keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) (09/28/89)
2 posts back, there was a post concerning affirmative action, and that it was "good". Instead of arguing this assertion on "practical" grounds, I will do so on philosophical grounds. If one were to ask a group whether "we" should have discrimination, the universal answer would be "no!". But if one were to ask the same group whether people should be allowed to spend their own money as they wish, and whether they should be free from the initiation of the use of physical force by either other individuals, or the govt, you would get some muttering, and then perhaps a hesitant "yes, but..." I would argue that the 2 questions are the same, merely variants. For a person (man) who has the right to spend his money as he sees fit, and who is a free man may elect to hire based on some standard which is prejudiced. From an individual rights perspective, he has the right to hire anyone he wished. Why? Because the money to be paid and the company to be worked for, and the equipment to be worked with, etc., are all his. By right. There are 2 criteria for any law which will attempt to stop this, and one problem. The criteria are: it must INITIATE the use of physical force (ie. a gun) against someone who has not used force; it also must be by its nature non-objective. Non objective laws are capable of ex-post-facto "justice" because they may be "reinterpreted". They are also frequently responsible for holding people guilty until proven innocent. "What do you MEAN you dont discriminate against women???? - you hired 50 people, and only _2_ are women. They make up half the population, you ought to have hired at least _40_ percent!" But how many women WANT to be coal miners? This looks like a perfect opportunity for a vendetta, doesnt it? Ok, if these are the "criteria" then what is the problem? The problem is that this sort of thing does nothing to combat the attitude responsible for bigotry. When you force some guy to hire people he does not want to, then he will resent the law, and he will resent the people he had to hire. And eventually, he can fire them. (maybe, you can hold him guilty until he proves himself innocent, but eventually, he will find something). If he cannot fire them, then he will make their job a hassle. But my final observation is that freedom is the only system under which people think - ie under which they will reject prejudice for what it is: irrational. And there is no govt which can legislate against irrationality. They can only encourage it.