tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post1571365490791255740..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: Don't Credit Title IX for Women's Olympic Successprincipled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-49699240287363335862012-08-25T23:12:50.927-04:002012-08-25T23:12:50.927-04:00Yes, civil rights "laws" do harm, not go...Yes, civil rights "laws" do harm, not good. They obliterate persuasion and activism, reason and mkt. forces with initiatory force by gvt.<br /><br />I drop my contention that force underlies all human relations. Levering individual action and opening possibilities unavailable to a lone individual underlies human relations. Then comes voluntary agreement or force, depending on the choices made.<br /><br />If force becomes the issue, it is, by definition, initiatory, necessitating responsive force. If it's initiatory force by gvt., "removal" of it, even if done peacefully, rests on the issue of force; if persuasion doesn't work, ya don't just let the injustice go. It must be REMOVED by whatever means needed.Mike Kevittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-75488861893506258302012-08-25T13:28:13.569-04:002012-08-25T13:28:13.569-04:00Mike;
I don’t disagree with you that responsive f...Mike;<br /><br />I don’t disagree with you that responsive force is reasonable. But it must be remembered that the drive to legally ban private “discrimination” transcends government funding, even though Title IX is linked to funding. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II" rel="nofollow">Title II</a> “Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce” with no mention of any government funding. If there were no federal funding of higher education, Title IX undoubtedly would have come into being in some form anyway. <br /><br />My essential point is that, aside from criminal initiation of force by individuals or government, reason wins over unreason in the long run. All that’s needed is rational, non-rights violating freedom of action, not rights-violating laws like Titles IX and II. Examples abound. There is baseball. Augusta National’s 1990 racial integration and this year’s gender integration is another. Laws banning gay marriage are falling across America, thanks to growing public pressure. And <a href="http://principledperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/06/title-2-government-vs-private-action.html" rel="nofollow">I argue</a> that the civil rights laws of the 1960s were a consequence of social activism, not a driving force against segregation and bigotry. By trying to rush the process of persuasion and social activism through law, we are only doing harm, not good.<br /><br />It’s true, as you say, that government funding is itself an injustice; it inevitably sets up conflicts that can never be resolved without violating someone’s rights. But I don’t agree that “All human relations rests on the issue of force.” A voluntary agreement involves no force. Force only becomes an issue when someone initiates force, at which time responsive force is necessary or—in the case of government funding—only the removal of the initiatory force, the government funding.principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-18935613564378422972012-08-24T23:58:51.834-04:002012-08-24T23:58:51.834-04:00At the end of my comment, above, I said, "......At the end of my comment, above, I said, "...where there is no further argument or physical resistence tolerated." That SHOULD say, "...where further argument is tolerated but ignored out of hand, and no physical resistence is toleratedMike Kevittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-34589998186422086302012-08-24T21:39:01.087-04:002012-08-24T21:39:01.087-04:00I think there's just 1 problem with this posti...I think there's just 1 problem with this posting.<br /><br />You say, "Cultural progress against irrationality and injustice is built on reason and rational persuasion, not force."<br /><br />My statement of the following does not deviate from the basics of Objectivism: There are, basically, 2 forms of reason in human relations, A. rational persuasion and, B. responsive (retaliatory) force. Likewise, there are 2 forms of irrationality (unreason) in human relations, A. action not forcing anybody and, B. action forcing somebody, initiatory by definition. Responsive force (reason) is justice. Initiatory force (unreason) is injustice.<br /><br />So, cultural progress against irrationality is built on reason, meaning, rational persuasion. But, if irrationality takes the form of injustice (initiatory force) respond, if possible, with rational persuasion. If that doesn't work, use force, which will automatically be responsive, not initiatory.<br /><br />Regarding Title IX and financing of education, the mere harbenger of a threat of public financing had to be headed off before the pass, when rational persuasion would've worked. But, even then, the final argument would've still been reason, meaning guess what, a GUN! <br /><br />On one side, the 1st. and only argument is force; on the other side, the last argument, if needed, is force. All human relations rests on the issue of force. The specifics determine whether it's initiatory or responsive. If it's responsive, the we can exercise our rights and human relations consisting of mutual free choice of all parties.<br /><br />Given public financing of education, excluding anybody from sports or from anything, is an irrationality consisting of injustice, because public financing is unjust. After decades of failed persuasion, force was needed, thus, Title IX, another injustice. But anything within the unjust financing would be another injustice. The force needed was, and is, force against public financing only, but nothing short of that.<br /><br />In higher education, maybe tax credits are needed, as with in grade school. But, the phased program must start with a public statement of the final goal, toward which the 1st. legislation, and everything subsequent, is specifically directed.<br /><br />But, it's an action taken against injustice, initiatory force, crime, whether it was meant that way or not. The final argument against initiatory force is, if needed, responsive force, where there is no further argument or physical resistence tolerated. Then, women's athletics can come around by rational persuasion, the market, not by force.Mike Kevittnoreply@blogger.com