Morals of Racial Self-determination

[Darryl_P]

I wouldn't mind hearing some opinions on this, particularly from theists or anyone else who consciously follows a well-defined moral code.

Specifically, the question is:

Consider a group of people who consider themselves members of the white race and suppose they would like to form their own country.

The country would only grant residency and citizenship to whites but would grant tourism visas and other temporary visas for others in limited cases.

It would have a non-violence policy and would constitutionally forbid any sort of weaponry beyond what is necessary for self-defense. There would be no WMD and any UN weapons inspectors would always be welcome.

The land would be acquired by legal means only, ie. by purchasing it on the open market at market prices.

There would be an open free-trade policy with other western nations and anyone else willing to enter into such a reciprocal agreement.

The citizens of this nation all agree with their own laws.

Beyond restricting access of non-whites onto their territory, they have no ambitions to aggress against any race anwhere else in the world, nor do they have anything negative to say about them except that they'd prefer not to live among them.

Is there anything in this type of self-determination that violates any moral codes? If so, what? Would your answer be the same if it were some other race besides whites who wanted to do this? If not, why not?


Parenthetical remark:

Let's not get concerned about logistical issues like race not being 100% well defined, or certain laws not being enforcable. Assume the citizens of this country made their own definition of race that can be tested objectively like with some futuristic DNA device, say. Assume there is also an efficient means of enforcement. I'm interested in the moral aspects, not the logistics.

[hmkpoker]

You have laws.

Because it's ridiculous to believe that everyone will agree with said laws, you need to employ some method of enforcing them.

If said methods are funded with taxes, yes, the whole thing is immoral.

[Metric]

How is this different from a family that for some reason doesn't allow people of a certain race to visit their house? The land was obtained in the same way, and the rules agreed upon by the family. One might accuse them of being a bit strange, but accusing them of being immoral would certainly be a stretch.

[Sharkey]

If what they’re doing doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, then on what grounds could there be any objections?

[Jdanz]

meh, i wouldn't like the formation of this state but i wouldn't oppose it.

I tend to think in a pretty realativistic way about morals, however personally i'd find it morally objectable on the ground of systematically unequal treatment of people i consider equal.

I would not be opposed to people who wished to impose economic sanctions (ehhhh i'm really not firm on this) as a means of encouraging abandonment of this policy, but i'd be against anything compulsory.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's ridiculous to believe that everyone will agree with said laws, you need to employ some method of enforcing them.

If said methods are funded with taxes, yes, the whole thing is immoral.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it be ridiculous that everyone agrees with the laws? If an Island nation has no AIDS, no crime, and everyone in resident is rich, why would anyone care if this nation discriminated based on purple, pink, or orange skin. If the governing committee doesn't want some strange color on their Island, and everything else is copesthetic, why would anyone care?

[Darryl_P]

So what you're basically saying is that if it operates as an AC society, then it's ok, otherwise it's immoral?

If so, then you're basically saying the racial self-determination in itself is not immoral, right?

I deliberately phrased it so that it could be an AC society precisely to focus on the one issue.

It looks like the responses so far are quite reasonable and intelligent, probably because this forum has a much higher average IQ than the general population. I have a feeling that if the idea were put before the general public, though, there would be a lot of controversy, most of it highly irrational.

[bunny]

I cant see anything inherently immoral with the setup you describe.

[uk0202]

Darryl you're a freaking moron. People like you disgust me. Everything is wrong with your "theory". Its like debating with the tailban. Just no sense..

[MidGe]

Sort of apartheid at the next level up.

Immoral, imo.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant see anything inherently immoral with the setup you describe.


[/ QUOTE ]
This of course would be a significant problem if members of the offending color were indigenous to the country that the white folks wished to make their own.

[yukoncpa]

Permanent residency on the Cayman Islands is not based on color but is very discriminatory. You must deposit $180,000 in one of their financial institutes. You must submit a doctor’s certificate of health, and you must have a judge attest that you have no criminal convictions. Etc, etc. Are they being immoral? Does anyone living on the Island care?
see residency (http://cayman.com.ky/cayman.htm)

edit: according to the CIA's report, there is no AIDs on this island to speak of and almost no violent crime.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cant see anything inherently immoral with the setup you describe.


[/ QUOTE ]
This of course would be a significant problem if members of the offending color were indigenous to the country that the white folks wished to make their own.

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP seems to assume this by stating that all the property was bought at market prices.

I also don't seen anything immoral with this at first glance. But even if I personally thought it was immoral, I wouldnt' want to force someone else to bend to my morals because I wouldn't want the same done to me. Do unto others and all that...

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
If what they’re doing doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, then on what grounds could there be any objections?

[/ QUOTE ]

This really makes me laugh, sorry.

Theists can say it's okay and not immoral to have a land that excludes others based on skin color, because "hey it's your land, as long as you don't violate anyone's rights." At the same time, many of these same Christians will argue that two men having sex in their own house is immoral, or all the gazillion other sins which infringe on nobody else's rights. Apparently, victimless sins are immoral, overt racism excluded. So much for loving thy neighbor.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If what they’re doing doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, then on what grounds could there be any objections?

[/ QUOTE ]

This really makes me laugh, sorry.

Theists can say it's okay and not immoral to have a land that excludes others based on skin color, because "hey it's your land, as long as you don't violate anyone's rights." At the same time, many of these same Christians will argue that two men having sex in their own house is immoral, or all the gazillion other sins which infringe on nobody else's rights. Apparently, victimless sins are immoral, overt racism excluded. So much for loving thy neighbor.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you didnt say all theists and I assume you dont have a problem with deeming this situation moral providing other victimless sins are also deemed moral? Certainly this is a reasonable statement of my position - the islanders are doing nothing wrong, neither are the homosexual lovers (or heterosexual lovers using contraception, etc etc)

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If what they’re doing doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, then on what grounds could there be any objections?

[/ QUOTE ]

This really makes me laugh, sorry.

Theists can say it's okay and not immoral to have a land that excludes others based on skin color, because "hey it's your land, as long as you don't violate anyone's rights." At the same time, many of these same Christians will argue that two men having sex in their own house is immoral, or all the gazillion other sins which infringe on nobody else's rights. Apparently, victimless sins are immoral, overt racism excluded. So much for loving thy neighbor.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you didnt say all theists and I assume you dont have a problem with deeming this situation moral providing other victimless sins are also deemed moral? Certainly this is a reasonable statement of my position - the islanders are doing nothing wrong, neither are the homosexual lovers (or heterosexual lovers using contraception, etc etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I included "many of these Christians" to account for the many exceptions, as well--including you, as I have learned. The "Lets talk about gay sex" thread was still in my mind as I posted. At its core, however, the Bible is rife with examples of victimless sins--including the ultimate sin of non-belief. It is completely incompatible in my mind to believe that this is not immoral, but also believe that living a good life but just not accepting Jesus as savior is worthy of eternal suffering.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP seems to assume this by stating that all the property was bought at market prices.


[/ QUOTE ]
Just need to be careful by what you mean by market prices. Manhattan was purchased at market. In the 1970's, the Alaskan Native Settlement act estabished a "market price" for the natives, but how was this price set and who agreed to it and by what authority?

edit: My point being, that the federal government was a complete bully in this matter and there was no chance at a fair price being set.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If what they’re doing doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, then on what grounds could there be any objections?

[/ QUOTE ]

This really makes me laugh, sorry.

Theists can say it's okay and not immoral to have a land that excludes others based on skin color, because "hey it's your land, as long as you don't violate anyone's rights." At the same time, many of these same Christians will argue that two men having sex in their own house is immoral, or all the gazillion other sins which infringe on nobody else's rights. Apparently, victimless sins are immoral, overt racism excluded. So much for loving thy neighbor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether two men doing private and consensual whatever is a sin or not is between them and their Creator. No third parties have any standing in the matter.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Just need to be careful by what you mean by market prices. Manhattan was purchased at market. In the 1970's, the Alaskan Native Settlement act estabished a "market price" for the natives, but how was this price set and who agreed to it and by what authority?

[/ QUOTE ]
Market prices aren't "set" by some "authority". By "buying the land legally and at market prices" I took that to mean the buyers made an offer free of coercion and the natives (assuming there even were natives) accepted.

[ QUOTE ]
My point being, that the federal government was a complete bully in this matter and there was no chance at a fair price being set.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then the fed fails the non-coercion test and probably the market price test.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Then the fed fails the non-coercion test and probably the market price test.


[/ QUOTE ]
My point entirely, Governments will always fail the non-coercion test. Indiginous populations will always be fuc*ed.

edit: indiginous populations of conquered lands will always be fuc*ed.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Governments will always fail the non-coercion test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the need for constitutional limitations on government.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether two men doing private and consensual whatever is a sin or not is between them and their Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the source of morality in your book?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether two men doing private and consensual whatever is a sin or not is between them and their Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the source of morality in your book?

[/ QUOTE ]

The source that counts. What other could there be?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Governments will always fail the non-coercion test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the need for constitutional limitations on government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Constitutional limitations on gov't do not eliminate coercion. Gov't's "right" to coerce is written into our constitution...

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Governments will always fail the non-coercion test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the need for constitutional limitations on government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Constitutional limitations on gov't do not eliminate coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but they impose the counterforce of law.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Constitutional limitations on gov't do not eliminate coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but they impose the counterforce of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol... your posts keep getting better and better.

[Sharkey]

Unlike yours.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Governments will always fail the non-coercion test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the need for constitutional limitations on government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Constitutional limitations on gov't do not eliminate coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but they impose the counterforce of law.

[/ QUOTE ]
The law is not the counteforce. It's often just codified coercion.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Governments will always fail the non-coercion test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the need for constitutional limitations on government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Constitutional limitations on gov't do not eliminate coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but they impose the counterforce of law.

[/ QUOTE ]
The law is not the counteforce. It's often just codified coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on who’s making the laws.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Governments will always fail the non-coercion test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the need for constitutional limitations on government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Constitutional limitations on gov't do not eliminate coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but they impose the counterforce of law.

[/ QUOTE ]
The law is not the counteforce. It's often just codified coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on who’s making the laws.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most likely not. Especially in today's political climate. Both parties desperately want to coerce other people.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Immoral, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you care to explain why? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just genuinely curious.

Under apartheid, whites exercised systematic coercive control over the blacks. In my scenario that does not happen. To me that's the key difference. Or is there something else I'm not seeing?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Darryl you're a freaking moron. People like you disgust me. Everything is wrong with your "theory". Its like debating with the tailban. Just no sense..

[/ QUOTE ]

How about giving me the benefit of the doubt and assuming I listen to reason? I'm not really looking to debate this myself, although I wouldn't mind seeing others debate it.

But it looks like the majority don't see much to debate, and the two guys who disagree haven't put together any arguments.

Would the taliban co-operate with weapons inspectors and have an open free trade policy? I doubt it. But my society might well be able to negotiate with BOTH the muslim extremists AND the west, so it might just be the ticket to world peace!

[Jdanz]

i said i wouldn't do anything about it, as it's not actively harming other people.

I think the attitude and the entire concept is harmful, but doing anything about it would imho be more harmful.

The people of this island in my opinion are commiting a wrong, but anyone who tried to compel them to stop it, would be committing a greater wrong.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't mind hearing some opinions on this, particularly from theists or anyone else who consciously follows a well-defined moral code.

Specifically, the question is:

Consider a group of people who consider themselves members of the white race and suppose they would like to form their own country.

The country would only grant residency and citizenship to whites but would grant tourism visas and other temporary visas for others in limited cases.

It would have a non-violence policy and would constitutionally forbid any sort of weaponry beyond what is necessary for self-defense. There would be no WMD and any UN weapons inspectors would always be welcome.

The land would be acquired by legal means only, ie. by purchasing it on the open market at market prices.

There would be an open free-trade policy with other western nations and anyone else willing to enter into such a reciprocal agreement.

The citizens of this nation all agree with their own laws.

Beyond restricting access of non-whites onto their territory, they have no ambitions to aggress against any race anwhere else in the world, nor do they have anything negative to say about them except that they'd prefer not to live among them.

Is there anything in this type of self-determination that violates any moral codes? If so, what? Would your answer be the same if it were some other race besides whites who wanted to do this? If not, why not?


Parenthetical remark:

Let's not get concerned about logistical issues like race not being 100% well defined, or certain laws not being enforcable. Assume the citizens of this country made their own definition of race that can be tested objectively like with some futuristic DNA device, say. Assume there is also an efficient means of enforcement. I'm interested in the moral aspects, not the logistics.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think it's immoral. But if it were a stateless (or nearly stateless) society, and if everythign was purchased legitimately, etc., then there is no reason why this shouldn't be allowed to happen.

[Darryl_P]

OK fair enough, but could you help me reconcile this:

[ QUOTE ]
as it's not actively harming other people.


[/ QUOTE ]

with this?

[ QUOTE ]
I think the attitude and the entire concept is harmful

[/ QUOTE ]

ie. how is it non-actively harmful? By promoting racial segregation in other places which may lead to violence by others maybe?

If so, then wouldn't that be equivalent to a heated debate on TV being immoral because it may encourage heated debates at home which may turn physical in some cases?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's immoral. But if it were a stateless (or nearly stateless) society, and if everythign was purchased legitimately, etc., then there is no reason why this shouldn't be allowed to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK fair enough, but could you explain WHY it's immoral? I assume it's because some people are being wronged unjustly by the situation. Who would these people be and how are they being wronged? The only ones I can see are poor folk who may have lost a source of financial support, but to say they are being wronged is to say that they have an entitlement to that support. Is that what you believe or is there something else to it that I'm not seeing?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Permanent residency on the Cayman Islands is not based on color but is very discriminatory. You must deposit $180,000 in one of their financial institutes. You must submit a doctor’s certificate of health, and you must have a judge attest that you have no criminal convictions. Etc, etc. Are they being immoral? Does anyone living on the Island care?


[/ QUOTE ]

Based on a quick read of your link it looks like that is just one of the ways to get residency there and by no means the only way. The others are if you work there, get married to a citizen, or otherwise have family there. It looks very similar to US immigration in fact. The US also has an immigration category (http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/residency/investment.htm#eligibility) for entrepreneurs who invest $1 million or more.

Besides, it is well known that the number of "residents" of the Caymans is much greater than the number of people living there because the vast majority get the residency for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes. So it's a completely different situation from what I described.

[MidGe]

Heya Darryl_P,

Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_re_us/catholic_town;_ylt=AuCmw3HHXgZkYaMwSzYoUAOs0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-) is one that may be more (but not exactly or for the same motives) like what you had in mind. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Darryl_P]

Reminds me of a scene from Spaceballs:

"Unfair to the payer, but fair to the payee."

"and you're going to pay it, or else."

"Or else what?"

"Tell him, Vinny"

"Or else Pizza will send out for you!"

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
"Or else Pizza will send out for you!"

[/ QUOTE ]


/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Jdanz]

it's passive harm, it's not as though these people are actively harming any particular (i'm just gonna use black to make these semantically easier, feel free to replace with anything else) black man.

Really i think it is a somewhat hateful and myopic idea, but i would certainly be for anyone's right to have/express it. I think that racist notions in and of themselves are hurtful to society at large, and this would just be one more, and particularly systematic way of creating division among people.

God i'm hung over, i'm sorry if this doesn't make much sense, i'll try to do better later.

[12AX7]

I don't believe it's immoral.

I believe you will catch some hypocritical flames though.

It appears to me that all groups except whites are allowed to have race pride and band together. This, unfortunately, is the legacy of the Third Reich. (And sadly, some folks think they want to recreate the Third Reich. Somewhat misguided I think, though Separatism may not be, based on crime figures, etc.)

Consider how many groups have the word "Black" in them that are not harassed. NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers), National Black MBA Association, the list is immense.

Create a similarly structured organization with "White" in the title and Nazi allegations are sure to occur.

For a real life example... IBM had diversity groups... including a "White Men's" group and BBS. No one joined. We all know that whites are not allowed to be proud of being white, right?

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Groups of "Race X" can exist, then groups of the White Race are equally as fair.

Separatism is not immoral, IMHO. People should be allowed to choose thier association freely, "For any reason or no reason" to use the At Will Employment model, which has long standing in European/American countries.

Of course, I'm defining Separatism to mean, "They just want away for other groups at thier own discretion." Which is different from Supremecist groups that want to *force* thier agenda on other. In this definition of Separatism, the goal is simply to stay away from, not oppress. However, the problem therein, is that the laws of the land (here in the US) really don't permit any option but White Flight. So in the end, all the blacks have to do is show up and they essentially end up taking over.

Face it, the tide in racism today is Anti-White. Whether people are capable of seeing that is another matter altogether.

[Darryl_P]

Wow! Nice post! Anyone else capable and willing to write something equally detailed and intelligent representing the other side? Or is it safe to say your post represents the consensus opinion here?

[Jdanz]

i can't really take the time for an intelligent answer now, but in short the reason why it's different for white people as opposed to black people is because history exists.

I agree in principal, but we're not starting with a blank slate and there are all sorts of consequences (IMHO).

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
i can't really take the time for an intelligent answer now, but in short the reason why it's different for white people as opposed to black people is because history exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting angle, but don't you find it odd that modern political correctness cherry picks which elements of history it wants to assume will continue (like whites abusing blacks) and which ones will change (like gays becoming accepted in society as responsible parents, say)??

If you could find the time to expand a bit more, though, I'd definitely appreciate it.

[chezlaw]

I think this is a cracking good idea.

Not sure if it invalidates your criteria but here's a problem. Suppose a girl is born into this society, comes to own some property and establishes some sort of life. On a holiday she becomes pregnant and has an unacceptable child. She wants to keep the child and her home. Forced emigration? What if no other country will take her?

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if it invalidates your criteria but here's a problem. Suppose a girl is born into this society, comes to own some property and establishes some sort of life. On a holiday she becomes pregnant and has an unacceptable child. She wants to keep the child and her home. Forced emigration? What if no other country will take her?


[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I'd imagine a lot would depend on the girl's attitude. If she still pledges allegiance to the nation's values and vows to prove it somehow and raise her child accordingly, then both she and the child could be granted citizenship. (The child could then be tested again independently upon reaching adulthood with similar rules applying). The rule would only be absolute at the start, ie. "whites only, no exceptions" and later develop into "whites fairly easily, others under very limited and special conditions", as situations evolve. No matter how much one loves one's own race, one must recognize that some minimal level of genetic diversity has to be good in the long run, as long as core values are not compromised.

Failing that, then deportation might be in order, probably to a country which disagrees with our policies. We would naturally provide some financial assistance to minimize the burden on the other country. If no such price exists that we are willing to pay and that some other country would be willing to accept, then there would probably be an entrepreneurial opportunity to create a country precisely to accommodate such people!

[The Don]

Who owns the property? Does one group own the entire thing or do individuals own specific pieces of land within the border?

[Double Down]

I don't know if I would use the term "immoral" but I think what doesn't quite make sense to me is that if you really were able to find a bunch of people who wanted to create a good, safe working society where all of the laws were agreed upon, odds are that they would be pretty socially conscious people who wouldn't have the desire to exclude people from this utopia for something like their skin color, which they have absolutely no control over.

The example just doesn't make sense. Progressive minded people like this probably wouldn't take race into consideration. They would be spending their efforts more on finding other like minded individuals.

All of that aside, (yes I realize the whole situation is just a big hypothetical) yes, I think that it's immoral to deprive someone of an opportunity to live in a good, functioning society based on their race, which says nothing of their character or moral code.
It could also lead to other problems, because isolation from certain groups would lead to ignorance about them. A group of white folks who lived just with each other might have very skewed perceptions about other cultures (ie most Americans' knowledge of the Middle East, and vice versa)

I think that a large reason for many of the problems in the world is the way that people group together, thus excluding others. We need to raise our consciousness beyond that, and realize that there is no "my people" and "your people".

I realize that humans naturally group together, but it is not only from attraction by similarity, but equally out of a fear of exclusion from whom we differ.
No, what you propose is not "immoral". Immoral is not the right word. But it is certainly far from what we are capable of in regards to peace and harmony.

Another example, I wouldn't say that it is immoral to not give a homeless guy a buck. But it's far from the greatest good you could do.

