Affirmative Action

[wcknight]

Fairness is NOT completely subjective. There can be objective criteria made to determine fairness. AND folks DO have a right to buy a home in what neighborhood they can afford.

And they DO have a right to a job for which they are qualified.

Are you proposing that we go back to discrimnation against minorities to fair housing or employment ???

 

[ChrisR246]

wcknight:

Fairness is NOT completely subjective. There can be objective criteria made to determine fairness.

Only if everyone agrees to abide by those criteria. There is no universal understanding of fairness. A small group, in limited circumstances, can come to an agreement on that e.g. playing a game. As the size of the group expands and the circumstances become more complex, the area of agreement diminishes. At a certain point, agreement only comes through coercion - one person/group has the means and is willing to force everyone else to adibe. That is where most of our “fairness” laws are. Everyone does not agree, they simply go along because the consequences are too severe if they disagree.

wcknight:

AND folks DO have a right to buy a home in what neighborhood they can afford.

No they don’t. First, a current owner has to be willing to sell. Second, the potential buyer has to offer satisfactory compensation to the seller. What is satisfactory is completely at the sellers discretion.

wcknight:

And they DO have a right to a job for which they are qualified.

Again, only if the perspective employer is first willing to hire and then the employer still gets to decide what the qualifications are. That color or sex or religion are not acceptable qualifiers are only because those who control the use of force have decided they are not.

wcknight:

Are you proposing that we go back to discrimnation against minorities to fair housing or employment ???

I am saying that I do not have a right to tell someone else how to use or dispose of their property, if they are not harming me. Neither do you. Since our government derives it’s power from the governed and the governed (us) don’thave the right, the government can not have the right, either. Consider - a neighbor is selling their house for $100K. A minority family offers $100K. The owner says they will not sell. Do you think that potential buyer has a right to stick a gun to the owners head and insist he sell?

 

[wcknight]

ChrisR246:

Only if everyone agrees to abide by those criteria. There is no universal understanding of fairness. A small group, in limited circumstances, can come to an agreement on that e.g. playing a game. As the size of the group expands and the circumstances become more complex, the area of agreement diminishes. At a certain point, agreement only comes through coercion - one person/group has the means and is willing to force everyone else to adibe. That is where most of our “fairness” laws are. Everyone does not agree, they simply go along because the consequences are too severe if they disagree.

No they don’t. First, a current owner has to be willing to sell. Second, the potential buyer has to offer satisfactory compensation to the seller. What is satisfactory is completely at the sellers discretion.

Again, only if the perspective employer is first willing to hire and then the employer still gets to decide what the qualifications are. That color or sex or religion are not acceptable qualifiers are only because those who control the use of force have decided they are not.

I am saying that I do not have a right to tell someone else how to use or dispose of their property, if they are not harming me. Neither do you. Since our government derives it’s power from the governed and the governed (us) don’thave the right, the government can not have the right, either. Consider - a neighbor is selling their house for $100K. A minority family offers $100K. The owner says they will not sell. Do you think that potential buyer has a right to stick a gun to the owners head and insist he sell?

Not a gun BUT he does have the right to sue the owner for discrimination. The owner put his home on the open market. HE DOES NOT have a the right to decline a legitimate offer merely because he does not like the color of someone’s skin.

That’s fundamental fairness. IF you can not understand that, we have no need to further discuss this.

 

[ChrisR246]

wcknight:

Not a gun BUT he does have the right to sue the owner for discrimination.

That simply means he is going to have someone else go put a gun to the owner shead to sell. What happens if the owner simply does not show up in court? Eventually government agents are going to enforce the court order. And they will do i9t with guns, if they have to.

wcknight:

The owner put his home on the open market.

Only because you would not allow him to adverstise the caveat that only whites need apply.

wcknight:

That’s fundamental fairness. IF you can not understand that, we have no need to further discuss this.

I can understand that you, and I and most other people agree it is fair. What I can not agree to is forcibly imposing that idea of fairness onto a party does not wish to abide. I’m all for boycotting them, shunning them, not speaking to them, snubbing them, setting an example, trying to convince them, etc alll in an attempt to non violently get them to change their mind. What I can not agree to is resotrting to force. That is what a law ultimately does.

 

[wcknight]

Chris, unfortunately, people do not respond to advice or shunning or whatever. Dragging them to court is what works.

Government is there to protect individual rights. It is precisely because the minority buyer can not put a gun to the offending homeowner that govenrment has to impose it’s will forceably if necesary.

IF all folks had were public ridicule or shunning to make things work, we would still have segregated schools and communities. Employment among minorities would be even worse than it already is.

That’s fine IF you are a member of the majority and you don;t have a problem finding a job or a home in a decent community, but it is the pits if you are not.

 

[wcknight]

AND you think it is okay to allow someone to put “WHites Only” on their job announcements ??? :bigyikes:

 

[ChrisR246]

wcknight:

Dragging them to court is what works.

Is this how Christ wants us to spread the Gospel?

It is precisely because the minority buyer can not put a gun to the offending homeowner that govenrment has to impose it’s will forceably if necesary.

Can not why?

Employment among minorities would be even worse than it already is.

According to Thomas Sowell and others, the economic condition and family strength among African Americans was peaking in the 40s and 50s then took a down turn after desegregation.

 

[ChrisR246]

wcknight:

AND you think it is okay to allow someone to put “WHites Only” on their job announcements ??? :bigyikes:

I find it abhorrent. I’m simply not willing to kill to stop it.

 

[Anglican77]

ChrisR246:

I find it abhorrent. I’m simply not willing to kill to stop it.

So what are you willing to do to stop it? If not affirmative action, then what? If you read my original post to start this thread, I asked an open quesiton to those opposed to come up with alternative solution. I have yet to hear one solution.

 

[ChrisR246]

Anglican77:

So what are you willing to do to stop it? If not affirmative action, then what? If you read my original post to start this thread, I asked an open quesiton to those opposed to come up with alternative solution. I have yet to hear one solution.

In post #63 I said

If you do not like the hiring practices of a business, take your money elsewhere. If you do not like the admissions policy of a school, send your kid elsewhere. Stop insisting that the government come bully everyone into doing exactly what you would like.

Certainly there are non violent ways to change behavior. They aint fast and they aint easy, but they are better and more complete then one imposed from above.

 

[wcknight]

Desegration and fair employment and fair housing laws did NOT cause Blacks to lose ground economically or socially.

There are a host of socio economic factors that have led to the current downturn of their status, not the least of which is a welfare state that simply did not work…

No one in their right mind would ever suggest that allowing Blacks into white schools or to buy into white neighborhoods have caused them to lose ground.

The fact that they have continued to lose ground is proof that discrimation still exists and AA is still needed to make a more level playing field.
They need more education, not less and they need more jobs, not more restrictions.

 

[wcknight]

ChrisR246:

I find it abhorrent. I’m simply not willing to kill to stop it.

You don’t have to kill to stop it, and no one says you do. Taking folks to court and hitting them in the wallet stops it.

When people see that it does not pay to discriminate, then they take notice. Ad campaigns, and mere words doesn’t do a thing.

Money talks, and if the law suits and settlements get high enough people will take notice.

 

[vz71]

Anglican77:

So what are you willing to do to stop it? If not affirmative action, then what? If you read my original post to start this thread, I asked an open quesiton to those opposed to come up with alternative solution. I have yet to hear one solution.

AA is a very slippery slope. Slippery enough that it can be argued that the government should have nothing to do with it.
No matter the way AA is set up, or viewed, it ultimately comes down to legal descrimination.
That is no more right then the segregation that ultimately led to AA in the first place.

It would be much better to simply introduce legislation allowing the employer to prove that race, creed, etc is not a factor in the hiring of individuals.
Think it can’t be done? I have seen many people hired over a phone and a written application. No one knew anything other then the job qualifications of the individual before they walked in their first day.

:twocents:

Z

 

[Anglican77]

ChrisR246:

In post #63 I said

Certainly there are non violent ways to change behavior. They aint fast and they aint easy, but they are better and more complete then one imposed from above.

So basically you are saying to all minorities and women who have encountered problems getting into universities, getting jobs, buying homes in certain areas, etc. to just deal with it and look elsewhere? That’s your solution?

Affirmative action is not violent, and again, it is not required by law.

 

[wcknight]

ChrisR246:

Is this how Christ wants us to spread the Gospel?

Can not why?

According to Thomas Sowell and others, the economic condition and family strength among African Americans was peaking in the 40s and 50s then took a down turn after desegregation.

Taking folks to court is the legal non-violent way this country handles things. IF all folks behaves as Christ would want them to, they would never even consider putting whites only on a job announcemnt or refuse to sell to a minority.

Surely you do not believe Christ would condone racism or bigotry ???

Unfortunately many folks do NOT follow what Christ does, and they think nothing of it.

Why ???
because I can’t believe that you would prefer that a home buyer would be better off threatening a homeowner to sell to them with a gun rather than let the authorities handle it.

We supposedly live in a civilized society, the courts are our legal recourse.

Ask any African American whether they would rather live under today’s civil rights laws or under the 40’s and 50’s and everyone will tell you the same thing, today’s rules. They are not perfect, but it beats the heck out of segragation and whites only neighborhoods and jobs.

 

[ChrisR246]

Anglican77:

So basically you are saying to all minorities and women who have encountered problems getting into universities, getting jobs, buying homes in certain areas, etc. to just deal with it and look elsewhere? That’s your solution?

Not only the victims but all those who sympathize with them (and that should include all Christians). If we all did, then those who discriminate would quickly be out of business.

Anglican77:

Affirmative action is not violent, and again, it is not required by law.

You are correct. So you and everyone else who agrees can patronize businesses and organizations that use it. Those who don’t like it don’t have to. Simply eliminate the government rewarding it.

 

[ChrisR246]

wcknight:

Desegration and fair employment and fair housing laws did NOT cause Blacks to lose ground economically or socially.

There are a host of socio economic factors that have led to the current downturn of their status, not the least of which is a welfare state that simply did not work…

One can not be separated from the other - an interventionist government imposes both.

The fact that they have continued to lose ground is proof that discrimation still exists and AA is still needed to make a more level playing field.
.

It’s proof that government interference does not work.

 

[ChrisR246]

wcknight:

You don’t have to kill to stop it, and no one says you do. Taking folks to court and hitting them in the wallet stops it.

When people see that it does not pay to discriminate, then they take notice. Ad campaigns, and mere words doesn’t do a thing.

Money talks, and if the law suits and settlements get high enough people will take notice.

You have missed my point - how is a court order enforced? If the loser refuses to comply, the court sends armed agents to force compliance. It ultimately rests on violence.

 

[Anglican77]

The Glass Ceiling Commission, a 21-member bipartisan body appointed by President George Bush and Congressional leaders, issued a 1994 fact finding report that offered valid statistical proof that gender and race continue to act as barriers to upward mobility, especially in top management. This “Glass Ceiling Report” included the following facts:

• 95 percent of senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies are men. Of the 95 percent, 97 percent are white.

• In Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies 5 percent of senior managers are women, and of that, only 5 percent are minority women.

• Research of these companies also showed that where there are women and minorities in senior positions, their compensation is lower.  For example, African – American men with professional degrees earn 79 percent of the amount earned by white males who hold the same degrees and are in the same job categories within the same industry.

SOURCE

 

[ChrisR246]

wcknight:

Taking folks to court is the legal non-violent way this country handles things.

It is only non violent if the loser complies. If the loser was going to comply, they would not have gone to court in the first place.

Surely you do not believe Christ would condone racism or bigotry ???

Nope. Christ also did not condone using force to make people comply with His truth.

because I can’t believe that you would prefer that a home buyer would be better off threatening a homeowner to sell to them with a gun rather than let the authorities handle it.

Oh it would certainly be better to let the government do it - they have better guns than we can have. The point is not who should be threatening the violence, it’s should violence be threatened.