Affirmative Action Banned!

My state (Michigan) has wisely followed in the foosteps of California and banned racist/sexist affirmative action programs in Michigan, that would have discriminated against people based on nothing but their gender or the color of their skin, all in the name of promoting equality.  

It passed by a pretty wide margin 58% - 42% of the vote.. or, another way of looking at it: 

2,137,574  ---  YES on stopping AA
1,552,459  ---  NO on stopping AA

Hopefully this'll spread like wildfire throughout the rest of the states. 

Person B has amassed resources for a better environment for child C (better in generally being positive for a human's development necessary to create a stable situation of its own). Person B's resources comes from competing on the job market. B's father A also had done the same for B (create a good environment), which is why the latter can provide the same for C.

 Consider lineage G-H-I, all individuals who could not provide such a good environment for their children. Naw, all individuals discussed can become richer if they want to in a capitalist system, but naturally there is not perfect meritocracy. Perhaps dormant genes of excellence or good ideas and motivations fail to be ignited because of the problematic culture surrounding the G-H-I lineage, that will invariably have effects on their behavior and thought patterns. This limits their power in the market. They could suddenly awaken from even the most intense squalor and become statling billionares, Randian zenith's of excellence - but by undeniable determination either by genes (unavoidable) or environment (avoidable, but a living area is required for survival and beggars can't be choosers) they do not.

Now, no one can account for the genes (although soon even genes can be reliably improved, opening all hell of philosophical and ethical discourses) but what about environment, what about non-meritocratic notions and discrimination based on irrelevant aspects of a person's life? Such forces can be dissapated by education, but it is an investment of time and money that is unaffordable from the start *because of the very forces that limit capacities for self-improvement in the first place*.

So, the G-H-I lineage can not possibly compete with lineage A-B-C. Why? Because of 1) To a degree genes, which are applicable to "tough luck"-principles 2) Environments that reduce chances of being strong in the job market, reduce desire to be strong on the job market and reduce the desirability of the job market, 3) Initial positions that reduce the possibility of the individual to be able to make itself desirable on the market, assuming that conditions listed under 2) have not removed such hopes.

Now, aren't all members of the A-B-C lineage lucky to not have to worry about G-H-I competing with them on the market? Yes, they have more chances of survival and sustaining their quality of life with less competition. Now, it is established that due to cause and effect (action-reaction, a tenet of physics) in conjuncture with the manner in which humans develop behavior and thought patterns there is no such thing as free will, only behaviors and cognitive schemata that create higher degree of survival in the realities of the world in which the organism lives.

Now, the problem is that G-H-I are responsible for causing an environment that fits their schemata and behavior and is likely to impose the same result on J, who will have less chance on the market than D... I mean, to a degree it is certain J will have poorer genes than D, but let us not forget that even when ignoring J's poorer genes and environment the market does not treat him fairly because of the fallibilities of the employers in the market...

Will setting capitalism free eliminate the lack of meritocracy at least? But then what about environment?
To what degree is the determination of all people by environment something a human, or even humanity, has to take responsibility for?

I mean, this is by far an inferior analogy, but these are some of my considerations. I haven't rejected Rand anymore than I have rejected Marx or any economic form or philosophy, so if anyone would like to criticize what's above I won't call you anything or shut my ears.