Jon Cayzer Is On The Wrong Side Of His Profession

0
263

As if we haven’t heard enough of this empty diatribe already. This time it is different, however. On this occasion, the author of a new hit piece, Jon Cayzer, lays out a fact-based analysis on why the DA’s approach to not including race is irrational. Oh wait…He doesn’t. It is another vague creative essay that might do well in an English classroom, but without much substance and perhaps an indication that some should stick to their job of being speechwriters, then seriously opining on complex political issues.

It is incredible, but it just seems that those who urgently demand race-based policies, constantly land in an absolutist trap. They are unable to distinguish between intentions and actions. The relentless argument the DA espouse is that the intentions of those who want to promote race-based policies are noble, but that the results are dismal. It is simply a fact that there are corrupt black businessmen, who use BEE to their advantage, even though they do not require it. The DA’s solution is to opt for a need-based approach, thus accomplishing two major goals. Slicing out the criminals benefiting unjustly from the system and also incorporating, the races excluded, like whites, Indians, etc, who contain poor folk among them.

It can also not be emphasized enough, that the main method by which black people can be lifted up, as Westerners were lifted to the wealthy positions they hold today, is to follow the principles of Capitalism, which by default have much better results in terms of creating wealth. In a country dominated by black people, why do we insist on treating them like children, and consequently, what madness drives us not to remove the red-tape barriers imposed by the state, thus keeping them below the poverty line? The irony of imposing BEE regulations for businesses is that it precludes foreign investors from inserting their capital in the country, thus creating fewer companies in which black people can dominate.

It is a fallacy rooted in the idea that any solution is justified when a problem is discovered. What many fail to realize is that one can easily make the problem worse by your impulsive actions. I have witnessed EFF parliamentarians argue that EWC should be expediated, because how could the situation for black people get any worse? They yell that most of their race are currently living in shacks. Just travel to neighboring Zimbabwe, and you will realize that it can get much worse, as you are mobbed by people who want to sell old shoes for food.

Jon asserts that this is ignoring the problem and uses the analogy, “there is no evidence treating a disease cures it, because it is always logically possible that ignoring it could cure it.” This couldn’t be more of a false equivalency. A much-improved comparison would be, “Instead of using a medieval method like bleeding out a patient to cure a disease, use a medicine, a far better, efficient method, which can cure multiple diseases at once.”

He then focuses on racism, which he believes is the real victim of not following race-based policies and that the DA’s insistence on non-racialism is a denial of racism as a whole. This line of thinking opens up a massive can of worms, which many white lefties can’t help but opening. Jon declares that many white people would be uncomfortable with a black nurse or doctor, a symptom of a reluctance to institute race-based policies, which would redress the imbalance. Once more absolutism arrives on the scene. Just as a white person might be uncomfortable with a dark-skinned doctor, so he might be uncomfortable with a doctor of any color wearing a hoodie, a doctor covered from head to toe with tattoos, or a doctor that is openly gay. Discrimination exists in all shapes and forms. If one should unwisely allow the state involved in one discriminatory issue, why not all? And what then will prevent the entire nation from crying foul and demanding some sort of welfare, everyone able to claim to be a victim of some sort.

The catch-22 that liberals fail to adequately account for is that you cannot claim victimhood or oppression and at the same time ignore the natural results of those acts. One cannot say that black people are less well off, because of colonialism and neoliberalism and at the same time deny that because they are behind on the curve, that black people on average commit more crime and are less likely to be well educated. The one flows from the other and consequently, why are we surprised that a white person would be hesitant to walk down an alley with dark-skinned people in it, as opposed to one with whites in it. Of course, this situation can be reversed, but it is on a fundamental level unreasonable to demand from people to ignore statistics, even if it is only as low as a 1% increased likelihood that they will be killed. Above all else, any person, black and white, naturally deem their own life more important than someone else, something that is recognized in the legal system. If a person is pointing a gun at your head, you lose all criminal responsibility for a murder that you are forced to commit, as the court has found that it is unreasonable for you to value the existence of another life above your own.

At the heart of it all, there is some indication that black people are also increasingly becoming annoyed at the nanny state attitude. The Rwandan government has declared that wearing second-hand clothing, pouring in from the west, is threatening the dignity of their people and has consequently instituted a second-hand clothing import tax. They argue that it would be much more prudent for the Westerners to invest in their country rather than to rely on welfare. Something the Chinese, at least on the surface, are trying to do.

Countries like Singapore, who endured the full chaos of the Second World War, when the Japanese sacked it and subsequent, wide-scale looting, race riots between Chinese and Malayans citizens, and an authoritarian regime, did not use these excuses to justify subsequent state intervention. In fact, they pursued the classical liberal direction the DA desires to stick to, which opened their economy and allowed an average economic growth of 8%, to the point where the average person in Singapore is much better off than the average person in South Africa, black and white. I would be much honored and impressed to have a doctor from that country, which would make it possible for black people to have that same honor as well if their leaders only allowed them to attain those not so lofty goals.

Fundamentally, South Africans have to move away from the pie-shaped economic model, which insists that if we simply take from A and gave it to B, B would be much better off. Even if that worked, we are ignoring a massive and harsh reality. That South Africa, still far off from most developed countries, is falling further and further behind and that we are simply arguing over who may keep the morsels. We bicker over whether growth is inclusive or not and fail to recognize that without growth of a substantial manner (5%+) skilled persons are going to continue leaving our borders, as they rightly feel that they are worth more outside, thus furthering the inequality in this beautiful country.

About The Author:

Donald Brown studied LLB at the University Of South Africa. He is also a trader (forex/indices), programmer, author and entrepreneur. He spends his free time gaming, creating games and apps, writing and reading, with the latter two mostly devoted to political and philosophical issues. His books can be found here:

https://www.amazon.com/Storms-Sanctuary-Donald-Brown-ebook/dp/B0822RRQJB

https:// www.amazon.com/dp/B082WD4YMR

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08DM18G3C/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Diversity-1.jpg