gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/12/86)
In article <627@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel-Franck Simon) writes: >Indeed, the idea that a racially and sexually balanced work force is >desirable is no longer much in debate, is it? In fact, I challenge the emphasis on this and not on the real cause of the problem, as explained in another note I just posted about the logical fallacy that disturbs me. I hope nobody thinks that I like the historically-evolved state of affairs. I detest unfair discrimination as much as anybody I know. I differ in what I consider to be appropriate action and in my reasons therefor. >Government *cannot* reject its responsibility to these citizens and push >the search for a solution onto philosophers. This is the Libertarian fallacy. Someone else asked me why I did not consider the ideas I espouse as Libertarian. This seems like a good opportunity to explain this; if you don't care, please skip the rest of this article. Many years ago, I was a student of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. I found it to be a breath of fresh air in the fuzzy-thinking culture I grew up in. Although she made mistakes and antagonized a lot of well- meaning people, I agree with perhaps 98% of what she had to say. As an undergraduate from 1966 to 1971, I was actively involved in what turned out to be the Libertarian movement, and therefore know how it developed. Since then, I have checked up on it from time to time, and am no longer in sympathy with it at all, although I'm a staunch advocate of liberty. The following excerpts from Objectivist publications tell the story the same way I saw it evolve: from The Objectivist Newsletter, Apr-1965, "A Message to Our Readers" by Nathaniel Branden (author of several books on psychological theory and "biocentric" psychotherapy): Some allegedly pro-capitalist groups, it appears, have been impressed with the size and quality of the Objectivist following, and -- succumbing to what can only be described as delusions of grandeur -- have decided to launch a special effort to "convert" Objectivist students. Having no understanding of what has made the growth of Objectivism possible, dismissing philosophy as irrelevant, they seek to cash in on the effects while remaining unconcerned with the cause. ... I refer to any organization or school which professes to be fighting for laissez-faire capitalism, but which *in fact* (though seldom by admission) advocates political *anarchism* -- and, which seeks to enlist students of Objectivism under the guise of a common cause. (A brief expose of these anarchists may be found in Miss Rand's article, "The Nature of Government", which appeared in the December 1963 issue of this NEWSLETTER and is reprinted in *The Virtue of Selfishness*.) from The Objectivist, Sep-1971, "Brief Summary" by Ayn Rand: "Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political principles -- specifically, those of laissez-faire capitalism -- as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. It does not regard politics as a separate or primary goal, that is: as a goal that can be achieved without a wider ideological context." ... In summing up this publication's record, I shall say that I am not *primarily* an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not *primarily* an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. ... The hierarchical structure cannot be reversed, nor can any of its levels hold without the fundamental one -- as those who have tried are beginning to discover. ... More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called "hippies of the right", who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. from The Intellectual Activist, 10-May-1985 Vol. III No. 19&20 (double issue), continued in 25-Jun-1985 Vol. IV No. 1, 04-Dec-1985 Vol. IV No. 3, "Libertarianism" (cover article): It is the fact of this public recognition that makes Libertarianism such an insidious ideology. For it has managed to delude a wide audience into believing that it upholds the inviolability of individual rights. People accept Libertarianism's claim to being an uncompromising advocate of freedom and an unwavering foe of any initiation of force. As a result, Libertarianism has succeeded in drawing the support of many genuine advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, who regard Libertarianism as an intellectual ally. Conversely, it has attracted the antagonism of many who smear capitalism in the belief that Libertarian doctrine epitomizes the pro-laissez-faire viewpoint. Both sides are grievously mistaken. On the pages that follow, we offer our evidence. followed by the three-part article "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz: The Libertarian movement has been the target of some unjustified criticism. Conservatives complain that, with its opposition to such social controls as drug and pornography laws, Libertarianism values liberty above order and tradition. Liberals complain that, with its opposition to such government benefactions as food stamps and the minimum wage, Libertarianism values liberty above compassion and humanitarianism. The truth is, however, that Libertarianism deserves only one fundamental criticism: *it does not value liberty*. The article goes on to defend this statement and does a superb job of demolishing Libertarianism's pretensions to being a proponent of liberty. That article is now available as a 64-page booklet ($4.95). If you are interested in rational analysis of current events and suggestions for concrete actions that can be taken to help to establish similar ideas, you may benefit from a subscription ($44 for 20 issues in U.S. and Canada, $64 elsewhere, past issues $2.50 each) to this publication (ISSN 0730-2355): The Intellectual Activist 131 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 New York, NY 10003 Please, if you have any silly flames about Ayn Rand, keep them to yourself. This was an attempt to be helpful and you don't have to respond.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/15/86)
>(1) Doug Gwyn in <2615@brl-smoke.ARPA> >(2) Doug Gwyn in <2159@brl-smoke.ARPA> > > Me > >Indeed, the idea that a racially and sexually balanced work force is > >desirable is no longer much in debate, is it? > >(1) In fact, I challenge the emphasis on this and not on the real cause of >(1) the problem, as explained in another note I just posted about the logical >(1) fallacy that disturbs me. >(2) "If A were true, then B would occur." >(2) "A is desirable." >(2) "Therefore, B is desirable." >(2) >(2)WRONG. No sane scheme of logic allows this reasoning. >(2)To relate this to the original discussion, let A be >(2) "Women should be treated fairly as individuals." >(2)and B be >(2) "There would be a more balanced distribution of >(2) the sexes among the professions." Well, fine, but proponents of AA like myself do not view "Women should be treated fairly as individuals" as the basis for Affirmative Action, which kills your fallacy argument. I made the point in my article that ideas are one thing, social policy is another. That women should be treated fairly is an idea, which is realized (or not) in millions of individual cases, but cannot be legislated. That women's achievements are limited by a pattern of discrimination ingrained in the social fabric is fact. AA does *not* address sexism and racism, but their discriminatory *effects*. The Civil Rights Act does not decree that *racism* is illegal, but that one cannot *discriminate* on the basis of race, sex, etc. The difference is crucial, even if opponents of AA gloss over it. AA places the burden of proof on employers, schools, etc. Why? The Fourteenth Amendment gave all citizens equal protection under the law but it took nearly a century for the Supreme Court (in the 1954 Brown decision) to agree that racial discrimination violates that constitutional protection. Moreover, it took more than ten years before the thick fabric of discrimination was outlawed in its entirety. Yet it exists even today. Time magazine recently ran an article detailing discriminatory practices in housing that are alive and well, even (especially?) in cities, such as Atlanta, where blacks have gained a significant political presence. Do you now understand how wary we are when we hear "well, you are now equal. Go on, succeed"? AA, then, turns the situation around. It tells an employer with a past history of discrimination (that's virtually everyone) that *he* must prove that the history is indeed past. One hopes that in the process, some of the racist and sexist thinking that leads to the discrimination will disappear, but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing the barriers that have been built all around them. I don't claim that AA is perfect. I note, however, that the opponents of AA never propose anything to replace it. There is a massive and diverse body of literature that shows that the necessity of some legal mechanism as deterrent to the multitude of faces discrimination adopts. AA is such a mechanism. We happen to think it works fairly well. I think it is up to those who disagree to put forth their own proposal for a replacement. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Ayiti cheri, pi bon payi pase' ou nan poin " " Fok moin te' kite'-ou, pou moin te kapab konpran vale`-ou "
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/15/86)
In article <629@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) writes: >but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class >of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing >the barriers that have been built all around them. Nobody has a "right" to power over others. It is doubly wrong to claim such a "right" on the basis of race or sex. >We happen to think it works fairly well. I think it is up to those who >disagree to put forth their own proposal for a replacement. I have proposed what needs to be done. One aspect of that is that there is zero objective value in a particular statistical ethnic distribution as such. There is great value in the recognition of and support for individual rights, but AA does not accomplish this and in fact is not consistent with it.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/16/86)
> Doug Gwyn > >Me > >but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class > >of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing > >the barriers that have been built all around them. > > Nobody has a "right" to power over others. It is doubly wrong to claim > such a "right" on the basis of race or sex. I did not say power "over" others, I said "rightful place at the table of power." The rights (read power) of a minority are guaranteed by the law in this country. You can see the difference, can't you? > >We happen to think it works fairly well. I think it is up to those who > >disagree to put forth their own proposal for a replacement. > > I have proposed what needs to be done. One aspect of that is that > there is zero objective value in a particular statistical ethnic > distribution as such. There is great value in the recognition of > and support for individual rights, but AA does not accomplish this > and in fact is not consistent with it. I must have missed your proposals. Please send them to me by mail, as the article has expired here. As for "recognition and support of individual rights," my article (the main points of which you do not respond to) talked about how AA's function is preventing discrimination from impeding basic rights. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Ayiti cheri, pi bon payi pase' ou nan poin " " Fok moin te' kite'-ou, pou moin te kapab konpran vale`-ou "
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/16/86)
In article <2250@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <629@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) writes: >>but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class >>of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing >>the barriers that have been built all around them. > >Nobody has a "right" to power over others. It is doubly wrong to claim >such a "right" on the basis of race or sex. Clever, but it won't wash. Marcel said or implied nothing about anyone claiming a right to power *over* others. In fact, he specifically chose an image - that of sitting at table - to emphasize the claim of *equal* power. (Well, approximately equal, anyway.) I hope Marcel will forgive me for butting in like this, but I couldn't let such a blatant twist of meaning go unscathed. Jeff Winslow