I had a spiffy, fluid explaination of my beliefs on this subject until my computer crashed and I lost it all. Fuck.
Basically my point was that there is more genetic difference within the supposed 'races' than in between their arbitrary, phenotypic, boundries, and thus are a social creation. I even had a link to someone with an impressive sounding title backing that statement up in a Nature article. I don't care to find it again, just google search for 'gentic variation race'.
So, genetic similarity cannot be used as an argument.
Now, on the social end of things, I propose that just because people look alike does not mean they are the same, a radical concept, I know.
My evidence for this is more qualitative than quantitative, as it's based on my experience dealing with random people.
So if you argree that people are not the same because they look the same, social arguments based on how someone looks are invalid.
Race should not and cannot be used for determining who recieves what benefit.
Additionally, in private relations/contracts/etc discrimination IS and acceptable thing. If I do not like someone for any random reason, I do not have to deal with them. It is my opinion that in a PRIVATELY owned enterprise or contract/relation of any sort, discrimination is well within the rights of each individual. Public contacts are another thing entirely. In the context of any government related endevor, weather it's taxes, a public college, or an INCORPORATED company that receives government benefits (not privately held companies), discrimination is not an option.
Further and more specifically, any affirmative action, for ANY reason, economic status included, is immoral and illegal under the US constitution if performed on behalf of the government, or government related/funded organizations. I would contend that it is immoral for any organization that has the power to use physical force to discriminate.
The question to ask oneself when thinking about these issues is where do the values/money/opportunities come from that is used to benefit these 'disadvantaged' peoples. It is forcibly taken from those who have worked to earn it. It is stolen, with the threat of imprisonment or death at the hands of the government if one does not comply.
The question to ask is, because some people do not have as much money as others, do they have a RIGHT to violate the property rights of others? That is, the right to be secure in life by knowing one can use what one has worked for? I would say no.
Fuck affirmative action in all forms, for all people, equally.
or (alternate concluding sentence)
It's important to remember that the smallest minority is that of one.