We are often tempted to view things purely from the philosophical, or “idealist” viewpoint, even though many things are designed with inherent limitations, and meant only to address a single aspect of a situation. It is the difference between philosophy, and philosophy of law. In executing a law (or a “rule” within a private or semi-private organization) certain limitations dealing with current technology, staffing of police forces (or oversight staffs), etc all contribute to a need to make a shortterm law based, hopefully, on solid philosphic principles, but perhaps in danger of becoming quickly outdated or uneeded.

Note that an objective philosophy of law is NOT the same thing as pragmatism, which is a purely philosophical viewpoint (with implications in all subsequent sciences, including philosoph of law). In many ways pragmatism is a deadly philosophy, and it is hoped it doesn’t get confused with valid ways of creating laws (or rules) that help people move forward.

Popular Vote = Common Sense (Sarcasm intended)

age of players. The civil rights movement occurred in the 60’s. The African-American players who played in the 60’s, and in the 70’s were still under the tradition of white coaches. Only the African American players from the 80’s and 90’s have become coaches. As time moves on, the tradition will change. The next generation will see a more heterogeneous pool of coaches because the coaches will have been players when such a thing was culturally acceptable. I suppose affirmative action is an attempt to move that process along, but the goal is universal acceptance and equality, not transferring discrimination from one group to another.

I will admit, my timelines are based on conjecture. I’d like to know where you got your percentages and statistics, and to remind you that statistics can be used to say almost anything. Consider the sample, and the conditions that affected the respondents.

Repealing rules that try to compensate for the world’s inequalities does not make those inequalities disappear.