In Defiance Of Diversity, In Defense Of Individual Rights

The Company of One's Kind

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ayn Rand fan? Because

I love Ayn Rand

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you a young, married disciple? She probably loves you too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nice article, Galt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well crap. The millionaire woman can't get into the millionaire golf club. What is the world coming to?

 

confusion over individualism and diversity again?

Diversity IS individualism. Personal preference or prejudices is not an issue as long as it does not inhibit another's legal rights. If one chooses to not observe another's legal right's then I suppose they might as well abandon society. But guess what? U can't. The known, habitable world is habited. LMFAO.:bugeye:

 

Status diversity (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) is based on group identity, not individualism.

"Legal rights" are not necessarily the same as individual rights.

If "legal rights" trample individual rights, maybe that society should be abandoned.

There is always The Free State Project.

 

Ayn Rand is foolish and philosophically uneducated.

"Diversity" is a catchword for uniformity.

 

That's a debatable claim that will result in an endless debate that isn't worth debating.

In a sense, yes.

 

People are free to associate with whom they like and free to dislike whomever they desire for whatever reason. Kate Millet has a writer's colony in upstate NY and men are excluded. Now I have never heard of a writer's community excluding women etc. No one has made a fuss about it, which is understandable. I don't think there is anything wrong with Connery playing golf only with men or having an all male club. Why would anyone care? I like diversity if other's do not it is their business, there is room for everyone. There are many exclusive communities like Hasidic jewry for example, they live outside yet within the framework of a larger society, no one seems bothered by it. They have their own particular stores, hire other's within their clan, live and worship among their own. If they did not it would be impossible for them to sustain their special lifestyle and culture. It does not bother others because they do not infringe on anyones elses freedoms. There is room for everyone in American culture whether they choose to mix or not.

Who would decide which state is the 'free-state'? Would the free-state be its own nation?

 

To: Prozak

How is diversity a catchword for uniformity when all it means is variety? I would think uniformity would come from being entrenched with people who are like oneself culturally.

To me diversity mean being able to eat French, Italian, Thai, Tibetan and Chinese any night of the week, checking out cultural exhibitions, having access to different ideas and perspectives.

Can someone please make it clear exactly in what context the word diversity is being used in this thread.

 

Diversity is used as a catchword for melding together these different traditions, thus assimilating them.

If you didn't see that... well, I'm against democracy, and I realize that not every opinion counts.

 

Unfortunately that isn't true. As I pointed out in our previous discussion on this issue, anti-discrimination laws infringe on our right to private property and freedom of association.

I wonder if a male-only writer's colony would receive the same laissez-faire treatment? As it stands, diversity advocates usually only target institutions dominated by whites and/or males. It isn't uncommon to hear complaints of the "lack of diversity" on American network television or in country clubs, but how often do these same people demand that America's disproportionately non-white professional sports leagues hire more whites and Asians, for example?

I sure don't care. But Barbara Walters and Marth Burk apparently do.

I agree. I don't have any objection at all to associating with people of different races and cultures. I just don't think I should be required to by law.

Again, I agree.

My understanding is that the free-state-to-be will be chosen after 20,000 people sign up.

 

To Prozak who wrote: "Diversity is used as a catchword for melding together these different traditions, thus assimilating them.

If you didn't see that... well, I'm against democracy, and I realize that not every opinion counts."

Okay well we have a different understanding of diversity. If melding occurs then diversity is no longer an issue. Whether someone allows themselves to become assimilated or not is a personal affair (one must relinquish their traditions willingly). I don't think an outside institution can force assimilation which is to take variety and make them similar. I think it is possible to digest from a variety of sources without becoming 'same as'. In your world how do you decide who's opinion counts?

To Galt: Can you give me an example of how anti-discrimination laws interfere with property rights? As far as freedom of association, one may not have a choice in the work place to and public schools to some degree, but outside of that how else is freedom of association impinged? I agree an all male writer's colony would come under attack, but I see no point in such attacks unless ALL writers colonies were male-only dictated by law.

You wrote: "how often do these same people demand that America's disproportionately non-white professional sports leagues hire more whites and Asians, for example?"

Well I guess I agree to some degree. I mean I have always found it interesting that integration of suburban neighborhoods are always focused around blacks & whites but never with Asians or other ethnic groups which naturally tend to live together. There is no demand for other ethnic groups to 'disintegrate'.

Isn't the free-state dependent on the U.S government giving or offering a state? What if the American Indians decide for example that they also have a right to their own state (or perhaps two) because a free-state had been granted?

 

Anti-discrimination laws would make it illegal for a business owner to prohibit people of certain races or religions from entering the premises and/or patronizing the business, thus the most important element of property rights is eliminated.

See above.

Schools should be privatized, by the way.

I agree. But there is an undeniable hypocrisy in that an all-male writer's colony (or an all-male anything) would be demonized by the cultural elite while female-exclusive insitutions are either not commented on or even defended.

Demands for diversity not only deny individualism and trample individual rights, but they are hypocritical in that it is only predominantly white and/or male institutions that are expected to diversify.

The American Constitution protects the right of citizens to travel freely from state to state. Free-staters will move to the selected state and use their status as either the numerical majority or large numerical minority to enact freedom-minded legislation.

 

To Galt: Well I agree with you on some points but I do not think that one has the 'right' in a public establishment to decide who can and cannot enter the establishment or receive services; either it is public service or it is not and the public includes all human beings. I do not adhere to discrimination on any level, in my view it is a step backwards not forwards.

Anyway...it is okay to disagree

PS: As far as the writer's colony is concerned I think it is rare to find an all female arena for creative pursuits. Personally I would not attend an all female writer's colony because I find them too one dimensional, but on the other hand the few that exist do offer opportunities for a type of creative support and nurturance not found in other environments.

 

Welfare and city buses are public services. Pharmacies, clothing stores, restaurants and the like are privately owned businesses on private property.

This boils down to whether you believe my right to my property takes priority over your "right" to my property.

 

To Galt: We see it different. If I go into a Hasidic community and decide to shop at a kosher supermarket for example, I would be serviced though I do not belong to the community. They would service anyone because business is impartial...they have, I pay, I get. To me it is as simple as that. What I understand you as saying is that if you owned a restaurant or clothing store and decided to place a sign outside saying "We only service (fill in the blank)" it is your 'right' because you own the store. Okay, well I am more interested in living in a peaceful society than creating divisions where there need not be any. Do I think you have a fundamental 'right' to service only specific groups while excluding others? Well yes you do, the difference in our perspective I believe is based on what we view is best overall for this society. I see this society as multi-cultural so I do not perceive your 'right' to discriminate as more important than the direction the society is headed. Now if you had a store with a "We only service..." I would be the last person to picket or throw stones or sue, but I can afford to feel that way. I am mobile, have choices, can leave one community and go to another, leave one country and go to another. Some others may not have such freedom and therefore feel an impetuous to fight against something which excludes them.

PS: I dont think it is a matter of someone having a right to your property but an equal right to service which you hypothetically provide.

 

Quote: discrimination laws would make it illegal for a business owner to prohibit people of certain races or religions from entering the premises and/or patronizing the business, thus the most important element of property rights is eliminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a scenario: I have my own privately owned pharmacy, and at hand, the only drug to cure the AIDS virus. You are saying that as the owner of that store, I should be able to deny people based on race, or religion access to my store, and thus to the drug? You have to understand that we live in a society and each individual is dependent on this society. Before you object, u should first realize this forum is not yours. Ur pc was not designed by you. The electricity running your pc is not maintained by you, etc

You either pay or are privy to those services because you are a member of the society. Therefore if you maintain a service that is beneficial to the society, once you open that service to the public, you cannot discrimminate against members of the population able to purchase or use those services.

Quote:
Unfortunately that isn't true. As I pointed out in our previous discussion on this issue, anti-discrimination laws infringe on our right to private property and freedom of association.

Absolute bullshit. Property laws and the freedom of association are two completely different things. There is a difference between your house and your store. Your store solicits the services of he public and as such cannot discrimminate. Your house is yours alone and u can deny access to whom ever you choose. You can associate with the KKK if choose to, there is no law prohibiting that. BUT U CANNOT AS LONG AS A MEMBER OF THIS SOCIETY INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS BASED ON RACE RELIGION (ideally, anyway). Meaning, regardless of whether or not you built you own company from ground up, you cannot ONLY hire white men between the ages of 20-25 because you choose to; not unless the jobs require that: for example an "escort" service featuring white males between 20-25.

What barbara walters says is not freaking law.

Rand, Rand, Rand, Rand, Rand, I am tired of this bitch. Everything she ever wrote is marred with her experiences of Communism. Oh and how freaking bad there were. Give me a freaking break!
Each individual must make their own path, Yes. But more importantly, each individual must be given the OPPORTUNITY to make their path. Which means although your PARENTS, not you, can afford an expensive private school with everything, some poor kid in New Orleans cannot. This kid obviously will never get the same education, but society as he is a part of it, must try to make sure he at least gets an opporunity at an credible education.

Rand misundertands or refuses to accept in her sheltered life the realities of racial, religious and class discrimmination. Galt from Atlas Shrugged is at best a parody of Rand's close-minded idealism. You must be able to reconcile individualism with the rights of others in a society.

Diversity: => diverse
Webster:
Main Entry: di·verse
Pronunciation: dI-'v&rs, d&-', 'dI-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English divers, diverse, from Old French & Latin; Old French divers, from Latin diversus, from past participle of divertere
Date: 14th century
1 : differing from one another : UNLIKE
2 : composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities
synonym see DIFFERENT
- di·verse·ly adverb
- di·verse·ness noun

To be an individual is to be different from the masses. Diversity of the masses implies individualism. Simply because a group chooses to for its own PR, to redefine the term at its whim does not change the fact.

 

To Fountainhead:

The above is a thorough, clear and concise explanation of the viewpoint I was trying to express. So glad there are people out there smarter than I am

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: I don't think Rand is so bad. She offers some interesting insights if one tempers the ideology and not carry it to extremes.

 

A few remarks


Ayn Rand = Scientology without the science

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...You will grow over it, trust me.