Current Events

Re: Rothbard and Race

Charles A Johnson — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:20:11 GMT

I am unable to understand why some people are against a logical understanding of races. It seems that so much of modern treatment of human races is profoundly anti-intellectual. I don't think it is a good thing for people to irrationally dislike other races, that is simple-minded but I don't think that is what Rothbard is talking about. Racial differences are so obvious it seems one must be willfully ignorant to ignore them. For instance if africans are demonstrably more inclined to be physically fit then would it not follow that there are a myriad other differences between the races as well, but I do not think this implies the belief that one race is better then another, they are simply different. I think the human species was clearly in the early stages of speciation hence our differences in appearance, but why is it a bad thing to study this sort of thing. We could probably get past many of our problems if we were better able to understand them on a scientific level.

Re: Rothbard and Race

gotlucky — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:11:38 GMT

What does a disservice to your point is how you listed the two quotes, one right after the other but out of order! It makes it look like one big comment. The first quote is from the end and the second is from the beginning. You make it look like one long statement in order to make it look like a long racist statement, when in fact the two quotes are entirely unrelated.

Let's look at the two quotes, but in order:

I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.

Okay, so what is wrong with this statement? I

Is it false that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary?

Is it false that invididuals differ in intelligence and many other traits?

Is it false that ethnic groups and races differ in intellegence and many other traits?

If these are false statements, then you should provide reasons as to why you believe so. I have read this thread and seen no such attempt from you.

The second quote, which you listed as first, and then cropped, for some dishonest reason:

If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?

Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

In any case, there is cause for jubilation these days, for it looks as if the left-egalitarian blackout-and-smear gang has been dealt a truly lethal blow.

So Murray Rothbard asks the question, and I'll actually quote him, unlike you: "If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?"

His response, in short:

1) "to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake"

2) "and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project"

and then he says, "wait! there's even a third possibility!" - I'll condense his quote for effect:

3) whatever, I'm talking to a bunch of idiots

Murray Rothbard is known for his scholarly approach to writing, but sometimes people forget his zingers.

In addition, I also noticed that you managed to define "racialist" as "flagrant racist". This. Is. Intellectually. Dishonest.

I will cite wikipedia: "Racialism is an emphasis on race or racial considerations.[1] Currently, racialism entails a belief in the existence and significance of racial categories, but not necessarily that any absolute hierarchy between the races has been demonstrated by a rigorous and comprehensive scientific process. Racialists usually reject some claims of racial superiority (such as "racial supremacy"), but may explicitly or implicitly subscribe to others, such as that races have acted in morally superior or inferior ways, at least in certain instances or periods of history."

In no way does this at all mean "flagrant racist". Period. If you want to define "racialist" as "flagrant racist" that is your choice. But if someone else uses the word in a different way, in fact the more commonly accepted way, it is dishonest of you to foist your own definition on the term someone else uses.

you12:

Why can't Ron Paul who is clearly not racist confront the ugly past of racism and acknowledge that libertrians in the past probably strayed but its not representative of the libertarianism at large.

You have yet to demonstrate any libertarians that have been part of this "ugly past of racism". You see, to me, when someone talks about the "ugly past of racism", it calls to mind slavery and Jim Crow laws. What libertarian ever supported either? So either when you say "ugly past of racism" you are not in fact referring to slavery and Jim Crow laws, or you are trying to link libertarians with enacting Statist policies. If it is the former, then I find it amusing that you don't consider slavery and Jim Crow to be part of the "ugly past of racism". If it is the latter, then I find it dishonest.

If I didn't make it clear earlier: those two quotes you provided are not the main thrust of the piece you linked to. The second quote you provided (which actually appears at the very beginning) has nothing racist, bigoted, or prejudiced about it. It may only appear to be "racist" when you place it after the first quote (which was in fact at the very end).

Re: Rothbard and Race

MaikU — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:03:32 GMT

Jackm:

You guys are just shooting yourselves in the foot with this race realist crap, whether it be true or not. Too concerned with winning debates over winning hearts.

QFT

Re: Rothbard and Race

baxter — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:57:45 GMT

This subject troubles me for a number of reasons:

1. Intelligence is not a linear, superimposable property like length.

2. There is no known way to quantify intelligence any more than there are ways to produce cardinal subjective values.

3. There is no meaning to computations like sums or averages of intelligence. One is simply playing childish games with numbers.

