JonBostwick: he charge of racism is a PC term. Being racist is by definition "bad" because the term deliberately includes only "bad" forms of racism. It is racism to dislike another race, but not racism to prefer your own. It is racism to exclude blacks, but not racism to include blacks. This is the PC world where equality before the law is more racist than racial quotas.
he charge of racism is a PC term. Being racist is by definition "bad" because the term deliberately includes only "bad" forms of racism.
It is racism to dislike another race, but not racism to prefer your own. It is racism to exclude blacks, but not racism to include blacks.
This is the PC world where equality before the law is more racist than racial quotas.
That such charges are often fabricated or exaggerated, and that the charge of racism is often thrown around as PC social coercion, does not mean that real descrimination does not exist and is not morally problematic. We can cut through all the PC crap and deal with the real thing.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
gplauche: That such charges are often fabricated or exaggerated, and that the charge of racism is often thrown around as PC social coercion, does not mean that real descrimination does not exist and is not morally problematic. We can cut through all the PC crap and deal with the real thing.
I don't see how its "problematic." Voluntary segregation is the best way to avoid problems. Unless you believe that voluntary segregation is itself a problem, as many do.
I'm not the type for crusades, if bigots can act civilly I don't really care whats going on in their little head.
But I don't see how we can know anything about "real discrimination" until we cut through the PC crap. But why should favoring a white over all others be any more morally unacceptable than preferring a relative over all others? Is that the same kind of racism as, say, burning crosses?
I believe his point was merely that not all charges of racism are manifestions of PC. It would be just as absurd to deny that racism exists as it would be to go on a PC witch hunt for it. And it would be quite vulgar for one to act as if all segregation is voluntary segregation, as if there never has ever been such a thing as forced or institutionalized segregation.
I believe that a desire for racial segregation irrespective of people's individual characters is irrational in and of itself (I.E. it's a collectivistic/holistic outlook on certain group identities and seeks isolation regaurdless of individual circumstance or variance). I wouldn't necessarily consider such a desire to be immoral though. But I do see it as undesirable and even counterproductive.
gplauche:I imagine most libertarians would see as immoral this sort of discrimination over superficial things like race, sex, etc. based on prejudice. But not not everything that is immoral is a rights-violation.
I'm inclined to agree with this to some extent (to be honest, the apparent amoralism in my post was really more rhetorical than actual). But just for fun, what kind of rational defense of such an ethic can there be?
(PS thanks for the articles).
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Brainpolice: And it would be quite vulgar for one to act as if all segregation is voluntary segregation, as if there never has ever been such a thing as forced or institutionalized segregation.
I never said there has never been forced segregation(as that wasn't the issue at hand). But it only takes one person for segration to be voluntary, meaning that voluntary segregation can still leave a lot of people unhappy.
My warning is that one should not equate antagonism towards the different with preference towards the similar.
JonBostwick:Voluntary segregation is the best way to avoid problems.
I may have to reconsider that. If everyone accepted voluntary segregation as allowable that would definitely end conflict. But if everyone accepted racism as unallowable wouldn't that too would end conflict?
Might it be in a bigots best interest to not segregate? Revenue wise its neutral, as turning away possible customers might be offset by creating a profitable niche market from being all black, implicitly or explicitly. But what about other concerns? Enforcement? Increased likely hood of being a victim of crime?
Maybe it depends on which idea is more easily adopted by most of the population?
Thoughts anyone? Relevant articles?
Solomon: gplauche:I imagine most libertarians would see as immoral this sort of discrimination over superficial things like race, sex, etc. based on prejudice. But not not everything that is immoral is a rights-violation. I'm inclined to agree with this to some extent (to be honest, the apparent amoralism in my post was really more rhetorical than actual). But just for fun, what kind of rational defense of such an ethic can there be? (PS thanks for the articles).
I can segregate all I want on my own property. It's my property. But I can't force you or anyone else to segregate on your property. If I walk into a store that declares "No Whites Allowed" and I'm told to leave they haven't violated any of my rights. If I stay, however, I have violated their property rights. I have become the agressor not them. The only ethic you need is to understand personal property rights. As long as I am not aggressing against the property of another then I should be free to do as I please.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
kingmonkey: Solomon: gplauche:I imagine most libertarians would see as immoral this sort of discrimination over superficial things like race, sex, etc. based on prejudice. But not not everything that is immoral is a rights-violation. I'm inclined to agree with this to some extent (to be honest, the apparent amoralism in my post was really more rhetorical than actual). But just for fun, what kind of rational defense of such an ethic can there be? (PS thanks for the articles). I can segregate all I want on my own property. It's my property. But I can't force you or anyone else to segregate on your property. If I walk into a store that declares "No Whites Allowed" and I'm told to leave they haven't violated any of my rights. If I stay, however, I have violated their property rights. I have become the agressor not them. The only ethic you need is to understand personal property rights. As long as I am not aggressing against the property of another then I should be free to do as I please.
