"The right to discriminate"

[Dimentio]

http://mises.org/daily/4957

Alright...

This was probably more idiotic than the Scrooge piece. Why must libertarians always equalise between factors that do not have any life-improving or socially important functions, and important matters such as healthcare, racial equality and education? Only totally oblivious morons could make an equalisation between an institution discriminating people and an individual not choosing a sex partner based on "discriminatory" criterions.

*facepalm*

[Dimentio]

But this objection is economically illiterate. If whites boycott blacks in this manner, the free-enterprise system will rise up in defense of the latter. How so? If no landlord will rent to a black person, the profits from doing so will rise; it will then be to some entrepreneur's financial advantage to supply this part of the market.

If no one wants to rent to you, you are homeless.

If you are homeless, your ability to get a decent income is impaired.

If your ability to get a decent income is impaired, then capitalists won't find so much interest in you as a consumer.

GAHH!

[Dimentio]

Similarly in the labor field. If whites refuse to hire blacks, their wages will fall below the levels that would otherwise prevail. This will set up large profit opportunities for someone, be he white or black, to hire these people and thus be able to outcompete those with great tastes for discrimination. But this phenomenon did not work with the plight of black people who were forced to sit in the back of the bus during the Jim Crow era in the south. Why not? Because entry into the bus industry was strictly limited by the political forces responsible for this reprehensible legal code in the first place. If all there was standing in the way of black people sitting in all reaches of the bus were private discrimination, this would have been an impotent force, as other, competing firms would have supplied bus service.

Oh yes, poor bus company owners who aren't allowed to allow coloured people to sit in the front of the bus! The civil rights movement was led by bus company owners, everyone are knowing that...

[Demogorgon]

Oh yes, poor bus company owners who aren't allowed to allow coloured people to sit in the front of the bus! The civil rights movement was led by bus company owners, everyone are knowing that...
*chuckle*

Libertarians have an unfortunate tendency to piously declare their commitment to individual rights and then forget about individuals and claim these rights belong to corporations, which are in no sense "individuals". This article is full of that nonsense.

Moreover he takes two different definitions of the word "discrimination" and then claims they are one and the same thing and should be treated the same simply because it is the same word. If he were speaking a language where the two definitions have different words what would his argument be then? Much as Libertarians love making themselves look silly with the argument, who you are attracted to sexually or what kind of food or entertainment you like are totally different from how you treat a person based on perceived characteristics based on their background rather than their own individual merits.

Further his notion that "the free market" will leap to the defence of discriminated people is absurd. His argument is that if black people can't get a job due to racism, somebody will make a profit hiring them at lower wages. Or if they can't get housing someone will again profit by charging them more rent. Believe it or not that isn't a very good argument for a "market solution".

Finally there are plenty of examples of racism being rife where the law did not prevent companies from treating people equally if they wanted, but they couldn't because the racists would then boycott anywhere that tried to treat people equally. Without any laws to force an even playing field, the only way to compete was to be racist.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Moreover he takes two different definitions of the word "discrimination" and then claims they are one and the same thing and should be treated the same simply because it is the same word.That's pretty much the case with this:

If not, coercive bisexuality would be the logical implication of the antidiscrimination movement. Why? Well, male heterosexuals despicably discriminate against half the human race as bed/sex/marriage partners: all other men. Nor can female heterosexuals plead innocence against this dread charge; they, too, abjure half of their fellow creatures in this regard. Can male homosexuals deflect this deadly indictment? No, they, too, refuse to have anything to do with all females in such a context. Similarly, female homosexuals, lesbians, rotten creatures that they are, also avoid entangling alliances of this sort with all men — again, half the human race.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kl2GKlgG_Xc/SOse7AGa5qI/AAAAAAAAAgo/HrGCN8Sy5U8/s400/facepalm.jpg
I haven't fucked every person I've met, but that doesn't mean I've oppressed those I haven't. . .I mean, really. . .

. . .how exactly do you get from anti-discrimination to rape?

People actually listen to this guy?

[EvilRedGuy]

Im starting to think that Conservatives have a mental disease. Same goes for Liberals just less damaged. :lol:

[Dimentio]

These are not conservatives, though they have friendly relations with paleo-conservatives.

From my experience, most *actual* Miseseans I've met have been nice people, but often totally without a clue about how society is really functioning, due to their middle class background. For them, everything seems to be an abstraction.

When they get jobs at McDonalds, they start to change their views, becoming more or less a-political.

In general, the disgusting thing is that Miseseans assume that it is only to pay a higher price or receive a lower wage. People might not have the ability to pay.

In that sense, Mises' philosophy is just good old Social Darwinism.

[Skooma Addict]

Oh yes, poor bus company owners who aren't allowed to allow coloured people to sit in the front of the bus! The civil rights movement was led by bus company owners, everyone are knowing that...

Well they weren't leading the movement by any means, but the companies did fight against the discrimination.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, I remember reading some John Stossel article way back when (what a piece of work he is, btw) about the unsung heroes of the civil rights movement: business.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Capitalism has had a lot to do with decaying racial lines in my opinion. At least, in the sense of discrimination being based purely on racial lines. While many groups are still lumped together in some peoples (mainly old people) minds it truly is getting to the point at which nothing matters but how much money you have. The fact that several minorities are, per capita, "worth less" than the majority is something that has, slowly but surely, been going away over time.

Today neighborhoods in the us are segregated mainly by class and not by race, though, as I mentioned, the different class makeups of ethnic groups may make it appear there may be some division based on that factor. But even in the most disturbingly segregated cities like San Francisco, there are no restrictions based on race. The major place where I think that pure racism still lingers strongly is at financial institutions making loans to people, which is quite a large impediment to be sure.

[RGacky3]

Well they weren't leading the movement by any means, but the companies did fight against the discrimination.

You learning your history from Glenn Beck?

Or is traditional history and media so anti-buisinesss they want to censor that?

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism has had a lot to do with decaying racial lines in my opinion. At least, in the sense of discrimination being based purely on racial lines. While many groups are still lumped together in some peoples (mainly old people) minds it truly is getting to the point at which nothing matters but how much money you have. The fact that several minorities are, per capita, "worth less" than the majority is something that has, slowly but surely, been going away over time.


That's pretty true. There is no profit motive in not selling to Blacks or Hispanics (or whomever.) At least no in the long run. The nice thing about Capitalism--if it is working correctly--is that all that interests Capitalists is money, it's doesn't matter who is spending it.

[ComradeMan]

Capitalism has had a lot to do with decaying racial lines in my opinion. At least, in the sense of discrimination being based purely on racial lines. While many groups are still lumped together in some peoples (mainly old people) minds it truly is getting to the point at which nothing matters but how much money you have. The fact that several minorities are, per capita, "worth less" than the majority is something that has, slowly but surely, been going away over time.

I think Hitler also saw it that way too- the "Third Way" was not pro-capitalist! They saw bourgeois capitalism as eroding the purity of race and all of that stuff.

Mussolini not so much, he didn't believe in race so much anyway.

[RGacky3]

That's pretty true. There is no profit motive in not selling to Blacks or Hispanics (or whomever.) At least no in the long run. The nice thing about Capitalism--if it is working correctly--is that all that interests Capitalists is money, it's doesn't matter who is spending it.

Look at history, it was'nt buisinesses that champtioned equality of race, it was socialists.

Capitalism also has an invested interest in racism in dividing the working class, keeping certain people poor and so on.

But what your saying makes some sense, but is just historically not the case.

[Skooma Addict]

You learning your history from Glenn Beck?

Or is traditional history and media so anti-buisinesss they want to censor that?


The resistance of southern streetcar companies to ordinances requiring them to segregate black passengers vividly illustrates how the market motivates businesses to avoid unfair discrimination. Before the segregation laws were enacted, most streetcar companies voluntarily segregated tobacco users, not black people. Nonsmokers of either race were free to ride where they wished, but smokers were relegated to the rear of the car or to the outside platform. The revenue gains from pleased nonsmokers apparently outweighed any losses from disgruntled smokers.


Streetcar companies refused, however, to discriminate against black people because separate cars would have reduced their profits. They resisted even after the passage of turn-of-the-century laws requiring the segregation of black people. One railroad manager complained that racial discrimination increased costs because it required the company to “haul around a good deal of empty space that is assigned to the colored people and not available to both races.” Racial discrimination also upset some paying customers. Black customers boycotted the streetcar lines and formed competing hack (horsedrawn carriage) companies, and many white customers refused to move to the white section.


In Augusta, Savannah, Atlanta, Mobile, and Jacksonville, streetcar companies responded by refusing to enforce segregation laws for as long as fifteen years after their passage. The Memphis Street Railway “contested bitterly,” and the Houston Electric Railway petitioned the Houston City Council for repeal. A black attorney leading a court battle against the laws provided an ironic measure of the strength of the streetcar companies’ resistance by publicly denying that his group “was in cahoots with the railroad lines in Jacksonville.” As pressure from the government grew, however, the cost of defiance began to outweigh the market penalty on profits. One by one, the streetcar companies succumbed, and the United States stumbled further into the infamous morass of racial segregation.


http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Discrimination.html

[Ocean Seal]

This is what makes me think that Anarcho-Capitalism is a disease on humanity so great that it could possibly have a more negative influence than fascism.
I know that I'll probably take a lot of flack for this, but all the horrible things that fascists did will be dwarfed by those of the ancaps if they ever take power. What's scarier is that they are becoming increasingly more popular, and their idea of freedom is the freedom to starve, the freedom to enslave, all the while allowing for human rights abuses to stay without even flinching because to do anything would be against their ideals of ultimate freedom. So murderous an ideal there has never been. That you should stand by while your fellow man starves, while he freezes, or while the boss whips him. The apathy that ancaps create is the same that allows for us to live in a
world with starving children.

In fascism you don't help a dying man because you fear those in power, in anarcho-capitalism you no longer care. Take away the oppressive government in fascism and you have a populace with some traces of humanity, but end anarcho-capitalism and you will have to spend centuries undoing the wrong.

[RGacky3]

Skooma, you have one example, which does not proove that buisiness overall was a major factor in overturning segregatoin and other racist laws.

The fact is, it was the left that made it happen.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You make it sound like "Team Left" scored a goal and started the civil rights struggle.

[Princess Luna]

You make it sound like "Team Left" scored a goal and started the civil rights struggle.
can you find a single rightest who supported the civil rights movement?

[trivas7]

http://mises.org/daily/4957[...] Why must libertarians always equalise between factors that do not have any life-improving or socially important functions, and important matters such as healthcare, racial equality and education? .

The point of the article is that it would be illicit for government to discriminate on the basis of race or sex or any other such criterion, but it is a basic element of private-property rights that individuals be free to engage in exactly such preferences. I haven't a clue what you mean to ask here.

[Dimentio]

The point of the article is that it would be illicit for government to discriminate on the basis of race or sex or any other such criterion, but it is a basic element of private-property rights that individuals be free to engage in exactly such preferences. I haven't a clue what you mean to ask here.

That is the problem, that people have the right to discriminate. It is completely colourblind, and ignores that people are not always colourblind. It also shows that most proponents of that system either are privilegied or are living in privilegied delusion.

[trivas7]

That is the problem, that people have the right to discriminate. It is completely colourblind, and ignores that people are not always colourblind. It also shows that most proponents of that system either are privilegied or are living in privilegied delusion.
Nonsense. Do you not discriminate those you let into your place of residency? Those you do business with? Friends from enemies, etc.? Surely you do if you are not insane.

[Dimentio]

Nonsense. Do you not discriminate those you let into your place of residency? Those you do business with? Friends from enemies, etc.? Surely you do if you are not insane.

Discrimination doesn't mean that. It means treating some people worse than other dependent on for example gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin or other factors which they cannot control.

That is not equivalent with for example not inviting an enemy for barbeque.

You libertarians seem to be unable to for example differentiate between life-saving surgeries and hair-cutting or going to the grocery store to buy milk. Evidently, you cannot distinguish between different classes of social relations either.

[Demogorgon]

Libertarian rhetoric relies on a lot of false equivalence here. Having sex with someone is not the same as providing goods and services to them, sharing your home with someone is different from working with them. This is because there is a difference between what is intimate to us, most obviously sexual relations and family as well as close friendships and things with public aspects and impact on third parties like work accessing goods and so forth. They are not the same thing. I mean if we are going to take this line of argument to its obvious conclusion, should we then choose who we work with on the same basis as we choose who to have sex with? Not having one without the other?

[ComradeMan]

Libertarian rhetoric relies on a lot of false equivalence here. Having sex with someone is not the same as providing goods and services to them, sharing your home with someone is different from working with them.

Bunga bunga? LOL!!!


This is because there is a difference between what is intimate to us, most obviously sexual relations and family as well as close friendships and things with public aspects and impact on third parties like work accessing goods and so forth. They are not the same thing. I mean if we are going to take this line of argument to its obvious conclusion, should we then choose who we work with on the same basis as we choose who to have sex with? Not having one without the other?

But yeah, Demogorgon is right. All of these false analogies all the time- it gets pretty impossible to have any kind of dicourse on serious matters because everything is pulled into a weird metaphor or analogy and then the semantics of which are argued ad infinitum.


Nonsense. Do you not discriminate those you let into your place of residency? Those you do business with? Friends from enemies, etc.? Surely you do if you are not insane.

Well a capitalist wouldn't care as long as the money arrives on time, would he?

[Demogorgon]

There is another point here. Libertarians have made two distinct claims, that these economic acts cannot be distinguished from intimate acts in terms of how they are to be governed, and that the market will correct discrimination anyway. These are mutually exclusive statements because intimate acts naturally have losers and there is no market corrective arrangement, a person who is unattractive will likely get less sex all else being equal than a better looking person and a person with an obnoxious personality will find it much harder to maintain friendships or other relationships. That is just a fact of life and there is no natural corrective measure.

If Libertarians wish to say that there is a natural corrective measure to public and economic matters (the market rewarding those who do not discriminate) then they must accept that such matters are distinct from intimate matters.