The reason why I never seem to be able to subscribe to an ideology is that it always has something that I completely disagree with. Like for instance-- the libertarians believe that the free market would hurt companies that discriminate against people. But that hasn't stopped companies from doing well in the past. And, I am all for small government, I am not a statist, but I am also a believer in our constitution and I think our constitution should protect people of other races, colors, and genders... but I don't understand why anyone would rationally think that unless we used the mass media to brainwash the population how anyone would think that racism would go away if we let the free market decide things. Is there a more civil rights libertarian view of thought that I am missing here?
Racism is a personally-held bias held by individuals. There is nothing in the libertarian tradition that prohibits such a bias. However, those in business who discriminate against others are likely to lose market share because of their discrimination.
In short, libertarians tolerate racist beliefs, but racists are likely to incur losses in the free market if they act on their bias.
is racism a crime or something ugly?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Our government, media, schools, etc. all have been telling us for many years that racism is bad. We just elected a black president in the US. But guess what? No matter what, there will always, always, be someone who is racist, sexist, or somehow discriminatory. A free market, nor a socialist state, wouldn't change this. A free market, however, recognizes that everyone has a right to free association. If someone doesn't want employees of another race or religion, he has the right to not hire them. He is never forced to violate his principles, however twisted they may be.
Government coercion does nothing to alleviate his hatred. In fact, it may make it worse; now the other race is privileged. It breeds race warfare, where races compete for the government trough, just like good ol' class warfare. Only the power of the state can force institutional racism. How many Southern businesses wanted segregation to end so that they could get more customers? Probably a good many. Yet the power of the state stood in their way.
I see. That makes more sense. I just think that in the past companies were racist but it didn't hurt them when they were racist. Groups like the KKK gained more power when racism was accepted by everyone. And yes, I think racism is pretty ugly, but I would rather people restrain themselves from being racist. I for one disagree, that racism is a natural tendency, I am not racist, and I haven't ever been racist.... but I just think that this whole conservative movement to go back towards allowing racism was a reaction to the civil rights movement in the 60s.
Zach_the_Lizard: Our government, media, schools, etc. all have been telling us for many years that racism is bad. We just elected a black president in the US. But guess what? No matter what, there will always, always, be someone who is racist, sexist, or somehow discriminatory. A free market, nor a socialist state, would change this. A free market, however, recognizes that everyone has a right to free association. If someone doesn't want employees of another race or religion, he has the right to not hire them. He is never forced to violate his principles, however twisted they may be. Government coercion does nothing to alleviate his hatred. In fact, it may make it worse; now the other race is privileged. It breeds race warfare, where races compete for the government trough, just like good ol' class warfare. Only the power of the state can force institutional racism. How many Southern businesses wanted segregation to end so that they could get more customers? Probably a good many. Yet the power of the state stood in their way.
Our government, media, schools, etc. all have been telling us for many years that racism is bad. We just elected a black president in the US. But guess what? No matter what, there will always, always, be someone who is racist, sexist, or somehow discriminatory. A free market, nor a socialist state, would change this. A free market, however, recognizes that everyone has a right to free association. If someone doesn't want employees of another race or religion, he has the right to not hire them. He is never forced to violate his principles, however twisted they may be.
I see, but I think that open racism is worse.
I don't really believe that if we got rid of discrimination laws that everything would go away.
SilentXtarian: The reason why I never seem to be able to subscribe to an ideology is that it always has something that I completely disagree with. Like for instance-- the libertarians believe that the free market would hurt companies that discriminate against people. But that hasn't stopped companies from doing well in the past. And, I am all for small government, I am not a statist, but I am also a believer in our constitution and I think our constitution should protect people of other races, colors, and genders... but I don't understand why anyone would rationally think that unless we used the mass media to brainwash the population how anyone would think that racism would go away if we let the free market decide things. Is there a more civil rights libertarian view of thought that I am missing here?
Yeah, and in the past the free market was corrupted (as well as presently) with blacks slaving out in the plantation, so, in what free market was the State not involved that you are referring to specifically? It would help if you provided historical context.
No free market with blind headbutting as thine and mine goes unseen, you know, current events. But if there's an increased implementation of property rights so economics justly happens with this scarcity.. then yes.
SilentXtarian: but I just think that this whole conservative movement to go back towards allowing racism was a reaction to the civil rights movement in the 60s.
but I just think that this whole conservative movement to go back towards allowing racism was a reaction to the civil rights movement in the 60s.
I don't know of any "conservative movement" that strives for racism.
Libertarians believe in freedom and justice. Freedom means being able to think and do whatevery you want, so long as you do not aggress against the freedom of another individual. That means an individual is free to be as racist as he or she wants. While many people are morally opposed to racism, me included, if an individual isn't free to think and speak racist things then he isn't truly free.
SilentXtarian: I see. That makes more sense. I just think that in the past companies were racist but it didn't hurt them when they were racist. Groups like the KKK gained more power when racism was accepted by everyone. And yes, I think racism is pretty ugly, but I would rather people restrain themselves from being racist. I for one disagree, that racism is a natural tendency, I am not racist, and I haven't ever been racist.... but I just think that this whole conservative movement to go back towards allowing racism was a reaction to the civil rights movement in the 60s.
hmmm, you know the KKK used the State to push their agenda. So how does this fit into a libertarian philosophy?
SilentXtarian:I don't really believe that if we got rid of discrimination laws that everything would go away.
as a tried to hint, you should decide whether racism is something that you dont like because
a)its a crime
or
b)its ugly and offends you
c) theres another reason that I cant think of but maybe you might.
jdcoffey: SilentXtarian: but I just think that this whole conservative movement to go back towards allowing racism was a reaction to the civil rights movement in the 60s. I don't know of any "conservative movement" that strives for racism. Libertarians believe in freedom and justice. Freedom means being able to think and do whatevery you want, so long as you do not aggress against the freedom of another individual. That means an individual is free to be as racist as he or she wants. While many people are morally opposed to racism, me included, if an individual isn't free to think and speak racist things then he isn't truly free.
I've read things where people said that conservatives thought that the civil rights movement was a mistake so they wanted to go back to it. I guess that people can speak their mind about racism but I just think that people should restrain themselves from denying opportunities to other people who are minorities. It just is morally wrong. But I agree with most of other libertarian views. But not to all of them. It's just things like this that I disagree with.
nirgrahamUK: SilentXtarian:I don't really believe that if we got rid of discrimination laws that everything would go away. as a tried to hint, you should decide whether racism is something that you dont like because a)its a crime or b)its ugly and offends you or c) theres another reason that I cant think of but maybe you might.
Racism divides people. It's a better idea even if you can to not talk about racism in public because it'll offend people. It's like me saying I don't like you because your hair is color blond so I hate all blond people.
well as soon as you acknowledge that its not a crime, you see how evil it would be to criminally prosecute people for it, i.e. to have laws about it. etc. so maybe you re libertarian after all.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that people should not be allowed to speak or think racist things? Or perhaps exclude people they dislike from voluntary agreements?
To help me understand better, can you list several hypothetical examples of racism "denying opportunities to other people who are minorities?"
SilentXtarian: Racism divides people. It's a better idea even if you can to not talk about racism in public because it'll offend people. It's like me saying I don't like you because your hair is color blond so I hate all blond people.
It may be a good idea to not talk about it in public, but it is never a good idea to give those in power the authority to squash your speech and beliefs, no matter how twisted, because it offends people. I personally look down on racism, but I would never advocate forcing these people through the law to go against their beliefs.
As does any preference. The ultimate questions are:
1: How do you determine when someone's discriminating.
2: If you have done so, how can you ethically MAKE them stop?
3: Even if you do stop them, will this end their racism, or simply strenghten it?
SilentXtarian: I've read things where people said that conservatives thought that the civil rights movement was a mistake so they wanted to go back to it.
I've read things where people said that conservatives thought that the civil rights movement was a mistake so they wanted to go back to it.
A conservative is not a libertarian. So I don't know why you brought this up.
SilentXtarian: I guess that people can speak their mind about racism but I just think that people should restrain themselves from denying opportunities to other people who are minorities. It just is morally wrong.
I guess that people can speak their mind about racism but I just think that people should restrain themselves from denying opportunities to other people who are minorities. It just is morally wrong.
Ok. Big difference between moral and law. What is moral is between you and your God or what have you or you and your conscience (might be easier to digest for some). Law is what somebody in this thread already stated to you, which has to do with violation of property rights. Now if you need to know what property rights are... I don't want to keep explaining events you already might know.
SilentXtarian: But I agree with most of other libertarian views. But not to all of them. It's just things like this that I disagree with.
But I agree with most of other libertarian views. But not to all of them. It's just things like this that I disagree with.
Why are you lumping conservative with libertarian? Do you even know what a libertarian is?
Zach_the_Lizard: SilentXtarian: Racism divides people. It's a better idea even if you can to not talk about racism in public because it'll offend people. It's like me saying I don't like you because your hair is color blond so I hate all blond people. It may be a good idea to not talk about it in public, but it is never a good idea to give those in power the authority to squash your speech and beliefs, no matter how twisted, because it offends people. I personally look down on racism, but I would never advocate forcing these people through the law to go against their beliefs.
I guess I see your point. The power shouldn't rest in the hands of the state to decide things. But I don't want to see a return to the old era of racism in the past. Yeah, you're right about how it would be bad to ban the discussion of race completely.
But, I just am opposed to the idea of open racism against one another. But I guess we shouldn't make laws about it. I just wish there was a way we could do without racism laws and still be a tolerant society.
Does anybody remember the movie Demolition Man?
***BEEP John Spartan you are fined 1 credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute***
wilderness: SilentXtarian: I've read things where people said that conservatives thought that the civil rights movement was a mistake so they wanted to go back to it. A conservative is not a libertarian. So I don't know why you brought this up. SilentXtarian: I guess that people can speak their mind about racism but I just think that people should restrain themselves from denying opportunities to other people who are minorities. It just is morally wrong. Ok. Big difference between moral and law. What is moral is between you and your God or what have you or you and your conscience (might be easier to digest for some). Law is what somebody in this thread already stated to you, which has to do with violation of property rights. Now if you need to know what property rights are... I don't want to keep explaining events you already might know. SilentXtarian: But I agree with most of other libertarian views. But not to all of them. It's just things like this that I disagree with. Why are you lumping conservative with libertarian? Do you even know what a libertarian is?
I do know what a libertarian is. I recently read For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I know what property rights are... I'm just saying that I would be sad if people went back to the way we were before.
Like I said, I pretty much agree with most libertarian views (no I'm not lumping them together). But it's just a fe wthat I disagree with or have different views on.
libertarianism isnt a theory about how people can be made 'friendly' 'nice' or 'tolerant'. its an ethical theory that concerns justice.
your asking it to do too much. libertarianism isnt offering a utopia. once we have as much justice as is feasable you can set about influencing people to be nice and friendly and tolerant so long as you stick to just means. how can this seem unattractive compared to what rival ideologies to libertarianism offer?
I guess I wouldn't mind it as long as we didn't go back to the way things were in the 60s. I like the libertarian ideology... but I just think that some of the views in it are just a bit extreme for me. In the libertarian ideological spectrum I would be considered a moderate if I were to be considered a libertarian. That being said, many of the libertarian views have shaped the way I think about privatization and the free market. It's just that I don't know exactly how the discrimination libertarian view would work in reality.
SilentXtarian: I do know what a libertarian is. I recently read For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I know what property rights are... I'm just saying that I would be sad if people went back to the way we were before.
"back to the way we were before"... Are you blaming libertarians for the Slave State that the United States was and for the legislation that the U.S. State would pass that kept racism on-going, such as in public schools and such? I don't know why you made that comment. That's why I asked you to explain what historical context in which this whole libertarian racist thing your bringing up comes from.
SilentXtarian: Like I said, I pretty much agree with most libertarian views (no I'm not lumping them together). But it's just a fe wthat I disagree with or have different views on.
Ok, then, what libertarian views do you disagree with?
maybe the 60's conjours up different thoughts for me than you. but if i think of things to get upset about in the 60's, its crimes!
whether by the criminals of the state, or criminals who are also racists, or just other criminals.
whereas; people who are not nice friendly or tolerant are way way down the list of things to worry about. (and people who are rude self-exclude themselves from enjoying us nice people to our full potential anyhow, so......)
be a libertarian ! go on !
wilderness: SilentXtarian: I do know what a libertarian is. I recently read For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I know what property rights are... I'm just saying that I would be sad if people went back to the way we were before. "back to the way we were before"... Are you blaming libertarians for the Slave State that the United States was and for the legislation that the U.S. State would pass that kept racism on-going, such as in public schools and such? I don't know why you made that comment. That's why I asked you to explain what historical context in which this whole libertarian racist thing your bringing up comes from. SilentXtarian: Like I said, I pretty much agree with most libertarian views (no I'm not lumping them together). But it's just a fe wthat I disagree with or have different views on. Ok, then, what libertarian views do you disagree with?
No I'm not blaming the libertarian views for slavery. I guess I just read a book from an anarcho-libertarian view so I'm against some of the views. The views in the book I disagreed with are the views on why people are poor, I disagreed with the view on ecology, and I disagree with the view of not allowing everyone an opportunity to use the court system. I also disagree with the view of buying protection... and a few other things to name a few.
nirgrahamUK: maybe the 60's conjours up different thoughts for me than you. but if i think of things to get upset about in the 60's, its crimes! whether by the criminals of the state, or criminals who are also racists, or just other criminals. whereas; people who are not nice friendly or tolerant are way way down the list of things to worry about. (and people who are rude self-exclude themselves from enjoying us nice people to our full potential anyhow, so......) be a libertarian ! go on !
Well, I'm a non ideological person. I've tried marxism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and a couple of other ideologies and they didn't work for me. I'm more of an individual. But I like the libertarian view on the free market... I just can't see myself completely embracing libertarian thought or any other ideology.
SilentXtarian: wilderness: SilentXtarian: I do know what a libertarian is. I recently read For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I know what property rights are... I'm just saying that I would be sad if people went back to the way we were before. "back to the way we were before"... Are you blaming libertarians for the Slave State that the United States was and for the legislation that the U.S. State would pass that kept racism on-going, such as in public schools and such? I don't know why you made that comment. That's why I asked you to explain what historical context in which this whole libertarian racist thing your bringing up comes from. SilentXtarian: Like I said, I pretty much agree with most libertarian views (no I'm not lumping them together). But it's just a fe wthat I disagree with or have different views on. Ok, then, what libertarian views do you disagree with? No I'm not blaming the libertarian views for slavery. I guess I just read a book from an anarcho-libertarian view so I'm against some of the views. The views in the book I disagreed with are the views on why people are poor, I disagreed with the view on ecology, and I disagree with the view of not allowing everyone an opportunity to use the court system. I also disagree with the view of buying protection... and a few other things to name a few.
Ok, I didn't read the book, maybe. I read the "For the New Liberty:..." one, but I don't know if you mean that to be the same. Can't comment on the poor, same with ecology (both are not specific enough). How everyone couldn't use a court system and attain justice doesn't sound libertarian. And buying protection is what we do now, except in a libertarian view the overhead economic cost and criminality (thus corruption) by the middle man (the State) needs removed.
At least this was a tiny bit more specific. Thanks
That was the same book I read. But I don't know how it would actually work and I think it would discriminate against the poor because rich people would be able to afford better lawyers but only more so now. Then poor people wouldn't be able to protect themselves. Also, I disagree with the idea that poor people are where they are because of their values. That isn't true. I don't know how you could make a blanket statement like that about a whole group of people.
There is clear evidence that Black incomes were on the rise right up until the civil right movement, after which they have remained stagnant. If anything, anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action programs are counterproductive. For an idea as to why, I recommend Sowell's Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.
And, I am all for small government, I am not a statist, but I am also a believer in our constitution and I think our constitution should protect people of other races, colors, and genders...
There is no such "right", anymore than one has a "right" to be someone else's friend. Moreover, no one thinks the market will absolutely and simply eliminate racism. It merely penalises it in some areas.
I also disagree with the view of buying protection... and a few other things to name a few.
Why? It's a service like any other. Whether it's provided through traditional firms, coops, friendlies, or who knows what, it is to be done privately.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
SilentXtarian: That was the same book I read. But I don't know how it would actually work and I think it would discriminate against the poor because rich people would be able to afford better lawyers but only more so now. Then poor people wouldn't be able to protect themselves. Also, I disagree with the idea that poor people are where they are because of their values. That isn't true. I don't know how you could make a blanket statement like that about a whole group of people.
What quote about poor people and their values? Quote it. Put this into context. Cause this conversation turned from you blaming libertarians of being racists to now they don't like poor people. So your reaching for straws I think. But provide the quote and show what you mean.
White chicks are hotter.
S/chicks/guys and I agree. The original statement is true too of course (IMO.)
Generally, I do believe blatant discrimination will be driven out of the market.
But there are some cases where it won't be without state intervention. If there is imperfect information, something called statistical discrimination can emerge, which leads to an innefficient situation where one groups starts producing less overall than another even though "pre-market" they both had the same set of skills. This is not something the market can solve.
Juma:But there are some cases where it won't be without state intervention. If there is imperfect information, something called statistical discrimination can emerge, which leads to an innefficient situation where one groups starts producing less overall than another even though "pre-market" they both had the same set of skills. This is not something the market can solve.
do you have a reference so i might read more of this?
Private Discrimination and Social Intervention in Competitive Labor Markets, Lundberg and Startz 1983
maybe they are using discrimination in a different sense than we would, in 'race angst' threads
the kind of discrimination i thought this thread was focused on, to my mind means that the discriminators opinion of the discriminated is unduly negative or positive, because the discriminator has a false belief about the discriminated's qualities (A,B,C ) and the discrimination is triggered by the discriminated having some attribute (X) that is not causally correlated to (A,B,C). and so the discriminator has a false belief that X implies A,B,C.
however in the article you posted to, they stipulate that it is true that X implies A,B,C. i.e. that it is truly Harder to Judge a person from ethnic group A's productivity compared to one from group B. so its the kind of true and correct discrimination, that allows me to discriminate between two wines of different qualities both of which i have tasted , which is different from discriminating between two wines i havent tasted based only about my arbitrary beliefs that wines from one place on earth are better than wines from other places.
Yes, it is a different kind of discrimination which is not related to prejudice, and may not even be considered discrimination at all. The firms are acting rationally when assessing the two groups and on average members from these two groups will be paid the same. But because the signals for the two groups are different, this can lead to a situation where real discrimination exists. The imperfect information, for example, can be about a group's schooling. If the signal is not strong, that reduces the incentive for someone to invest in human capital and thus the labor market will split and the two groups will not on average be paid the same wage even though the pre-market characteristics were similar. The imperfect information has created a discriminatory situation. This is a case where the government can step in and prevent that from happening.
what would the government do, pass laws on hiring? qoutas? how could it do this either economically and morally?
This is their suggestion from the paper:
We demonstrate that a policy forbidding separate wage schedules for star workers and dagger workers results in an increase in aIlocative efficiency. Consider the consequences of the following policy restriction:employers may offer wages equal to the expectation of a worker's marginal product conditioned on his test score, but may not consider group membership.
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