I voted no, stealing to give to others who didn't earn it is wrong and so is discrimination
No, of course not.
"Social justice" is nothing more than a term used by the Left to disguise their unjust theft of property and freedoms.
Which of course is totally different from the unjust theft of property and freedoms favored by the Right, right? :lol:
Damn if I know.
I don't know of any unjust programs of theft promoted by libertarians.
How about if you stop building straw men and start discussing what is said?
Especially the part about equality of outcome? This seems to be used for justification of wealth redistribution.
i don't know of any push for equality of outcome.Especially the part about equality of outcome? This seems to be used for justification of wealth redistribution.
i don't know of any push for equality of outcome.
i believe that's equal opportunity. not quotas, necessarily, but opportunity.Think Affirmative Action.
Nope, AA is completely based on quotas. The EEOC(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is about anti-discrimination law enforcement. AA states that you must have representation of groups based on mandated ratios, regardless of merit, whereas the EEOC might recieve a complaint that a person was denied employment based on factors such as race, sex, age, marital status.....etc. etc.i believe that's equal opportunity. not quotas, necessarily, but opportunity.
That is because a Libertarian is like the angry 15 year old in the room who never has any ideas of his own but thinks everyone's ideas are ****ty. They're teens pretending to be grown ups and in some cases grown ups who have yet to realize they're not teens anymore. I guess it's just easier to talk a big game when you don't have any significant amount of constituents.
Except, of course, that when you have to have a certain number of a given race, it creates situations where you then must discrimintate against other people of a different race when choosing who to hire.Nope, AA is completely based on quotas. The EEOC(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is about anti-discrimination law enforcement.
i believe that's equal opportunity. not quotas, necessarily, but opportunity.
updated 2:36 p.m. PT, Mon., June 29, 2009
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court declared Monday that white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race, ruling against minorities in a major reverse discrimination case that could affect bosses and workers nationwide. The justices threw out a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had endorsed as an appeals court judge.
In its last session until September, the court's conservative majority prevailed in a 5-4 ruling that faulted New Haven and the courts that had upheld the city's discarding of results of an exam in which no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted to lieutenant or captain.
Nailed it Goobie. My perspective is that no private business should be forced to hire based on quotas, but if you take government money in any form then you cannot discriminate according to those same criteria, private businesses should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't endanger public safety. The free market would ultimately pay bigots back in failure, something government fines can never accomplish in a larger degree than market forces. I think the EEOC is an overall good, but AA is a complete failure.Except, of course, that when you have to have a certain number of a given race, it creates situations where you then must discrimintate against other people of a different race when choosing who to hire.
Supporters of AA necessarily accept the premise that you cannot discriminate against minorities, but everyone else is fair game.