Nowadays, humanity more and more profoundly understands such concepts as freedom, morality, equality, and prejudice. However, these concepts are controversial and complex, thereby, some difficulties appear when one deals with freedom. It is due to the efforts of all parties to prove their case, but at the same time not to violate the concept of freedom of other parties, although some radical groups ignore it. Nevertheless, one may define some genuine principles, understandable and objective for everyone, on the basis of which one may construct basic life rules.
In the current case, there is a dispute over the fact that some organizations in the US have been established as nonprofit, which has granted them some benefits. It would seem that one should immediately put forward the argument that any American or organization should have equal rights. It is true, however, it is important to remember that the freedom of one person must end where the freedom of another begins. The paper is operating on this basis, and the principle of equality will be the main argument. Thereby, not giving benefits to a certain organization is a contradictory expression of equality, although it is vital to realize what purpose a certain organization has.
The Frameworks of Equality
Compared to the past, humanity seems to have made progress in understanding and promoting freedom. Today there is no more slavery system, and all races and genders have equal rights. However, sometimes it turns out that excessive freedom can lead to negative consequences. It is believed that all organizations should have equal rights and privileges to express themselves. Nevertheless, in the article Four white nationalist groups given nonprofit status, permission to raise nearly $8M in tax-deductible donations by Larry Mcshane, the author calls it into question (Mcshane, 2016). According to the article, over the last ten years, four white nationalist groups received the government go-ahead to raise nearly $8 million in tax-deductible donations (Mcshane, 2016). It is well known that nationalistic principles violate the law of freedom for all, thereby violating the basic concept of equality.
Thereby, the possibility of raising money for the purposes formulated by the nationalist movement seems unacceptable. This is where the controversy of the situation arises since each person should have the freedom to express ideas. In this regard, one needs to remember about the framework of equality, formulated by the fact that the freedom of one person should not encroach on the freedom of another. In case this rule is not followed, it is not a manifestation of freedom but a threat to the other parties. Equality must have boundaries that will not allow the exercise of freedom to promote harm to anyone. Such a principle will help to avoid any misunderstandings in the aspects of morality and freedom.
There is a concept of negative freedom regarding this issue, which characterizes the abovementioned. Negative freedom is a result of incomprehension of negative consequences of one’s freedom manifestation (Schmidtz & Pavel, 2018). In other words, it is the result of destructive actions committed due to the manifestation of someone’s freedom. The current case, namely the financing of nationalist groups, is an example of negative freedom since their actions may be directed to the detriment of other individuals. However, before drawing such conclusions, surely, one should study the spectrum of action of such groups in detail.
Financing of Hate Groups
Therefore, there is a universal rule that each person and organization should have equal rights and opportunities. Contrary to the above, the argument is the well-known fact that hate groups should not be subsidized. Appositely, according to the research there were identified 954 hate groups in the US in 2016 (Balleck, 2019). As a rule, the existence of such groups leads to an increase in hate crimes and destabilization in the country (Balleck, 2019). Thus, the financing of such organizations violates all principles of equality and freedom, which is unacceptable. It sets up a paradox since both financing and not financing violate the concept of equality. However, there is a simple solution for the issue, which principle is a detailed analysis.
To avoid such a paradox, it is important to find out which of its parts is contradictory. For this, one needs to conduct a detailed analysis of the selected organization’s actions. It includes many aspects, such as legal social, along with factors from a moral point of view. After the analysis, one will be able to determine whether the activities of the organization fall under the concept of hate groups. Thus, one part of the paradox will be eliminated: if the organization’s actions do not threaten the freedom of others, it should be funded. Moreover, if the group promotes developing and strengthening freedom, it may be endowed with certain benefits, such as becoming a nonprofit organization.
Supposedly, it was possible to accurately determine that the actions of the organization are not a threat to the freedom of other people. In my opinion, there should be no unequal conditions for those organizations that can be funded, scilicet the groups which are not considered hate institutions. In other words, all organizations should be funded equally, depending on the scale of their activities. It is due to the fact that the possibility of obtaining benefits will, as a rule, provoke receiving it at any cost, including in unfair ways. This, in turn, may also entail a violation of the freedom of other parties, which is a breach of the main argument, namely equality.
Moreover, the state will face a responsible task, namely, to provide non-existence of hate groups. It seems to be an impracticable task, but the solution could be simple. One should create special commissions, which would operate throughout the states and ensure that the actions of the organizations do not violate the freedom of others. The check can be carried out in several stages: firstly, it is necessary to filter out those groups that are definitely not threatening. Then, after creating a list of organizations that are not really “educating” as the spirit of the law intended, one should start a detailed review of their activities. In some cases, one may need document verification powers to help minimize the threat of hate groups.
Status to Confer Under Such Groups
Speaking about what status I would grant to such a group, my actions would be based on the proposals as mentioned above. Thus, I would establish a special commission with certain powers to make the verification process as efficient as possible. The main goal is to guarantee that the organization does not fall under the definition of hate groups. In case the audit shows that the group is a threat to the freedom and equality of others, I would eliminate this organization. If the institution promotes freedom, I will not give it more benefits than other similar groups. My actions would be based on the argument of equality, and funding would depend on the scale of the activity. In other words, I would calculate the cost of the organization and the necessary support, and taxation would be equal to other groups.
If one talks specifically about this case in the current conditions, namely, if I would set the selected organization as nonprofit, then the answer would be negative. In the place of the IRS, I would not set this organization as nonprofit due to the fact that there is evidence about the nationalist orientation of the group. As it has already been clarified, nationalistic goals violate the principle of equality and freedom. Moreover, they pose a threat to certain social groups and layers of the population. Based on this, one may determine that, in this case, the actions of the IRS were erroneous. Again, before drawing any conclusions, I would conduct a detailed check, as things may turn out to be different than they seem at first glance.
Talking about larger-scale actions, I would initially try to prevent the emergence of hate groups. Although It sounds easy, one realizes how difficult it is in the context of legal aspects. After all, people always refer to the principle of equality, on the basis of which anyone has the right to self-expression. However, it is necessary to remember about the framework of equality, which should separate the threat and damage from the manifestation of freedom. I would influence the legislative environment in which the emergence of hate groups would be impossible. To do this, it would be necessary to develop a list of actions and intentions that are characteristic of hate groups. This list would include nationalistic speech since their direction violates the foundations of equality. It is due to the fact that they directly denote the superiority of one group over others and also contribute to the threat and damage to some people.
There is an interesting statement in this regard that shows the versatility of the equality issue. Thompson (2017) claims that “being equal does not necessarily mean being the same” (p. 5). In other words, each organization has its own features, which are important to be considered in cases of funding. Surely, all groups should not be the same, and therein lies the difficulty in determining the trend of an organization. There is a fine line between whether a group is dangerous or not, and it is sometimes difficult to prove legally. It is precisely what my proposal for the revision of the legislative framework in this area formulates. Namely, it is necessary to make the rules clearer so that there are no loopholes in the law that organizations would use. This concerns not only the issue of definition but also taxation and the establishment of organizations as nonprofit.
Defending the Position
The position described in the work may seem biased since all of the arguments are based on certain visions of the situation. Certainly, each individual sees different sides of the situation, and each person has their own reasons. However, my position is that funding nationalist groups is wrong based on simple truths. These true points are known to everyone, moreover, they contribute to morality. These are simple laws by which normal life is possible since they promote security and equality. Moreover, these laws and rules are appropriate to most people, which indicates their correctness.
Thus, the main truth, which is difficult to disagree with, is the human right to equality and safe life. It is the basic law of morality, without which people would destroy each other. It involves the fact that every person of any race, gender, and ethnic origin should not be at risk of harm. In this regard, one may notice that nationalist groups break this rule. It is connected with their denial of the equality of races and, in some cases, the elimination of certain peoples. It is hard not to notice that it formulates a direct violation of freedom, equality, and morality. Thereby, there is no evidence of bias, as the paper is based on the notion everyone agrees with.
However, one may also assume that this is just my personal opinion, which is no more valid than the rest of opinions. In this regard, I can note that the work is based not only on simple truths that are close to everyone. One is well aware that the violation of freedom and equality, along with causing harm to someone, is a breaching of the law. According to the fact that hate groups often contribute to harm and to murders in the case of especially radical groups, it violates the legal framework. Thus, the idea in work is supported not only by personal reflections on morality (which, at the same time, are close to most of the people), but also by a strong legislative basis. It distinguishes the work from “just a point of view” since the main idea is based on an undeniable foundation, namely the legal aspect.
This is primarily due to the fact that one will not be able to come to conclusions different from those in work, using relevant arguments. General moral rules, along with the legislation, are indisputable truths, and the main idea is based on them. As already indicated, they formulate the impossibility of causing harm or oppression to anyone, which corresponds to the main argument of the work. Thus, the paper is not just an opinion but a strong conclusion made on the basis of undeniable truths. Moreover, relevant sources were used as evidence base to support my position.
To conclude, in the current case, considering all the conditions, not giving this group a nonprofit seems to be a violation of equality. However, one needs to take into account the spectrum of the institutions’ activities, namely, its nationalist bias. Based on the organizations’ radical trends, it was possible to find out that, according to the framework of equality, a group can be a threat to the freedom of others. Thus, the activity of this group, along with its financing, is a controversial fact. Moreover, it was proposed to revise the legislative environment regarding hate groups. Further, it was also suggested to create special commissions responsible for checking organizations for threats to freedom. Finally, the work’s arguments are based on truths, both moral and legal. Thereby, one cannot find evidence of bias, moreover, it makes the paper more than “just a point of view.”
Balleck, B. J. (2019). Hate groups and extremist organizations in America: An encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO.
Mcshane, L. (2016). Four white nationalist groups given nonprofit status, permission to raise nearly $8M in tax-deductible donations. New York Daily News. Web.
Schmidtz, D., & Pavel, C. E. (2018). The oxford handbook of freedom. Oxford University Press.
Thompson, N. (2017). Promoting equality: Working with diversity and difference. Macmillan International Higher Education.