Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:17:17 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Quota laws, allegedly; and evidence

Ok, on to quotas, if any.

Jamie: (note--herein, Brett's comments are preceded by
        odd numbers of ">", my quoted ones by even numbers of ">")

>>Murder laws are put into place in order to socially engineer society
>>to prevent supposed wrongs that might occur. Agree or disagree?

>    No, they are there to punish offenders *after* the crime has been
> committed.

All laws are there to do that. Discrimination law too.

>>First claim: that the current laws are ineffective.
>>No evidence.

> Check the ratio of minorities in various professional fields.  Do you
> think this is the result of "effective" laws?

I think it is the result of partially effective laws. Just as
laws against murder are partially effective. Whereas capital
punishment is not effective at all.

>       First claim: no *dis*proof.

!
I will leave it to Peter to DISprove the claim. He knows a
great deal more about the statistics than I do.

However, I find it remarkable that Brett has made an
assertion for which he finds it necessary to offer no
evidence, on the ground that I have not disproved it.
I hadn't noticed before that he subscribed to this standard.

>>Second claim, that the current laws can be used to shield employers
>>in the same way tobacco companies use the SG's warning.
>>No evidence.

>No evidence to deny it.  Tobacco companies do indeed use federal law as
>a shield: clear precident.

The precedent is not clear at all. We have no idea whether
quota laws (if there are any such things) are or can be used
in the way that Brett claims tobacco companies use the warning law.

> Note that when you are trying to disprove an argument, you should
> actually try to disprove the argument, instead of simply saying
>"you haven't satisfied me, thus your claim must be false".

Noted.
But what I in fact said was that you hadn't given any evidence
for your claim. I didn't say it therefore must be false. What
I believe, but hadn't yet said, is that we have no reason to
accept your claim.

>>> Universities setting aside a certain amount of scholarships for
>>>minorities (lest they lose federal aid).

>>In the first place, this is not a quota.

>        Why not?

>        No proof given. :D

Fair enough.
Since I think "quota" is fairly vague, I withdraw my objection
to the particlar example on that ground.

> I'm objecting to all laws that try to punish through assumption of
> guilt.

So, you think that when the fed denies aid to universities
because they do not give enough scholarship money to
blacks, that is punishing through assumption of guilt?

When the government decides not to fund a certain scientific
project through the NSF, that is a punishment?

We're growing a mighty odd crop of libertarian economists
this year.

> Withholding federal highway funds for states without a 21 driking
> age interferes with state's rights, too.

Well, I am extremely skeptical about the idea of states' rights.
I think that in our system only people have rights.

But, that aside, I suppose you also think that withholding
NEA money from artists who produce obscene material is also
a denial of rights. I do not. This is sort of odd, since
you are supposed to be the libertarian and I the liberal,
yet we seem to have swapped positions!

>>More important, you were supposed to be giving an example in which
>>quota laws worked to protect employers who DO discriminate against
>>blacks by giving them what you labelled as the tobacco company
>>defense. Are you now claiming that universities have done that?

>I was not *supposed* to do anything.  What you want me to do and what I
>do are not going to correspond very often.

Sigh. Ok, I'll put it the more cumbersome way.

You, Brett, claimed that quotas would have the effect of
protecting employers who intentionally discriminated on
the basis of racial prejudice. When I asked for an example,
you gave the university example. Do you now claim that
some university has done that? Or do you not claim so?

If you do not, why did you give that example?

(Jamie:)
>So it does. So, does the one example you gave contain such loopholes?

(Brett:)
> Sure does.  Check out the lawsuit against the Ivy League for "fixing
>prices".  Their claim was that it was necessary to meet federal
>guidelines for minority and disadvantaged students.

That law suit has absolutely nothing whatever to do with
quotas. Nothing. So it is deeply mysterious why Brett thinks
this is an example of a quota law with the loopholes he mentioned.

(Jamie:)
>>He says that they may act to shield wrongdoers. I asked for an

(Brett:)
>        Good so far...

(J, cont'd:)
>>example in which that happens.

(B:)
>  You might as well ask for an example of intelligent life on other
> planets.  Does the fact that no one has proven it yet mean there
> isn't any?

No. It means that someone who claims that there IS life on
other planets has no good evidence for his claim. Or if he does,
he ought to provide it.

And lastly (whew),

Brett:
>> Yes, it is, which is why I think the government shouldn't have the
>>power to enforce prejudices and discrimination.

Jamie:
>Nor do I! But that is not what is at issue.

> Yes, it is.  When you understand that, you will understand my
> objections.

And yet, we haven't got an example of the government's
power to do this. So I am supposed to "understand" that
something is true when I have no evidence for it. But
I cannot do this. Maybe you can convince Robert. But you will
at least need a Magic Book.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU