Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:17:53 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Brett's dubious propositions

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>>I don't have a clue as to what your motivation was. I never said I
>>knew what your motivation was. What are you talking about?
>
>        You said "chooses to ignore".  I didn't ignore it, I cut it out for
>reasons of length.

You ignored it, precisely in the sense that although almost this
exact issue was discussed, you failed to address the arguments
I made.

You may have ignored it for reasons of length, I take your word
for it. (Thus, I think, I now *know* why you did it. Imagine
that! I know what was happening in someone's mind! Will wonders
never cease?) I assume that was a CHOICE of yours. Thus, you
chose to ignore it.

What has this got to do with your motivations?

>>>>A great many convictions depend on proving what people are
>>>>thinking. Are you, Brett, willing to say that all such convictions
>>>>result from laws which should be struck down?
>>>
>>>        Like...?  Crimes need *proof*.  What exactly does proof of thought
>>>constitute?
>>
>>Like... murder. To prove someone guilty of murder, you have to prove
>>that he had a certain intent. Next question.

Thus it is established that we CAN prove (in the legal sense) what
thoughts someone has. And Brett acknowledges this:

>        Intent: buying a gun, stalking, etc.  Physical proof.

Right. We can have PROOF of intent.

I now have no idea what is your objection to (what you inaccurately
call) "thought crimes." You said it was that we can never have
proof of what was going on in someone's mind. You now say that
we can have physical proof of intent. Intent is in the mind.

What is your objection?

>>Brett, you declined to say whether you want to strike down every
>>law such that conviction for violation of that law would require
>>"proof of thought." Do you want to do that, or not?
>
>        There aren't any (at least here in OH.)  Our thought crimes law was
>struck down.

You confusing man.
An intention is a thought.
Proof of murder requires proof of intent.
You agree we can have proof of intent.

Thus, unless they have repealed murder laws in Ohio, you have in Ohio
a law that requires "proof of thought" for conviction.

>>>The laws against murder are reactive.  Quota laws are supposed to be
>>>proactive.
>>
>>A) I don't understand this distinction, please explain it.
>
>        Reactive: in response to an action.  Proactive: in anticipation of an
>action (or inaction).  Obviously murder is after someone dies, the so-called
>quota bills are in anticpation of a lack of hiring/promotion.

There is no dichotomy here.

Murder TRIALS are only after someone dies. MURDER takes place only
when someone dies. The so-called quota bills (and I note the
dubious example you give is NOT a bill) might be violated. In that
case, there would be a trial. The trial would take place only
AFTER the wrongdoing. It would be, in your sense, REactive.

Murder LAWS are put into place BEFORE the murders which are tried
under them. Just as quota bills (if there are any) are. The LAWS
are put into place to try to PREVENT the wrongdoing. They are,
in your sense, PROactive.

You have not made out a distinction between them.

I should point out something which Brett has apparently forgotten.
The issue about "thought crimes" arose in connection with Hate
Crime laws, not in connection with quotas. If Brett is now
claiming that quota laws (if there are any) are hate crime
laws, I am willing to play along.

> The first is in response to actual wrongs, the second is done in order
>to socially engineer society to prevent supposed wrongs that might occur.

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

>>>        Some would argue that since capital punishment hasn't put a noticeabl
>>>dent in murder rates, that either the process should be abolished or made mor
>>>efficient (fewer appeals, etc.).
>>
>>Oh, sure, I agree with THAT line of reasoning. I mean, in general, not
>>just for capital punishment.
>>
>>But were you, Brett, claiming to have shown that affirmative action
>>has not placed a noticeable dent in discrimination? If you were
>
>        No, that the current laws are ineffective, and can be used to shield
>employers in the same way tobacco companies use the Surgeon General's warning
>as a shield against liability.

First claim: that the current laws are ineffective.
No evidence.
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.
(It is far from clear that tobacco companies ARE shielded, by the
way. It currently looks like they WON'T be.)

Note that when he gives an example, Brett should be trying to give
one that is actually relevant to his claim. Either one of his claims,
though surely a good example would be relevant to both claims.

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

In the first place, this is not a quota.
In the second place, I thought you were objecting to (alleged)
laws interfering in the private sector. Is it your view, Brett,
that withholding federal aid constitutes interfering in the
private sector? Just curious.

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?

>        See above.  Why limit yourself to one?

Well, let's see if you can give one. Then we'll investigate the
broader claim that your model describes how quotas work in
general.

>>And, even if you did give an example of a "current law that has
>>a numerical quota, do you think that would show that it works
>>the way you outlined in your fanciful imaginary example?
>
>   Depends on the law and the loopholes that have been discovered.

So it does. So, does the one example you gave contain such loopholes?

Just to be clear. Brett has offered an objection to quota laws.
He says that they may act to shield wrongdoers. I asked for an
example in which that happens. He offers the example of requirements
on universities for receiving federal aid. We now need to know
whether those requirements have the effect he claims they have.
Do they have the effect of shielding universities that seek
to discriminate against the minorities the requirements seek
to protect? I would like to see the evidence for this claim.

I will happily say in advance: if there IS good evidence, I
will be quite convinced that the requirements should be changed.

Jamie

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

Nor do I! But that is not what is at issue.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU