More accurately most of these points are not RIGHTS. Instead they are "Public Goods That Should Be Maximized In The Context Of Respect For Economic Realities And Private Property Rights". People's private property rights should be encroached upon to pay for these entitlements as the EXCEPTION, not the RULE. Instead of seeking to enact some notion of economic retribution against the wealthy these same people should make note of the ultimate harm that is done to the culture of a people who receive an increasing amount of their standard of living outside of their own productive capacity.
Some people are perfectly happy with their people "BEING IN RECEIPT OF" a given benefit. Their needs and grievances apparently satisfied as a result. Instead this only makes them dependent on the SYSTEM that has cared for them instead of being capable of relocating and replicating their new found fortune.
Clearly the question must be asked about one's RIGHTS: Are you seeking to 'care for the people' or 'empower them to express their OWN VALUE FOR THEMSELVES via their own economic choices and industriousness?'
(No doubt there are people asking - "So how is this Negro going to actually justify "discrimination" as a good thing"?)
The word "discrimination" is a pejorative. Few people want to be called a "racist" and few people want to have their thoughts and actions meriting the label "discriminatory".
I have learned over time that certain sacred cows must be slayed lest you get rolled by people who pervert that which you are afraid to take on.
I make the case that there has never been nor could there ever be a society that does not make use of DISCRIMINATION to achieve a particular order among the people.
In summary - absent DISCRIMINATION there is the CHAOS of "Do Your Own Thing Free Of Any Judgment".
When people seek to attack a point of discrimination that exists in the society today in truth they are not seeking to end discrimination for "discrimination sake" as they may rhetorically claim, taking the moral high ground. Instead they seek to edit the list of points that we as a society had previously agreed was unacceptable, making them so.
At times I wonder what "norms" of today will be seen as "discriminatory" tomorrow.
Implicit to every society is the need for the prevailing forces to field an ethic that achieves:
- Justice, Conflict Resolution and Order Among The People
- Economic Stability and Growth
- Education For The Development Of The Masses
- Health Services To Maintain The People's Health
- Respect For The Institutions That Bring Forth All Of The Above
In effect the proposal to end a point of historical discrimination says that we have reached a state in the society by which the expression of the RIGHTS and FREEDOMS for a particular group of people that were negatively impacted by the "discrimination" has outweighed the controlling group's need to retain their brand of order via the continued maintenance of the discriminator.
For some people who are progressive in mind they pride themselves with being net liberators. A "progressive" society is one which grants more freedoms to more people, ridding itself with all discriminations that are based on non-functional biases, religiosity or straight up hatred. They estimate that the general society will be able to absorb these changes without any evidence of collapse to the whole order.
I figure that this is a critical time to point out that as an African-American I come from a people who were on the "wrong side of the norm" in America. Keep in mind, however, that the discrimination against the African-American hit upon the question of our basic humanity all for the purposes of first - economic exploitation and then for the express purposes of advancing "White Supremacy" and economic control in which "A Black man has no rights that a White man need respect". I challenge anyone to find such an open invitation to look the other way on the basic respect for human and civil rights based on race that what the Native American and African-American suffered?
I do not take the issue of discrimination and oppression lightly by any means. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
Today's desire for "progression" has shifted largely from the most blatant and problematic issues around race and gender over to the question of behavior norms as related to sexual orientation, gender assignment, fashion statements and the acceptability of certain behaviors.
My personal reference point for normative social constructs is the "Judeo-Christian" order. This is the order that has the prescedence of several thousand years AND the benefit of the complementary physiological natural state between man and woman that allows me to belive that "traditional marriage" is the template that our married relationships should be based upon.
If certain operatives are allowed to make the issue into a notion of "discrimination" then to express the audacity as I recognize the distinction between male and female and make inference about the prescendence referenced above makes me a "discriminator".
It is not the natural observation that is contemptible in my views - it is ONLY the prevailing sentiment within the society at the time which says "discrimiantion is wrong" that could hope to undercut my views.
This is why I REJECT the notion that the goal of a "discrimation free" society is a logical end. It is only a guaurantee of a chaotic society.
The one thing that I notice about those who pride themselves in "progressivism" is that they also have a propensity to not stand beside the bastard child that they have created in the societal order that is created in the wake of their disassembly of societal norms. They spend so much time fighting against the purveryors of the standard order that they often fail to prepare for the day when THEY CONTROL THE ORDER.
It seems to me a society that desires to retain their order needs to start off with some clear and predescribed points of order for the people living within. From this they should derive their norms.
I suspect that some elements of the society, if presented with clear evidence that a certain directed order for the people would produce favorable outcoems, would be agreeable to yielding the maximaxation of their own individual liberties for the sake of the greater good. They are likely to suggest this upon the wealthy tax payer. They are loathed to practice this same shared interests on the civil liberties domain.
RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATIONS
When these two notions are paired together we see the most powerful pathway toward social change.
Today the denial of marriage rights is positioned as a denial of the extension of medical care and pension benefits to the person of my own choosing. In such a way those who pursue a secular and progressive agenda in our culture have effectively sought to place a check on the value of maintaining long held cultural traditions with the notion that their continuance works to discriminate against those who should have a right to a certain government entitlement (social security, health care, etc). The real goal of these individuals is to force the society to accept the "equality" of their relational choice as compared to the traditional heterosexual relationship.
OWNERSHIP OF THE OUTCOME
The primary argument for those seeking to advance the "marriage equality" argue that by increasing this nation's tolerance they are doing nothing to harm "traditional marriage". There will not be spontaneous divorces because one man has the right to marry another man.
I actually agree with this in total. My reasons for agreement are very different though.
I agree that the real problem at hand is NOT "same sex marriage". This is but a derivative of the problem. Clearly the real problem is with the loss of consciousness about the important function of marriage between one man and one woman and how this construct is the fundamental building block of families, communities and cities.
The pursuit of this standard would force some people who are living a lifestyle that runs awry to this standard are most inclined to fight the enforcement of the marriage ideal.
- Those who choose to pursue same sex marriages
- Those heterosexuals who are disinclined to marry
- Those who have children out of wedlock in the context of a relationship that is not destined for marriage
Instead of asking me to justify my viewpoints in relation to the RIGHTS to do as others will to do I ask the proponents of any alternative strategy to justify their agenda that is so divergent to the thousand year standard that has brought us this far.
The main people promoting the instances of societal neglect for the "left behind" are those who are the main enablers of the unstructured lives that many of them live. Most certainly "getting married" along is not going to bring riches to these people's lives. Instead it is the entirety of structure and standards of human relations between these masses that are presently aggrieved. The higher level of humanity is expressed NOT BY the government programs servicing "these people" thus having society showing that they are worthy. Instead this higher level is expressed by the people themselves. As they order themselves in support of higher level accomplishments because certain fundamental contracts that determine human interactions are settled upon - they will improve their aggregate condition.
Where is the demand that the community ethos of shared beliefs be the plaform that is the primary determinant factor for their lives? It is this insertion of 'RIGHTS" which insures that their actions and beliefs are abstracted from their ultimate end.
(Part 2 on "Discrimination" will focus on the notions of "Positive Discrimination")