I Favor Discrimination
This cannot be said enough:
If ever anyone wants to discredit me, he can cite the title of this article. I am giving it away on a silver platter in order to make one point: Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.
Which is why our out-of-control government wants to end all personal discrimination. It wants to be the sole decision-maker. Step one is to malign the right to choose for oneself as unenlightened, unfair, and -- hold on to something solid here -- racist.
So the regulations on our daily actions pile higher. Each new area in which the government claims sovereignty is by definition an area where our freedom has been abridged. As the author explains:
One bad law leads to another. In the name of justice, Congress unjustly prevents an individual from discriminating in his or her private behavior against another individual. A landlord cannot turn away some prospective renters. A business cannot turn away some prospective clients. An employer cannot turn away some applicants. A banker cannot turn away some bad risks. Now, an employer and an insurer cannot turn away some applicants based on genetic information.
This is madness. What is life without the freedom to discriminate? Will we all become politically correct robots in public speech and behavior? Sorry. Arrest me, but I favor discrimination.
As Senator Sam Ervin, Jr. and other Southern leaders warned 52 years ago in the all too prophetic Southern Manifesto, every unconstitutional power-grab paves the way for the next one, and the cycle continues -- until our freedom has been extinguished:
The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.
The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.
But who needs freedom? It's more important that schools are equally poor, and we're protected from the Islamomeanies.
posted by Michael Tuggle @ Saturday, May 03, 2008
1 Comments
1 Comments:
Now, an employer and an insurer cannot turn away some applicants based on genetic information.
I've gotta disagree on this one--I supported this legislation. Surely there is a distinction between an insurance company legitimately "discriminating" against someone due to factors he can control such as smoking or obesity and things that he can't control such as genetics.
Further, once you introduce the concept of making genetic information public, you are opening the door to a totalitarian scientifically dominated social system. Only those people who have the genetic traits deemed valuable to the state or to big corporations will be given the opportunity to advance. Fair competition for positions will be replaced by genetic determinism.
Once you introduce genetics as a legitimate basis for discrimination, and once genetic engineering is perfected, everyone will be forced to genetically engineer their children. After all, how can your kid be expected to compete with another kid who has been genetically engineered to have an IQ of 150? The pressure to use this technology will be immense. That's why some are already saying get used to it.
The case for forbidding access to genetic information is very different from things like smoking laws or Boy Scout policies on homosexual scout leaders.
Post a Comment
<< Home