UEFA Anti-Rasim promotion from the Libertarian point of view.

 Hello everybody,

I am again asking Mises.org community about what Libertarian would think of...

Recently Europe Football championship was finished. Among other things this championship turned my attention with a public promotion of the Anti-Racism message. As long as I can agree with the good cause of that promotion I somewhere in my mind could not stand seeing both captains of every match speaking a few words in the language of thier native country representing the message.

I asked my self what was it that made me feel myself a bit strange, that formal tone with wich every captain spoke the message as if he was doing it very formally, or may be when you suppose to play high class football it is not really supposed to deliver greate speeches and more over promote any idological or political or humanitarian or what so ever message, which was decided buy the high UEFA football officials or national commeetes, in public...

So may be someone can help me to understand how this particular situation can be seen and interpreted from the Libertarian point of view?

thank you once again,

Evgeniy

In a free market, racist behavior is bad business practice.

If you get a reputation for mistreating people, you will lose employees and customers.  In a free market, you will find yourself with competition and put out of business.

In the present, discrimination is an issue because corporations have a State-granted monopoly/oligopoly.  A group that is the victim of discrimination cannot easily form their own businesses.

The free market answer to racism is that racism does not occur in a truly free market.  If you discriminate against a group of people, you're losing customers, and those people will become your competition.

If a group of people want to buy a block of land and exclude all people who meet certain characteristics, that's their right, as long as their ownership claim to that land is valid.

Racism is an evil that should stop. But if an official government promotes Anti racism, I would assume that their is racial tension in it's area. A big difference is if the captains are forced to say this, or if they say it on their own. But considering their are football teams that have racist people on them, a nation wide agenda is going to make it worse by stifling racist sentiment. And when you do that it grows as an undercurrent and creates more tension. 

I would question the people that started this anti racism campaign and see how they feel about their fellow foreigners. States can not stop racism, only a peaceful productive free market can come the closest to it. Parents who are racists will tell their children how everything is a lie and that one race is inferior or some other negative. That is the racial undercurrent that builds in spite of what looks like progress, and no one will appreciate a person for who he is, they will look at his race.

And when something goes down, people are going to blame someone, like the Jews or blacks. Pushing society to accept different races is not going to cure the ill. It only stops people from understanding that race really doesn't matter, and causes arrested development. 

The state is always trying to accelerate social growth, but in reality it stifles it. That's why some people won't vote for Obama,140 years after slavery is abolished, because he is black. 

 @ FSK, my landlord will disagree with you. But perhaps I should elaborate a bit on doing business with people from different races. Because the matter is a bit more complicated then making sweeping statement.

First of all the term "Racism" is a loaded one and a misleading term by that. I explained this in some detail in some previous posts.
For what does it mean?
a) To claim that there are differences between races?
b) That one dislikes specific groups of people, because of their ethnic background?

I know there are dictionary definitions, but what people understand by the word "racism" within public discourse is not that clear. It is commonly used to smear an opponent (usuallay) that favors some kind of cultural preserverance, is opposed to mass-immigration or makes statements indicating a belief into behavioural between people due to genetic factors.

That said, from a libertarian point of few an organisations and people are of course free to make statements on issues as they like. However it seems that the team captains have been commanded to make such a statement. There is kind of implicit coercion in that. Or what would have happened, if they'd refused to make the statement?

The background of this statement will be the fact that more and more Europeans, become dissatisfied with the growing number of non-White immigrants in their countries, especially due to their propensity of nasty behavior in public life. So semi-official institutions like UEFA are utilized to make sure that people know what the political correct pary line is.

Torsten:

However it seems that the team captains have been commanded to make such a statement. There is kind of implicit coercion in that. Or what would have happened, if they'd refused to make the statement?

I thougth, exactly about the same. It is strange feeling... I tried to imagine myself on one of the captains place, and asked myself what if I really support antiracism message but not in such a way... And this really make me think that captains had to follow the mainstream line, cause otherwise this would possibily even make bad on their professional career or you can name several different motivations of the person not to follow this.

So proponents of the idea will be automatically in winning poisition and could blame such a person as coolhearted or other... it is not important what actuall coercion would be, but definitely it can arise if person will show its own point of view. That is my main concern.

What would be the main point if one captain would refuse follow the mainstream?

Even if they were forced to do it I'm sure most of them would have done it anyway.  Being labeled a racist is a good way ruin your reputation which will hurt the team which will eventually reach into your pocket book and endorsement deals.

 From a libertarian point of view it's very simple. If UEFA were a private company starting out this campaign with their own money and by their own initiative, everything would be absolutely fine. If UEFA on the other side were (as it happens to be) a semi-governative organization starting this campaign out as part of a larger cohercitive initiative and financing it through government (ie stolen) money everything would not be so fine. That's as easy as it gets.

kingmonkey:

Even if they were forced to do it I'm sure most of them would have done it anyway.  Being labeled a racist is a good way ruin your reputation which will hurt the team which will eventually reach into your pocket book and endorsement deals.

I'm not sure whether they've done it. These guys will be mainly bothered with Sports and are not that concerned with political or social issues. But you are probably right that being labelled a racist today is kind of the same as being labelled a heretic during the inquisition. especially in Sports or any publicity intensive kind of occupation.

