Via Andrew Sullivan, this post at A Stitch In Haste. Sullivan is, as usual, drooling over the libertarian aspects of this, which just reinforces my feeling that libertarians are basically shallow thinkers.
In regard to the discrimination case mentioned, in which the Supremes said, basically, "tough luck -- your time is up," it's even worse:
Agree or disagree all you want with the Supreme Court's recent holding in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire regarding when the statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims should commence. The fundamental jurisprudential premise remains: It is up to the plaintiff to prove her case. The government has no business conscripting innocent bystanders and their private matters in order to prove it for her.
Mmm -- unless you know how much others are making, how are you supposed to know you're being discriminated against? In the immortal words of Bill O'Reilly, it's all about saving the "white Christian male power structure," which one of the commenters points out quite bluntly.
Once it comes in contact with reality, the post is pretty much indefensible, although I will say I'm not at all sympathetic to the idea of everyone's salaries being public. I'm very much in favor of a broadly interpreted right to privacy, and wouldn't be at all enthusiastic about this kind of information becoming public domain, if for no other reason than there are too many people willing to make underhanded use of it. KipEsquire's ideas might work if everyone were committed to playing fair, but we know better. Naive, much?
PS -- Don't ask what the title means. I can't explain it, but it seemed more than ordinarily apt.
No comments:
Post a Comment