X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:48:01 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      The right to discriminate, the privilege to drive...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>        Let's look at slavery: about half the states (delagations, that is)
>wanted to keep slavery.  The authors of the constitution, working for
>compromise, took out the anti-slavery portion of the constitution.
>        Did this reflect the interests of the people?  Only about half, at
>best.  What it was really representing was the compromise necessary to get a
>constitution approved by all the states.

OK, so in the interests of having a constitution (and a pretty good one
at that) the delegations agreed to disagree over some issues. Later when
a different concensus was arrived at, those conditions were changed.

Should the founders have decided to not unite and form two seperate countries?

>        Now, did Jim Crow reflect the interests of the people or merely the
>interpretation of the current law vis-a-vis slaves as property?

If you want to argue that our predecessors were too damned slow in coming to
certain realizations about race and equality you'll find no argument from
this quarter.

>        What about Iran-Contra?  The interests of the people?

I'm glad that you agree with me that Reagan and his cronies should be rotting
in jail (or hell in the case of Casey) for their activities. I'm sure that
you also agree with me that, as regards covert activity, anything larger
than an extremely limited mandate of gathering information is incompatible
with democratic control of the government by the people.

Once again you'll get no argument from me if you want to claim that some
areas of government have grown out of any reasonable direct control of
the people; you could even claim that the people have not been assertive
enough in demanding that the control be returned to them and I wouldn't
argue either.

The fact is however; the people *can* do it, they have the *responsibility*
to do it, and the mechanisms are all there.

>        I don't think the government == the people by any stretch of the
>imagination.  The government is simply a group of people, some of them elected,
>doing what they think is best.

See above.

>        Is a progressive tax a compromise between rich and un-rich or a
>system imposed on the rich by the majority?

At some level it is a compromise between the rich and the un-rich; there
is a delicate balance (that is usually tilted in favor of the rich) between
the sheer numbers of the unrich (who can turn the "rascals" out of office)
and the clout of the rich (who can also turn the "rascals" out of office).

Is it your position that a revolution that would unseat the current
government is necessary for the currently un-rich to improve their
position?


>>Compromise is necessarily a process wherein neither side is truly satisfied
>>with the result and usually not the rapidity of the process either, this
>>does not mean that the process is useless or necessarily the worst of the
>>alternatives.

>        However, there are areas in which the government has proven
>ineffective: namely in trying to legislate what goes on behind closed doors
>between consenting adults.
>        It's my position that issues between consenting adults be handled
>without the "help" of the government.

Hey, no argument here. It's when the issue becomes between those two
adults and a third party like a landlord or an angry mob that I think
government has a role.

>        We're getting deeply into philosophy here but I think the government
>has a poor record of protecting the rights of the individual.

Sure our government has a lousy record, but it's a damned sight better than
most and there are mechanisms for improving its record too.


>>What I find as ironic is that despite the persistence of the claims made about
>>quotas and the damage that they are doing to a variety of groups; no one ever
>>seems to provide any figures of quotas that are/have been in use or any
>>statistical evidence of a decline in the earnings/wealth of the "harmed"
>>group that can be tied to these "quotas."

>        You're missing the point.  Quotas were supposed to enable minorities
>proportional access.  According to an earlier post, black professionals still
>have a low (2.2%) participation rate in some professions.  After 25 years of
>civil rights laws, shouldn't it be closer to the population division of 12%?

No, you're missing the point - show me a government quota, an absolute
standard number that *must* be attained by employers. You seem to know
a lot about GM; how many blacks, women, eskimos, manx and bubble-gum
chewing poodles was GM ordered to hire this year? How many white males
were they ordered to fire and replace to meet their "quota?"

What is the absolute percentage of blacks that all businesses are required
to have in their workforce and by what date must they have it? Is there
an annual review with penalties? Can the CEO fill out the form when he
signs up for a renewal of his drivers licence?


>>Can Brett' tell us how many minorities he has been forced to hire by the
>>government in the place of a more competent white male? What percentage of
>>Brett''s workers "must" be minorities?

>        I'm not an employer.  But if I was...

>        Say I had a business in a 90% black area.  Yet the quotas say I "must"
>employ at least 10% blacks....  If I was racist, that would enable me to *only*
>hire 10% blacks, even though the area I live in has a much greater proportion
>of blacks living there.  The government mandated system enables racists to use
>quotas as a shield.

Yes but consider the vast areas of America that have a *very* low density of
black population, think of the offers that blacks in those areas of high
density would get to entice them to relocate if there were really a quota
mandated by law.


>>>        What has 30 years achieved?

>>Not enough; few argue that we have acheived "true" equality of opportunity.

>        Exactly.  Time to get a new solution, eh?

We have had driver's education classes, license exams, driver testing,
driver rehabilitation and ever-increasing penalties for drunk driving,
yet auto accidents and fatalities have increased substantially over the
last 30 years and continue to occur at an unacceptable level.

So Brett', should we:

        A)      Scrap all licensure requirements, "deregulate driving"
                and remove all penalties for negligent driving, drunk
                driving, auto homicide; in fact just close down all
                state and federal agencies related to driving, let
                anybody drive that wants to...
        B)      Make another more gory version of "Blood on the Highway"
        C)      Require all drivers to be intoxicated while driving, since
                drunk drivers usually suffer less injury in accidents
        D)      Continue to improve and refine regulations, vehicle
                safety standards and driver training


>Brett'

-other Andy