Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
("Volokhian"—sounds like a race you'd meet on the Andromeda TV show. I like it.)
Mr. Bernstein:
Feh.
When they run the bake sale such that it has the intent and effect of affirmative action programs, then you can morally defend them.
So let them sell their baked goods at reduced price to those who, rightly or wrongly, they feel are unable to afford them at full price for reasons outside the purchasers' control. That would accurately reflect the intent of affirmative action programs. And I don't care what cause they ascribe to the purchasers' inability to raise the cash.
With that in place, let them set up any other conditions they wish, in a conscious attempt to skew the sales such that people who can readily afford the baked goods, and have the means to get them—at the bake sale, at the bakery, the supermarket six miles away, anywhere they want—wind up underserved somehow.
As I said, Feh.
All I need now it some nonsense by Tyler Cowen to be posted there and my day will be complete.
Posted by P6 at October 21, 2003 08:56 PM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2066Legislating intent is wrong. It created the idea of thoughtcrime. Legislate actions.
Who said anything about legislation? I'm talking about Bernstein's justification of assholes.
They are doing this to protest something that they feel is unfair by staging a protest that mirrors what they feel is unfair.
You criticize them by saying that the legislation is acceptable because the legislation has a positive intent while the demonstration has a negative intent.
My point is that the intent is irrelevant, because the actions are the same. If the only difference between the acceptable actions and the unacceptable actions is the intent of the controlling agency, then you are talking about thoughtcrime.