[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]