Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
While watching a sports program about historically black colleges and universities one of the four persons at the roundtable argued that a part of the reason there are not enough people who look like him in the job market when it comes to folks at higher levels of employment (such as head football coaches and corporate executives) is because there are not enough colleges that focus on the plight of black people in a country steeped in institutionalized racism. Basically, without necessarily saying it, he was pushing the critical race theory argument, the Black Lives Matter version of alternative racism, and the Marxist idea that the only way for things to be fair is for government to force fairness upon the public square.
You can't make sure everyone gets a piece of cake with two or more sides of icing on it by mandating that everyone gets one, regardless of who they are. In my house cake is first come, first serve, and usually the most aggressive people in the house get the pieces with the most icing. There were complaints. But, in reality, the only way government would be able to see, or ensure, that all of the pieces were equal would be to make a cake with no icing on it in the first place. You may have been deprived of your icing, but at least all of the pieces are the same.
In a free market government is expected to get out of the way and let the market forces, and natural individual thinking take over. Innovation then happens. Someone, along the way, because they realize they can profit from doing it in such a way, may say, "Hey, everyone wants icing, so instead of making a huge cake with hundreds of pieces, or dozens of pieces, let's make a large number of them with four pieces so that everyone willing to pay for this new innovation can have a piece with icing on three sides (top, and the two sides of the corner). Someone might say, "but what if someone only wants icing on the top, or no icing at all?" The market then will provide. Someone will see the need and begin baking cakes with no icing, or larger ones with only icing on the top, or perhaps not put icing on the sides so that all of their pieces only have icing on the top. Then, someone else might come along and make one for a slightly less price. It may not taste the same, but there will be folks who are willing to deduct a little from taste for the purpose of saving a little money. Others might be willing to pay more for their pieces. Some folks might not buy cake at all, but they are big fans of the pie guy up the street.
That's how the free market is supposed to work. Ideas and innovation, without government interference. Sometimes ideas don't make it, sometimes it's just a matter of timing. But, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with race (and if it does, it's because of the people participating who make it about race, and typically in the end once word gets out, their business will either not thrive, or will only thrive amongst their racist brethren).
The cake market might be widespread, or it might be one battling in your neighborhood. There might be large cake bakers who send their products to a large corporate store, or that small baker everyone knows has the best in the business with a special personal touch around the corner on Main Street. Whatever it is, whether it is in a mixed neighborhood, a white neighborhood, a black neighborhood, an Asian neighborhood, a Hispanic neighborhood, or a neighborhood with some other label that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, the fact is the market itself cannot be racist. It's not capable of it. It is only a "thing". People can be racist, and to be honest that is their choice. The wonderful thing about liberty is you can be something that may not be acceptable, and that is okay. It's your choice. But, if you are convinced that you must be a certain thing, such as racist, you will probably appeal to a smaller share of the market. The market, in the end, didn't make that choice. You did.
Arguing that institutions like capitalism or due process are inherently racist because they've been used as tools to deprive people of their equality or rights as a person due to their skin color, ethnicity, sex, and so forth is an ignorant and dishonest argument. As with anything we use in our society, capitalism, the marketplace, the job market, and due process are simply tools that exist in our system that is based on a set of rules and ideas set forth in our laws, and various documents like the U.S. Constitution. Saying that capitalism or due process are racist parts of our institutions because there are evil people who have used those tools for racist means is like calling a hammer racist because a person beat someone with it with racial malice in their heart. The hammer is not racist. The person who wielded it was.
The problem in society is not racism, or the crazy ideas floating around that say our liberty-based institutions must be racist because persons of color struggle in that marketplace. The job market is a brutal place to compete. That's just reality. It is nothing more or less than a simple part of the societal experience. At tool. It, in and of itself, cannot be racist. Therefore, the problem must be that there are obstacles that may exist along the way that may be more pronounced for some people than for others. In other words, the problem is not the system, it is the preparation that some people experience on their way to the system. As children we develop through our experiences, what we are taught, and through what we see (among other things).
Statistics reveal that things like not having one's father in the household, or living in a crime-ridden neighborhood have an impact on whether or not an individual raised in such an environment may gain the skills, as well as emotional and psychological tools, that may be necessary to compete in a system that is based on individualism, a skillset, innovative thinking, and free choice. Yet, we put in place programs under the guise of good intentions that create those obstacles in the first place. The enemies of the Constitution attack anyone who dares to be critical of government-sponsored welfare programs that become a way of life to the point that its policies drive dad out of the house. They attack Christianity as being some non-science mystical hokum even though, whether you believe in God or not, teaches having a moral code that includes supporting the family unit. In their rejection of the existence of God they figure they must stand against the value system offered by Christianity as well, which includes values such as preserving the family unit and living our lives with integrity. Statistically, someone coming from a household teaching those values has a better chance at succeeding in the marketplace. So, why would you doom society by demonizing those values? Okay, fine, reject the existence of God, but don't throw out the values that make this country great in the process.