4 .There is no scientific meaning to "race". There is no scientific test to determine what races someone belongs to.

5. Intelligence is not necessarily a good thing. High intelligence can lead to social awkwardness and psychological problems. It can be bad if a criminal is intelligent. A dumb football player can command higher pay for his services than an intelligent person can. I predict machines of superhuman intelligence will be constructed sooner or later as well as bionic implants which may make baseline human intelligence something of a historical curiosity.

6. There are so many differences between even two family members that the focus on race seems pointless.

Re: Rothbard and Race

you12 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:35:56 GMT

Exactly Jack. IT is actually a disservice to libertarianism if you argue with this nonsense. Sometimes I think unconventional people will become too fringe and reactionary just to annoy the mainstream.

The consensus here clearly is that racialism and libertarianisms are not in any way related. Yet people rush to defend racialism eventhough it is not of any use to us.

Re: Rothbard and Race

Jackm — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:35:12 GMT

You guys are just shooting yourselves in the foot with this race realist crap, whether it be true or not. Too concerned with winning debates over winning hearts.

Re: Rothbard and Race

Eric080 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:16:54 GMT

I don't know what you mean by "arguing for liberty"; he was using biological reality against leftists who use race denial in order to further their specific goals. If they are going to argue from flawed assumptions (race doesn't exist, everybody is equal, the environment conditions everything, etc.), then you have every right to point that out. Also, when talking about race and IQ, Rothbard hasn't ceased looking at people as individuals; the socialist argument is basing their analysis off of aggregate populations. Thus, the basis of "race realism" deals in aggregates. A race realist doesn't say that all people of X race behave a certain way and should be judged as individuals based on aggregate statistics. They only point out a correlation in aggregate.

Re: Rothbard and Race

Ark de Grande — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:47:37 GMT

"Racism" is a political bludgeon term. It means whatever its wielder at that time wants it to mean.

Re: Rothbard and Race

you12 — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:21:30 GMT

Again I don't define Rothbard but merely point out that an argument he made for liberty was in error.

Look I dont oppose researchers doing researches or discrimination by private individuals but i do expect a heroic figure like Rothbard not to structure his arguments saying that If collectivists don't like it then we'll just tell em 'shove it your just dim'.

Rothbard has an defining and positive influence on Libertarianism but that doesn't mean that he was always making the best arguments.

Re: Rothbard and Race

Neodoxy — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:13:14 GMT

Well does Rothbard actually state in the article that he wants to treat the races unequally? If not then he doesn't seem to fit any of your definitions.

Re: Rothbard and Race

Marko — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:10:13 GMT

Seeing most racists I've dealt with were apolitical that's clearly a load of crap.

Re: Rothbard and Race

you12 — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:07:30 GMT

"race" is a collectivist notion and therefore incompatible with libertarian tenets. The fact that this doesnt answer the OP clearly, utterly, and definitively just shows how conditioned we all are to the idea of "race."

Ofcourse it is. That is why the opposition to racialism based arguments for libertarianism from Rothbard.

Re: Rothbard and Race

you12 — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:00:13 GMT

It would not be racism if you argue that races should be treated equally. Racism is the clearest opposition to that idea.

Being a racist is to deny equal rights to others, racist people may be a lot of things but libertarian is not one of them.

Re: Rothbard and Race

Marko — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:54:48 GMT

But don't you agree that libertarianism can be promoted on better grounds than racialism.

Sure I do, same as I think non-intervention in the Balkans could have been argued for in better style than the one emplyed. At the end of the day the guy wrote a huge number of articles in the process of writing of which he was clearly enjoying himself and going for being fun, flashy and outrageous — so some of his output was almost necessarily going to end up cringeworthy and less than fully tastefull. It is dissapoiting and irresponsible coming from the big man himself, but there isn't anything in there that conflicts with libertarianism.

Re: Rothbard and Race

Marko — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:22:35 GMT

Its one thing being a jerk but another entirely to argue using racialism which is about preserving racial differences. Racialism opposes immigration and interracial relations to preserve differences. How is that compatible with freedom of association. And racism says that only certain ill defined groups have power and rights but others don't. Very libertarian I guess.

I can't exactly argue with you on this when you define terms for me. Sure being in favor of use of force (curtailing freedom of association & immigration) is not libertarian, but who says that must be a component of racism? Being a racist means you feel that in some metaphysical sense people of one racially defined group are worth more than people of another, but you can still favor equality before the law regardless.