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. 

>>25
Sorry but >>26 and Adam Smith are right. Law must be enforced in order for the free market to work. Liberty and justice are practically the same thing when done properly, which means if you skip out on the injustice of discrimination you reduce everyone's liberty. Don't forget it's not just about black people, a white male could be denied a job because the interviewer doesn't like the religion he follows, shareholders expect the companies they put their money into not to make stupid employment decisions, at the very least companies should declare that they have a racist employment policy.

>>27
I don't support the limited use of AA. I support increaed civil rights law enforcement as a more effective alternative. I am a libertarian and believe discrimination is a crime. It is not within the constraints of a person's liberty and by all means a large company which employs 100% whites should be investigated due to the statistical anomaly. However they can only be declared guilty after their guilt has been proven in a court of law.

Injustice breeds injustice within and without, this is the rule 34 of political science. No exceptions. A liberal could ignore racists who use the government's support of limited affirmative action as propoganda and a libertarian could ignore racists who continue to discirminate even though it costs them money, but it won't do a damn thing. Holistically the strict enforcement of rational justice is always more beneficial than cutting corners here and there.

>>29
I'm not >>19, but I agree on it's points. Once again my argument is simply about the enforcement of justice. A company should not be forced to employ someone to fill a quota, but when employing someone they must not lie to the person about the conditions they are working in and why they are needed. Just as companies must declare their dangerous working environments and ensure that their employees are protected, they must at least prove to prospective employees why they have or have not been employed.

Oh and while affirmative action may include forcing companies to pay workers from a particular group whose services they do not need, civil rights has nothing to do with this.