I think that misses the point. There's no reason why libertarians, believing as they do in absolute property rights, have to restrict morality to rights. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you ought to do it.
gplauche: I think that misses the point. There's no reason why libertarians, believing as they do in absolute property rights, have to restrict morality to rights. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you ought to do it.
I agree but what you find morally offensive and I find morally offensive might be completely different. For instance, I find abortion to be a morally bankrupt practice and those that participate in it the most vile people on this planet. However, I can find no legal reason why a mother shouldn't be allowed to abort a fetus that she does not want. We might view segregation as morally offensive. But a black man who hates whites might think differently. He might view it as a more moral practice because he believes that keeping the influence of the white man away will protect black culture and heritage.
The unfortunate truth is that morality cannot define legality. There are certain things that are morally wrong as well as legally wrong because they are either coercion or aggression against another. Murder is of course illegal even if one views such a practice as no different than killing an animal. Murders illegality stems from being the ultimate aggression against another and the supreme violation of their property rights -- their right to life and self. But telling a Mexican he cannot come into my store is not aggression. It's just me exercising my right as the property owner to exclude or include whoever I wish.
And as I said before, I agree with your statement that just because you have the right to do it doesn't mean I ought to. But just because I ought not do it doesn't give you the right to stop me.
kingmonkey:I agree but what you find morally offensive and I find morally offensive might be completely different.
But that doesn't mean we're both right.
kingmonkey:The unfortunate truth is that morality cannot define legality. There are certain things that are morally wrong as well as legally wrong because they are either coercion or aggression against another. Murder is of course illegal even if one views such a practice as no different than killing an animal. Murders illegality stems from being the ultimate aggression against another and the supreme violation of their property rights -- their right to life and self. But telling a Mexican he cannot come into my store is not aggression. It's just me exercising my right as the property owner to exclude or include whoever I wish.
Well, I disagree here. Rights are both moral and legal principles, and law itself is not totally divorced from morality. If it were, then there would be no basis for declaring positive laws unjust. (This is a major pitfall of legal positivism, which is incompatible with libertarianism.) What does it mean to have a property right in something? It means you own it. And what does that mean? It means that your possession and control of that thing ought to be respected, i.e., not interfered with (through the threat or use of initiatory physical force). This 'ought' is a moral obligation and the right is a moral claim against this prior obligation. The difference between a right and other moral claims is that rights alone are legally enforceable moral claims.
kingmonkey:And as I said before, I agree with your statement that just because you have the right to do it doesn't mean I ought to. But just because I ought not do it doesn't give you the right to stop me.
That's obvious in what I wrote so I'm not sure why it's posed as an objection.
gplauche: kingmonkey:I agree but what you find morally offensive and I find morally offensive might be completely different. But that doesn't mean we're both right.
It doesn't mean we're both wrong either. It just means we have different views.
gplauche: kingmonkey:The unfortunate truth is that morality cannot define legality. There are certain things that are morally wrong as well as legally wrong because they are either coercion or aggression against another. Murder is of course illegal even if one views such a practice as no different than killing an animal. Murders illegality stems from being the ultimate aggression against another and the supreme violation of their property rights -- their right to life and self. But telling a Mexican he cannot come into my store is not aggression. It's just me exercising my right as the property owner to exclude or include whoever I wish. Well, I disagree here. Rights are both moral and legal principles, and law itself is not totally divorced from morality. If it were, then there would be no basis for declaring positive laws unjust. (This is a major pitfall of legal positivism, which is incompatible with libertarianism.) What does it mean to have a property right in something? It means you own it. And what does that mean? It means that your possession and control of that thing ought to be respected, i.e., not interfered with (through the threat or use of initiatory physical force). This 'ought' is a moral obligation and the right is a moral claim against this prior obligation. The difference between a right and other moral claims is that rights alone are legally enforceable moral claims.
I guess...
I don't follow. I think I agree but I don't quite get what you're driving at but please forgive me. I've just consumed a pint of vodka and working on another.
Rights are both moral and legal principles, and law itself is not totally divorced from morality. If it were, then there would be no basis for declaring positive laws unjust.
True, but law is a strict subset of morality. For example, prostitution and pornography are immoral, but in a free society they would not be illegal.
--Len.
gplauche: What does it mean to have a property right in something? It means you own it. And what does that mean? It means that your possession and control of that thing ought to be respected, i.e., not interfered with (through the threat or use of initiatory physical force). This 'ought' is a moral obligation and the right is a moral claim against this prior obligation. The difference between a right and other moral claims is that rights alone are legally enforceable moral claims.
I disagree.