The economic system is a tool. It is not racist, it is not unfair, and if it contains Christian values that really should also be basic human values that does not somehow make it some form of Christian theocracy. Our System of Liberty, with a foundation that includes those values, has historically provided more opportunity for those with skills, those who work hard, and those who operate with integrity within the system, than any other system in history. It has pulled more people out of poverty, and has brought people together more than any other system in history. It is because of that system that America has the highest standard of living, and that even those who are below the poverty line according to American Standards live better than ninety percent of the people on this planet.
The argument that the American System of Liberty, its free market, and the U.S. Constitution are somehow racist, unfair, and unjust denies the historical path America has taken to become the best place to live on God's Green Earth. The system has surpassed all expectations despite the fact that human nature and collectivistic forces have been attacking it since day one.
If the system is so great, I have been asked, then why is there inequality in it? Why aren't everyone living as rich as the one percent?
A free market is a competitive market. It's not based on a government forced "you all get a piece of cake with no icing on it" type of situation. The sky's the limit. As designed the only obstacles are naturally in place because of your decisions, your abilities, and certain forces in place due to human nature and the reality of how things happen in life. The market is not the problem, external factors are.
A person from an environment that does not prepare the person for that kind of competition may find themselves struggling in the economic system America offers. That doesn't make it racist, that means the person came from an environment that did not possibly provide the skills, values and/or integrity needed to succeed. So, rather than blame the system, should not the goal to be to work towards providing those lessons and values during the development of young people in their community? Rather than lowering scores to make sure everyone passes, the scores needed should remain as high as everyone else's to provide a bar for what is needed, to encourage working harder, and to provide a realistic example of what it's like to compete in the marketplace once a person achieves the age and skills needed to participate. Rather than providing an entitlement system that removes rewards for achievement, the participants in the system should be challenged to meet a set of standards that will encourage growth that will ultimately give the participant the tools they will need to compete. Rather than attack Christianity and the elements of what makes a family unit, we should be encouraging God's value system and how a family unit is supposed to operate and function. If statistics show that dad not being in the house increases the odds for failure in the marketplace once a child reaches adulthood, then we should be promoting the things that keeps families together, such as the values that exist when a faith-based foundation is taught in the home.
Creating cultural institutions that matter, and are successful, is not achieved by separating a group away from society-at-large and filling their heads with ideas that are not going to contribute to their potential success in the system that exists. Historically, thriving neighborhoods with active members, and one with opportunities that include jobs available and the ability to contribute by opening a business for one's aspirations occurs when liberty is in place with as little government interference as possible. Regulations and policies pushed into the culture and our communities by an overbearing government takes away those opportunities. Sure, we need certain rules in place, we need to make sure people aren't stomping on each other's basic rights, but that's it. Otherwise, government institutions need to get out of the way and let individualism and a desire to achieve to the best of our capabilities take control of the market. If you want more people who look like you to do well and to thrive in the marketplace and the job market the way to do it is not to force things into what one might deem "fair" through government intrusion, but for government to get out of the way so that the creativity and the ambitions of those who look like you may be unleashed and shared with everyone else in a free and naturally diverse market.
Sometimes, the numbers don't always seem to be what we'd like to see. Factors such as how many people from your group actually seek that kind of position, may also be a part of the equation. Let's not quibble after refusing to recognize the context. Let's get back to liberty, and allow our culture to drive the markets. Politically induced narratives of racism and unfairness only get in the way, and historically always run hand-in-hand with socialistic tactics, failure, starvation and death.
Personally, I chalk it up to the reality of existence. There are so many factors involved, and sometimes the final tally doesn't quite meet our expectations. That's not racism. That's the reality of life. In the end, if you let liberty reign, the potentiality is more up to us. If you allow government to stick its nose into the equation the potentiality is then taken away from the average person, and the results are more up to some bureaucrat somewhere who has "good intentions" for the "common good", yet knows nothing about what they are trying to control through government mandate.
Evil exists not because of our system, but because evil people seek to manipulate that system in the name of change and "re-imagining" how we do things.
Re-imagining and tinkering with our system has been what has sent us in a bad direction. We keep trying to fix our system in the hopes of changing a system that has proven to be successful without considering the possibility that it's not the system that's the problem when it comes to missteps along the way, but the evil people who keep tinkering with it claiming they have a better path and that to hand over our choices to government will somehow liberate us from injustice and unfairness.
Thanks, but no thanks. I like my odds with liberty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment