[quantum_nerd]

wow! ok I am not even sure if there is a way to refute this without sounding angry...like, what part of anti-discrimination laws don't you like? the fact that marginalized groups can have equal access to gov contracts?education? healthcare? housing? please elaborate....

[jedberg]

When they had the affirmative action proposition on the ballot in California there were a lot of people against, and a lot of those people were the very minorities the law was intended to help.

The main argument against it was that it tainted their success. What I mean is, for example, if a black person got into college, everyone would always question if they were truly qualified or if they only got in because they were black.

The other big argument against it is that it was fixing the wrong problem. You're fixing the roof when the foundation is crumbling. They argued that the affirmative action had to happen much earlier, in elementary and middle school, not college admissions.

So those are some of the arguments people make against it.

And another one specifically against government contract anti-discrimination is the thing I mentioned above, about the pass through problem. A minority will start a business, get a government contract, and then just pay a non-minority business as a subcontractor to do all the work, so they're basically just skimming off the top. So yes, a minority gets some money, but it's basically just a government handout.

[yuhong]

I also dislike anti-discrimination laws in general though. I think a good compromise would be to limit them to certain kinds of jobs. This also reminds me of wrongful termination lawsuits, and anti-discrimination happens to be one of the reasons. I have been thinking about Yishan-style CEOs for a while now.