There can be no serious question that the black people suffer greatly in this nation, and that this should be cause for much concern. Yet, who is to blame?
When black people are victimized, who is normally the aggressor? Another black person. If a black kid gets shot, it was a black kid who pulled the trigger. If a black girl gets raped, it was usually a black kid who did it. They are robber and robbed.
As I ponder this, it seems obvious to me that there are two ways to look at this situation: we can look at it in a static fashion, as if an abstraction once formed could be assumed to forever represent reality; and we can look at it as a dynamic situation, in which even small changes can produce large and unintended consequences. We can live in a fantasy world, or in the world which actually exists.
In the fantasy world, all negatives must result from a positive somewhere else. If someone somewhere else has things better, then they must have taken from the less well-off person. This farcical statement is always made with no serious effort at determining how, physically, this could happen.
With black people, the claim always made is “racism”. What is the mechanism of this supposed racism? Are they thousands of huge factories located in black ghettoes who just don’t hire “colored” folk? That was true of FDR’s world, whose supporters were quite open in their racism–and why most all black people voted Republican–but that is not true today.
The black family is gone. An average kid has perhaps a one in ten chance of growing up in a two parent household, and distressingly large numbers of kids don’t even know their fathers.
What is the solution? Well, why do the fathers leave? They leave because they can’t support their kids, and because of cultural conditioning. The two are related. How can they support their kids? Obviously, if they can find well paying work. The solution is more and better jobs.
In the real world, what one has to ask is: what are the barriers to more and better jobs? What are they?
Well, why do businesses do what they do? Are they not trying to make money in competitive conditions?
Logically, a two pronged approach is needed. First, we need to make it easier to make money for businesses, and we need to make black neighborhoods more attractive business-wise. This leads to a number of conclusions I will partially itemize.
First, we need monetary reform. I have discussed my reasoning here. This is the big picture. This makes our real money expand, and addresses the only real problem which might justify Leftist anti-business rhetoric.
Second, most ghettoes have been created by anti-business activists under the tenet that money could be permanently reallocated by redistributive taxation. In my view, corporations should pay NO taxes. None. The Unions which are strangely (not really) exempted from rules against lobbying still manage tax exempt status. Imagine if you will that you had to pay a tax for the privilege of having a job, then another tax on your actual income. This is how things work for corporations: the entity itself is taxed, then the income of its employees is taxed again. This should stop. In exchange for tax relief they–and unions–lose their ability to lobby directly. Their members can still do whatever they want.
What the Fantasyland thinkers imagine is that wealth is more or less stored in a locked room, and that it just sits there. Logically, they think, why not take that money, which is not needed, and give it to someone who is hungry? Socialists do this all the time, and always economic activity declines. They get a higher percentage of a much smaller pool. Why is this?
The problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of systems in motion. What is being taken is not wealth, but creative possibility. If I am a billionaire, you can take my billions, but you lose the next company I was going to create, employing thousands.
There is no way to sustainable, generalized wealth except through healthy corporations who pay their employees well. In my view, the end goal is that every individual in the world is their own corporation, making their control of their time, assets and creative energy entirely their own, but for the foreseeable future we are stuck with larger employers.
We need more of them in the ghetto. We need IBM and GE and Proctor and Gamble in there, hiring people they want. To do that, they need higher caliber people, and kids raised in broken abusive homes rarely rise to that standard.
I want to be clear: I see no functional difference between the gangster culture of the ghettoes and aggressive sociopathy generated in socialist experiments like those in Britain and Germany and elsewhere. The movie “A Clockwork Orange” is a good example of what I am talking about. Race has nothing to do with it. It is disempowering socialism which creates this effect.
The root problem is a lack of an outlet for the expression of creative energy. Dim the lights, and you get people self destructing.
There is no outlet since the socialists never imagine society as a system in motion. It is always for them objects–classes, races–which are set against one another in ways that can be described in the abstract without ever reconciling those descriptions with actually existing realities. They don’t realize that even if you can engineer permanent unemployment payments for those thrown out of work by destructive policies, this will generate misery, and that a life with more risk, but less dependency, will be more productive for everyeone.
As I thought about it today, evil is that condition which seeks to destroy energy. It seeks to reduce the world to wax figures. I think this image of a lifelike–but dead–world is quite horrible to most of us, which is why it has been used often in horror movies. Sade’s book “120 Days of Sodom” is filled with static images.
Goodness is that condition that seeks to encourage and foster motion. I want people to have a place to move. As things stand, large swathes of our population sit in stuffy rooms, with nowhere to go they can see. Jobs are the way to do this.
It seems obvious that charter schools work well. The statistics support this, and it would seem obvious that if the goal is to help people, it would not hurt to ask the people you are trying to help what they want. It is the height of arrogance when people like Barack Obama veto programs which are wildly popular among those using them, simply to support a core constituency–in this case “teachers” unions, with the quotation marks intended to question how much they are teaching, and what.
Few thoughts. This could benefit from editing, but only so much time in the day.