Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar
From: keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <1989Sep30.185858.22432@rpi.edu>
Date: 30 Sep 89 18:58:58 GMT
References: <1989Sep28.023614.10776@rpi.edu> <15685@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 21
Approved: ambar@ora.com

>As a society we decided to put limits on companies and force them to

If ever there was a more blatant example of collectivism, I would be hard
pressed to find it.  "society"?  "we"?  "force"?  Sounds like the general idea
is that individuals do not have the "right" to live life for themselves,
because they are merely subsets of the collective.  That their lives are not
ends in themselves, but means to the ends of the collective.  If this
assumption about your argument is not correct, then please explain to me the
word "force" and what ends would justify such means. Your example of the 
anti-trust laws is incorrect. Companies may NOT hire the best, because they
must worry about quotas. But similarly, companies did not compete (doesn't
competition mean that all competitors are FREE to act?) and cannot compete
under duress. The anti-trust laws are the most disasterous form of gov't
control and of collectivism that exist in the US so far.  But such arguments
abrogate the entire concept of individual rights.  To sit here and argue
the "practical" of whether a gun should be used for this or that range-of-the-
moment practical consideration, is to concede that individual rights do not
exist, and that the purpose of the gov't is to do whatever any majority thinks
will benefit it for any immediate moment. Think about the profound difference
between the two.

"An elective tyranny is NOT what we fought this war for." - T Jefferson