[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Libertarianism -97, What Guns Are For

I believe that a lot of people have been whipped into a fury over AA
and will call almost anything regarding EEOC etc "AA".

But when people begin talking about specifics such as ideas that the
govt has required certain hiring or promotion practices above and
beyond mere equal opportunity stuff they are invariably referring to
the specific requirements outlined by EO11246.

I've seen too many specific references (not to the name, but to the
specific requirements of EO11246) to believe it's really a generic
gripe as you describe.

>>>You've suggested that hiring quotas are illegal.
>>And in fact they are.
> Unless they're called "guidelines", or "court-ordered mandates".
>They certainly exist, today.

No, they're illegal.

I think you're just repeating a lot of the sort of rhetorical heat I
hear from people like Rush Limbaugh.

The lingo of "they're stealing our jobs!" goes back across many ethnic
and racial groups and is a heartfelt theme repeated through much of
this century.

>>More strongly, my objection is that libertarianism as constructed
>>would necessarily require the full force of the state to defend overt
>>racist acts.
>>The rest is just baggage generally associated with non-discrimination,
>>affirmative action per se is nearly irrelevant to the specific issue.
> The rest of what?  Of libertarianism?

[122 lines left ... full text available at <url:http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/go?choice=message&table=04_1997&mid=4388459&hilit=DRUG+SMART> ]

Received: from shadowfax.reference.com by netbase.t0.or.at via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI.AUTO)
Article-ID: 04_1997&4466963
Score: 78
Subject: AH, 3M & More Update #6 ~~~~ Some going twice