Social Housing Should Be Assigned In A Way Which Engineers Mixed Race Communities
Social Housing is a service provided by the Governments of virtually every country in the world, from virtually everywhere in Europe to New Zealand to the United States. It allows for huge numbers of poor people to be able to live in homes at lower than market rents. However, it has also brought segregation and isolation, from the the New York projects to the Paris banlieue. At the same time, racial segregation and racism cause some of the deepest and most destructive problems in our society. Race riots, disenfranchised people from particular racial groups, hatred of immigrants and xenophobia can all be blamed on ignorant racist views. These problems are caused by many factors and we do not propose to cure them today, however we feel that by using social housing as a mechanism to create multi-racial communities there will be benefits in terms of creating less segregated and more accepting societies. We say that if a person or family in an ethnic minority is allowed to have socially-provided housing, they should be put in an area that does not have a disproportionate amount of people from that racial group (more than 30% in the neighbourhood). We also say that people in ethnic majorities who apply for and receive social housing should be put in places with large amounts of minorities. We also would build future social housing in areas that do not already have large amounts of it, and in areas which largely have people from an ethnic majority. ============== Oppposition Introduction: Allowing the government to assume such enormous power on the lives of its citizens is unjustifiable. We believe that everyone has a right to choose which community suits him the best; the government’s role isn’t to create mixed communities for no apparent reason, just because it happens to believe it is the correct approach. Moreover, we claim that artificially mixed societies cause serious problems and increase the resentment of all members of the society to one another and to the society at large.
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Migrants and the Threat of Marginalisation.
Migrants that enter a new society tend to do so in search of new opportunities for themselves and their children. In Europe many people from African, Asian and South American origin arrive escaping situations of poverty or famine. It tends to be very hard for these communities to adapt quickly as they don’t know the country itself, they could be ethnically, culturally and religiously different to their new compatriots as well. What’s more, these new migrants tend to work in the jobs that most people would rather not do, cleaning for example. They enter their new society and already face low employment and lower-paid jobs.[[ http://www.euro.centre.org/data/1178099907_77304.pdf%5D%5D As they earn low incomes they would enter into the criteria for social housing. Making social housing multicultural would allow these new migrants to fit into a community which will help them to adapt. Youths in Britain, France and any other country who find no connections to their new countries tend to socialize with the groups of people who they share cultural values with. This creates a ghettoisation whereby there is the danger that these groups become radical, as seen in France and a minority of the British Muslim population.[[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4375910.stm%5D%5D [[Kylie Baxter, British Muslims and the Call to Global Jihad (Melbourne: Monash University Press, 2007)]] Having Multicultural social housing would bring people from different communities together. As some of the people who would get Social Housing would be from the country itself, they would have automatic links to this new society and will find it easier to fit into school, workplaces, etc.
The Multicultural spirit of these social houses would achieve a more multicultural and overt suburb and thus society as a whole.
Prior to any refutation, we would like to point out that the Proposition plans has huge technical flaws which we point out in our Contention 1.
Here, Prop asserts that (1) ethnic migrants will be better helped and integrated in arbitrarily multiracial communities, as opposed to communities comprised of their ethnicity, (2) natives in such communities link it to the mainstream society, and (3) second-generation youths will find more reassurance in such arbitrary communities than in communities of people from their own country.
Firstly, in migrants' cases, people in a single-ethnicity "ghetto" (Prop's name for any non-majority suburb) clearly have the added incentive of helping "one of their own" (like Poles in GB[[http://is.gd/fzAEs]] or Austin Black Newcomers[[http://is.gd/fzB0H]]), as opposed to an engineered community with no common culture. People in mixed communities, poor by Prop's design, have too many own problems to solve to take on other people's integration.
Secondly, poor natives are as disenfranchised from mainstream society as immigrants are, and have lost any link to society that they used to have, as they "are often socially isolated and/or painfully aware of the shame and stigma associated with poverty"[[http://is.gd/fzATb]]. The notion that they will efficiently connect newcomers to the mainstream society is absurd: if they could do that, they would have connected themselves.
Thirdly, Prop assumes that youths flock into radical groups and gangs because common social values are their response to insecurity. We agree youths join gangs because of feelings of insecurity; we merely point out that arbitrary communities will contribute to them, as there is no tradition nor cultural basis to rely on. The gangs may then not be purely Arab of Mexican; rather they can be multicultural, like the United Nations Gang in Canada.[[http://tinyurl.com/23wo6gd]] Still, this doesn't solve the reason why gangs originate, but rather exacerbate it.
Benefits of forced interaction
Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and religion are all enormous problems currently facing the world[[http://www.globalissues.org/article/165/racism]]. They are also all based almost exclusively on ignorance: They are a fear of something different and unknown, and a belief that because someone is superficially different that they are inferior or a threat. This fear is something that affects almost everyone, and that is why people are more likely to want to live in areas with people of their race. As a consequence, we have ethnic ghettos and areas where exclusively ethnic majorities or minorities live, entrenching their ignorance of one another. We also have prevailing racist attitudes affecting Government policy and the ability for people from different cultural backgrounds to live together in peace.
Forcing people from different to racial groups to live together forces interaction. It will mean people use the same doctors, shop in the same stores and send their children to the same schools. This is all in a domestic context, so peaceful and familiar to both groups, allowing them to immediately identify with one another. It also allows for relationships to build and for people to begin understanding their respective ways of life, in a non-threatening manner.
This is particularly valuable for people such as refugees, as it allows them to integrate into what is essentially their new home, in a peaceful way, when they may have very little cultural knowledge (often to the extent that they cannot speak the local language). Refugees almost always require social housing, as they are almost by definition poor and unlikely to obtain lucrative jobs.
Consequently, peaceful interaction is a key way of removing racist attitudes founded on ignorance. But the fact that these attitudes exist in the first place means that it must be forced. Using social housing to create multi-racial communities does force people to be together, and co more to understand one another.
Prop’s contention fails on the unsubstantiated belief that forced cohabitation improves interaction & relationships between different racial groups. In fact, engineered cohabitation provokes racial tensions.
Firstly, simple logic shows this plan won't improve anything. Let's take the idea of kids of different ethnicities, some of which "cannot speak local language", going to same schools. Two possible scenarios ensue:
1) Schools will separate classes for kids that don’t know the language and kids who do, like in Rochester, MI[[http://is.gd/fzA6d]]. This obviously won't create any multiculturalism or identification with other groups.
2) Schools create mixed classes with several white & several black kids, plus some refugee kids who don’t know the culture and language yet. Thus, concessions to the weakest pupils will be made. Hence, parents will protest the quality of education, recognizing it is the migrants' fault, like in Britain[[http://is.gd/fzAfz]]: hence, little or no integration.
The same case applies for stores and doctors - why should they love people who just prolong the queue, especially if it's a forcible imposition by society in no domestic, but rather government-selected context? The best-case scenario is that they won't care about one another, resulting merely in loss of government money; the worst-case scenario is they'll actively hate each other plus the government.
Studies prove the latter: creating racial and income-based mixed households leads to clashes in between.
Prop won't force interaction and improve interracial relationships; on the contrary, it'll raise tensions.
Safer communities together.
We have already showed how minority groups are formed, however we also see that in these groups we see crime, people who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, marginalized by mainstream society, gangs and small secluded communities emerging without the support or assimilation with the rest of society[[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5844/1540]]. We also see because of this stereotypes and violence coming from mainstream society.
This is a problem; allowing society to be split into ethnic factions is not acceptable to any state. With social housing utilized towards a multi-racial goal. Through this people applying for state accommodation will not be lumped into areas consisting of a large portion of their own ethnicity they will need to adapt to a situation where they are no longer surrounded by their own specialized community, they will need to work within a living community engineered by the state through social housing. Through this we encourage interaction with other ethnicities and cultures on a larger scale than we see now. Through this the state encourages this deters from formations of ethnic gangs such as the MS-13, because this also reduces social stigma towards ethnicities because if this weakens the hold gangs have over certain minorities and if more of these minorities are seen in a society which is not exclusive then this will begin shifting the negative social stigma away from minorities which do not deserve such generalized negativity[[http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/220107mexicangangs.htm]].
With small numbers of ethnic minorities in an area there will be a greater pull for newcomers to join these groups because of familiarity; however this is not to the benefit of wider society, under our model we will see newcomers be put into situations where they need to interact and socialize with their social peers, regardless of ethnicity.
Lamentably, while trying to eradicate ethnic fractions, today´s Proposition exacerbates the problem of segregation, prejudice, and organized violence.
Firstly, the assumption that social housing encourages "interaction with other ethnicities" is inherently flawed as well as the notion about eradicating ethnic fractions. Actually, "[p]eople in ethnically mixed areas are less trusting of their neighbours and live a more isolated existence" [[http://tinyurl.com/33ym7n6]]. Thus, racial seclusion will remain.
Secondly, forced interaction and integration is undesirable and counterproductive. Just consider individual approach: suddenly, just because they're not rich enough, people will be uprooted to participate in a social experiment. This, in itself, connects an element of punishment to multicultural cohabitation, something Prop seeks too avoid. The uprooting, moreover, diminishes people's desire to partake in productively creating the community, as it is not a community of their choice.
Thirdly, mere cohabitation with people of a different race won't change anyone´s social status. Even if poor people in social housing got along well, the underdogs don't influence mainstream society's understanding of minorities.
Lastly, as we explained earlier, youths join gangs to combat insecurity[[http://tinyurl.com/3xhmjdn]], which is far greater in an arbitrary, unfamiliar, multitudinously varied community. Thus, contrary to common misconception of single-ethnicity gangs, multicultural gangs can be expected to emerge, and do[[http://tinyurl.com/5rdcts]]. Thus, even if minorities did integrate into the community within the have-nots' housing, the number of gangs wouldn't decline.
Why social intergration is a good policy
Social Housing is a public policy that aims to alleviate the effects of poverty by providing places for people to live. However, the government has many other social goals that it has every right to pursue. The social goal here is greater racial integration. Racial integration involves people from different ethnic backgrounds associating with one another more and feeling more secure working and living with one another.
Racial harmony is a very important social goal. Countries with racial conflict see huge problems in lower socio-economic communities due to gangs, violence and general discrimination. The examples of this are commonplace. Cities like Paris, Los and Angeles and Sydney have seen ethnic tensions result in riots[[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_race_riots]] Therefore it is most important that governments do its best to prevent this, and we say that the government has every right to pursue a multitude of social goals through its state housing policy. Racial harmony is related to a range of goals such as security and a better functioning economy, as less racial tension and greater integration helps with all of these. Also, the wellbeing of the people who use social housing is very dependent on the functioning of the communities in which they live in. Given that the goal of social housing is to ensure the wellbeing of these people, then it makes sense that the government ensure that racial tensions do not get in the way of the wellbeing of these people.
Furthermore, because state housing recipients are being provided for by taxpayers through the government, then the government has the right to decide where this housing is built and the area in which the government provides a house to an individual or family, if it believes it is promoting a wider social goal for the benefit of society.
We aim to improve race relations through our model. We believe that creating social housing programs to create multi-racial communities will do this.
Prop, again, assumes that cohabitation will make different people like one another. Same response: they may be forced to coexist, but they won't like each other and they will like the mainstream even less for imposing such policy. Thus, racial harmony is not attained in any practical nor theoretical model[[Galster, G. "Neighbourhood Social Mix as a Goal of Housing Policy". European Journal of Housing Policy 7, no. 1: 19-43.]].
Interestingly, Prop's examples show social harmony is unattainable by means of forced integration. Integration involves, by definition, concessions by everyone; that is what precipitates most riots in the first place. Riots in Paris, or in Denmark after the caricatures of Mohammad[[http://is.gd/fzC0E]], are just top-level clashes in relations on the border of communities; if making these communities address these issues on a daily basis could solve them, we'd have no riots in the first place. On the contrary, making people deal with, say, disruption of mornings via minarets[[http://is.gd/fzCSN]] (and issue of ban), or who pays for wastewater facilities[[Grey et al: Postville, p. 41]], in addition to these top-level issues is likely to cause more societal conflict rather than less.
Furthermore, the assertion that the government has the right to intervene in the cohabitation of communities is just that: an assertion. The raison d'étre for invading people's privacy, racially stereotyping, and engineering interpersonal relations needs to be spelled out in a much clearer and logical way than just "because we pay for it": as we develop in our constructive, giving the government a blank cheque to do something in the name of racial harmony is a highway to hell.
Lastly, the counter-productive nature of forced multiracial social housing. We address this, again, in our constructive: we merely remind you that this will force new Chinese migrants away from China Towns, depriving them of welcoming community, and steal choice from every poor person.
Racial Harmony in the Long Term
The opp have made two concessions. Firstly, nowhere have they challenged the point that there are problems with the status quo, with segregated societies and racial tension. They’ve given no reason why the alternative of doing nothing and allowing continued segregation and tension would be good in any way.
Secondly, they’ve conceded that racial harmony is a good thing. So the question now is whether or not this policy will help to promote it.
The prop’s aims are in the long term. It’s true that it is easier for people to choose to be with people of their race in the short term. However, as we can see this causes long-term segregation and racial tensions, as people become more and more different and ignorant beliefs and fears about the other group are entrenched. This makes forced interaction necessary. So that is why it is important to put people in a situation where they must interact.
The opp have made short-term points about schools and queues, which, apart from being wrong (schools have no reason to separate classes on the basis of race), don’t attack the idea that people will see more of one another and find more about each other to relate to. This kind of interaction shows that people have similar struggles and live similar lives, as they see different things to the stereotyped view. Consequently they become more comfortable with one another. Yes, people will feel uncomfortable when a very different family move in next door. But that is exactly why we have to do it – because over time, their ignorant views are challenged and consequently changed. The prop have tried to say that ‘making concessions’ is what causes ethnic tension. It’s not, it’s a feeling of being oppressed and offended that respectively caused the Paris and cartoon riots. People don’t currently have to address these issues on a day-to-day basis. If they do, and interact on a small scale with people of another race, rather than living in a totally different area, their vi
Again, Prop fails to realize that a) racial tensions cannot be eradicated through forced integration, b) their plan does not contribute to social harmony and c) none of the outlined "long-term" benefits has so far been substantiated. While Opposition doesn't deem status quo perfect, we believe that sorting people by their race is fundamentally flawed and exacerbates the problem at stake.
First and foremost, we live in a world where "neighbors" do not equal "friends". In GB, 6 million people complain about their neighbor annually: "a survey carried out by Abbey found that a staggering 4.5 million people moved house just to avoid unruly neighbors from hell."[[http://is.gd/fCZ8T]] In multiracial cases, this can even end with murder.[[http://is.gd/fCXui]]. Simply, you don't "get" culture or a racial minority just because you live next door.
Second, we have yet to hear how forced interaction of previously racist people (Prop's selling point) improves their relationship; how imposed cohabitation eradicates fear and prejudice. Sharing similar lives and similar struggles is not enough, especially when the struggle is against one another, fueled by day-to-day misunderstandings and culture clashes.
Thirdly, long-term outlook needs to be considered. We believe that forced cohabitation results in stirring racial hatred, precisely because the process of integration is done abruptly by the government, instead of happening naturally. In the Czechoslovakia, for example, "[t]hese various forms of state support, which in many cases favored the Roma, led to further grudges against and condemnations of the Roma by the majority"[[http://is.gd/fCXCf]]. Coming back to schools, some in US and India institute racial quotas for enrollment, which lead to rejection due to wrong race[[http://is.gd/fCUMS]] [[http://is.gd/fCBn4]]. Ethnic resentment is the reaction. There is no reason to think that Proposition plan, principally and practically the same, can avoid this.
Racism is wrong, Governments need to work towards intergration.
The Opp claims we are forcing integration, to some extent this is true, however not to the extent the opp claims.
We all agree that racism is wrong, but we feel unlike the Opp that the Government does have a duty to address racism. We don;t want to do this radically like in the USA during the Black civil rights movement, we don't want to do this through treaties and tribunals like in New Zealand, we want to help the change through government facilitated housing. If a person chooses to go into this scheme they will be placed in an area which has many ethnicities in it, this fact will not be hidden, people will have easy access to this info.
We see that when governments have enforced integration with ethnicities the long term benefits have paid off, look at the Black civil rights movement, when the Govt declared that segregation was wrong and schools[[http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html]] (look we mention schools too) were made to accept both black and white students. There was already ingrained intolerance and this was made clear by the initial reaction, however look at the long term benefits: The movement paid off to the extent that a majority of Americans chose a black president. Forced interaction pays off. In fact, lingering negative views of black Americans can be put down to perceptions of people, who never interact with them, based on their impression of what happens in black ghettos. So better to create a way to challenge that impression.
In Spain we can see that successful integration programs, with a housing and employment aspect have worked well for the Roma population (called Gitano in Spain), so these people could be integrated and accepted into society after being marginalized for decades[[http://sispain.org/english/social/minority.html]].
We see that forced interaction is a good thing that works and has positive long term benefits. Starting with Govt housing is a positive step towards the final goal of racial harmony.
A "feeling" - or perhaps "God-given impulse" - got GW Bush to invade Iraq. There, he may have "addressed" the issue of terrorism; however, only today's Proposition would insist that just by addressing it, he made things better.
Firstly, let us address the issue of choice. Proposition falsely claims that today, people have no leverage over where they are placed. That is demonstrably untrue: people indicate their preferred housing area, to which they are placed, if physically possible. Cases of Kent, Canada or New York, USA exemplify this.[[http://is.gd/fE3ql]] [[http://is.gd/fywjP]]
Secondly, on the issue of integration, New Zealand again betrays its ignorance of what forced cohabitation really means. Civil Rights Movements set no quotas; if it did, the backlash would likely be similar to that in India[[http://is.gd/fCBn4]]. On the other hand, Harlem Renaissance, a seemingly segregated process "redefined how America, and the world, viewed the African-American population... not only on the cultural but also on a sociological level"[[http://is.gd/fCBhz]], as it "contributed to a certain relaxation of racial attitudes among young whites", but mostly "reinforced race pride among blacks", which ultimately allowed the Civil Rights Movement to happen[[http://is.gd/fCBjg]].
We have yet to see a successful forced cohabitation story. Spain is definitely not it: by Prop's own source, they have been housed at special separated refugee centers. Even if it were, the rest of Europe is a counter-example effective enough. As the European Roma Rights Centre writes, "effective social inclusion policies on Roma are still to be seen" and "while there are some interesting initiatives emerging… on the whole the integration and social inclusion policies and initiatives can be described as ad hoc, inconsistent and limited"[[http://is.gd/fCBqf]].
We began declaring that racial harmony is an extremely important goal, and the only way to help with it is through forced interaction. Opp have never challenged the first point, and never given any other way that racial harmony can occur. They have tried to frame our argument in the extreme, saying we are giving “god-like powers”, which is untrue. Two questions in the debate : 1) Does the Government have a right to infringe individual choice in this way? 2) Will this policy better generate racial harmony?
Firstly, opp have spent a lot of time declaring that this will lead to all countries becoming Stalinist Russia without addressing the fact that people who sign up for social housing are having it provided to them because it is seen as a good social policy. We have maintained throughout the debate that this means they can be subject to other (equally important) social policies as well: they are using other people (who provide the money) to get the housing, therefore it is fair for them to have their choice limited for a social good. The opp have never really shown why people are going to be oppressed by being given housing in multi-racial areas: There won’t be no people of their race there (limit of 30%). They will also retain some of the choice they currently have, which opp have conceded isn’t much. We also aren't stopping them interacting with their own race: They can easily still communicate and travel, meaning they aren't losing anything meaningful at all.
Secondly, Opp have never challenged the analysis that people naturally go to what is familiar, and develop fears of what is different, and need to have these views challenged in order for them to change, which requires forced interaction. Opp's argument seems to be that racial harmony is impossible. They have given examples of where racial harmony hasn’t occurred when interaction has occurred, without ever showing how all the racial harmony that does exist (white people voting Obama, Roma in Spain, New Zealand) has happened without interaction. They want a policy that allows segregation to continue to cause harm in the way it has in American housing projects and in France, where there have been race riots caused by entrenched ignorant perceptions. We have presented reasons why people living together will learn more about one another, specifically more about how they relate to one another including having children at the same schools, and the positive incentive for neighbours to be friends, because that makes life much easier and more enjoyable. The opp have used stats about neighbours in a ridiculous way, the reality is that most often neighbours ARE friends (6 million Britons complaining = 44+ million Britons happy with their neighbours, and those 6 million happy with all of their OTHER neighbours). There is also no favouring a specific group here either – the program will apply regardless of what particular race people have, so arguments about favouritism fail. Prop win.
Proposition Model Is Unclear & Unfeasible
The Proposition failed to bring a clear complex plan. This, amongst principal issues, means that in no case will the treatments outlined by them work.
Firstly, what will happen with minorities which are overrepresented as social housing renters? In the US, many minorities live under the poverty line - eligible for social housing - which means the Prop quota of 30% for a minority per social housing facility will be insufficient. (In the Netherlands, this would already be the case[[http://is.gd/fyvYf - p. 26-27]].) If people "exceed" the quota, would the local authorities build a new facility in a new location? Would they be left on the street in the meantime, where they can "can expect to wait up to 21 years for an available unit"[[http://is.gd/fywjP]]? Or will they be moved to different city or region, where more space is available? Prop leaves this as only alternative, although it 1) uproots people from the environment they know, where they have relatives, where they have (even low-paying) job, 2) gives huge power to state offices.
Secondly, Proposition only wants to build the social housing facilities “in areas which largely have people from an ethnic majority.“ The purpose of social housing is to provide cheap accommodation to people who can’t afford it. Areas with large population of ethnic majority are usually more expensive sites; construction there will be extremely costly, precluding more social housing. Our choice? Build either build a one-family flat in more expensive but ethnic-majority area, or flats for several families in cheaper but more mixed areas, since property values are in, say, mostly white Manhattan about 8 times higher than in minority-overcrowded Bronx[[http://is.gd/fzxyl]].
New Zealand’s plan will either leave people on street, or arbitrarily move them to completely different communities. In addition, it will be costly. It is clear that it fails and should not be adopted.
The current way that social housing works is that people who meet eligibility criteria apply and get granted the housing[[http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/assistance/app_for_pubhsg.shtml#guide]]. We would then assure the housing they were assigned to would be in appropriate areas. As has been outlined above, we would also be happy to build new housing, as is already done with attempts to mix market rental housing and social housing together in the changing US social housing policies [[http://www.urban.org/publications/901207.html]]. Saying we will leave people on the street is completely ridiculous.
Opp's arguments here are fundamentally flawed: people opting for social housing are already in desperate situations and volunteering themselves to move to where it is that the state has a house for them. They have gone to the state for help, so they are already conceding power to it. State offices already have power in terms of assigning people for this very reason, limited by the criteria that legislation forces them to abide by. We are simply adding an extra criteria. If they are poor and struggling where they are, they may not be particularly opposed to moving anyway. In addition, with modern communication and transport as it is it is easy to stay in contact with support systems and family when you are moved from one place to another.
Quite simply, we don't think buildings being slightly more expensive outweighs the benefit of easing ethnic tension. The harms caused in terms of lack of productivity due to minorities being disenfranchised and unable to engage, damage caused by ethnic violence and gangs, and the pure harm in terms of social cohesion when ethnic groups are ignorant and fearful of one another are all truly significant costs.
We have a broadly outlined model because this is a principled debate. Different countries have different social housing policies, some over-supply it [[http://is.gd/fyvYf]]. The motion is certainly possible to implement.
Forced Cohabitation Alienates Everyone
Any tension-relieving proposal can only achieve social harmony if all stakeholders act positively. That is unlikely happen, as none have any incentives to.
First, the native citizens who live in well-established neighborhoods won't like the introduction of much poorer neighbors, especially ethnically different and unwilling to abide by their customs. Why would they? As the Polish learnt in GB, primary reaction to new poor neighbors is seeking to secure themselves from them, not integrate.[[http://is.gd/fzBLq]] This is a lose-lose situation, even if minorities were peaceful, culture-accepting, and integration-friendly - which they usually are not, as Arabs in France show.[[http://is.gd/fzCWl]]
Second, we believe that the native paupers seeking social housing won't help either. Uprooted for moot reason, they'll be forced to live outside the community they chose and lived in just because it's too monoethnic. This won't only likely force them to move from their native community, but also increase their resentment towards other ethnic groups, aliens from their point of view, and mainstream "rich" society which imposed this displacement. Such natives will lack motivation to get used to a new, arbitrary community.
Third, this scheme will harm all the immigrants, who after making a great leap of faith - moving to another country - need all the support they can get. Usually, the community comprised of their ethnicity, i. e. China Town, provided this support: ”the presence of native communities had a significant impact on the settlement decisions of recent immigrants“[[http://is.gd/fyqqr]]. Under Prop, China Town won't be able to provide any affordable housing to them, which makes constant support pretty difficult. Immigrants won't be helped by this proposal; instead, they'll be thrown to a new world, without anything familiar to hold on to and rely on.
No-one benefits; hence, no-one has a reason to facilitate the creation of a utopia which Prop's dreams of.
There is an incentive to act positively. That's why neighbours get on so well already - they get a massive benefit from being friends, this makes life a lot easier and more pleasant, especially with kids at school together etc. Opp need to explain exaclty why rich people CAN'T like poor people, or people of another race. They can, often they already do.
The problems the opp have outlined happen under the status quo. If someone looks down on someone for being poor the problem is not their ethnicity and the whole point of our model has been to integrate into mainstream one way and to reduce intolerance from the other. We have explained how this will happen and throwing examples from France and Poland where the problem was simple economics and intolerance (which is what we see as the problem) would be lessened under our model.
Native 'paupers' will not be uprooted for moot reason, when they apply to the Govt for housing they will be assigned a house at a much cheaper price, that is a benefit to them, they are going to be put into an arbitrary community anyway (they will be assigned to where there is room) our model simply wants to see them put with people of differing ethnicities, if someone is already intolerant the worst that could happen under our model is that they will remain intolerant, however any change towards more leniency and integration is a large step forward to our ''utopia''.
This scheme will benefit immigrants who, when they move to another country have the choice to either find accommodation by themselves or apply for state housing, if they choose to apply for state housing, they are getting the benefit of cheap living, they are being provided for by a state which is not their own. This is support. Under our model there will still be housing in China town, however for those who need to apply for state housing, they will need to get used to another community which is not made up of only their ethnicity. This is a long term benefit to everyone
Unjustified Undue Government Control
The government assumes too much power in this proposal, for building social housing is one thing - but controlling people’s lives is quite another one.
Instead of allowing people to choose social housing near their kin and connections, people (now quoting Proposition definition) “should be put” in some undefined “areas” only distinguished by their racial composition - without regard to their will, choice, or indeed any individuality altogether. Giving a government these God-like powers is undesirable, if only for the historical precedence that we have:Stalin’s population transfers in the 1940s [[http://is.gd/fyAe6]]. Before Prop raises its voice to say this is a slippery slope, let us remind that the example is a very accurate one:an example of population engineering in the effort to create a more stable and tolerant regime of peace and love. In fact, this engineering can already be seen in China, where the Han Chinese are being moved into Tibet[[http://is.gd/fzySU]] in order to assimilate the Tibetans into the "harmonious" Chinese society, but has achieved the contrary.
The common feature of these examples is that both those moved and those who had to host the influx suffered needlessly. In our society, we need not destroy nor limit the China Towns and Vietnamese Markets of our countries to facilitate intercultural dialogue, since it infringes upon the freedom of choice of all stakeholders, we should not. After all, these ethnic settlements are good for both communities, as they are what creates the true spirit of multiculturalism! Yet, this is what the Prop advocates, and that is what makes
In no way is this a Government imposing itself. Poor people who need housing must turn to the state if they want a place to live. When they do this they are effectively conceding the choice to choose where they live - People can have that choice if they can afford the rent to live in a different place. The Government doesn't have to provide this housing, but they do because this is good social policy - they don't want people on the street. The Government retains a right to promote other social policies such as racial harmony, and people who receive the benefits of one may expect to be involved in another. The Government has a right to combine social policies, which is what it is doing here.
The prop completely contradicts themselves when they say the Government is imposing itself under our model but at the same time it's not clearly defined. Right, so people have a choice where they live, outside the racial criteria (and obviously limited to where housing is provided, but as we have said, we think Govts should build new housing in different areas). We are not saying that outside the racial criteria, a Govt has "god-like" powers, particularly when this only applies to people who apply for it in the first place.
It's also a slippery slope argument and it's not accurate. China started moving Han Chinese after it became a totalitarian state, not before. And those people are being forced to move, not applying to the welfare state because they need housing. Same goes for Stalin.
The opp is trying to frame what we are doing as the state coming into China town and moving everyone. It's not, it's for people who, in the future, apply for social housing, not for people who own their own flats in ethnic areas downtown. Even if it was, what is the problem with Chinese and Vietnamese goods being sold alongside other goods, in areas with other ethnicities, exposing their wares to more than just those with the curiosity to venture into an ethnic market? It will benefit them.
Supports Racial Stereotyping
Prop allows the government to intervene in personal privacy, freedom of choice, community creation and interpersonal relations with no justification. What's more, it allows it to do so in a way that actively defeats the purpose to have a society not based on races.
Clearly, the basic tenet of any free society is that you, an individual, need to be judged on your individual merits and abilities, not on your gender – or race. All anti-discrimination laws are based on this, and quite rightly at that: if any pre-set private characteristics come into judgment, less space is left for individual development and more space for feelings of perpetual entrenchment in one’s social situation.
Mainly, we discourage considerations of race in all cases because it is immoral to assign race to people at any stage of decision-making process. It makes the least sense of all possible individual characteristics: religion, income, or culture, which you can at least partly influence – which still shouldn’t be used in decision-making, but can be relevant. Discrimination is principally wrong, especially negative one; and especially based on race. (Prop's policy is no affirmative action: after all, they try to separate minorities from communities they'd choose otherwise on the basis of an inhumane quote. Even if it was, reverse racial discrimination of majority needs justification.)
Yet, this is exactly what Prop wants to do: to not only entitle, but require government bureaucrats to base their decisions on race and race alone, without any consideration to other circumstances, reducing low-income people to one private characteristic they can't influence. This is dangerous in any case; it is particularly dangerous for social & top-level governmental decision-making, for it legitimizes, establishes infrastructure for, and accustoms government officials to making further race-based decisions. For a case that seeks to decrease top-level racial stereotyping, this is a deadly obstacle.
We don't allow the Govt to intervene in privacy. Social housing is allocated already - it isn't people choosing whatever house they want to live in, and the Government paying for it. All these assertions about Govt intervention make me wonder if the opp even knows what social housing is.
The opp misses the point of our policy. Formally, the state could treat people completely equally, without any regards to things such as race or gender, but substantially, because people don't think in the same way due to pre-conceived views (for example, the idea that Muslims hate the West), that results in segregation and oppression of minorities [[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/#2]]. It is therefore necessary that the state provides things such as affirmative action to substantially provide equality.
So although it is counter-intuitive, it is necessary to mix people on the basis of race to substantially change peoples' attitudes. If, in reality, there is a prevailing ignorant view that can be changed by forced interaction, then it is important that the state acts (without massively infringing on individual rights, which is not a problem here) to try and rectify that view, as it is detrimental to society as a whole.
Other circumstances can be taken into account. There will still be multiple options as allocation of housing, even with this criteria prioritised. The opp want to make another slippery slope point about officials making race-based decisions. This won't happen, Govt officials can be trusted to make properly informed and balanced decisions (or simply follow criteria, as in this case). It doesn't establish any 'infrastructure' for race-based decisions, again, it's simply a criteria.
In addition, this doesn't discriminate against any particular group. Whatever race you are, this allocation policy will apply to you. It simply acts to put you in an area with more people of a different race. So formally it's not even particularly discriminatory.
Moral Importance of the Freedom of Choice
Democratic governments must abide by social contract and maxims of universal morality, most importantly Immanuel Kant’s that “no man must be a means to an end”. Volitional consent of the governed is necessary for social contract not to be breached; that'd betray governmental legitimacy. If a policy involves such harm, it can't be instituted, for it harms basic democratic tenets. Sadly, that's the case with Prop, as three-level analysis shows:
One, regarding the applicants. Clearly, people who ask for social housing didn’t become poor because they wanted to; this is obvious in the age of financial crisis. The only alternative to social housing they have is being homeless: thus, even if they are opposed to forced integration, they have no *choice* to reject it. (That is true especially for Prop’s refugees.) Exploiting their need is immoral from the government, as volitional consent to anything is thus forced.
Two, regarding applicants’ race. Race you can’t choose; deciding on it violates volition and hence social contract. It's immoral to treat vulnerable people simply as goods that just need to be put into shelves by their label.
Three, regarding status quo of social housing. Prop asserts that now, people have no choice in social housing placement: funnily enough, even their own case study of NYC used in refutation of first Opp argument requires applicants to select two borough choices[[http://is.gd/fD7Ly]], and overall criteria for placement are based on candidates’ needs, not static features. Importantly, even if their case study didn’t offer choice, some do. We stand for this pervasive choice-enabling status quo; Prop has yet to justify the clear breach thereof.
On the whole, we see that this policy predetermines its outcome, as there is little choice throughout. As we explained, cutting choice is harm in itself to government legitimacy and universal morality. This is not permissible; thus, we need to maintain status quo of free volition.
It is absurd for the opp to assert that Governments must abide by a particular moral code. Why should they use Kant’s maxim? They don’t with taxation – they take money that people have worked for and put it towards certain policies that have a good social consequence, like building houses for poor people to live in. Kant’s maxim is valuable to the extent that people value being treated as ends. However, when they apply for social housing, they are putting themselves in a position where they are relying on the use of other peoples’ money (taken from them to use for this end) for their benefit. Therefore it is reasonable for the society who is supporting them to combine this with another social policy, which is the development of racial harmony.
The social contract depends upon the people consenting to be governed. Nothing in our model contradicts this. People who apply for social housing are entering into a different deal where they are asking for support. It is absurd to say that a Government can’t restrict their choice to certain places (in otherwise the same circumstances, with the same rights and freedoms).
More to the point, what are people actually losing here? They can still communicate with their own race, and see them, they simply have to interact with another race as well. So they can still access the support etc.
With race, again it is a matter of substantial equity. We need to use racial criteria here to challenge prevailing views people have about other races, like affirmative action – does that also 'violate the social contract'? It doesn’t because it isn't against people consenting to be governed.
People currently are limited in the choice they make by the fact that a Government can’t provide whatever house they want, and opp also concede that currently the choice is made for people “on the basis of their needs”. If they are given the house because of one societal need, it is fine for them to cater to another societal need.
Practical Harms of Violating Volition
As shown, Prop’s policy severely harms freedom of choice. The immorality and its long-term effects for government legitimacy are despicable; however, the impact on the people is just as essential. What if the choice is taken away?
Our previous examples of Stalin's population transfer, as well as Chinese policy of assimilation of Tibetans, are principally equal to what the Prop does. The reaction we got that by being poor, people abdicate all choice; and that these policies were not what made USSR & China totalitarian regime. Importantly, Prop ignored that such policy is immoral and harmful for all in any regime, who are treated as mere means to an end: uprooted for reasons of social engineering, with ethnic traditions smothered by a pillow of assimilation. Prop even ventured that the displaced will benefit, as “their goods will be exposed to more people”.
Han Chinese who accept displacement are usually below poverty levels, desperate “to make money”, leaving them with no other options – like the people Prop would exploit. They are incentivized by “higher wages, tax incentives, allowances and better housing”[[ http://is.gd/fE52s%5D%5D. They may benefit economically; that doesn’t mean that leaving home villages is any more justified. What’s more, the Tibetans hurt: this “cultural genocide” undermines the roots of their identity[[http://is.gd/fE52s]]. In fact, this is a case study in the counter-productivity of forced cohabitation. As all sources agree, this policy deepened resentment among Tibetans and Han Chinese[[http://is.gd/fE504]], despite Opp’s “common goals and struggles”.
Apparently, Prop believes it’s OK if democracy does this. But if the US government offered subsidies for white people living in suburbs of New Orleans to “dissimilate” the “black culture”, would it be less evil? Prop gets the needy to “integrate” and “live together”: codewords for the same. Any engineering of the society must thus be stopped.
Opp, you've done enough. I'm sure you can go to the US and join the Tea Party. Apparently, our social housing police IS Stalin. Our model and Stalin's are not principally equal. We want to provide choice and benefit to the poor as well as encouraging race relations.
This is an abhorrent abuse of the slippery slope argument. There are no floodgates here. Our policy only applies to social housing, it will not result in soviet russia (where housing socials you).
Also unlike China and USSR we provide active choice in entering the social housing scheme. People who opt in are applying to be moved, we are not building a house for them because it's convenient.
This is not anything like the Han Chinese. We aren't moving anyone from their homeland: This will mainly apply to poor immigrants and refugees, who need help to integrate (which is the part of the purpose of them immigrating in the first place - the wish to find a new life drives this decision). People who need this housing are in a position of needing to move as it is. This is not pulling up people from their roots; shifting neighbourhoods, which they would have to do anyway, is not shifting thousands of miles. There is also the benefit of being placed in neighbourhood where there are chances to engage with other cultures and blast away unjust racial stereotypes.
Our model simply says that Governments should, when allocating housing, look at the ethnicities of the people being catered for and place them in a unit near people of varying ethnicities. They have the choice to complain if there is actually a problem with their neighbour. They do not have the choice to have the Government pay for them to move and live away from their neighbours because their problem is the colour of their neighbour’s skin.
Opp's statement about the US is ridiculous. We aren't destroying any culture. But if a few people are moved to interact, things can change. These people can be those who need housing provided by others.
Summary: Czech Republic
In any debate, Prop has the burden to prove that its policy will both help (or it’s not worth its cost) and be right (or it harms social morality). Last week, we showed Prop stood to none of its burdens - but disproving one would have sufficed.
Firstly, will policy help? Prop’s analysis of this was entirely based on three assertions.
One, "people who live together come to like one another", which was to achieve harmony. Repeated but never substanted, the point was factually and logically rebutted, as having similar lives cannot prevent concessions and feelings of oppression. This leads to more tension: thus, Prop loses here already.
Two, "racism is based on ignorance". Evidence that mixed communities have more tension made this assertion moot, negating any actual reason to force cohabitation.
Three, "single-ethnicity communities harm ethnicities". After examples where Prop’s “ghettos” evidently aid both in short- and long-term in true multicultural way (Austin Black Newcomers & Harlem Renaissance), Prop’s "integration is a must" fell apart.
Due to little substantiation, Prop couldn’t show that policy delivers either short- or long-term benefits – either integrate minorities or lessen racial division. It conceded that no short-term benefits exist in its Arg. 5, despite only dealing with short-term previously.
Prop didn’t even argue that their policy won’t do harm by uprooting the needy or making people homeless due to the 30 % quota they set. They said other forms of social housing exist, undermining own model; and that they’ll build more of it, despite conceding higher costs. Rather than clash, they dodged.
So secondly, is the policy moral? Prop didn’t argue this constructively except "we throw money at them, so we are right to do anything": indeed, its failure to engage moral issues of their plan was spectacular for a team that previously dismissed our feasibility attacks as practicalities in "a principled debate". Moral failures of the plan were painstakingly enumerated by Opposition.
One, we showed that in effort to eliminate racism, Prop introduces race as a prioritized criterion, thus perpetuating what they try to eradicate, which they happily concede in spite of immorality thereof.
Two, we explained that government exploits weakness of the poor who have no choice, which Prop first tried to dodge by falsely saying they have none anyway, and then that there are market alternatives. We pointed out that forcible integration destroys humans’ basic cultural linkages, which Prop is happy with as long as people get money in return. We pointed out that men can’t justifiably be used as mere instruments; we pointed out that any government, totalitarian or democratic, which adopts this policy, is illegitimate and evil. No real response.
In conclusion, not clashing on morality is deadly to any team, even if it offers a lot of practical benefits – which Prop doesn’t. Ultimately, this is where this debate is won.
What do you think?