Larson: Black Lives Matter Indeed

I sometimes gauge the virtue of a particular public policy by posing a hypothetical question: What if we promoted this policy exclusively within a disadvantaged sector?

Secular progressives love assisted suicide. They fawned all over Brittany Maynard’s decision to take her own life last year, declaring the beauty of such a thoughtful, pensive, decision. After all, any decision that requires so much deep thought and garners a large online following must be the right one.

So here’s the test. What if we marketed assisted suicide as an option, especially to inner-city blacks? Television commercials and billboards could tout a peaceful exit from the hard life in the projects. Well-dressed “personal decision” consultants could hand out brochures in the ghetto, promoting thoughtful euthanasia as an option for individuals in pain. I know you feel awkward even reading that. So now ask yourself why. You’re grimacing, as am I, because such a policy would be clearly racist. Not softly racist or reverse racist in a way that favors or gives advantage to minorities, like affirmative action or racial quotas. But clearly racist. Like David Duke racist. Could we fairly say any policy that would easily be considered eugenic if isolated to one race, may not be good for the... human race?

The question is obvious. If something is a public good, then why would isolating it to one race seem so putrid? Pardon my humble assertion here, but maybe the answer is that it’s simply not good policy. But I will give bonus points to the left for marketing deliberate implementation of death as not just palatable, but gentle and sweet.

We could now bring abortion into our hypothetical scenario, but we don’t really have to, because today’s public policy and culture has made it more than hypothetical. Blacks make up just under 13 percent of the population, as Kenneth Blackwell recently pointed out in his recent piece “Aborting Black America.” Yet, 36 percent of all abortions are conducted on black babies. For every 1,000 live black births, 485 black babies are aborted. That’s about one in three babies taken by abortion. Planned Parenthood founder and eugenicist Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Those on the left largely ignore this disparity. After all, abortion — to them — is a virtue, and it’s hard to criticize a higher rate of something virtuous within a disadvantaged group. But, what if white Republicans in Congress had deliberately tried to implement this reality as policy? Imagine the conniption if the tea party had pushed a bill to fund more black abortions. Yes, of course it would be racist, and the outcome despicable. But when that outcome happens any other way?

The secular progressives look the other way and refuse to engage in any substantive discussion as to why those little “black lives matter.” Any cultural reality that would be intolerable as a result of hate and prejudice, should simply be intolerable, because on it’s face the result is indistinguishable from ethnic cleansing.

What if we marketed assisted suicide as an option, especially to inner-city blacks? Television commercials and billboard”

writing like this doesnt come along too often.

Thank you

I cant WAIT to hear revrunt sharpton claiming that his was a real suggestion...

His argument is specious and sophomoric. ANY policy (even a good one) targeted EXCLUSIVELY to a single group becomes abhorrent. Allow me to illustrate, using a policy that nearly everyone here would agree was good:

"What if we cut TAXES in HALF?" Sounds good? Well, let's try applying that EXCLUSIVELY to a single target group. Now ASIANS pay HALF the tax everyone else does. Hey! Are you ASIAN? You can pay HALF the taxes others pay.

Suddenly, ANY policy targeted at a single "special" group starts to stink.

Before I am flamed, this is NOT an endorsement of assisted suicide, I am merely pointing out sloppy thinking on the part of the author.

Cutting the taxes in half for Asians would not harm them. They would benefit from such a policy. By extention, applying it to all races would also be beneficial - to All.

The article’s point is that applying moral choices such as abortion, euthanasia, would most definitely hurt a selected minority group if applied only to that selected group. People would be repulsed by it. Which means that such a policy may not be beneficial to the whole of society either.

Your analogy doesn’t apply because, while it might create jealousy on the part of non-Asians who wouldn’t get the tax break, such a tax policy, if applied to the whole of society would benefit everyone, it would benefit all minority or majority groups - therefore making the writer’s point that such a policy WOULD be a good one because it benefits everyone.

Take my example to the extreme. Substitute ZERO taxes for HALF. Asians now pay NO TAX. Asians like it. Asians are not "hurt" by it. If you extend the policy to all, then you have no way to pay for legitimate government functions, so that might be bad for society as a whole, EVEN IF THE TARGET GROUP LIKES IT.

It is irrelevant whether or not the target group perceives a benefit or slight. It does not matter if the policy applied to the whole group is good or bad. The very nature of restricting a law or policy to a single group violates the principle of reciprocity, which triggers a negative reaction in people when considering it.

My point is that his technique of evaluating a policy by considering its restriction to a single target group is not very useful in general, as policies which target groups like or dislike can be shown where benefits to society as a whole can either be good or bad.

The proper way to analyze a law or policy is to consider its effect on EVERYONE, not just Indians, or Redheads or people with lisps. Divisions in society regarding public policies should be basically these two groups: Those that PAY for the benefit or service, and those that RECEIVE the benefit or service.

“The secular progressives look the other way and refuse to engage in any substantive discussion as to why those little “black lives matter.”

There is no conundrum for the secular progressives on this issue because to them, there are no “lives” of any race at stake. The unborn are not “lives” and therefore don’t count.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.