From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Social Democracy
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:21:22 PST

In article <Bx5t9q.IqD@fig.citib.com>, on 3 Nov 92 21:34:37 GMT,
glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:

>
>
>In article <19921103020840ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>
>|> Inequality of condition or even of opportunity does not imply that there
>|> is massive racial injustice. What's operating here is your sense of
>|> liberal guilt that you don't suffer to the same degree as others.
>
>Unbelievable.  Exactly what do you call it when a person
>whose perceived race is different from yours is much less
>likely to have the same opportunities that you have?
>Is that a good thing, and OK thing?
>
Nobody in this world, of whatever race, is unlikely to have exactly
the same opportunities as I do in any particular endeavor, be they
greater or less. This is a fact of nature, not particularly racist.

To bring home the point to you once again, I certainly did not have
the same opportunity to play for the Chicago Bulls as did Michael
Jordan. I would consider it rather perverse on your part were you to
insist that he play with a weight shackled to his leg in order that
equality of opportunity be effected and that a "level playing field"
be achieved.

The only sense in which equality is a morally desireable thing to be
achieved is in equality of status, i.e., equality of rights under the
law.

>|> In any event, I deny that there is any massive racial injustice in the
>|> United States today, except possibly for the reverse discrimination
>|> inherent in the affirmative action, minority set-asides, targets, quotas
>|> and other perversion of the concept of equal protection of the laws
>|> under the 14th Amendment.
>
>So accepted practices used by one race to keep another
>race less powerful and impoverished are OK but the use
>of law to attempt to negate those practices is wrong?
>
Except in your own mythological mental model, there is no attempt
"by one race" to keep another race less powerful and impoverished in
this country today. Your statement implies a conspiracy of sorts among
all people of the same race who do not even know one another, let alone
have any ability to plan anything in concert. It is simply absurd on
the face of it and represents nothing more than a mantra which you
use to assuage internalized guilt feelings on your part.

>|> What principle of justice is there that requires some people to
>|> work for and become de facto slaves for the benefit of others? What
>|> exactly do you mean by social equity? Because I have two eyes, does
>|> your principle of social equity require me to give up one of them so
>|> that somebody who is totally sightless has an equal opportunity to see?
>|> Should Michael Jordan be required to play basketball with an iron
>|> shackle around his leg so that there is a "level playing field" which
>|> might allow me to compete for his job?
>
>My father stole from your father and continually cheated
>him out of what would have otherwise been his.  Both our
>parents die and I am left a fortune while you are impoverished.
>I continue to use my money and influence to prevent you
>from ever achieving a comfortable, much less successful,
>life.  You see nothing wrong with this?
>
In the hypothetical situation which you outline, you would not be
entitled to inherit stolen goods, and I would be a direct heir of
someone whose property was stolen. I would be morally entitled to
recover the property and, indeed, I would also be entitled to present my
case in a court of law and recover the property provided I can prove my
case.

As to your supposed continued use of your money and influence to prevent
me from achieving a comfortable and successful life, I would need to ask
what exactly it is that you are doing? If you mean bribing politicians
to pass laws that give you preferences, it is precisely this sort of
systemic corruption of the Constitution that libertarians seek to
redress by limiting the powers of government to its intended role.
Without this corruptive power, you could spend your money on material
goods, or start new businesses, but you would be totally unable to
persecute me in any material way. If you mean in some other way other
than political, please be specific.

>|> Try reading Thomas Sowell's _Markets and Minorities_ for an objective
>|> evaluation of non-discrimination and affirmative action laws. That's
>|> one black man who's an economist for starters.
>
>Clarence Thomas is a black man.  You are (I am assuming)
>gay.  Obviously, it means nothing.
>
You've deleted context. I was specifically challenged to find the views
of someone who is black who agrees that non-discrimination and
affirmative action laws are pernicious in effect. I have done exactly
that. Not only is Professor Sowell black, he's also well-informed.

>|> Your question about if it is OK is ambiguous. If you're talking about
>|> rights, a private person has the right to discriminate against anyone
>|> at any time for any reason. If you're asking as to whether in my own
>|> personal system of ethic it is OK to discriminate on the basis of
>|> sexual orientation, in most cases I would say no; in some cases it would
>|> depend upon the specific job.
>
>What jobs?  Would these include some of the same
>jobs that whites could do better than blacks?
>
I can't think of a single type of job in which someone could do a better
job than another by virtue of his being white rather than black. Do
remember, however, that we are now talking about what I personally
cosider to be moral, not what I think that the government should be able
to compel by law. I do not support governmental laws to compel
individuals to enter into business transactions with other individuals
for whatever reason -- period.

As to instances where I personally see nothing wrong with discrimination
based upon sexual orientation, one such would be a restriction of a gay
restaurant to hire waiters who are gay.

>--
>Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
>Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
>New York, New York  10043
>The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
>
        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams