michael@spar.UUCP (Not Bill Joy) (06/28/85)
> = Clayton Cramer >> Barry Fagin writes to the effect that it is ludicrous to suppose that >> anyone has a right to compel an employer to change his hiring >> practices. But it is ludicrous only on the assumption that the >> Non-Coercion Principle on which Barry's objection is apparently >> based is self-evidently true. The confidence of libertarians in the >> NCP is matched only by their inability to convince anyone else of it. >> To me it is ludicrous to suppose that employers have the right to >> discriminate against minorities and women because of their irrational >> prejudice against them, and AT THE SAME TIME no one has the right to >> make them stop it. >> >Tell me, Mr. Carnes, if you don't believe in the non-coercion principle, >what is the basis for your objection to rape? murder? robbery? If the >objection is based on law, then a government that repeals those laws >has taken away your objections. Somehow net.women has become a receptacle for those of the Libertarian faith to dump huge quantities of dogma. Mr. Cramer, your non-coercion principle is most reasonable; nonetheless, some people have other first principles. Please understand this. If you sincerely pose practical solutions to the problems women face, then your continued presence in net.women is encouraged. Some of the most serious criticisms of Libertarianism concern its inability to comprehend the problems faced by members of minority groups. >>> AA is fully implemented, and we can't buy the home of our choice or >>> send our kids to a good school, etc. all because *I*, a WHITE MALE, >>> though completely qualified, can't get a job. They give them all to >>> equally qualified "minorities". -- SJ Berry >> >> I thought of writing a satirical response to this and similar >> postings, but the above already sounds like satire to me, and I would >> need the talents of a Mark Twain to do an adequate job. I was going >> to say that I was founding the NAAWM and requesting all WM's to send >> me their tax-deductible contributions so that we could fight for the >> rights of this oppressed minority, but lots of you would have taken >> me seriously and sent me your checks -- come to think of it, it might >> be worth a try sometime. Wake up, fellow white males! They're >> trying to take away our GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to be on top of the heap! >> Let's organize, march, demonstrate.... >> >Not "our GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to be on top of the heap!" The right of every >individual to be treated as an individual. Your comments suggest that >you either aren't reading what people are saying, or you are purposely >and knowingly distorting and twisting the objections to affirmative >action. Mr. Carnes DID call it `satire'. And his distortion was hardly worse than SJ Berry's ridiculous implication that AA requires ALL jobs to go to minorities. You are being inconsistent, Mr. Cramer. And though being treated fairly as an individual is a fine thing, there are other things that some of us feel are important, too. Perhaps this fixation on individualism is why many who think as you do refuse to understand that: Our society's present domination by white males of blacks/women was unjustly caused. Discrimination still exists. Doing nothing about the effects of discrimination effectively maintains the existing dominance by white males. Government action driven by minority group pressure has repeatedly proven to be the only effective tool against majority oppression. It is clearly in your favor to deny these things. I hope you see why people doubt your sincerity. >> Suppose we abandon AA, or suppose it was never applied. Then we're >> back to the good old days when many blacks and women, though >> completely qualified, couldn't get a good job or a promotion or a >> good education. Do you think that the comfortable white males who >> are now howling their outrage about the "discrimination" AA inflicts >> on them were howling as loudly in the good old days about the >> discrimination and oppression inflicted on minorities and women, an >> oppression incomparably more severe than any that white males will >> ever experience? Take a guess. >> >The bad old days of discrimination came to an end because a great many >white males were disturbed by it --- EEO came into place from a Congress >dominated by white males. (You don't really think blacks had enough >political pull to do it by themselves, do you?) This has a hateful sound to it, Mr. Cramer. The real reason legal discrimination ended was massive nonviolent group action by the oppressed themselves, inspired by the magnificent example of Mahatma Gandhi's efforts in India. >> --Richard Carnes >> I have striven, not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, >> nor to hate them, but to understand them. --Spinoza > >Spinoza tried to understand, Mr. Carnes --- you don't. Or else you are attributing your own flaws to those around you. -michael
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/01/85)
> > = Clayton Cramer > > >> Barry Fagin writes to the effect that it is ludicrous to suppose that > >> anyone has a right to compel an employer to change his hiring > >> practices. But it is ludicrous only on the assumption that the > >> Non-Coercion Principle on which Barry's objection is apparently > >> based is self-evidently true. The confidence of libertarians in the > >> NCP is matched only by their inability to convince anyone else of it. > >> To me it is ludicrous to suppose that employers have the right to > >> discriminate against minorities and women because of their irrational > >> prejudice against them, and AT THE SAME TIME no one has the right to > >> make them stop it. > >> > >Tell me, Mr. Carnes, if you don't believe in the non-coercion principle, > >what is the basis for your objection to rape? murder? robbery? If the > >objection is based on law, then a government that repeals those laws > >has taken away your objections. > > Somehow net.women has become a receptacle for those of the Libertarian > faith to dump huge quantities of dogma. > > Mr. Cramer, your non-coercion principle is most reasonable; nonetheless, > some people have other first principles. Please understand this. > > If you sincerely pose practical solutions to the problems women face, > then your continued presence in net.women is encouraged. Some of the > most serious criticisms of Libertarianism concern its inability to > comprehend the problems faced by members of minority groups. > Not inability to comprehend the problems faced by members of minority groups, but a differing perspective on how to solve those problems. I would maintain that solutions that promote treating people as members of groups, rather than as individuals who have been wronged, will (and does) provoke a backlash aimed at groups. > >>> AA is fully implemented, and we can't buy the home of our choice or > >>> send our kids to a good school, etc. all because *I*, a WHITE MALE, > >>> though completely qualified, can't get a job. They give them all to > >>> equally qualified "minorities". -- SJ Berry > >> > >> I thought of writing a satirical response to this and similar > >> postings, but the above already sounds like satire to me, and I would > >> need the talents of a Mark Twain to do an adequate job. I was going > >> to say that I was founding the NAAWM and requesting all WM's to send > >> me their tax-deductible contributions so that we could fight for the > >> rights of this oppressed minority, but lots of you would have taken > >> me seriously and sent me your checks -- come to think of it, it might > >> be worth a try sometime. Wake up, fellow white males! They're > >> trying to take away our GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to be on top of the heap! > >> Let's organize, march, demonstrate.... > >> > >Not "our GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to be on top of the heap!" The right of every > >individual to be treated as an individual. Your comments suggest that > >you either aren't reading what people are saying, or you are purposely > >and knowingly distorting and twisting the objections to affirmative > >action. > > Mr. Carnes DID call it `satire'. And his distortion was hardly worse > than SJ Berry's ridiculous implication that AA requires ALL jobs to go > to minorities. > Mr. Carnes satire suggests that he feels that opposition to affirmative action is based on some idea as silly as the phrase he used. My opposition, and most of the rest of the opposition in this newsgroup to affirmative action, is based on individual rights, not on some idea like one Mr. Carnes suggests. > You are being inconsistent, Mr. Cramer. > For suggesting that everyone deserves to be treated as an individual? > And though being treated fairly as an individual is a fine thing, there > are other things that some of us feel are important, too. > Some people think keeping women "in their place" is important; some people think the government should promote racism, or a particular religious belief; what all these points of view have in common with affirmative action is the belief that the government should *force* non-aggressive individuals to act a certain way. > Perhaps this fixation on individualism is why many who think as you do > refuse to understand that: > > Our society's present domination by white males of blacks/women was > unjustly caused. > No argument that blacks and women were grossly mistreated by the government and society in the past, and that some of this mistreatment by some parts of the society continues. > Discrimination still exists. > No argument that discrimination still exists; the evidence to me suggests that it represents only a few percent of the difference in salaries between blacks and whites, and men and women, if you compare equivalent samples. > Doing nothing about the effects of discrimination effectively > maintains the existing dominance by white males. White males are dominant mostly because they have been, until the last few months, the majority of wage earners. If discrimination by white males has been so effective, why have Asians managed to overcome it? I think the answer is a little more complicated than simply ascribing difference to racism. > Government action driven by minority group pressure has repeatedly > proven to be the only effective tool against majority oppression. > False. You mean like the boycotts organized at the beginning of the civil rights era? Those weren't government action (indeed, government tended to take action to protect racism). The major source of majority oppression in this country for a long time has been the government, at local and federal levels. Using the government to solve problems the government has created may be appropriate (although not always feasible), using the government in a discrminatory manner to resolve previous government-encouraged discrimination is dangerous, because it turns the issue in a power play by whoever is currently running the asylum in Washington (as the last five years should demonstrate). > It is clearly in your favor to deny these things. I hope you see > why people doubt your sincerity. > Once upon a time, anyone that supported civil rights was called a "Communist", because the Communists used civil rights as a recruiting technique (although not very successfully). Are you now saying that its OK to call anyone that disapproves of government-encouraged discrmination a racist? You've learned well from Lester Maddox. > >> Suppose we abandon AA, or suppose it was never applied. Then we're > >> back to the good old days when many blacks and women, though > >> completely qualified, couldn't get a good job or a promotion or a > >> good education. Do you think that the comfortable white males who > >> are now howling their outrage about the "discrimination" AA inflicts > >> on them were howling as loudly in the good old days about the > >> discrimination and oppression inflicted on minorities and women, an > >> oppression incomparably more severe than any that white males will > >> ever experience? Take a guess. > >> > >The bad old days of discrimination came to an end because a great many > >white males were disturbed by it --- EEO came into place from a Congress > >dominated by white males. (You don't really think blacks had enough > >political pull to do it by themselves, do you?) > > This has a hateful sound to it, Mr. Cramer. > Hateful? For saying that blacks, historically underrepresented in Congress, and a small fraction of the population, were unable to bring about EEO by themselves? > The real reason legal discrimination ended was massive nonviolent group > action by the oppressed themselves, inspired by the magnificent example > of Mahatma Gandhi's efforts in India. > Time to read your history books, and also check yourself for consistency. May I quote your remark above that: > Government action driven by minority group pressure has repeatedly > proven to be the only effective tool against majority oppression. The civil rights movement during the 1960s made it impossible for our society to ignore the discriminatory practices of local governments; the Congress passed EEO originally with goal of bringing *mostly* the Southern governments into line with the law. > >> --Richard Carnes > >> I have striven, not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, > >> nor to hate them, but to understand them. --Spinoza > > > >Spinoza tried to understand, Mr. Carnes --- you don't. > > Or else you are attributing your own flaws to those around you. > > -michael That was sort of a cheap shot; but the quote from Spinoza was so appropriate, it was hard to resist.
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (07/02/85)
Michael, why don't you use your real name rather than "Not Bill Joy" in
your From: field of your postings?
Please do not use Bill Joy's name, even with a "not" in front of it.
Yes, you are NOT Bill Joy... but why are you taking his name in vain?
Sunny
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)