X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:30:54 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The right to discriminate, the privilege to drive...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        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.

        And it only took about 180 years :(.

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

        The issue should have been left to the people to decide.

>>        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

        The guilty people should be rotting in jail :).

>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.

        No.

>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.

        Why should we have to demand that it be returned to us in the first
place?

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

        Sure, unless we accept *government control* as a returning of power to
the people.

>>        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).

        The progressive tax is simply a forceable redistribution of money.

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

        Nope.

...
>>>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?"

        Don't know.  My wife doesn't work in personnel.

>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?

        How many minorities does Clinton have to have in his cabinet?

...
>>        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.

        You're arguing apples and oranges.  To meet EEOC guidelines there have
to be some minorities.  The quesiton is: how many?  Is the government really
letting employers use the law to limit minority employement?

>>>>        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.

        Actually, accidents per vehicle mile have steadily declined.

        Next.

>-other Andy
Brett'