Even if I could afford designer clothes I wouldnt by them, and really, who does?

Truly how often when wandering around any major metropolis do you see people wearing designers more ostentatious designs?

Personally, I'm for judging somebody "by the content of their character," but when's the last time you think anybody chose an actress or model on those terms?

I don't know. When's the last time an actress or model was alleged to have character?

Well, Brian, isn't "vapid" a valid characteristic? o_O

Anyone should be welcome to be allowed to hire blacks only, provided anyone should also have the freedom to hire whites only.

Anyone should be welcome to be allowed to hire blacks only, provided anyone should also have the freedom to hire whites only.

That leads to ghettos, riots and wars. It sounds fine and libertarian, but it doesn't work.

Re models and character: anyone seen "Zoolander" ?

Yes I did Norman, it was so stupid it was hysterical! I especially like the underwear maneuver - classic! o_O

Norman is right. The two generations of "Togetherheid" has worked so much better.

Norman, it is forcing people to associate with or hire or live with people they don't want to that causes resentment and "causes riots and wars".

Ghettos, riots and gang wars - these represent a breakdown in law and order. The solution is very simple: Implement law and order, not forced multicultural diversity in the naive hope that this will cause everyone to suddenly start singing kumbaya together.

I took a job in the early 90's at a large Hospital. During "orientation" all the new hires were given a presentation by the HR rep on "diversity". My hiring had been held up for almost 4 weeks because the hiring manager was required to justify why a minority and/or female could not be hired instead of me, the white male. So I was a little irritated at what the HR rep was spouting. He was going on + on about what a wonderful job the institution was doing hiring women. Women represented 73% of the workforce and he was just pleased as punch. Now, healthcare is a pretty female laden industry but I was wondering to myself if this HR guy was shooting for 100% women. Gievn Men as 50% of the workforce wouldn't a fair representation be 50% men vs. women? I finally raised my hand and asked what the goal was for percent of men in the organization.
Talk about a skunk at the garden party. This guy stuttered and stammered something incomprehensible and moved on. I think he wrote my name down. (I'm not kidding)
I no longer work there but that still irritates me.

Fact of the matter is when people go on and on about -ist hiring practices (mainly becuase they are a part of the group that being discriminated against) they will almost certainly go silent when when some other group is a target of -ist hiring practices.

Notice that many feminists are up in arms about there not being very many female doctors but in the next breath will curse a guy up and down for talking about the sexist treatment he receives at work. Same as this person is complaining about, just a different -ism.

Ever wonder why feminists arent up in arms about there not being many female janitors?

In the modelling world, models are items. Furniture. Having all-caucasian models tottering along the runway is little different than having all-white sofas or hatracks in the photoshoot. (Roughly the same IQs, too - oh, sorry, that's mean).

Of all the possible things to cry racism about, this is probably the least sane.

They can call me for an update when, say, a designer features black models eating fried chicken and watermelons while doing a little shuck and jive. As long as it's just generic furniture-people strutting around with vacant expressions, just shut up.

Let's all remember folks that we can only call it "Racism" when it's all about White (And preferably Male) people.

When It's about a Non-White situation, it is call a "Minority Empowerment Action". Because we all know that the rest of the universe is eternally oppressed by the evil White Race...

David J - I'm not really sure about this, but here in the UK we sometimes have a situation with schools and neighbourhoods becoming ghettoised. What happens is that a school or neighbourhood is perceived as being lower class or black or something. Then the middle/upper classes or whites begin to move out and soon it *is* lower class or black or whatever. This can be called "white flight" because the majority population is white and on average, whites look down on blacks. I know not all whites do so, but damn few whites look up to blacks, so that's how the average is the way it is. The trouble with white flight is that it's not really based on any good reason, and it leads to ghettoes where everyone is the same colour or class. People in ghettoes view people from other ghettoes with suspicion because they never meet to discover their common humanity. When economic times are hard, that suspicion turns into fear and hatred because "they" are getting all the jobs/women/state handouts and "we" are having a hard time.

So, ghettoes are to be avoided. They are a balkanisation of society. It's bad enough with schools & neighbourhoods. I can't see that having black and white businesses would make things any better. If you are white and you buy something from a black business, some of your white friends will look askance at you. If you go to the wrong colour shop, you might not get served, because they won't want to alienate their own colour customers. So you will end up only buying from white shops. It seems to me to be a recipe for social disaster.

The key thing is to avoid any kind of ghettoes in the first place. You can start in the US by getting rid of hyphenated Americans.

On second thoughts, white flight *is* based on a good reason. Once white flight starts in a school, say, then it would be unreasonable to expect a parent - even if they object to white flight on principle - to stay put, because it will be their child who ends up as the odd one out and pays the price for that. The price will include being bullied, picked on, and generally made to feel unwelcome by their class mates. Children are like that. So anyone who can escape, will do so.

It's another example of unpleasant social consequences of rational behaviour at the individual level. I am beginning to see these all over the place. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" must be the most famous.

Norman, white flight doesn't "cause" ghettoes, and whites who leave aren't responsible for the ghettoisation of what they leave behind. Are whites obligated to stay just to "prop up" others who can't build a nice neighbourhood on their own? Why wouldn't other races be able to prevent their own neighbourhoods from becoming ghettoes? Do you realise that there is racism implicit in your views? (I don't mean that in an offensive way at all.) For whites, merely failing to literally go and help another neighbourhood is regarded as the "consequence" of an "action", while for non-whites in ghettoes, you seem to hold no responsible agency. People create their own neighbourhoods, people are responsible for their own neighbourhoods. If I suggested to you that blacks in ghettoes should go and improve white neighbourhoods, would that help you see how absurd this is?

Or put another way, you say ghettoes are to be avoided, but you implicitly suggest that whites are the only ones capable of preventing ghettoes from coming into being. Think about what that means.

On another note, to suggest that a certain group of people (in this case whites) work specifically for another group of people to help them for nothing in return, used to be called a different name: Slavery.

You hold whites responsible for "social consequences" of their (in)actions, but you don't seem to hold non-whites responsible for the consequences of their actions (creating horrible ghettoes) - in fact you blame the whites.

Lujlp: I think they're called maids and housekeepers.

David - why do you want to assign blame? White flight (whatever the colours) happens when those who have the resources to move out, do so, leaving behind the less well off. As I said, it is quite rational behaviour at the individual level. Parents want the best for their children. If it is whites that move out, it's because whites have more resources than blacks; the resulting ghetto is not the blacks' fault as they don't have any choice but to remain.

Because the individual behaviour is rational, the only way to prevent it is by legislation.

What do you do when there's a run on the bank? Leave your money in, or try to get it out while you still can? Who do you blame?

If it is whites that move out, it's because whites have more resources than blacks; the resulting ghetto is not the blacks' fault as they don't have any choice but to remain.

No Norman, I disagree. It is totally the remaining peoples' fault. Everyone makes choices and either accepts or denies their own personal responsibility. I've seen black people living in neighbourhoods that were very nice; they keep up their properties just like the whites and latinos and others in the same neighbourhoods. If some black people make a choice to live in squalor or in a ghetto, that's not because of the white people moving out, that's because of the black peoples' choice to stay and not make a better life for themselves. There's a big difference between making life happen for yourself and letting life just happen to you. NO ONE HAS to live in a ghetto. A little ambition goes a long way; mix in a little personal responsibility and anyone can get their own ass out of any situation. YMMV

What are you suggesting, Norman? That it be legislated that neighborhoods have to be a certain percent white to avoid being ghettoised? And just which whites are you going to force to live there (since obviously poverty alone doesn't do it for more than a few). Are you volunteering? Why don't you start -- if you're white -- by renting or buying in a ghetto?

Aargh! That burns me. I happen to be a white person who worked hard to escape the ghetto. The reasons whites flee the ghetto -- to clue in the clueless -- is, in large part, the prejudice they face there. Their white skin makes them an instant target. If you think it's tough being black in the ghetto, try being freaking white in one.

" (creating horrible ghettoes) - in fact you blame the whites."

AMEN!!! I live in a 95% "minority" poor area and am trying my damndest to get this house sold and get OUT of here. It is UNREAL what the people here do, to themselves and their own places they live. I'm sorry, I don't care how poor you think you are, if you've got $100,000 worth of pick-ups and SUV's parked all over your yard and street, then you can damn well afford a mower to cut your grass, and fix your garage door that you drove into drunk one night, and pay your own damn electric bill instead of coming to my door asking to borrow money. There is cuss-word graffiti all over the parks here, trash thrown everywhere, broken down cars in the street (right next to the brand new pick ups). None of this is because whites moved out. It's because blacks and hispanics stayed, and did it all. I'm going to get yelled at for this, and no not every black or hispanic in the neighbor is trashy, but the majarity are. And they don't care to be better.

Yes, I'm white, but my husband is hispanic (and equally condemns the trashy people, all colors) and my kids are half, so I am not racist. But I am against people living in squallor of their own making and blaming others for it. Get some damn self-respect, get a job, keep your house in decent repair, stop having 70% of your babies when you are NOT married, by different fathers, get off of welfare, and THEN start complaining about racism if you're still living worse than the rest of us.

Norman says -
Because the individual behaviour is rational, the only way to prevent it is by legislation

Let's all pause here for a moment and ponder this statement.
Okay, now that we've done that, I can see your fear Norman - if one person starts doing things that make sense, pretty soon everybody is going to want to, and we can't have that now, can we? Leftism is indeed the gnawing fear that somewhere, somebody can help themselves.
Or are you simply admitting that legislation is, more often than not, completely irrational?

This idea that people are "trapped in ghettoes" is about as logical as concluding that there are homeless people because there aren't enough houses. There are plenty of houses, Norman. Likewise, ghettoes are ghettoes because that is what they become as a result of the behavior of the inhabitants. I've lived in a few and worked in alot of ghettoes, Norman - in my life, "integration" has been a matter of natural circumstance, not an artificially manufactured result thanks to the efforts of bean counters.
When I start seeing those bean counters living in neighborhoods where the only dark skin belongs to someone besides the help; when I start seeing those bean counters sending their kids to inner city schools so they too can benefit from the "rich cultural diversity" instead of sending them to private schools; and finally, when I start seeing those people buy homes in their neighborhoods to install diversity rather than banishing others to live in other neighborhoods to establish diversity, I'll start to put some stock in all this "diversity is good - white flight bad" nonsense.
Picture it, Norman - all these multicultists moving to the inner city and enrolling their kids in the schools there. The taxes in those districts rising as a result. The faces of those neighborhoods changing because of the influx of middle class money and lifestyle. Finally, the kids of those multicultists getting the benefits of all that "rich cultural diversity" in their education (and I assure you, they will- many on the first day).
Or do you think they know damn good and well that is exactly what would happen, and would rather sacrifice other peoples kids so they can feel like they are "good people?"
But that would be "gentrification," wouldn't it, Norman? Then we'd be racists moving into those neighborhoods and committing "cultural genocide."
Norman, you said it yourself - the legislation exists to prevent rational behavior - not racist behavior, not white supremacist behavior, not evil behavior. Just plain, good old fashioned rational behavior.
I'm perfectly comfortable being "rational," even if it results in being called "mean." I'm not a baby boomer, so I don't fear name calling.

The point I'm trying to make is that when individuals make good, rational, choices, the effects on society as a whole can be bad. It can also be good. Since everyone's getting heated about racism, I'll change the example.

An example of good is the free market, which results in lower prices, better quality of goods, and so on - as described by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations."

An example of bad is uncontrolled fishing. It is in every fisherman's self interest to go out and catch as much fish as he can. But this results in overfishing because there is no mechanism by which restraint on the part of the fishermen is rewarded. Any fisherman who holds back to preserve fish stocks is simply cutting his own throat. As fish become scarce their price goes up so it is always worth catching them.

The only solution to overfishing is to legislate. For example, to designate a "no-fishing" area where no-one is allowed to fish. Or to impose quotas, or expensive licenses. All of these are laws designed to stop fishermen from doing what is in their immediate best interest, ie catching and selling fish.

Bottom line: some legislation exists to prevent short term rational behavior in favour of long term rational behavior.

PS This probably ties in with my comments in a different thread on the nature of morality. The long term benefit of legislation is greater than the short term benefit of no legislation, and for more people, so legislation is more "good".

And the long term benefit of Togetherheid and institutional racism (aka Affirmative Action) has been...

WolfmanMac - Are you advocating a total free-for-all? The John Wayne approach: "A man ought to do what he thinks is right."

I don't like to be pedantic, but it helps me if you make your point by constructing complete sentences, and use words whose meaning can be found out. I'm not much good at guessing what your ellipsis means, and "Togetherheid" gets just 117 hits on Google - none of which define it.

But Norman, you can't legislate morality! It's been tried, true, but the bottom line is you cannot make people be morally responsible. It just isn't possible. There will always be people who don't do things the way most other people do them, there will always be people who break the law, there will always be people who think differently than everyone else. Cannot. Legislate. Morality. Can't. Can try perhaps. But in reality, it can't be done. There are too many variables.

Togetherheid - The opposite of apartheid. Roughly put, Apartheid being a system of rigid, governmentally controlled segregation, "Togetherheid" aptly describes the state of race relations in the U.S. - rigid, governmentally controlled integration. My apologies - I'll try to be more literal with you in the future.

Norman says:
WolfmanMac - Are you advocating a total free-for-all?

Try Googling "Strawman." I'll bet you find the definition for that.

I advocate that among the many rights routinely ignored by both parties, the right to freely associate is one that is trampled with the most self serving aplomb. If I own a business - that is my business. if I want to serve you (or not), that too is my business.If I wish to send my children to an inner city school so they can soak up all that "rich cultural diversity," I have every right to do that. I have no right to compel you by force to do the same. If I, as a business owner, wish to hire underqualified black people (or qualified ones for that matter), I have that right. I have no right to compel you to do the same.
People are compelled by the market to conduct their business in ways that are fair or at least defensible.You referred to Adam Smith. I ask you - is it through the benevolence of the butcher that we receive our meat, or through his own self interest? A business known to regularly disciminate, refusing to serve blacks, or gays, will feel the backlash in the form of people refusing to do business there. I wouldn't eat at such a place; I wouldn't buy goods from such a person. Alternatively (and if the last two generations are any indication, this is a slim possibility), groups that "suffer" such discrimination might ask themselves why they are not welcome and change accordingly. Or, god forbid, set up their own businesses (instead of burning them down in those riots you say we would have in the absence of government compulsion and apparently do not have now).
My property is mine, or it is not. If it is mine, I can do what I want with it. If it is not mine, if the government wishes to "liberate" me from the "burden" of ownership and autonomy over my business, my property, my education, my associations, then the same government must incur liability for that. I see the vanishing rights - I don't see the concurrent liability on the part of those who applaud their vanishing.

But back to your original statement - If by "free for all" you mean do I believe people should be free to live where they wish, associate with whom they wish and do business with whom they wish, uh yeah. Thats exactly what I am saying. Until I see those who have the economic power to live anywhere they wish, go to whatever schools they wish and hire anyone they wish living in gang infested neighborhoods, sending their children to wretched inner city schools and hiring people who graduate from those schools, I must conclude I am not alone in that belief - though I may be one of the few who will say so.

...I must conclude I am not alone in that belief - though I may be one of the few who will say so.

Well, I'm saying so, too, WolfmanMac, standing right next to you.

Thank you, Flynne.

I apologize for the break - had to attend to something. I wanted to address the ellipsis Norman found so confusing.
It was there for Norman to finish the sentence justifying government prescription of whom we shall hire, do business and otherwise associate with. You warned of the dire consequences in the absence of government intervention. Riots, wars, etc. Two generations of goverment intervention has resulted in what benefit, exactly? Or even generally? We don't have riots? Wars? Hideous crimes committed against white people, justified by "oppression" and ignored in the media? "Civil Rights Leaders" like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say things have never been worse, and I wouldn't want to argue with men of their integrity. People might call me names.
I'll back off my request for liability concurrent with the imposition on my rights and just ask this - show me some results. That has always been fascism's selling point - that it gets results, gets things done without all the pettifogging anoyances associated with individual rights. So can you tell me how much better off race relations are as a result of Affirmative Action and forced integration? I just don't see it. Looks to me a lot like a free fall.

"Their white skin makes them an instant target. If you think it's tough being black in the ghetto, try being freaking white in one."

Maybe it's their white attitudes.

Some whites like freaking in the ghetto.....ooops....that's not what you meant.

Flynne - I'm not trying to legislate morality. But if we must have laws, they should be chosen for how much good they will do (as far as anyone can tell). Legislation involves morality, even though you can't legislate morality.

WolfMan - My apologies - I'll try to be more literal with you in the future. Thanks. I think we all assume the reader can see the subtleties we are writing, but a lot gets lost in the blog format. My attempt on you also failed. Yes, John Wayne was a straw man - but it was in response to what I saw as a straw man from you.

This keeps getting off the point I was hoping to make, which is that if we all just do what we want, it will lead to social problems. No-one has responded to the overfishing example; I wonder why not. Pointing out cases where laws that were intended to prevent social problems have not worked, does not address the main point.

Wolfman, your argument about it being your business and your property so you'll just do what you like with it, is not a universal truth. It is a description of the laws we have regarding property rights. These laws could be different; they are different in some countries, and you can't just do what you like with your own property anyway.

But yes, the ideal would be for everyone to be able to do exactly what they want. I agree with that as the ideal. (And I like John Wayne.) A lot of our politics is designed, as far as I can see, to find a way of getting as close to that ideal as we can. The closer the better. I'm repeating myself here just to make it clear where I stand!

Interesting discussion BTW. I'm making most of this up as I go. Or exploring my innermost convictions, if you prefer.

My Strawman comment was in reference to your "free for all" comment.

Overfishing - I go out, buy a boat, hire hands to man that boat, necessary equipment, etc. . I begin catching all the fish I can. I find that, unregulated, I can catch (I'll keep round numbers here for simplicity) 10,000 lbs a day. I am selling those fish for a dollar a pound. I see a profit at that amount. Then everybody else starts fishing. Everybody is catching 10,000 lbs a day. Supply overruns demand, and the price drops. Additionally, not as many fish are available which increases my costs and cuts further into my profit. Suddenly, I am no longer seeing a profit. I can continue to do what I am doing and face a slow bleeding of my resources that will eventually lead to bankruptcy OR -
I can start catching crab or lobster. Since everyone else is having those same issues, the pressure comes off the fish and is put on the crab or lobster. The fish population rebounds, the crab and lobster population drops and the cycle repeats itself. The Invisible Hand.

As close to that ideal as possible. Well my friend, you aren't on the highway to the ballpark of that ideal.
If we all just do what we want it will lead to social problems? Hmmm - but with proper regulation we can solve those problems and all will be utopia because we won't have any? That philosophy began in the late 19th century, and should have been completely discredited in the 20th. Alas, it still lives. Furthermore, you have yet to respond to the query I have made in two posts - Do we not have social problems now? How are your laws preventing, ameliorating or solving those social problems?
Again you set up the strawman with this "everybody can just do what they want" business. I never said we should have an anarchy. But, as Lynn Yeakel (I believe it was Lynn Yeakel) said in response to a decision regarding the regulation of abortion rights - "To acknowledge the existence of a fundamental right, and then to put up barriers that prevent the exercise of that right is clearly a contradiction in terms." We are not other countries. We are the U.S., and we fought a war to secure the freedoms contained in the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. Those are fundamental rights.
You are taking the view that the government can impinge upon those rights so long as it can convince you it has a good reason to do it. If you believe that, then here is the hard truth - you have no rights at all. You only have privileges that exist at the whim and pleasure of 51% of the mob. That scenario is precisely what The Bill of Rights was enacted to specifically prevent.
So, once again - what great good has your system provided us or, alternatively, what great evil has it prevented? Slavery was outlawed long before the Civil Rights Act (which we were assured would Never, NEVERRR be used to justify racial quotas in hiring or education). Segregation? Jim Crow? Civil Rights Act and Brown vs. BOE took care of that. So other than buying votes for people who can then in turn use my money and my rights to buy more votes so they can "solve" other social problems, I don't see much of a return on our investment.

Norman: "White flight ... happens when those who have the resources to move out, do so, leaving behind the less well off."

Ah, the classic "wealth is a pie" mis-reasoning. There exists a certain amount of "stuff", the white people have nice neighbourhoods because they "possess all the stuff", and the people in nasty black ghettoes are unable to lift themselves up because they can't get access to the "stuff" required. At least so the argument goes, but it's wrong. There are more than enough "resources" at current population rates for everyone to have nice neighbourhoods, if they just work hard at it.

Why is it that poor Asian families can emigrate to the US with virtually nothing, and with hard work can in just one or two generations almost completely integrate into society, becoming hard-working people living normal lives and building and maintaining decent homes, when those blacks in the ghettoes have been in the US for perhaps 8 or more generations and still can't or won't integrate or build themselves nice neighbourhoods etc.? And they not only already are full-blown citizens with all corresponding rights and opportunities, as citizens of the US they have more rights and opportunities than even us whites in foreign countries can only DREAM of ever having - they are NOT that "underprivileged" that they are "held down" by the system, come to Africa if you want to see "underprivileged" --- then you'll realise how much many opportunities and wealth the average poor American black person really has.

And while you're at it, do you mind explaining how the economics of ocean fishing has any application to the right of the government to tell me where I must send my children to school, who I have to hire, who I have to serve with my private business and who I can and cannot associate with?

Wolfman - Then everybody else starts fishing. Everybody is catching 10,000 lbs a day. Supply overruns demand, and the price drops. Additionally, not as many fish are available which increases my costs and cuts further into my profit. (my emphasis) - that's a contradiction.

Re the Invisible Hand: why are laws against cartels necessary?

David J: wealth is a pie - I wasn't saying that. But if the people who are left behind are poor because they are not so intelligent, there may not be much they can do. And to make this point again: white flight is the sensible thing to do: get out before the value of your property drops, before you are targeted as an individual by some mob.

It's not just a racial thing: anyone who can get out, will do so. There's towns like that near where I live: dull people, horrible architecture, filth, drunkenness, single parent families, unemployment, and so on. I wouldn't want to live there! In this part of the world, 99.9% of people are white, So comparing Asians, Blacks and Whites is irrelevant. It's something about people and their upbringing and environment. Perhaps if you are brought up in a place like that, you find it really hard to value yourself as deserving anything better. Perhaps teachers avoid such places too - trying to teach there would be heartbreaking. These ghettos are self-perpetuating - they persist for many years, and no-one knows how to lift them from the miserable state they are in.

---

Is it not obvious that what's good for the individual might not be for for everyone else? Are you (Wolfman and David J) arguing the reverse, that what's good for the individual is always good for society as a whole?

Norman: "Is it not obvious that what's good for the individual might not be for for everyone else? Are you (Wolfman and David J) arguing the reverse, that what's good for the individual is always good for society as a whole?"

I'm actually just arguing for liberty. And against any laws or arguments that suggest it should be somehow up to some individuals to fix things that other people are supposed to fix, for them - that's slavery. Or that misdirect the "blame". It's not the "rational behaviour of the whites leaving" that "causes" the problems for society, it's the lousy behaviour of the drunk and lazy sorry people that "cause" the problems.

Comparing by race may be irrelevant in your small part of the world only, but it certainly isn't irrelevant when you look at the broader statistics, in fact it becomes a glaring elephant in the room.

My point about liberty being that the goal shouldn't be to try to artificially engineer 'optimal' societies, but about protecting individual liberties/rights. Complaining that the rational behaviour of some individuals allegedly causes problems for 'the good of society as a whole', regardless of the veracity of that claim, is almost irrelevant in this view, where the goal is maintaining the rights of individuals. Artificially engineering a supposedly 'greater good' typically involves limiting the rights of everyone and taking things away from them, these are kinds of slavery.

Sorry, I just realised that 'small part of the world' sounds a bit offensive, that's not how I meant it.

Supply overruns demand, and the price drops. Additionally, not as many fish are available which increases my costs and cuts further into my profit. (my emphasis) - that's a contradiction.

Really Norman. I don't mean to be insulting when I say your critical thinking could use a little tune up. "Not as many fish are available" means "not as many fish are available for each individual fisherman to catch and sell on the open market because more fisherman are catching and selling the fish." The amount of fish on the open market increases or stays constant - the amount of fish available to each individual fisherman with the same amount of effort decreases. I realize this is an internet forum and things get lost in translation - but couldn't you have reasoned that one out for yourself? Especially after injecting Adam Smith and "The Wealth of Nations" into the conversation as you did?

Norman: "Is it not obvious that what's good for the individual might not be for for everyone else? Are you (Wolfman and David J) arguing the reverse, that what's good for the individual is always good for society as a whole?"

To begin with,the strength of the collective is made up of the individuals. If you wish to wax poetic about "minority rights," (which, somewhere in the mist, was the point of this conversation) you should stop to reflect that the constitution was written to protect the rights of the smallest minority there is - the individual. If you say you stand for minority rights, but think individual rights are negotiable, guess what, my friend - you don't stand for minority rights. You stand for the rights of the minority du jour, the minority that it is fashionable or "pragmatic" to care about at any given time. Do you remember this - "when they came for the protestants, I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a protestant...etc." If one individuals rights are abrogated in the name of the collective, noone in the collective enjoys that right - though they may be temporarily in possession of the privilege. "None are free until all are free?" "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere?" Funny how those self evident truths were so widely quoted during apartheid (and are still dusted off when being applied to fashionable minorities), but so quickly abandoned once apartheid (or the issue they are yelling about at the moment) was/is gone and it was again fashionable to speak of "social contracts" and "collective rights."
Speaking of the "social contract." My friend, three things are required for a contract - offer, acceptance and consideration. Pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to conform fulfills none of these elements.
Am I an individual, or am I a society? Are my rights individual or collective rights? Where in the constitution does it state that I as an individual have a responsibility to society? It doesn't. It states the responsibilities of the government to the people and in the Bill of Rights, to me as an individual. I am a free human being. You may appeal to me to give up rights for the good of the collective. You may ask me to help with a social problem, you may lead by example, you may show me the benefits (if any) of living as you do - you have no right to point a gun at me and force me to give up my rights or property in the name of the collective, or your little social vision. We could do a lot of things to solve a lot of problems - but we don't because iot isn't right to do it. If the preservation of a free society is your goal, it makes very little sense to say "we are going to take your freedoms to save your freedoms." Right, right. And you had to "destroy the village in order to save it," right?
But if that isn't your goal, everything you are saying makes perfect sense.
I'm done with this thread now, I have some other things to do.

"Supply overruns demand, and the price drops. Additionally, not as many fish are available which increases my costs and cuts further into my profit."

Maybe you can explain the stock market crash of 1929 using your logic. It appears to me that the invisible hand of self centered individuals should have prevented the crash from happening it. The fact is that the invisible hand did not work as it was supposed to work. That is why we stole some game strategies from Marx's play book. Government owned businesses, social security system, Federal Reserve and unemployment insurance has nothing to do with the invisible hand.

"you have no right to point a gun at me and force me to give up my rights or property in the name of the collective, or your little social vision. "

In fact they do have the right to point a gun at you. The law, which may be unconstitutional, will be enforced with a gun until the Supreme Court find it otherwise. The law is legalized violence.

I don't think you heard the term "eminent domain" before. I am trying to put a fence on my property for my dog but the city officials will not allow it as it does not go with the their "little social vision". Maybe you can help me with this.

The thing with overfishing is well documented - look up "depleted fish stocks" or Tragedy of the commons:

The tragedy of the commons is a type of social trap, often economic, that involves a conflict over finite resources between individual interests and the common good. It states that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately structurally dooms the resource through over-exploitation.

If free access and unrestricted demand causes a problem for everyone, the only solution is to restrict access and/or demand.

In fact they do have the right to point a gun at you. The law, which may be unconstitutional, will be enforced with a gun until the Supreme Court find it otherwise. The law is legalized violence.

I don't think you heard the term "eminent domain" before

Uh yeah, I have Chang. I'm arguing in agreement with you. Read the threads. Having the Power does not give government (the mob) the right. Norman thinks it does. As for the stock market crash - Buddy, even Keynes admitted Keynesian economics was a doomed proposal in the long run. But, in the long run, he said "we're all dead." As far as "didn't work as it was supposed too," how exactly was it supposed to work? If it was supposed to give everybody what they wanted, no, it didn't. But your Marxist playbook doesn't do that either, and is doing a poorer and poorer job as time goes by. You might check out the Gold standard, specifically getting off of it, and the arguments against that. Furthermore, there is more than a little historical evidence that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did because of the Marxist strategies employed to fight it - FDR did not pull us out of the Depression, WW II did. So I think you are jumping halfway into this conversation half cocked, or you are just very confused. I am completely in agreement that you should be able to build your fence, and their "little social vision" should have no power to stop you. That it does is like, no shit.

Norman - the tragedy of the commons - FREE and unrestricted access. Free and unrestricted access. The tragedy of the commons refers to the fact that when all property is communally owned by everyone, no property belongs to anyone, so noone feels any sense of ownership, responsibility or has any vested interest in its upkeep. The Tragedy of The Commons is an argument in favor of privatization, and against government ownership. But I'm just not going to go any further with this unless and until you go back in my threads and answer the questions and engage the points I have presented to you, as I have answered and engaged yours. You are arguing the justifications for ocean fishing in support of Affirmative Action, now you are into the tragedy of the commons to support the same thing. Your argument is stretched so far its screaming, and I've long since grown bored with it.

"As far as "didn't work as it was supposed too," how exactly was it supposed to work?"

You have to feed the peasant. Otherwise, they will revolt and destroy whatever is the system they are in. The French and Russian kings learned it hard way. The middle class, which are well fed, will follow law and order as they do not like the food in prison. Your argument self centered individuals will eventually create utopia is impractical as Marx. You are ignoring the core of animal instincts we all have, which needs to be whipped and disciplined like elephants in circus. Moderation of Keynes and Marx is what we have in U.S.A. And it is working. We are the biggest economy in the world to prove it.

"Furthermore, there is more than a little historical evidence that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did because of the Marxist strategies employed to fight it - FDR did not pull us out of the Depression, WW II did."

FDR's plan worked effectively to keep the Marxism and Fascism at bay until Japanese bombed us. WWII itself did not pull us of the Depression. The fact that we bombed everyone else, so that they had no choice but to buy from us did pull us of the Depression after the WWII.

"You are arguing the justifications for ocean fishing in support of Affirmative Action"

It is related. It is about the whipping the animal instincts in all of us, so that we can tolerate each other. The desire to kill, desire to discriminate, desire to hate... It will not simply go away by simply relying on self centered individuals' rational behaviors.

Affirmative Action is not the answer but the best solution so far we have until the majority feels that the minority group has the fighting chance to survive without it.

WolfmanMac - But I'm just not going to go any further with this unless and until you go back in my threads and answer the questions and engage the points I have presented to you, as I have answered and engaged yours.

A fair point. I'm working 12-hour days just now so I don't have the time to give to this topic, which has grown off in all sorts of directions that I don't know much about. (Not that that stops me having opinions.)

No doubt we'll come back to this another time.