Author Archives: andreww

It is interesting and disappointing to imagine what the current atmosphere of race relations in this country could have been had society continued on the course of capitalism as it had in the past two centuries. But instead the rise of collectivism and the fall of individualism reversed man’s achievements regarding equality and instead thrust to the forefront the differences between races, as irrelevant as they may be. During the civil rights era, the African American leadership had a shift in priorities that has had lasting influence on race relations today. It’s no coincidence that with the rise of collectivism, came demands for affirmative action.

Affirmative action is the process of giving priority to minorities, over equal or greater candidates, opportunities for education and work. In short, affirmative action is racism. In order to understand the relationship of affirmative action and the evil it means to combat we must first understand what is racism. Racism is the belief that a man’s morals are defined not by his actions or by his character, but instead by his genetic lineage. It is crucial to note that racism suggests that a man can be judged by the actions or character of his ancestors simply due to a common genetic source, regardless of environmental factors.  A result of this line of thinking is “common racial guilt” where a racist makes an individual feel responsible for the actions his ancestor, or simply a member of the same skin color may have committed. This is where we can draw the connection to affirmative action. In a situation where two individuals are equally qualified, but one is a minority and one is white, affirmative action requires that the opportunity be given to the minority because of a history of discrimination to that persons race. Not to that individual minority, but to his ancestors. The implications of this line of thinking condemns the white individual for not having ancestors discriminated against, so the solution becomes to discriminate against him? This a gross injustice that further promotes racism as it brings to light the importance of genetics in individual opportunity. Most importantly this process takes away the individual rights of people not fitting the parameters required of affirmative action. African American’s argument towards equality rested on their rights as individuals but as soon as they started demanding the rights of others, especially ones not responsible for the discrimination of African Americans, they lose all basis of their ethical and moral demands.

Universities are some of the biggest proponents of affirmative action. I would not like to debate the benefits of affirmative action on the individuals that are selected as there is little doubt they receive great benefit. Instead I think it is important to address the risk of supporting such a system on the code of ethics of men. I believe that any system that encourages the idea that a group has more rights than an individual is evil and immoral. I believe that only through supporting individual rights, capitalism and prioritizing our own values over the actions of our ancestors can everyone benefit from a competitive society.

It is no surprise that in our altruistic society, where our elected officials are overly concerned with goals of padding societies productivity, government is given power beyond its purpose. The only ethical function of government is to protect man’s rights, and far too frequently the government interferes with individual’s ability to prosper and pursue their values. The government has no place influencing the processes by which individuals or corporations trade, except to protect people’s rights to the property being manufactured and traded. Trade is the most ethical form of relationships that individuals develop, but only when it is uncoerced and unburdensome to both parties.

President-elect Trump has plans to enact tariffs on many of the United States trading partners, a protectionist, collectivist and reactionary approach to the economic woes of the country.  It is a gross transgression that tariff enforcement falls under executive privilege in a capitalist society, and is a product of excessive government presence in our lives. Before even considering the rights violations imparted upon free trading individuals, Trump’s tariffs can be rejected from the stance of rational self-interest. These policies are simply collectivist appeasement disguised as strength. The hope is that through higher import taxes, either more jobs are created in America or American manufactures receive more business over the more competitive international market. The individual consumer is being sacrificed for the benefit of outdated workers and firms that can’t compete in the market. Instead of being forced to think and adapt, they are being handed the means to survival.

Enacting tariffs may not seem radical since they have been done before, but the President-elect has threatened to start trade wars with other nations and these tariffs are just one weapon in his arsenal. Trump’s rhetoric suggests he has no interest in free trade, and would rather force partners into deals that might benefit the United States but likely risk sacrificing the freedom of the American people. While individuals’ economic rights are not as clear cut as their property rights, there is a clear risk to the freedoms that give people the ability to achieve satisfaction in trade, and may compromise their values. This is not the same compromise of negotiating a price among traders that meets the demand of the good, but instead unjust limitations on the goods available and as a result their competitive price. A tariff aims to promote trade with certain parties and restrict it with others, often encouraging manufacturing and trade within a country. This drives up prices either because: imported goods are heavily taxed and their consumer prices rise to reflect that, or increased manufacturing in the U.S. increases demand for labor, driving up wages upon already higher labor costs which also increases prices. To an individual, these policies simply limit his access to competitive pricing and it does not benefit him to purchase his goods from an American over a foreigner. If the individual must compromise between a fair deal, one of their choosing without inflated prices, or an unfair deal, there is no good in such a compromise.