Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: White greed
Message-ID: <337@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 09:42:50 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.337
Posted: Fri Feb 22 09:42:50 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 04:41:06 EST
References: <170@nybcb.UUCP> <6545@rochester.UUCP> <959@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.politics:7802 net.flame:8536
Summary: 

In article <959@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP writes:

> The next question is, do we take a
>Libertarian approach and say no individual should redress the
>wrongs of a group he happens to belong to, or a more
>universalistic attitude that wrongs should be righted as soon as
>possible even if some individual rights are abrogated in the
>process, as long as the intent is to restore the balance
>quickly.  I'm sorry if this is getting bombastic, but I felt I
>had to set the problem out.  I would like to hope that most
>Americans in this land of opportunity are willing to see an
>across-the-board attempt to equalize the situation.  I may be
>wrong.
>
A better statement of the Libertarian views is that injustices
came about because some individuals wrongfully applied force
against innocents (e.g. the slaves).  They believe that 
the problem of injustice can not be solved as long as we are
willing to look at solutions that try to rectify past injustices
by applying more force to a different set of innocents.  She is
probably right that the "universalistic" attitude is that wrongs
(to my group) should be righted immediately, even if it someone else
has to suffer for it (mi raza primera).