NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/motss/58375

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 6.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!nntp1.radiomail.net!fernwood!autodesk!owen
From: [e-mail] (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Forced Remedies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:32:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 128

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (D.  Owen
> Rowley) writes:
>
> >education can defeat ignorance by showing (not forcing) that
> >everyones self interest is served when eqaul rights are
> >fairly applied across the board.

> Education defeats ignorance by definition.
> Be that as it may, I agree that equality serves everyone.
> But the issue is what to do about those whom inequality
> serves better.  Something rather like force may be needed, I
> think.  How will you get around that?

Before going on, let me make it clear that my stand is one of principle.
I believe in standing firm on my principles, and acting accordingly.

I am not a social scientist, nor do I have a cohesive plan to offer which
answers all the ills of the world. I believe that answers and solutions
exist for all these problems, and that honest folks, applying fair criterea
within a principled framework can structure those solutions so that those
who qualify by adopting the principles and solutions, benefit by doing so.

You cannot force people to think of others as equal, you can require them to
act within a framework that mandates equitable treatment if they want
to participate however.

I'll use the example of Colorado and my personal POV.

I do not wish to do business with bigots, and I do not wish to
spend my money in the State of Colorado because of the passage of
CO#2. I am not telling the citizens
of Colorado that they must change their minds, their laws, or their
underwear in order to please me and once again qualify as potential
recipients of my hard earned discretionary income, as far as i am
concerned it is a domestic problem which is theirs to solve.
I may feel inclined to support my Queer peers in that state by spending
money with them, to the exclusion of their bigoted neighbors, I may not.
I may feel inclined to send money to organisations that are involved in the
process of dealing with Colorados domestic problems or I may not.

Now I pay taxes in the sate of California, and the city of SanFransisco.
I also pay taxes to the federal government. These governmental bodys
claim to have non-discrimination policys in place that require recipients
of public funds or publicly funded projects to meet the qualifications
of those policys. I feel entitled to point out when Colorados domestic
problem violotaes the standards of those policys. I feel entitled to
point out when Colorados domestic problem disqualifys them from recieving
tax money that I have been forced to contribute. I feel entitled to
lobby my representatives and other public servants regarding the possible
illegality of CO#2.

If the citizenry of Colorado don't like the consequences of their
passage of CO#2 then it is they who must decide that and they who must
remedy it.

I feel I have no right to tell them what they should or shouldn't do.
It is their lifestyle choice, and just as I do not want them to have
any right to dictate my choices, I do not seek to dictate theirs.

> >Attempting to remedy past inequitys by tilting the balance
> >to force or mandate favor for the previously disadvantaged
> >is no less unfair than the ills it seeks to remedy.

> One problem with this is that unfairness is hard to measure,
> so "more unfair" and "less unfair" are perforce undefined.
> You know the old saying: fair is fair.

What I am talking about are principles , fairly applied.
If one group, or individual is treated better or worst than another,
then its is unfair.
The problem with both of our dominant political partys is that they do not
have firm principles which they apply fairly.

Again in the case of Colorado, the citizenry have elected to codify
unfairness by denying queers the same rights of redress as their
non-queer peers.  That is pro-discrimination legislation.
As such I feel they should be disqualified as participants in any
interaction that professes or requires  a policy of non discrimination.

> 30 million Americans are illiterate.  Educating illiterates
> is particularly difficult, since reading and writing are
> essential to what we think of as education.  You would never
> under any circumstances divert resources from haves to help
> literacy have-nots?

I understand the importance of an educated populace, as such I am a strong
proponent of making education, and by default literacy available to all
citizens. Your question is phrased in what I consider a *leading*
and *stiltled* phasion.

There are indeed circumstance in which I would not divert funds from
educating those who already have the basic skills to those who do not.

I might add if the budgeting process is done fairly and with the princple
that all citizens are entitled to a basic education, then you wouldn't
need to divert funds from one group to another would you?

> 40 million Americans are without health insurance.  As a result,
> 20 million Americans are undernourished.  Various inequities
> At least 7 million Americans are living on the streets.  You

These social problems are deep issues, and I for one do not think that
throwing money at them is an answer.

We do not have principled fairness in our system as it stands now.
We have laws that mock fairness, and are riddled with loopholes
through which one can discard the evidence of patronage, and which
divert attention from the real problems by misdirection and outright
chicanery.

You have presented a laundry list of social ills which beset us as a
society. They are the sort of thing that has beset every society on
the planet, and have been around since we descended from the trees
and started living together in social groups.

I happen to believe that government can even the playing field, and can
offer equal opportunity to all players. I do not believe that it serves
the principle of equality to handicap those who are succesfull.


LUX ./. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, [e-mail]
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance
of all good fortune comes to me for it.