In South Africa the passion of many, mainly Whites, is rugby and I recall a strange "racism" charge against a rugby player not to long ago:

SA open racism case

Geo Cronje was cleared of racism The independent inquiry into allegations of racism in the national team has begun in South Africa. The investigation follows the resignation of communications manager Mark Keohane after he exposed new claims of prejudice in the squad. South African Rugby Football Union (SARFU) and SA Rugby, which controls the professional arm of the game, have opted to reopen the case, which was sparked by allegations against Springbok lock Geo Cronje. SA announce World Cup squad Cronje was kicked out of a Springbok training camp last week after allegedly refusing to share a room or bathroom with black team-mate Quinton Davids. He was subsequently cleared of racism by an internal inquiry but left out of South Africa's 30-man World Cup squad. Keohane resigned on Tuesday saying he could "no longer be part of a squad in which prejudice is tolerated, wished away and excused". In a joint statement SARFU and SA Rugby said: "The two bodies were informed of the resignation of Springbok communications manager Mark Keohane, who came forward with new allegations of prejudice within the Springbok camp. "In light of this the board and executive considered these allegations serious enough to warrant a new investigation....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/international/3201081.stm

 

The man was only moving into another room, which is a personal choice. I take the guess the racism card was played for other reasons then the ones that actually have been proclaimed (competition amongst the players). The whole issue had a stench of thought police it and clearly demonstrates the totalist mentality of the anti-Racists.

Anyway, any organisation can establish a policy and instruct people to say a sermon during an activity that they organize. On the other hand the UEFA sermon against racism was obviously a farce. And I think many people will actually have realized that. I wonder what would have happened, if a team captain would have refused to say the sermon.

fsk:

If you discriminate against a group of people, you're losing customers, and those people will become your competition.

So if a sales manager discriminates against introverted people, they'll form a whiz-bang marketing company in retaliation?

If a health club refuses to hire fat people as fitness instructors, what are the fat people going to do--start a gym?

What about a modeling agency that refuses to sign ugly models?

Should the Mises Institute hire socialists?

I meant "discriminate" in the sense of "immoral discrimination", such as based on race.

If you mean "discriminate" in the sense of "valid decision making", that's fine.

I agree that it's perfectly acceptable for a software company to discriminate against stupid people by not hiring them.

Let's play "taboo your words".  If "discriminate" means "make decision on factors other than merit", then that sort of discrimination won't occur in a free market.  If "discriminate" means "decide based on available information", then that sort of decision making will occur in a free market.

The problem is that "discriminate" has multiple meanings.

fsk:

I meant "discriminate" in the sense of "immoral discrimination", such as based on race.

Okay.  If I decide to date or marry only within my own race, am I being immoral?  If I staff my Mexican restaurant exclusively with Mexicans so it will give my customers an authentically more Mexican experience, am I being immoral?

fsk:

If "discriminate" means "make decision on factors other than merit", then that sort of discrimination won't occur in a free market. 

Businesses that discriminate on "factors other than merit" may be less profitable, but to say that such discrimination will not occur in a free market is ridiculous.  I can show you neighborhoods in Atlanta where people will pay $100,000 more for a house so they can be in a 98% white school district.

Of course you can marry whoever you choose, because that doesn't injure anyone else.

Of course, an ethnically-themed restaurant may have people of that ethnicity working there.  That sort of racial discrimination isn't immoral.

Similarly, hiring a black actor to portray Obama instead of a white actor isn't immoral discrimination.

In those instances, "merit" and "race" are correlated.

If people want to pay extra for a house to live in an all-white or mostly-white neighborhood, that's their perogative.  In that case, there's a specific economic cost for their bias that they're willing to pay.

I really meant "racial discrimination in cases where race doesn't matter".  For example, suppose all the car manufacturers refused to hire Mexicans.  At that point, some smart Mexicans would start their own car factory and market the fact they they were Mexicans selling to other Mexicans.  In the present, they can't due this, due to State regulations of manufacturing.

It wouldn't even take Mexicans (per the example) to start a company to employ Mexicans.  Any entrepreneur who wanted to utilize an untapped labor market, could hire these workers for a marginal discount and realize the discount in the cost to manufacture.

It could be someone from the same race of the person who wouldn't hire them at company A.

I think we need to start pushing in these directions, of not just advocating self-sufficiency, but telling the egalitarians and bleeding heart moralizers that it's not ok for them to legislate the world they way they want it to be, they have to go out and do it.  That coercion is not a tactic for change, their own labor and effort is.  They need to be the ones opening up competitive businesses and hiring minorities or the economical disadvantaged.

I've been very poor.  You can create your own opportunities, but in the absence of opportunities created by others, it is much, much harder to get a leg up on things.

Byzantine:

I can show you neighborhoods in Atlanta where people will pay $100,000 more for a house so they can be in a 98% white school district.

I work with a black woman engineer (a rarity in the aerospace field) who sends her son to a private school where he is the only black person in the entire school.  There are other reasons for her motivation to do that aside from race, obivously.  The neighborhood she lives in is nicer and has less crime.  The school has less discipline problems and gives a better education.  The connection you made between their willingness to pay more for a house and their inherent racism is, to say the least, a little weak.

That said, I agree with your sentiment.  Business owners do not necessarily do what is most profitable for various reasons, and we won't see much less immoral discrimination in a free market than we do now.

Gives new meaning for discrimination.

scineram:

Gives new meaning for discrimination.

So now you have a right to go to parties?  Great!  That's going to make drinking a lot cheaper!  I can just crash other peoples parties, drink their booze and not worry about getting thrown out because I have a right to be there.