long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (06/15/85)
[I am not making any judgements about AA]
When someone kills someone else in self defense, we call it "justifiable
homocide". Since AA *is* discrimination, but some people consider it justifi-
able discrimination, why don't we call it "justifiable discrimination". That
we could stop arguing about whether AA is discrimination or not, since it de-
finitely is, but whether it is justified to discriminate on the basis of past
discrimination.
Dave Long
--
{hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!longrobertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/18/85)
In article <464@oliveb.UUCP>, long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) writes: > > When someone kills someone else in self defense, we call it > "justifiable homocide". Since AA *is* discrimination, but some > people consider it justifi- able discrimination, why don't we call it > "justifiable discrimination". That we could stop arguing about > whether AA is discrimination or not, since it definitely is, but > whether it is justified to discriminate on the basis of past > discrimination. > > Dave Long > -- > {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long It's justifiable to kill in self-defense only because you are protecting yourself against the very individual who is depriving you of your rights. If a woman is attacked by a man and shoots him dead as a means of stopping him, that's self-defense. On the other hand, few people would support a government program to shoot men who WEREN'T attacking women, but had a statistical profile that implied that they might. In the first case there is a violation of one person's rights by another person. In the second, the so-called "attackers" are being punished despite there being neither crime nor victim. (I know the analogy isn't that great, but I'm following up on David's posting, and don't want to mix the metaphors too much. Bear with me.) If an individual employer violates an individual person's rights, there's a genuine crime involved. If statistics indicate that an individual employer is likely to have violated somebody's rights sometime in the past, that's not a crime, and doesn't merit punishment. You need proof that somebody's rights have been violated, which means you need to find both proof and victims. Suppose it was demonstrated that people who ride a particular brand of motorcycle were especially likely to be involved in some kind of horrid crime. Would you restrict everyone in that group because of this? If you would, you should understand that you don't believe in individual rights, and that you're a bigot. As to it being "justified to discriminate on the basis of past discrimination," what do you mean? Is this a plan for enforcing contrition on the people you've labeled as villians, a method of extracting vengeance, or both? Southern whites are, as a class, and historically speaking, the most likely to engage in biased hiring practices against women and blacks. How about a "Grandfather law" levying extra taxes on southern white males? Or setting up governmental programs so that southern white males are very unlikely to get in? You'll get your vengeance that way, and also get lots of women and minorities into the programs. Another nice thing about "past wrongs" is that you can go as far into the past as you want if you need new victims, with as much (or little) justification. After all, time is unimportant in matters of justice, right? Let's give people of French descent an edge over people of Italian descent because Caesar oppressed the Gauls! While "past wrongs" are a good way of condemning people who weren't even alive when the wrongs took place, many people concerned with individual rights instead of class politics are worried about CURRENT wrongs. There are certainly enough of them to go around... -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robertp