The law does not say what others 'ought' to do with regards to my property. It tells me what I am allowed to do if someone refuses to recognize my legitimate property and helps me to recognize other people's legitimate property.
Legality and morality are separate. You claiming that following the law is a moral obligation does not join the two concepts.
I don't think he's saying that. Rather, he's saying that your property rights are first and foremost a moral right, which the law exists to protect. Any laws that command immoral behavior, or do anything other than punish (certain) immoral behavior, are themselves immoral and automatically invalid. So laws do indeed enforce moral behavior.
What sets libertarians apart from right-wing Christians is that we don't believe that all moral behavior should be enforced. Thus we don't have laws against dishonesty, cowardice, stinginess, gluttony or any other immoral behavior that doesn't directly harm the person or property of another.
Sorry, I've been away for a few days...
Then the worst thing that can happen is the child dies. Believe it or not, the occurance of someone dying a lonely, miserable death is completely natural and is not a crime against nature or against any person
See, this is what I'm trying to work around. There has to be something...I don't know...MORE to a society than just "oh well, the child died". This is a CHILD we are talking about. Until you have held your own baby in your arms, listened to them cry when they were hurt, it's hard to understand. But what kind of society/civilization/species are we if we hunker down on our property and invoke property rights over and over to rationalize horrible actions?
I will come right out and say that I am a 30-something white middle-class American. I cannot begin to understand how a black person feels, or a mexican. I haven't had to face racism or bigotry.
But I keep coming back to the difference between a home and a business...especially a business that deals in products vital to everyday survival (power supply, food, water, etc). I know, I know...private property is private property. You can keep people out of your house, so you can keep them out of your business. But I can't help feel that there is something missing here. Call it morality, call it a society's "soul".
I don't know...maybe I'm just rambling. Only been home a few hours. I'll have to mull on this a bit more.
Oh, and on the abortion thing. Isn't it very easy to say that, at the moment of conception, the fetus is a living human being and thus has property rights itself? Thus a mother couldn't kill it?
I get where you're coming from (in fact all libertarians do, though they [pretend to] forget sometimes).
Jonas:There has to be something...I don't know...MORE to a society than just "oh well, the child died".
And there probably should be (personally, I'm partial to the phrase "love thy neighbor"). But as Bastiat trenchantly put it "to decree fraternity is to annihilate it." So the proper extent of the law ends at property rights.
Jonas:But what kind of society/civilization/species are we if we hunker down on our property and invoke property rights over and over to rationalize horrible actions? Call it morality, call it a society's "soul".
Call it morality, call it a society's "soul".
Firstly, society does not exist in any actual, concrete sense; only individuals exist. Eventually collectivism in general leads precisely to the horrible events you wish to prevent. Keeping this in mind, it's important to understand that the unfortunate death of the hypothetical child was not the effect of someone's "action;" no one is responsible. Rather it's only one of many possible results of the risk everyone takes in choosing to live.
(Oh God! I feel diabetic after writing this post!)
Firstly, society does not exist in any actual, concrete sense; only individuals exist. Eventually collectivism in general leads precisely to the horrible events you wish to prevent.
Society is required to advance beyond individuals living in caves. I see collectivism as a boon to humanity. One person cannot do everything...you need various individuals who each bring a specific skill to the group. Then everyone works together towards a common goal, which should be the advancement of the species.
Keeping this in mind, it's important to understand that the unfortunate death of the hypothetical child was not the effect of someone's "action;" no one is responsible.
Actually, in my example, the child dies because one person chooses to forbid a child of a certain race access to required medical services. That person is responsible. They might be able to live with that...might even relish in it. But they are as responsible for that child's death as if they put a bullet in it's head.
Jonas: Oh, and on the abortion thing. Isn't it very easy to say that, at the moment of conception, the fetus is a living human being and thus has property rights itself? Thus a mother couldn't kill it?
Walter Block did a nice lecture on abortion. You should check it out, its in the media section at mises.org under Walter Block. Anyway, yes, the fetus is a living human being, and has the rights to live. Therefore, yes, it would be a crime to kill it. However, imagine the fetus is a house guest. You cant kill the house guest because you all of a sudden dont want him/her there. What do you do? You kick him out if you feel he is trespassing. The same applies for the fetus. If the mother wanted to have the baby and then changed her mind, she being the owner of her property (body) has the right to evict it, but not kill it. This is complicated because it is not currently possible to evict a partially born baby without harming it. In the future though, this will be possible. This is the basic position Block takes in his lecture.
Here is the link:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=443
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Well I haven't read the whole thread but Rothbard's stance on abortion is simple. Even if you grant that a fetus is a living being, it does not grant that fetus the right to live at expense of the mother. In the eyes of the mother, the baby is a parasite; granting the fetus the right to live even if the mother does not want it is akin to forced kidney donations; keeping somebody alive at the expense of another.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap