OMG! There's Discrimination in the Modeling Industry!

[TheUnconventionalist]

Mises Daily: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 by Ben O'Neill


The Australian media recently featured a story of an allegation of race discrimination in the modeling industry.[1] Ms. Kema Rajandran, a beautiful young Indian model, complained to news services about a modeling agency in Perth that advised her that her work would be limited because of her race. In an email to Ms. Rajandran, the coordinator of the agency said,

We think you are very photogenic and would be suitable for our Casting Division. … Please note however that as you are of non-Caucasian heritage your work opportunities in Perth would be extremely limited.[2]
Now, there is no doubt that this is race discrimination, or at least an indication that Ms. Rajandran can expect to encounter race discrimination in her future attempts to book modeling work in Perth. Evidently offended by this news, Ms. Rajandran told the Australian media that she plans to speak out against the agency (and in fact was already doing so, by complaining to the media about the matter in the first place).

In response, the manager of the modeling agency adopted the don't-shoot-the-messenger defense, arguing that the agency was just being honest with Ms. Rajandran about her prospects in the Perth modeling industry. "This is just ridiculous," the manager told the media. "I don't see that this is race related. If we don't feel that she's going to secure work in the Perth market … then we tell [her] about it. We have the liberty to give an honest opinion."[3]

Really? Not race related? Doesn't that term "non-Caucasian heritage" have just a little bit to do with race?

Let's get real here: this is race related. Ms. Rajandran has been advised that she is, or will be, the subject of adverse race discrimination as a model in Perth. She has been explicitly advised that she will find it harder to get modeling work because she is not Caucasian — and you don't get too much more clear-cut than that. It is quite likely that this race discrimination is not the agency's decision, and that they are indeed just the messenger, but it is nonetheless real. This is race related.

So is this unfair? There is something about race discrimination that certainly seems unfair to many people. Ms. Rajandran can't change the fact that she is Indian, nor, presumably, would she want to. She has no control over her race and had no choice in the matter to begin with — she was born with Indian heritage, and she will die with Indian heritage. It is not a characteristic that reflects on her character or decisions. And she is therefore facing adverse consequences from a personal characteristic that is not of her own making. Nevertheless, something seems amiss. Something rings hollow about her protests. But what is it?

One might feel a bit sorry for Ms. Rajandran. One might, that is, until one realizes that although she is the subject of adverse discrimination in this present instance, she is also the beneficiary of many other forms of discrimination, of a very similar kind. In fact, her entire career, and her entire qualification as a model, depends on forms of discrimination that are exactly as arbitrary and superficial as the race discrimination she is now facing.

This moral similarity between race discrimination and other kinds of discrimination is quite interesting. In his writings on discrimination, Professor Walter Block exposes the absurdity of attempts to forcibly equalize representation in different occupations and activities amongst demographic groups, saying,

Even if such a policy were possible to administer fairly, which it is not, even if it did some good, which it does not, it is always open to the charge of hypocrisy, for there is no difference in principle between the characteristics which are presently protected (race, gender, nationality) and those that are not (height, weight, intelligence, beauty). And further, the characteristics we have so far considered are only the tip of the iceberg of those upon which people discriminate.
In addition, to mention only a few more, there is hair color, the side of the head upon which people part their hair, fastidiousness, neatness, strength of handshake, biliousness, loudness, shyness, considerateness, reliability, left or right handedness — the list goes on and on.[4]
What else can Professor Block teach us about discrimination in the present case? Well, take a look at the photos below: one is a picture of Ms. Rajandran; the other is a picture of Professor Block.

Ask yourself, why is it that Ms. Rajandran can make a living as a fashion model, but Professor Block probably could not? If your visual assessment is anything like mine, you'll notice the following: Ms. Rajandran is a young woman, whereas Professor Block is an older gentleman, whose peak of physical beauty is probably a few years behind him. She is extremely lean and physically fit, whereas he is a bit stockier, with less muscle tone and a touch more bulk. She has a beautiful, youthful face, full lips, stylish hair, taut skin, a long elegant nose, and big bright youthful eyes. He has quite a handsome face, but with older, less-taut skin, smaller eyes, a bigger, more-bulbous nose, scruffier and grayer hair, and a proud bald cranium — not exactly in high demand in the modeling world. (But at least he doesn't have to worry about discrimination on the basis of which side he parts his hair!)

Doubtless, Professor Block is a handsome fellow. But absent some major change in the kind of "look" favored in the modeling world, he is not likely to appear on the catwalk anytime soon. He is of Caucasian heritage yes, but nonetheless, due to other unchosen characteristics, his opportunities in the modeling world are, as a modeling agency might put it, "extremely limited."


Some of these features are within a person's control, or at least their partial control. No doubt Ms. Rajandran and other models spend large amounts of effort exercising, eating well, caring for their skin, and grooming themselves in order to maintain their exemplary looks. But there is also no doubt that some of these features are genetic, or at least partially genetic. For most women, no amount of effort — or even surgery — will enable them to look as stunning as Ms. Rajandran. In fact, many of her loveliest facial features are probably a direct result of her genetic lineage and her "non-Caucasian heritage." Is it fair that she can earn large amounts of money as a fashion model, whereas other women cannot? Is it fair that she was born with a genetic endowment that led her to grow into a highly attractive young woman, capable of being a model?

Ms. Rajandran did not choose to be Indian; she just is. But she also did not choose to be naturally beautiful; she just is. Without discrimination on the basis of the superficial traits that make a model a model, she would be just another face among three billion women. She would not be capable of earning a living with her looks if not for the fact that people often judge others on the basis of superficial physical traits and like to look at physically attractive people. This discrimination is her bread and butter; she benefits directly from these superficial judgments, since her appearance puts her in a superior position compared to most other women. Though she complains of race discrimination in the present case, it is only because of similar kinds of discrimination, equally capricious, that she is special — that she can be a model, and other women cannot.

The present complaint, therefore, is somewhat selective. Moreover, even race-based discrimination in modeling often cuts both ways (though it may not even out). When casting agents in a predominantly Caucasian country tell an Indian model that they love her "exotic look," that is basically code for: you are not Caucasian, and we like it! This kind of race-related discrimination is apparently perfectly fine, since we don't see any media headlines cropping up when it happens. But race-based discrimination against a non-Caucasian model! Good God! Alert the authorities! (Which, sadly, is exactly what has happened.)

One would think that a beautiful model would be aware of the fact that her career rests almost entirely on her own appearance and the superficial judgments of others. But not so. In fact, Ms. Rajandran told the media that she was shocked by the email incident. According to media reports, she "hoped that by her speaking out about it, the practice of culling models based solely on their appearance would change."[5] Whoa, be careful there darlin' — the irony meter is going berserk! This thing's about to blow!

Even leaving Ms. Rajandran aside for the moment, a cursory look at other female models leads one to the unmistakable conclusion that the entire modeling industry is built on superficial kinds of discrimination, focused on characteristics that are largely the results of unchosen genetic gifts. This means that if race discrimination in modeling is unfair, then so is the entire idea of modeling — of favoring the beautiful over the ugly, the tall and thin over the short and stout, the young over the old, of favoring this "look" over that one, and so on.




Let's suppose that the offending modeling agency is correct in their assessment that the prospects for a non-Caucasian model in Perth are extremely limited. Why would this kind of race discrimination exist? Though there are certainly some people in the modeling industry who have control over the kinds of models chosen, presumably the ultimate culprit is the public, whose viewing and buying decisions determine what kind of "look" a modeling campaign needs to have in order to be successful. As Mises has noted, it is consumers, not producers, who are the ultimate decision makers in the market economy; it is not a particular modeling agency that is ultimately in control of the kinds of women who make it as models. Although they are the decision makers in many individual cases, in the long run, it is the preferences of people in the public who drive the demand for models of different kinds.[6] If there is a preference for Caucasian models in the modeling industry, then this is most likely the result of the preferences of consumers in the public, just as is the preference for thin models over plump ones, young models over old ones, and so on.

If one has a complaint about race discrimination in modeling, then the ultimate target of that complaint is, well, basically everyone. People care about looks, and one's race and genetic lineage affect one's looks. Ms. Rajandran's deep-brown eyes, silky dark hair, light-brown skin, and long, elegant nose are all a product of her "non-Caucasian heritage," and yet these characteristics may well have been responsible for booking her some of her modeling gigs, and putting her image in front of thousands of gawking men the world over.

There's race discrimination in modeling? Wow, no kidding!

[Bud Struggle]

And I suppose there's sex discrimination, too!

[TheUnconventionalist]

And I suppose there's sex discrimination, too!

Damn Racist and Sexist reactionary capitalists is what they are. Who is a modeling company to deny a fat black man his right to a job as a swimsuit model? The state needs to seize control of modeling agencies and redistribute ownership to the ugly, who can democratically control the industry through modeling councils. And if people refuse to purchase the new magazines, they should be put through state mandated reeducation.

[Bud Struggle]

Damn Racist and Sexist reactionary capitalists is what they are. Who is a modeling company to deny a fat black man his right to a job as a swimsuit model? The state needs to seize control of modeling agencies and redistribute ownership to the ugly, who can democratically control the industry through modeling councils. And if people refuse to purchase the new magazines, they should be put through state mandated reeducation.

DAMN!

You are good! :D

[Ele'ill]

But it didn't have to do with ugly, it had to do with race and they signed the person on but limited them specifically because of race, no?

[Bud Struggle]

But it didn't have to do with ugly, it had to do with race and they signed the person on but limited them specifically because of race, no?

But should they discriminate against the ugly? The transgendered? Those that don't fit into the usual framework?

[TheUnconventionalist]

But it didn't have to do with ugly, it had to do with race and they signed the person on but limited them specifically because of race, no?

No, it didn't have to do with ugly, I am just pointing out the absurdity that discrimination is rational, and something all people do. Why shouldn't a modeling agency have the right to discriminate on whatever basis they wish. If they think having white models attracts more customers, why shouldn't they be able to reject non-white models. The company is just meeting consumer demand, and clearly the demand is for white models.

I guess the underlying point of my article was to point out how both left wing and right wing statists are enemies of human freedom and voluntary association, in that they oppose individuals and firms being able to discriminate.

[TheUnconventionalist]

But should they discriminate against the ugly? The transgendered? Those that don't fit into the usual framework?

I don't think it is a question of should, but should you be able to. Morality is subjective from culture to culture, and from person to person, so suggesting their is a objective moral code, or a set of shoulds, is dishonest. I think the notion that people should be forced to associate based on the subjective preferences of power brokers is tyrannical.

[Ele'ill]

I'd have to say that they shouldn't enable a previously enforced for-profit status quo of what beauty is. I think that it's extremely harmful.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't think it is a question of should, but should you be able to. Morality is subjective from culture to culture, and from person to person, so suggesting their is a objective moral code, or a set of shoulds, is dishonest. I think the notion that people should be forced to associate based on the subjective preferences of power brokers is tyrannical.

Because in the end--we are not all equal. And if we are not equal in one way--what's to say we are equal in another? And there begins the unraveling of Communism.

How Communsitic are we? How much is in common and how much the individual?

Communism for all its bravado isn't a science.

[Bud Struggle]

I'd have to say that they shouldn't enable a previously enforced for-profit status quo of what beauty is. I think that it's extremely harmful.

Why not? If they want to do it--it's their business. If you want to think beauty is something other--than that's your business.

You leave them alone to decide what beauty is--and they should leave you alone to do the same.

[TheUnconventionalist]

I'd have to say that they shouldn't enable a previously enforced for-profit status quo of what beauty is. I think that it's extremely harmful.
I don't get it, so consumers shouldn't buy magazines of men or women they find attractive, or be forced to buy magazines of models they don't like? I don't see what you are getting at. Or would you just get rid of private modeling agencies all together. That seems like the only plausible solution, because banning literature all together almost always fails. But both of those solutions are tyrannical. Who are you to tell others what beauty is, shouldn't people decide that themselves through who they mate with or which magazines they buy or whatever?

[Ele'ill]

Who are you to tell others what beauty is, shouldn't people decide that themselves through who they mate with or which magazines they buy or whatever?

It's already enforced in mainstream media. I'm asking for the elimination of such for-profit things.

[Viet Minh]

But it didn't have to do with ugly, it had to do with race and they signed the person on but limited them specifically because of race, no?

The model agency didn't limit her as such, they pointed out she may not recieve a lot of work because of prejudiced attitudes that exist on a larger scale, maybe not even advertising companies but the general public. It wasn't a very smart move to e-mail her saying that, but I don't think they personally were actually guilty of discrimination. If they said we won't take you on because you're not caucasian that would clearly be discriminatory.

[Bud Struggle]

It's already enforced in mainstream media. I'm asking for the elimination of such for-profit things.

I don't think that's ever going to happen.

[Viet Minh]

I don't get it, so consumers shouldn't buy magazines of men or women they find attractive, or be forced to buy magazines of models they don't like? I don't see what you are getting at. Or would you just get rid of private modeling agencies all together. That seems like the only plausible solution, because banning literature all together almost always fails. But both of those solutions are tyrannical. Who are you to tell others what beauty is, shouldn't people decide that themselves through who they mate with or which magazines they buy or whatever?

The solution is getting rid of Capitalism, then models will be only people who genuinely want to model rather than just exposing themselves to pay the bills.

[Bud Struggle]

The Ideal of Communist beauty:

5CaMUfxVJVQ

Sigh. Can't wait for the Revolution. :(

[TheUnconventionalist]

It's already enforced in mainstream media. I'm asking for the elimination of such for-profit things.

I don't think their is a universal standard of beauty "enforced" throughout "the media", their seems to be differing standards, and generally, different media outlets cater to different consumers conceptions of beauty. You can't really force a standard on anyone, if the consumer didn't find the product sold attractive, they wouldn't buy it, and the firm would lose money.

At least you admit you are against individuals coming together to start a firm and sponsor models with capital. But that is a tyrannical position. Who made you god of men? What gives you the objective authority to determine and prohibit how people associate with one another, or what labor they do, or how they exchange the product of their labor? Seems like you are promoting a statist cluster****. And what is wrong with profit, why shouldn't people get a return on their investment/labor?

[TheUnconventionalist]

The solution is getting rid of Capitalism, then models will be only people who genuinely want to model rather than just exposing themselves to pay the bills.

I don't think anyone would want to do anything if they knew they new they wouldn't make a profit doing it and could just as easily get a check doing nothing. At least, I wouldn't.

And why get rid of anything. Why not let individuals live a free people and determine their own economic systems. Who are you to say which system is best for me?

[Viet Minh]

I don't think anyone would want to do anything if they knew they new they wouldn't make a profit doing it and could just as easily get a check doing nothing. At least, I wouldn't.

Thats not how Socialism works, you still have to contribute, only when you do you recieve the full reward for your work rather than some asshole in a suit getting it for doing eff all. Getting a check for doing nothing is a liberal ideology of a welfare state.

At least I think thats how it works, I'm new here.. :)



And why get rid of anything. Why not let individuals live a free people and determine their own economic systems. Who are you to say which system is best for me?


I don't know whats best for you, perhaps you are a millionaire, in which case capitalism is just dandy for you. But I'm entitled to an opinion nonetheless, though I don't advocate forcing my beliefs on anyone, even if they do so to me.

[Le Libérer]

Bud quit picking on Mari3l. I just had to infract someone for the same thing.

[Dimentio]

Because in the end--we are not all equal. And if we are not equal in one way--what's to say we are equal in another? And there begins the unraveling of Communism.

How Communsitic are we? How much is in common and how much the individual?

Communism for all its bravado isn't a science.

Equal in the terms it usually is used about human beings does not mean identical.

The thing with "ugliness" contra race is that we don't have a history in western society to sterilise, kill or enslave people because of their "ugliness" or "beauty", but we do have a history of discriminating people on a racial basis.

Problem with (classical) liberals is that they treat reality as if reality was somehow separated from itself, and everything was just a question of formal rules which are to be executed in an identical manner no matter the context.

That is about as separated from reality as the worst excesses of left-wing dogmatism.

[TheUnconventionalist]

Thats not how Socialism works, you still have to contribute, only when you do you recieve the full reward for your work rather than some asshole in a suit getting it for doing eff all. Getting a check for doing nothing is a liberal ideology of a welfare state.

At least I think thats how it works, I'm new here.. :)

Ok, even if there are no welfare checks. Why innovate, or seek to improve the means of production, or attain higher education for an improved skill set if in the end all the return from your labor(the profit) is confiscated. In the end, you could make just as much(or be guaranteed just as good a living) being a mailman as you could doctor or engineer.

[TheUnconventionalist]

Equal in the terms it usually is used about human beings does not mean identical.

The thing with "ugliness" contra race is that we don't have a history in western society to sterilise, kill or enslave people because of their "ugliness" or "beauty", but we do have a history of discriminating people on a racial basis.

Problem with (classical) liberals is that they treat reality as if reality was somehow separated from itself, and everything was just a question of formal rules which are to be executed in an identical manner no matter the context.

That is about as separated from reality as the worst excesses of left-wing dogmatism.
Then how is equality defined if not by intelligence, physical traits, and abilities? Because, by the parameters listed above, no human being is the same, so therefore implying populations are the equal, is absurd. I guess if that is not how you define equality, maybe it is by worth. But lets stop kidding ourselves, we value ourselves and others close to us more than strangers, anyone suggesting otherwise is a liar. We can only have meaningful social connections to roughly 150 people. So saying people are equal by any decent metric is absurd. Arguing for equality under the law is a whole other thing. By suggesting all people are equal is fantastical.

[Viet Minh]

Ok, even if there are no welfare checks. Why innovate, or seek to improve the means of production, or attain higher education for an improved skill set if in the end all the return from your labor(the profit) is confiscated. In the end, you could make just as much(or be guaranteed just as good a living) being a mailman as you could doctor or engineer.

I think that would be a positive, if everyone was paid the same people would only go into jobs they wanted to, and the standard would actually improve. Greed is a great motivator, but then so is enjoyment and pride in your work. Say there's a lack of teachers, and they increase their pay to attract new teachers. They are going to end up with more people who don't really care about kids or education, or the subject they teach, they're only there for money, and therefore on the whole will not do as good a job.

[TheUnconventionalist]

I don't know whats best for you, perhaps you are a millionaire, in which case capitalism is just dandy for you. But I'm entitled to an opinion nonetheless, though I don't advocate forcing my beliefs on anyone, even if they do so to me.

Well, I don't live in a free market country. But I my skill set affords me a high income, and I stand to inherit millions of dollars from my family. But yes, I think I would be better off in a free market, at least a freer one, as would most. Though I would fully support individuals entering voluntary socialist communes, or syndicalist communes, or staring worker owned businesses as I believe in self-ownership and free association.

[TheUnconventionalist]

I think that would be a positive, if everyone was paid the same people would only go into jobs they wanted to, and the standard would actually improve. Greed is a great motivator, but then so is enjoyment and pride in your work. Say there's a lack of teachers, and they increase their pay to attract new teachers. They are going to end up with more people who don't really care about kids or education, or the subject they teach, they're only there for money, and therefore on the whole will not do as good a job.

I don't see how the standard of living would improve if their were less high skilled professionals, or less scientists or less business people. You ought to expand on that. Saying, "I think", doesn't really suffice here, because your position goes against reality. Higher skilled, highly educated populations create a high standard of living and sustain/improve it. The Standard of living just doesn't magically come about, it is a product of the people in a society.

Greed doesn't exist in the discrete manner of which you describe it, all people value certain interests above other people's interests. I value what I value, you value what you value, and the term greed is a political bludgeon used by statists to guilt trip people into valuing what they value.

I think you need to reformulate your example, I don't know who "they" are. But in a free market, wages are determined solely by supply and demand, and teachers who provided a poor service to the customers(the students), would be fired, as consumers would seek other schools which provide a higher quality education if poor quality teachers were kept on the payroll.

[#FF0000]

Then how is equality defined if not by intelligence, physical traits, and abilities?

Social equality. That is, people get the same opportunities no matter what their background.


We can only have meaningful social connections to roughly 150 people. So saying people are equal by any decent metric is absurd. Arguing for equality under the law is a whole other thing. By suggesting all people are equal is fantastical.

Being equals =/= being the same. Literally no one has said this so you can stop charging down that windmill.

[TheUnconventionalist]

Social equality. That is, people get the same opportunities no matter what their background.



Being equals =/= being the same. Literally no one has said this so you can stop charging down that windmill.

Supporting equality of opportunity =/= all people are equal. You have yet to explain how all people are equal. all you have discussed is equalizing the playing field, and equalizing natural advantages and disadvantages, but if anything, this recognizes that natural inequality of man. It also exposes equality as a political bludgeon used by the state on productive populations. Equality is a myth, like God or Santa Claus.

[#FF0000]

Supporting equality of opportunity =/= all people are equal. You have yet to explain how all people are equal. all you have discussed is equalizing the playing field, and equalizing natural advantages and disadvantages, but if anything, this recognizes that natural inequality of man. It also exposes equality as a political bludgeon used by the state on productive populations. Equality is a myth, like God or Santa Claus.

if people aren't to be considered equals, then on what basis can you say "this person deserves more than, or is better than, or is higher on the ladder than this other person".

If anything, class is a bludgeon. In society today, so-called "merit" is based on how much capital own and how much you rake in a year. You might as well base social hierarchy on gamer points.

[Bud Struggle]

Equality is a myth, like God or Santa Claus.

And that's why there is Capitalism. Derivative traders are REALLY smart people. So are venture fund capitalists, so are hedge fund owners. Really.

They get the money they do from being smarter than everyone else. Just like models get more money from being prettier.

That, unfortunately, is life.

The new "class" is smart and pretty.

[#FF0000]

And that's why there is Capitalism. Derivative traders are REALLY smart people. So are venture fund capitalists, so are hedge fund owners. Really.

They get the money they do form being smarter than everyone else. Just like models get more money from being prettier.

That, unfortunately, is life.

Is it from being smarter, or for being able to play a game better than other people?

'Cause I'm not seeing Stephen Hawking on any Forbes lists.

EDIT: I also kinda hate the "that's life" thing. Would you be saying that 60-70 years ago when people would be beaten for trying to get to a voting booth or a school while having the wrong skin on?

[TheUnconventionalist]

if people aren't to be considered equals, then on what basis can you say "this person deserves more than, or is better than, or is higher on the ladder than this other person".

If anything, class is a bludgeon. In society today, so-called "merit" is based on how much capital own and how much you rake in a year. You might as well base social hierarchy on gamer points.

Your question doesn't make any sense, maybe you could rephrase it. I am not attacking you, just being honest

Class isn't an artificial state bludgeon, it is just the product of the natural inequality of man. If gamer points could provide you security, goods and services, than maybe you analogy would make sense.

[Bud Struggle]

Is it from being smarter, or for being able to play a game better than other people?

'Cause I'm not seeing Stephen Hawking on any Forbes lists.

They are smart--and they decide to play that game. Hawkings could be a billionare if he put his mind to it, I'm sure. He wanted something else.

But smart people HAVE THAT OPTION. the less smart--don't.

[#FF0000]

Your question doesn't make any sense, maybe you could rephrase it. I am not attacking you, just being honest

I'm asking, what is the objective measure of a person? If people aren't equal, then what makes one person better than another? Is it just income and financial acumen?


Class isn't an artificial state bludgeon, it is just the product of the natural inequality of man. If gamer points could provide you security, goods and services, than maybe you analogy would make sense.

Really? That's funny. I didn't know shatter-proof storefront windows and armed guards and property laws were naturally occurring phenomena.

[Viet Minh]

Well, I don't live in a free market country. But I my skill set affords me a high income, and I stand to inherit millions of dollars from my family. But yes, I think I would be better off in a free market, at least a freer one, as would most. Though I would fully support individuals entering voluntary socialist communes, or syndicalist communes, or staring worker owned businesses as I believe in self-ownership and free association.

How so? Everyone has to work for 'the man' or starve to death? A Free Market is a rat race, every man for himself, and those at the bottom of the pile are crushed. Fascist ideologies take this to extreme by actually physically eradicating those they deem unfit


I don't see how the standard of living would improve if their were less high skilled professionals, or less scientists or less business people. You ought to expand on that. Saying, "I think", doesn't really suffice here, because your position goes against reality. Higher skilled, highly educated populations create a high standard of living and sustain/improve it. The Standard of living just doesn't magically come about, it is a product of the people in a society.

Why would there be less? I can't afford to go to Uni for four years (or whatever) and study medicine, but it could just so happen I was the most talented doctor alive, and had the potential to cure cancer. And I live in 'the west', that epitome of freedom and choice! Thes eimbalances are widespread though, even if you look at the quality of state schools versus private.
And standard of living is directly related to income, so its ridiculous imo to say it would be lower if everyone received equal pay. Also whats your definition of standard of living? If you mean purely in terms of the basics, food, shelter, etc then of course thats worse in a free market, and some will starve or freeze to death. If you mean in terms of luxuries then maybe you have a point, but these things are largely social constructs anyway. A car is not a luxury in the UK, but is in Australia where they are lucky to ride a sheep :p Srsly though its a subjective thing, the improtant thing is basic human needs, wants are fleeting and arbitrary and never, ever fully permanently satisfied.


Greed doesn't exist in the discrete manner of which you describe it, all people value certain interests above other people's interests. I value what I value, you value what you value, and the term greed is a political bludgeon used by statists to guilt trip people into valuing what they value.

Greed I would define as accumulating wealth or goods beyond your needs. Again its subjective, but the pouint at which something becomes greed is when it deprives someone else of a fundamental need. Yeah I know my opinion aint worth shit, I'm just saying what I meant by the term..


I think you need to reformulate your example, I don't know who "they" are. But in a free market, wages are determined solely by supply and demand, and teachers who provided a poor service to the customers(the students), would be fired, as consumers would seek other schools which provide a higher quality education if poor quality teachers were kept on the payroll.

yeah sorry I should check my posts before I submit..


Say there's a lack of teachers, and they increase their pay to attract new teachers.


They are going to end up with more people who don't really care about kids or education

The Government (for state schools)


or the subject they teach, they're only there for money

The teachers

I even confused myself there! :D

Yeah it works fine for parents who can afford a private education, but in a Free Market there are those who can't, if the Government doesn't provide education then what do they do?

[#FF0000]

They are smart--and they decide to play that game. Hawkings could be a billionare if he put his mind to it, I'm sure. He wanted something else.

But smart people HAVE THAT OPTION. the less smart--don't.

I wouldn't say being a good businessperson makes you smart. Intelligence isn't exactly quantifiable. Haven't talent in business doesn't mean someone's "smart". It means they've got talent in business.

[Viet Minh]

They are smart--and they decide to play that game. Hawkings could be a billionare if he put his mind to it, I'm sure. He wanted something else.

But smart people HAVE THAT OPTION. the less smart--don't.

Wait, are you saying money = intelligence? And do you really believe intelligence alone gives you all the options of the privileged elite?

[TheUnconventionalist]

I'm asking, what is the objective measure of a person? If people aren't equal, then what makes one person better than another? Is it just income and financial acumen?



Really? That's funny. I didn't know shatter-proof storefront windows and armed guards and property laws were naturally occurring phenomena.

I never said a person is objectively better, I just said people, and by extension genetically distinct populations(races, ethnicities, whatever) are not equal.

I never said those things you listed were naturally occurring phenomena, what I said is that classes are natural, hierarchies are evident in all living species.

[#FF0000]

I never said a person is objectively better, I just said people, and by extension genetically distinct populations(races, ethnicities, whatever) are not equal.

I saw this coming a mile away.

EDIT: You know what, maybe there's just a miscommunication here. You realize that "equal" doesn't mean "same", right? That is not what we mean when we say "equal".

So, how can you say "a person isn't objectively better than someone else" and then say "but people aren't equal"?


I never said those things you listed were naturally occurring phenomena, what I said is that classes are natural, hierarchies are evident in all living species.Social hierarchy and divisions of labor along gender lines came about in the agricultural revolution. Before then, certain groups certainly had hierarchies, but they weren't common. Hierarchies, if they existed, were extremely casual and were usually run on the basis of "this guy is old and knows a lot of things. Let's pay a little more attention to what he has to say".

So, no. Class and hierarchy aren't necessarily "natural". And them being "natural" is no argument anyway.

Know what's not natural? Ice cream, and ice cream fucking rules.

Know what is? Poison ivy. And poison ivy fucking sucks.

[Viet Minh]

I never said a person is objectively better, I just said people, and by extension genetically distinct populations(races, ethnicities, whatever) are not equal.

I never said those things you listed were naturally occurring phenomena, what I said is that classes are natural, hierarchies are evident in all living species.

Diseases are evident in most living species, but we as evolved humans can cure or prevent some of those diseases, are you saying we shouldn't because its 'natural'?

[Bud Struggle]

Wait, are you saying money = intelligence? And do you really believe intelligence alone gives you all the options of the privileged elite?

NO! Of course not money alone. But it helps to go to MIT and be really good at game theory or statistics or math. You are smarter than the average bear and you make more money.

That's not to say there's not plenty of old money around, too.

[Viet Minh]

NO! Of course not money alone. But it helps to go to MIT and be really good at game theory or statistics or math. You are smarter than the average bear and you make more money.

That's not to say there's not plenty of old money around, too.

Its easier now to climb the ladder of social privilege, but thats not to say its a perfect system. Its all about the metaphors today so lets just say a pile of people scrambling over each other to get on top will be about half the height of those working together to form a human pyramid..

[TheUnconventionalist]

How so? Everyone has to work for 'the man' or starve to death? A Free Market is a rat race, every man for himself, and those at the bottom of the pile are crushed. Fascist ideologies take this to extreme by actually physically eradicating those they deem unfit



Why would there be less? I can't afford to go to Uni for four years (or whatever) and study medicine, but it could just so happen I was the most talented doctor alive, and had the potential to cure cancer. And I live in 'the west', that epitome of freedom and choice! Thes eimbalances are widespread though, even if you look at the quality of state schools versus private.
And standard of living is directly related to income, so its ridiculous imo to say it would be lower if everyone received equal pay. Also whats your definition of standard of living? If you mean purely in terms of the basics, food, shelter, etc then of course thats worse in a free market, and some will starve or freeze to death. If you mean in terms of luxuries then maybe you have a point, but these things are largely social constructs anyway. A car is not a luxury in the UK, but is in Australia where they are lucky to ride a sheep :p Srsly though its a subjective thing, the improtant thing is basic human needs, wants are fleeting and arbitrary and never, ever fully permanently satisfied.



Greed I would define as accumulating wealth or goods beyond your needs. Again its subjective, but the pouint at which something becomes greed is when it deprives someone else of a fundamental need. Yeah I know my opinion aint worth shit, I'm just saying what I meant by the term..



yeah sorry I should check my posts before I submit..





The Government (for state schools)



The teachers

I even confused myself there! :D

Yeah it works fine for parents who can afford a private education, but in a Free Market there are those who can't, if the Government doesn't provide education then what do they do?

In a free market, no one has to work for anyone, I am not advocating forced labor, the Communists have that position marked out well enough. Free markets are a race to higher standards of living, lower prices, more competition, growth, increased productivity, and unbridled innovation. But of course, results are not equal, I never advocated equality of any kind, or suggested everyone would be rich and happy. Some people will lose, there will always be poor people.

I would say freedom of choice in the "West", and the so called American Dream, are myths. so don't attack me as though I am legitimizing or defending them. There would be less doctors because people naturally do as little work as they can to achieve a certain standard of living. If they could be provided an equal standard by being a soldier in the "people's army" or being a State Janitor as they could a doctor or engineer, most would opt for the easier money, so to speak. That is just common sense. It isn't ridiculous to say that if you put caps on wages in certain sectors, you will get shortages in those sectors, that is basic economics, same goes for price controls. Wage controls and price controls create shortages of labor and goods. What do you mean, of course it is worse? In the Gilded Age, the most prominent example of free markets and deregulation in American Society, Real Wages rose 50% from 1860-1890, and food and oil prices fell due to increased competition as businesses expanded and new businesses were created. I will provide links as soon as I am permitted, evidently, I haven't reached the 25 post requirement. There is poverty in every society, but there is far more poverty in command economies as opposed to free economies. For example, Somalia and Botswana are far more economically prosperous and have higher average incomes and standards of living than their sub-saharan african neighbors who have implemented socialist command economies (will provide links as soon as I reach the 25 post requirement). Luxuries are not social constructs, they are real, they are products of consumer demand, and would not otherwise exist, and firms wouldn't exist for the purpose of providing luxuries if their wasn't a demand for them. Luxuries and Leisure Time are products of advanced free economies with large amounts of capital.

If your meaning is subjective, than what gives you the right to impose that subjective definition on others?

I would agree with you on public schools, though I don't see how this is an indictment on the free market. And there will probably be those who don't get a formal education, though I don't agree their should be a state mandated educational criteria. But a lot more people could afford private school if you abolished income taxes and local property taxes, and as more capital became invested over time, more private schools would be created, and already existing ones would expanded, and the price of education would go down as schools compete for students.

[L.A.P.]

I don't get it, so consumers shouldn't buy magazines of men or women they find attractive, or be forced to buy magazines of models they don't like? I don't see what you are getting at. Or would you just get rid of private modeling agencies all together. That seems like the only plausible solution, because banning literature all together almost always fails. But both of those solutions are tyrannical. Who are you to tell others what beauty is, shouldn't people decide that themselves through who they mate with or which magazines they buy or whatever?

This is the false idea of supply and demand in capitalism. The fact is that we are raised to have a very racist idea of beauty which essentially is the more caucasian you look the better, this is enforced by the media's constant depiction of narrow and ethnically biased characteristics that fall under the modeling industry's definition of "beauty". Therefore, we think that only that certain look is what's beautiful because private companies said so. Also you are correct, we should be able to have a wide variety of magazines that meet everyone's standards of what is beautiful, and capitalism fails to do this by selling us only one narrow definition of what's beautiful.

[TheUnconventionalist]

I saw this coming a mile away.

EDIT: You know what, maybe there's just a miscommunication here. You realize that "equal" doesn't mean "same", right? That is not what we mean when we say "equal".

So, how can you say "a person isn't objectively better than someone else" and then say "but people aren't equal"?

Social hierarchy and divisions of labor along gender lines came about in the agricultural revolution. Before then, certain groups certainly had hierarchies, but they weren't common. Hierarchies, if they existed, were extremely casual and were usually run on the basis of "this guy is old and knows a lot of things. Let's pay a little more attention to what he has to say".

So, no. Class and hierarchy aren't necessarily "natural". And them being "natural" is no argument anyway.

Know what's not natural? Ice cream, and ice cream fucking rules.

Know what is? Poison ivy. And poison ivy fucking sucks.
I realize that, individuals are not equal by an metric, neither are they the same, so why would populations be. And I think the fact that you advocate equalizing policies speak to my assessment.

I could say someone is subjectively better in my view, or in most people's view, but to objectively apply that would be ignorant. Certain people value certain qualities. Not all individuals have similar preferences.

Hierarchies existed in tribal hunter gatherer society. The man who could hunt the most, or provide the most security, or ho had the most intelligence ways in surviving the elements generally became the tribal leader and could have his pick of lot for women, as women were lining up to breed with what they viewed as a superior individual. There were always be alphas and betas, doers and slackers, geniuses and idiots, and there will be distinct differences in the standard of living between these various groups. those distinctions in standards of living create class. The distinctions are products of nature. And I never said classes are good because they are natural.

[Skooma Addict]

Idk if its the media to blame, by attractiveness is by far and away the most important thing in a woman in my opinion.

[#FF0000]

Idk if its the media to blame, by attractiveness is by far and away the most important thing in a woman in my opinion.

that's actually pretty sad.

I mean I'm definitely not going to say that physical attractiveness isn't something I notice, but I really don't care how attractive someone is if I can't talk to them. I've been in a relationship like that with someone who was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of my league and it was the loneliest I've felt in a long time.


I realize that, individuals are not equal by an metric, neither are they the same, so why would populations be. And I think the fact that you advocate equalizing policies speak to my assessment.

No it doesn't. Society doesn't judge people objectively and put people on a pedestal, giving them a lot of power in the process, for pretty arbitrary reasons, be it who has the biggest stick, most land, best business skills...etc.

I advocate these "equalizing policies" because society arbitrarily grants privileges and creates disadvantages.



Hierarchies existed in tribal hunter gatherer society. The man who could hunt the most, or provide the most security, or ho had the most intelligence ways in surviving the elements generally became the tribal leader and could have his pick of lot for women, as women were lining up to breed with what they viewed as a superior individual. There were always be alphas and betas, doers and slackers, geniuses and idiots, and there will be distinct differences in the standard of living between these various groups.Maybe like 50 years ago, most this assessment would have been accurate according to what we thought then, but it is not accurate to what we know now with modern anthropology.


And I never said classes are good because they are natural. Then who cares if they are natural?

[TheUnconventionalist]

This is the false idea of supply and demand in capitalism. The fact is that we are raised to have a very racist idea of beauty which essentially is the more caucasian you look the better, this is enforced by the media's constant depiction of narrow and ethnically biased characteristics that fall under the modeling industry's definition of "beauty". Therefore, we think that only that certain look is what's beautiful because private companies said so. Also you are correct, we should be able to have a wide variety of magazines that meet everyone's standards of what is beautiful, and capitalism fails to do this by selling us only one narrow definition of what's beautiful.

What is false about supply and demand. Are you saying goods and services don't exist, or demand for them doesn't exist? Don't get what you are saying here.

"We" are raised? Well speak for yourself, I was always taught that racial mixing is good, minorities are equal, and not to judge one by their skin color, and as soon as I started watching TV, I saw several shows, sporting events, and commercials with minority celebrities. In the Maxim Top 10 for 2011, 3 of the 10 were minorities, which is about proportional to their population. Tyra Banks, a black woman, has her own modeling show. So this notion that "the media" promotes a White "Aryan" Archetype, is a myth. I would say most Americans find whites attractive because most Americans are white, and people generally are attractive to those who relatively look like them. The fact is, firms advertise an archetype of beauty that appeals to the most consumers, there is no conspiracy of mind manipulation.

I don't know if you get out much, but there are plenty of porn and modeling magazines which advertise various different types of women to appeal to certain demographics. Hell, you are on the internet, just type in Asian foot fetish porn or Ebony anal slut and you will get a million hits, that if free market capitalism, and their is no conspiracy to make non-whites appear as though they are ugly. But if it were the case, that firms only modeled white women, it would be because their was a consumer demand for skinny blonde haired blue eyed models white models, and that firms saw they could not make a profit marketing fat black women with cornrows.

[Le Libérer]

Its easier now to climb the ladder of social privilege, but thats not to say its a perfect system.

I wouldnt say it was easy at all.


Its all about the metaphors today so lets just say a pile of people scrambling over each other to get on top will be about half the height of those working together to form a human pyramid..Its all about who you know, not what you know, mixed in with a little being in the right place at the right time, and a dash of making yourself indispensible.

[#FF0000]

"We" are raised? Well speak for yourself, I was always taught that racial mixing is good, minorities are equal, and not to judge one by their skin color, and as soon as I started watching TV, I saw several shows, sporting events, and commercials with minority celebrities. In the Maxim Top 10 for 2011, 3 of the 10 were minorities, which is about proportional to their population. Tyra Banks, a black woman, has her own modeling show. So this notion that "the media" promotes a White "Aryan" Archetype, is a myth.

African Americans who are typically put on magazine covers and stuff tend to be lighter skinned and have more "white" features. The same is true in a lot of places. India, for example.

I think it's funny that in white women, "ethnic" features are usually found more attractive. e.g. Angelina Jolie. But I don't think most advertisements reflect this.


I would say most Americans find whites attractive because most Americans are white, and people generally are attractive to those who relatively look like them. The fact is, firms advertise an archetype of beauty that appeals to the most consumers, there is no conspiracy of mind manipulation.


Except not everyone is white in the United States, and so pushing white people as a standard of beauty negatively affects everyone who isn't white. It's not a conspiracy. It's thoughtlessness, really.


I don't know if you get out much, but there are plenty of porn and modeling magazines which advertise various different types of women to appeal to certain demographics. Hell, you are on the internet, just type in Asian foot fetish porn or Ebony anal slut and you will get a million hits, that if free market capitalism, and their is no conspiracy to make non-whites appear as though they are ugly. But if it were the case, that firms only modeled white women, it would be because their was a consumer demand for skinny blonde haired blue eyed models white models, and that firms saw they could not make a profit marketing fat black women with cornrows.

tbh i see a massive disconnect between what "consumers want" and what is on t.v. I don't know many people who think models or these skinny women on magazines are the heighth of beauty. Ask most guys what they think is attractive and you will hear in pretty crude terms that they like women who are larger than what is construed as "average" in media.

There's also the fact that the media tends to target men way more than they target women. For example, count how many times the camera lingers on a scantily clad female in a movie, and compare it to how often it lingers on a male.

That's male gaze, bro. And it's not a result of some conspiracy. It's a result of the disproportionate representation of men in director's and producer's chairs, among other things in the ridiculous process of filmmaking.

[#FF0000]

I was always taught that racial mixing is good, minorities are equal, and not to judge one by their skin color

uhhh what do you think of this now, then?

[Viet Minh]

In a free market, no one has to work for anyone, I am not advocating forced labor, the Communists have that position marked out well enough. Free markets are a race to higher standards of living, lower prices, more competition, growth, increased productivity, and unbridled innovation. But of course, results are not equal, I never advocated equality of any kind, or suggested everyone would be rich and happy. Some people will lose, there will always be poor people.

I am probably one of the few people here who believe a Capitalist society can be progressive, if it looks after its poorest citizens, and values equal rights and (true) democracy. And anti-Capitalism is not about forced labour, in fact it is Capitalism that forces people to work, although they might have a limited amount of choice as to where and when. Or alternatively they have the choice to starve I suppose. And there may well always be rich people and poor people, people starving to death and people with private jets, but I don't personally take that defeatist attitude.


I would say freedom of choice in the "West", and the so called American Dream, are myths. so don't attack me as though I am legitimizing or defending them. There would be less doctors because people naturally do as little work as they can to achieve a certain standard of living. If they could be provided an equal standard by being a soldier in the "people's army" or being a State Janitor as they could a doctor or engineer, most would opt for the easier money, so to speak. That is just common sense. It isn't ridiculous to say that if you put caps on wages in certain sectors, you will get shortages in those sectors, that is basic economics, same goes for price controls. Wage controls and price controls create shortages of labor and goods. What do you mean, of course it is worse? In the Gilded Age, the most prominent example of free markets and deregulation in American Society, Real Wages rose 50% from 1860-1890, and food and oil prices fell due to increased competition as businesses expanded and new businesses were created. I will provide links as soon as I am permitted, evidently, I haven't reached the 25 post requirement. There is poverty in every society, but there is far more poverty in command economies as opposed to free economies. For example, Somalia and Botswana are far more economically prosperous and have higher average incomes and standards of living than their sub-saharan african neighbors who have implemented socialist command economies (will provide links as soon as I reach the 25 post requirement). Luxuries are not social constructs, they are real, they are products of consumer demand, and would not otherwise exist, and firms wouldn't exist for the purpose of providing luxuries if their wasn't a demand for them. Luxuries and Leisure Time are products of advanced free economies with large amounts of capital.

In terms of being a janitor versus being a doctor, to you being a janitor seems easier, if I read that right, to me it seems easier (and more interesting) to be a doctor. Everyone has different ideas, and interests. This one guy said he enjoyed his work as a sewer inspector, and that can't have been to do with money which is the same or higher in easier jobs. There would no doubt be more appllicants for certain jobs than others, but they would be chosen by the employer for their abilities as they would in a Free Market. Only arguably they would have a wider selection as its not just open to the upper middle classes.
Average income has been discussed before in reference to Libya, where, there are an elite with a huge amount of wealth and an impoverished people at the bottom of the pile.
And I know all too well luxuries are real, for instance diamonds, which have fuelled massive bloodshed, civil war and almost a modern day slavery in certain parts of Africa. The social construct is people thinking they actually have value above human life.


If your meaning is subjective, than what gives you the right to impose that subjective definition on others?

I don't is the short answer, I advocate the rights of the people who are used to maintain someone's higher standard of living. Beyond that you can do as you wish.


I would agree with you on public schools, though I don't see how this is an indictment on the free market. And there will probably be those who don't get a formal education, though I don't agree their should be a state mandated educational criteria. But a lot more people could afford private school if you abolished income taxes and local property taxes, and as more capital became invested over time, more private schools would be created, and already existing ones would expanded, and the price of education would go down as schools compete for students.

Because its not fair, in the UK there's probably some absolute inbred at Eton studying law who even with a lower grade will be favoured for a career whilst some kid from inner city london has to work two jobs, affecting his studying time, to get through Uni, only to be rejected for a job in a law firm because the owners cousins friend applies for the same job.

And after all these years of Capitalism, is the price of private education affordable to the average family?

[Viet Minh]

I wouldnt say it was easy at all.

I know but your great great grandfather would probably think you have it easy, compared to life a few generations ago in any country. I personally look forward to telling my grandkids 'we didn't have personal robots in those days son, we had to load the dishwasher by hand!'

[L.A.P.]

What is false about supply and demand. Are you saying goods and services don't exist, or demand for them doesn't exist? Don't get what you are saying here.

I'm saying that private companies monopolize the market in a way where the supply provided is ultimately decided by private companies, not the consumer.

[Bud Struggle]

I wouldnt say it was easy at all.

It's easier. I'm pretty much as "ethnic" as you can get (though I'm white) and I never had any problem. Chinese made it. I see Hispanics and Indians making it every day. Blacks, not so much. Women are so so.

Jews made it fine. No one gives it to you, that's for sure--but if you do make it, they respect your money no matter who you are, that's for sure.

[#FF0000]

It's easier. I'm pretty much as "ethnic" as you can get (though I'm white) and I never had any problem. Chinese made it. I see Hispanics and Indians making it every day. Blacks, not so much. Women are so so.

Jews made it fine. No one gives it to you, that's for sure--but if you do make it, they respect your money no matter who you are, that's for sure.

did you know the South in the 19th century had about 200,000 free blacks, many of whom were not only free, but owned slaves?

Just because some people are "making" it doesn't mean that the odds aren't stacked against them.

[Skooma Addict]

that's actually pretty sad.

agreed.

[Agent Ducky]

People have told me I could model "Oh it would be good money for college," etc. But I have an deep-set hatred for the whole industry for these very reasons.. >.<

[RGacky3]

Its rich white people selling to rich white people, what type of models do you think they're gonna use?

[Jose Gracchus]

Its from Mises.org, who is surprised? This is another econo-theologist who thinks everything that ever happened in human society is the magic moving from the consumer side. There are no imperfections in information, atomization of rational decision making, violations of property rights for the little guy, and market failures. Nope, just consumers and GUBMINT getting in their way. Hurray for pure logic and down with that evil science!

A racist crank; good thing he's been banned.

[Nehru]

They are smart--and they decide to play that game. Hawkings could be a billionare if he put his mind to it, I'm sure. He wanted something else.

But smart people HAVE THAT OPTION. the less smart--don't.

So what's the solution for the so-called 'less smart'? Because I believe that any system that doesn't consider the lowest and meanest isn't worth preserving... A system that favors the poor, the sick, the 'less smart' automatically favors the rich, the smart, and the healthy. The reverse isn't true.