Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?

[protectionist]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

Wow, what a mess.

1. There IS something people have to begin with. Equality of opportunity - promised and guaranteed in the 1964 civil rights law.

2. AA is wrong because of its unfairness. In fair to whites (sometimes other non-bkacks too)

3. No, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is NOT well within the owners’ rights, it is racial discrimination and is outlawed by the 964 US civil right act, and of course someone has cause to complain >> whites, and all those people being discriminate against by it.

4. The black/white thing certainly IS important. It is the basis of the racial discrimination of AA.

 

[protectionist]

How can something you don't own be taken away from you?

You DO own something. RIGHTS. In this case, the right to not be discriminated against by race, given to you by the 1964 US Civil Rights Act.

Post # 641 explains that to you.​

 

[IM2]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

Wow, what a mess.

1. There IS something people have to begin with. Equality of opportunity - promised and guaranteed in the 1964 civil rights law.

2. AA is wrong because of its unfairness. In fair to whites (sometimes other non-bkacks too)

3. No, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is NOT well within the owners’ rights, it is racial discrimination and is outlawed by the 964 US civil right act, and of course someone has cause to complain >> whites, and all those people being discriminate against by it.

4. The black/white thing certainly IS important. It is the basis of the racial discrimination of AA.

Too bad AA doesn't do what you claim.

 

[dblack]

No. I'm saying something you apparently don't understand.

And I'm asking you what you mean since I apparently don't understand it.

Well, first of all, you need to understand how the Constitution works:

"Are you saying that each of us should be free to engage in unconstitutional behavior by which we deprive our fellow citizens of their rights?"

The behavior of citizens can't be "unconstitutional". The Constitution is a set of rules for the government, not individuals.

Putting aside the fact that private citizens can act as agents of government why don't you just tell me what you meant? I didn't understand your comment, I guessed (incorrectly according to your last comment) so why not just tell me what you meant.

Affirmative Action and laws like it are bad because they put government in charge of our personal decisions. Moreover they target certain opinions for suppression. It's not illegal, for example, to fire someone - it's illegal to fire them for reasons the state doesn't approve of.

We might agree that the opinions in question are toxic, irrational and indefensible, but the question is whether government should be in charge of dictating those opinions. I think it's a bad precedent to set. It has encouraged the conception of government as a general purpose tool for getting what you want out of society.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

You don't even know what AA is.

I have described the two possible expressions of the AA philosophy - legislative or voluntary private policy. Please explain how this means I don't know what AA is.

 

[protectionist]

Too bad AA doesn't do what you claim.

Everybody knows it does. Talking nonsense, doesn't achieve anything, except take away credibility from you. Not my problem.

 

[IM2]

Too bad AA doesn't do what you claim.

Everybody knows it does. Talking nonsense, doesn't achieve anything, except take away credibility from you. Not my problem.

Let me know when you can accurately explain the parameters of the policy.

 

[IM2]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

You don't even know what AA is.

I have described the two possible expressions of the AA philosophy - legislative or voluntary private policy. Please explain how this means I don't know what AA is.

Pretty much it starts with your claim of how it infringes upon a individuals freedom of association. You don't have a clue of what the policy is about.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

What a Drama Queen

This is precisely why the world is a wreck. I'm considered a drama queen for bringing up the fundamental issue of personal liberty in a "mundane" context. It's taboo to think too deeply. The reluctance to discuss underlying philosophical principles is why the modern population would just abide the King's rule instead of asserting their freedom and starting a revolution. The 4th of July is just about flags, burgers and fireworks, right? Let's celebrate the physical and philosophical courage of our forefathers while embodying none of it ourselves.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

You don't even know what AA is.

I have described the two possible expressions of the AA philosophy - legislative or voluntary private policy. Please explain how this means I don't know what AA is.

Pretty much it starts with your claim of how it infringes upon a individuals freedom of association. You don't have a clue of what the policy is about.

If it's made into law, it infringes upon individual liberty. Please explain how not.

 

[dblack]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

You don't even know what AA is.

I have described the two possible expressions of the AA philosophy - legislative or voluntary private policy. Please explain how this means I don't know what AA is.

Pretty much it starts with your claim of how it infringes upon a individuals freedom of association. You don't have a clue of what the policy is about.

Most anti-discrimination laws infringe on freedom of association. It's their overriding goal. The point is to force bigots to accommodate people they'd otherwise avoid. How do you deny that?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"I'm fine with affirmative action. We've lived with it for a long time. And I lived with it for a long time. And I've had great relationships with lots of people. So I'm fine with it." - Donald J. Trump

Donald Trump on ‘Meet the Press’

And? Jebus... do you obsess over Trump 24/7/365? Shit, Hillary lost, get over it.

 

[IM2]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

What a Drama Queen

This is precisely why the world is a wreck. I'm considered a drama queen for bringing up the fundamental issue of personal liberty in a "mundane" context. It's taboo to think too deeply. The reluctance to discuss underlying philosophical principles is why the modern population would just abide the King's rule instead of asserting their freedom and starting a revolution. The 4th of July is just about flags, burgers and fireworks, right? Let's celebrate the physical and philosophical courage of our forefathers while embodying none of it ourselves.

What about the personal liberty of the non whites denied opportunity by racist white laws? And you really need not talk abut the forth of July when blacks are around.

"What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour. "

Frederick Douglas​

 

[IM2]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

You don't even know what AA is.

I have described the two possible expressions of the AA philosophy - legislative or voluntary private policy. Please explain how this means I don't know what AA is.

Pretty much it starts with your claim of how it infringes upon a individuals freedom of association. You don't have a clue of what the policy is about.

Most anti-discrimination laws infringe on freedom of association. It's their overriding goal. The point is to force bigots to accommodate people they'd otherwise avoid. How do you deny that?

Most discriminatory laws infringed upon the freedom of association for everyone not white. Why do you deny that?

 

[dblack]

Pretty much it starts with your claim of how it infringes upon a individuals freedom of association. You don't have a clue of what the policy is about.

Most anti-discrimination laws infringe on freedom of association. It's their overriding goal. The point is to force bigots to accommodate people they'd otherwise avoid. How do you deny that?

Most discriminatory laws infringed upon the freedom of association for everyone not white. Why do you deny that?

I don't.

You're turn. Do you deny that AA violates freedom of association?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

Wow, what a mess.

1. There IS something people have to begin with. Equality of opportunity - promised and guaranteed in the 1964 civil rights law.

2. AA is wrong because of its unfairness. In fair to whites (sometimes other non-bkacks too)

3. No, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is NOT well within the owners’ rights, it is racial discrimination and is outlawed by the 964 US civil right act, and of course someone has cause to complain >> whites, and all those people being discriminate against by it.

4. The black/white thing certainly IS important. It is the basis of the racial discrimination of AA.

No, people do not come into the world with equal opportunity, and writing it down on paper in Washington doesn't make it so. Fairness is not a right. Not being discriminated against is not a right, no matter what the "law" says. Law does not grant rights; it's a misuse of the term. Law only creates a false justification for punishment to make immoral people feel better about their immorality. Since when does law dictate what's right and wrong?

Every person has the natural right to associate, or not associate, with whoever they choose, for any reason. If you want to hang a sign on your barber shop that says "No Chinese" then so be it. You are not committing an act of aggression and infringement upon the Chinese. To force that barber to accept Chinese clients, however, DOES aggressively infringe upon the barber. It's a fundamental freedom issue. You don't get to initiate violence over it. Not if you're a reasonable moral human being, that is. Discrimination is stupid and wrong, but it's not a matter of rights, and it's less wrong than violent coercion, which is a matter of rights, and is precisely the nature of civil rights law. THAT is why any AA legislation would be wrong, not simply because it's "not fair".

 

[JQPublic1]

No matter what they do to survive or to get ahead you'll always think blacks are taking something away from whites.

I'll think it when they do it. With AA, they do it.

How can something you don't own be taken away from you?

It’s a strange phenomenon... we see people angry about “losing” something they didn’t have to begin with (like a potential job), but losing something that they actually have (like their inherent freedom) is largely ignored or dismissed with parroted political justifications.

AA legislation is wrong because it infringes upon the individual’s freedom of association; not because it’s “not fair”. Similarly, AA as a voluntary practice in any business is well within the owners’ rights, and no one has any cause to complain.

This is an important topic, but only if it’s discussed for important reasons. The black/white thing is not an important reason, but the freedom of mankind most certainly is.

That's a weak argument. Trying to make a nexus between Freedom of association and applicants seeking employment or admission to a university is a stretch.

You're attempting to place personal choice over administrative perogatives. And SCOTUS has, over the last 50 years, ruled favorably on
both sides of the equation. . The 1978 Bakke vs University of California decision defanged AA by removing quotas. Yet, the spirit of AA was retained by allowing goverment officials and associated civilian contractors freedom to use race to diversify their workforces or student bodies by actively seeking and recruiting qualified underrepresented applicants..That included white women, blacks of any gender, and any other minority.
The key word here is applicants. To me that implies a mandate to bring in qualified minorities to compete and nothing more.
Managers may feel that a qualified black person would enhance profitability in some locations. Universiites, for instance, may be contacted by employers to encourage the recruitment of qualified blacks to meet their objectives of foreign liasons or business operations in Africa or anywhere blacks live around the world.

 

[dblack]

You're attempting to place personal choice over administrative perogatives.

Yes! This is exactly what's at stake here.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What about the personal liberty of the non whites denied opportunity by racist white laws? And you really need not talk abut the forth of July when blacks are around.

"What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour. "

Frederick Douglas​

Ah, excellent quote. I agree. You won't catch me waving any flags. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the modern so-called patriots who claim to love "America" but don't even understand or embody the principles that birthed it..

Yes, racist law is just as bad as law that attempts to mitigate discrimination. They are both the same on the principle level - they assert the fallacious right of one group to dominate another. It is immoral, regardless of its aim. The only law that would be justified is law that reflects the individual's natural rights, but then it would be redundant and unnecessary, like making a law that says, "the people shall breathe air".

This is the unspoken irony of the idea that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." How exactly is government supposed to do that? Government is an outright denial of the aforementioned equality, as one group has the "right" to make law, and the other doesn't? And not just make law for those who expressly consent, but for ALL people within an arbitrary boundary, whether they willingly grant their consent or not.

All government can ever do is punish. We already have the right to defend ourselves from aggressors, so we don't need a ruling body to assert or justify that. The only thing government can ever add to the equation is the threat and application immoral violence, It is immoral to make a law that says "You cannot have blacks and whites together" or that says "You must have blacks and whites together." People have the unalienable natural right to associate (or not associate) with whoever they want, be they black or white, "illegal aliens" or "legal citizens", fugitives from the law, willing underage or under-minimum-wage employees, etc.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That's a weak argument. Trying to make a nexus between Freedom of association and applicants seeking employment or admission to a university is a stretch.

You're attempting to place personal choice over administrative perogatives. And SCOTUS has, over the last 50 years, ruled favorably on
both sides of the equation. . The 1978 Bakke vs University of California decision defanged AA by removing quotas. Yet, the spirit of AA was retained by allowing goverment officials and associated civilian contractors freedom to use race to diversify their workforces or student bodies by actively seeking and recruiting qualified underrepresented applicants..That included white women, blacks of any gender, and any other minority.
The key word here is applicants. To me that implies a mandate to bring in qualified minorities to compete and nothing more.
Managers may feel that a qualified black person would enhance profitability in some locations. Universiites, for instance, may be contacted by employers to encourage the recruitment of qualified blacks to meet their objectives of foreign liasons or business operations in Africa or anywhere blacks live around the world.

I'm not sure where the stretch is... The whole thing is pretty cut-and-dry until you get a huge immoral institution bossing everyone around by trying to create legislative solutions to moral problems. There is only one valid solution: Convince people that racism is wrong. It's a challenge, but embracing that challenge is what contributes the forward progress of humanity. Trying to dodge that responsibility by resorting to violence (law) is only treating the symptoms, and the disease will express in other ways. Once you take law out of the equation, any other application of the AA philosophy is well within your rights, as long as you're not committing fraud or acts of aggressive force.