[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Antitrust Bill of Rights
Ralph Anspach 11/28 objects to starting where we are, because we are
where past invidious discrimination has landed us.
Starting with the world as it exists certainly incorporates the effects
of the world as it has been. But "they _simply_ incorporate into their
solutions past discrimination against women, minorities etc." seriously
overstates, doesn't it? And assumes what is to be proved, that direct
attempts to "overcome" such discrimination yield a better result (however
that is to be judged) _overall_ than any alternative on the table.
Leaving aside the Becker "discrimination is impossible" fantasy, it still
seems to me that the existing-in-America market provides enough
opportunity for all. (All who choose to work, that is.) Unequal
opportunity is not _no_ opportunity. A person who is unable to make
enough money to buy a Lexus and is therefore enraged is, well, whining.
A system which precludes that person from being productive enough to make
that much money is, other things being equal, less than optimally
effective. That does not make the cost of change less than the benefits;
nor does it make the allocation of those costs more benign than the
allocation of the benefits.
Even assuming that the "invidious discrimination" is identifiable and
Michael E. Etchison
[opinions mine, not the PUCT's]