With Freedom comes responsibility, and with Education comes a realization of responsibility. The problem is not affirmative action, the problem is state-executed affirmative action. An act of helping a needy, which is charity, is institutionalized to be executed by state and called Affirmative Action.
Now, why should the beneficiary not be decided by the benefactor? Why should state play the role of a middle man? Unless, the state be a monarchy, wherein monarch earns his/her income by his own efforts, charity by state is a fraud if nothing worse.
Let us take a somewhat simplified view of poverty. A person can be poor for the following reasons:
1. The person has chosen to be poor, and voluntarily leads an austere life.
2. The person wants to earn but does not find opportunity.
3. The person is lazy so does not work to earn money.
4. The person has some disabilities so is unable to earn.
It is clear that a person in category 2 needs help in terms of new opportunities, and category 3 may be changed possibly by inspiration. It is only some one in category 4 that needs "charity".
To believe that anyone who is poor is because he has been willfully deprived by the system is a unhealthy view.
Similarly a person can be rich for the following reasons.
1. The person inherited a lot of money.
2. The person did due diligence and earned a lot of money.
3. The person acquired money through fraud and so on.
It is clear that a person in category 3 is a criminal and needs to be punished.
To believe that anyone who is rich is because he has acquired it through fraud or crime is a unhealthy view.
In this simplified analysis, it appears that if there is an efficient law-enforcement that obviates crime, and if the citizenry is well-informed and educated, charity by individuals or a group of individuals who do charity voluntarily will suffice.
Now, why should the beneficiary not be decided by the benefactor? Why should state play the role of a middle man? Unless, the state be a monarchy, wherein monarch earns his/her income by his own efforts, charity by state is a fraud if nothing worse.
Let us take a somewhat simplified view of poverty. A person can be poor for the following reasons:
1. The person has chosen to be poor, and voluntarily leads an austere life.
2. The person wants to earn but does not find opportunity.
3. The person is lazy so does not work to earn money.
4. The person has some disabilities so is unable to earn.
It is clear that a person in category 2 needs help in terms of new opportunities, and category 3 may be changed possibly by inspiration. It is only some one in category 4 that needs "charity".
To believe that anyone who is poor is because he has been willfully deprived by the system is a unhealthy view.
Similarly a person can be rich for the following reasons.
1. The person inherited a lot of money.
2. The person did due diligence and earned a lot of money.
3. The person acquired money through fraud and so on.
It is clear that a person in category 3 is a criminal and needs to be punished.
To believe that anyone who is rich is because he has acquired it through fraud or crime is a unhealthy view.
In this simplified analysis, it appears that if there is an efficient law-enforcement that obviates crime, and if the citizenry is well-informed and educated, charity by individuals or a group of individuals who do charity voluntarily will suffice.
We are using the term education in a larger sense, in that it includes the value-education. This education is as crucial as the technological education. And we need to free education too from the clutches of the state!
So the answer is Freedom and Education leading to a largely responsible citizenry. State executed affirmative action is only a disguised robbery.