Sorry, I know I can sometimes trail off into idealistic hippy talk, but it seems like so many times we observe the world around us and say, "This is human nature, it is inevitable." instead of going into the scary unknown and raising ourselves up to be better than that.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Who owns the property? Does one group own the entire thing or do individuals own specific pieces of land within the border?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure about how this would work since I have trouble grasping this whole property ownership concept. Does anyone own property in America now? On the surface it seems so since transactions are made in which people buy and sell property. Yet on the other hand the government sets certain conditions and can take it away if certain ugly scenarios materialize.

If I were in charge of such a society I think I'd leave the property ownership question open and let the people decide, keeping in mind the necessity of having both individual goals and societal goals which sometimes conflict with one another.

Sorry for not giving a less fuzzy answer but I really don't know how to resolve such a question.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really sure about how this would work since I have trouble grasping this whole property ownership concept. Does anyone own property in America now? On the surface it seems so since transactions are made in which people buy and sell property. Yet on the other hand the government sets certain conditions and can take it away if certain ugly scenarios materialize.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are the contents of your wallet a future mugger's property? They might coerce you into giving it to them, but that doesn't make it theirs to begin with.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . keeping in mind the necessity of having both individual goals and societal goals which sometimes conflict with one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no societal goals, there are only the goals of the individuals in power in the society, which they decree to be societal goals.

[12AX7]

So because of history, those of us who had nothing to do with slavery or Nazi Germany are to have our rights effectively curtailed?

I don't think an response that calls that "fair" can be made.

Reparations strikes me as an intersting example.

OK, suppose decendants of southern whites are made to repay the blacks. Should those blacks now give me reparations for the deaths of my ancestors that fought on the side of the north?

If so then where does it end? Perhaps the Pope owes me for the Roman occupation of England around the year 1000?

Funny, a surgery on me came out wrong aftert a car wreck. I lived with it for a few years, learning to walk again. Finally I called a lawyer to find out if I was entitled to a repair operation. I was told, "Sorry 2.5 years has gone by. That's the statute of limitations on Medical Malpractise".

2.5 years, interesting. Slavery ended how long ago? Yet I'm still somewhat disabled and alive today.

So from my perspective, there is *no* valid argument why *I* should have to take the short end of the stick for something I had nothing to do with.

Yet, any response you make will, undoubtedly, make that assertion.

I'd really like to say, "FYP", but I won't. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

After all, I've not seen your reply, and it's possible you may argue along the lines of, "The reason it's different for whites now is that history exists... but that doesn't make it fair nor correct."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if it invalidates your criteria but here's a problem. Suppose a girl is born into this society, comes to own some property and establishes some sort of life. On a holiday she becomes pregnant and has an unacceptable child. She wants to keep the child and her home. Forced emigration? What if no other country will take her?


[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I'd imagine a lot would depend on the girl's attitude. If she still pledges allegiance to the nation's values and vows to prove it somehow and raise her child accordingly, then both she and the child could be granted citizenship. (The child could then be tested again independently upon reaching adulthood with similar rules applying). The rule would only be absolute at the start, ie. "whites only, no exceptions" and later develop into "whites fairly easily, others under very limited and special conditions", as situations evolve. No matter how much one loves one's own race, one must recognize that some minimal level of genetic diversity has to be good in the long run, as long as core values are not compromised.

Failing that, then deportation might be in order, probably to a country which disagrees with our policies. We would naturally provide some financial assistance to minimize the burden on the other country. If no such price exists that we are willing to pay and that some other country would be willing to accept, then there would probably be an entrepreneurial opportunity to create a country precisely to accommodate such people!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm struggling to imagine a society formed because people want an all white society accepting a black child in the manner you suggest and there not being a problem.

Maybe just a lack of imagination on my part.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no societal goals, there are only the goals of the individuals in power in the society, which they decree to be societal goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if all the individuals agree and accept that the power being used is in their interest? There doesn't have to be any taxation or physical coercion. The assumption is that the people will be willing to co-operate, including voluntarily giving up some of their own property in some cases to satisfy the needs of others.

In any case I deliberately left the property rights question open, partly because it's too fuzzy a concept for me, and partly because I'm not looking for another AC debate. If most of the individuals forming the society happened to be AC types, then I don't see why it couldn't operate as an AC society.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Are the contents of your wallet a future mugger's property? They might coerce you into giving it to them, but that doesn't make it theirs to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK you got me here. I was thinking of land and so I guess I should have made that more clear.