Byzantine: That is a silly statement. Racism may be anti-Objectivist (unless you're talking about Palestinians), but it is not anti-libertarian. In a libertarian society, people would be free to discriminate based on race or any other generalized characteristic.
Who the hell cares? The real problem here is that the isolationist-racist viewpoint is simply not intellectually compatible with libertarianism. You can pretend that it is for "political purposes" and proclaim that comprimise if possible and desirable loudly over and over, but it still doesn't make it true. The same goes for abortion issues. It's extremely unfortunate that the Ron Paul movement and libertarianism in a broader context gets completely fucked over by its contact with the inherently toxic paleo crew.
They might be cute in a Museum of Natural History caveman exhibit sort of way, but when it comes to real politics these folks just can't be associated with. Sure, the major Republicans get away with pandering to racist sentiments, but they manage to do it in a polite and concealed fashion. If you hope to find yourself among Kum-ba-ya libertarians that will let you *** about the various crimes of the Semites and their Negro minions and not think any worse of you for it, you shall be very disappointed in life.
In fact, I kill them and eat them for breakfast.
Doubtful. Truly, with comments like that, no one could doubt your libertarian bona fides.
Of course people would be free to hold whatever beliefs and act on whatever discriminations they saw fit. That's the "paradox" of a free society—that some of it's members will be free to hold beliefs in antithesis to the foundation of the society.
Torsten:I'd also say that their are certain propensities for political views that are rooted deeply in the nature of humans and relate to psychic factors that are inherited. So I would propose the thesis that communal (or "collectivist") ideas are stronger amongst Blacks then they would be amongst Whites. This is however rather a question of degree, then of absolute terms. I think there is a good reason, why the vast majority of Libertarians are actually White folks and that there is hardly any Black person amongs them. You'd even find a difference in preference for individualist life styles in Europe - With it being stronger in the North then in the South.
Are you seriously contending that this difference has a biological basis? I rather think it has more to do with nurture (historical and cultural factors) than nature.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Torsten:...and hence you favour a form of universalist collectivism that allows individualist rights for any individual anywhere on this planet in an equal way. As said individualism can have different meaning it can be part of a method in one way and part of an ideology or attitude in many other ways.
I think you are not using collectivism in the usual manner here, or else you have a mistaken conception of it.
gplauche: Torsten:I'd also say that their are certain propensities for political views that are rooted deeply in the nature of humans and relate to psychic factors that are inherited. So I would propose the thesis that communal (or "collectivist") ideas are stronger amongst Blacks then they would be amongst Whites. This is however rather a question of degree, then of absolute terms. I think there is a good reason, why the vast majority of Libertarians are actually White folks and that there is hardly any Black person amongs them. You'd even find a difference in preference for individualist life styles in Europe - With it being stronger in the North then in the South. Are you seriously contending that this difference has a biological basis? I rather think it has more to do with nurture (historical and cultural factors) than nature.
Biology may play a predisposition role in certain activities, but politically speaking, the issue is almost entirely psychoanalytical/behavioral.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Another piece on the whole affair, refuting charges leveled against Paul.
gplauche: Are you seriously contending that this difference has a biological basis? I rather think it has more to do with nurture (historical and cultural factors) than nature.
To apply it to the American situation. America became what it is, because it was mainly settled by White Christian Protestants. That's why it functioned as it used to be. If somebody displaces this population with Mestizos and Nigerians, one will get something similar to the situation in those countries where they are historically dominant.
One can certainly be a racist and be a libertarian, or hold any other stripe of less than desirable attitudes towards groups of people. The important thing is that one does not use the state to further ones goals. Say I don't like Canadians and a bunch of them move into my neighborhood; it would be perfectly libertarian of me to express my disapproval, without resulting to violence of course, or to move out of the area voluntarily. The use of the state in social engineering with the idea of creating a society of love and piece is just as bad as yearning for the Jim Crow laws.
CrazyCoot: One can certainly be a racist and be a libertarian, or hold any other stripe of less than desirable attitudes towards groups of people. The important thing is that one does not use the state to further ones goals. Say I don't like Canadians and a bunch of them move into my neighborhood; it would be perfectly libertarian of me to express my disapproval, without resulting to violence of course, or to move out of the area voluntarily. The use of the state in social engineering with the idea of creating a society of love and piece is just as bad as yearning for the Jim Crow laws.
I don't disagree. But here's the rub: racists and nationalists ultimately lose in a free market. While you are perfectly free to be as exclusive as you want towards other people, you are essentially shooting yourself in the foot if you take this too far. On a fundamental level, you have natural incentives to not be overly exclusive because you cannot survive or flourish very well as either an isolated hermit (the extreme of exclusion) or as a buisiness without a vibrant and sizable customer base. So I simply don't believe that the ultimate goals of racists are in accordance with reason or reality at all. Furthermore, I don't believe that the vast majority of racists truly fit the criteria of not using violence or the state as a means towards their ends.
As far as I can tell, racists desire social uniformity with regaurd to racial relations, and the only way to truly achieve this is through some institutionalized dictation through an institution such as the state. This isn't to say that there cannot be some degree of sucess for the racist's goals in a free society, but it ultimately is not sustainable and they are going to have to resort to force to truly implement what they want. But I think that even if they do resort to force, their ultimately goal of total cultural homogeniety is ultimately impossible, moreso as society and technology evolves. So this is the sense in which I gladly proclaim that racism is incompatible with a free society. And I strongly believe that from a long-term social evolutionary standpoint it is unfunctional.
libertarian:Hoppe is a racist and a libertarian.
Wow. This is the first time I've seen someone, not as a criticism, admit straight up that Hans Hoppe is a racist. Usually such a charge would be denied rather then admited or tumpeted. I have had my suspicions that Hoppe is a racist for quite some time, but I never straight-out accused him of being a racist. What information are you basing this on?
Brainpolice: CrazyCoot: One can certainly be a racist and be a libertarian, or hold any other stripe of less than desirable attitudes towards groups of people. The important thing is that one does not use the state to further ones goals. Say I don't like Canadians and a bunch of them move into my neighborhood; it would be perfectly libertarian of me to express my disapproval, without resulting to violence of course, or to move out of the area voluntarily. The use of the state in social engineering with the idea of creating a society of love and piece is just as bad as yearning for the Jim Crow laws. I don't disagree. But here's the rub: racists and nationalists ultimately lose in a free market. While you are perfectly free to be as exclusive as you want towards other people, you are essentially shooting yourself in the foot if you take this too far. On a fundamental level, you have natural incentives to not be overly exclusive because you cannot survive or flourish very well as either an isolated hermit (the extreme of exclusion) or as a buisiness without a vibrant and sizable customer base. So I simply don't believe that the ultimate goals of racists are in accordance with reason or reality at all. Furthermore, I don't believe that the vast majority of racists truly fit the criteria of not using violence or the state as a means towards their ends. As far as I can tell, racists desire social uniformity with regaurd to racial relations, and the only way to truly achieve this is through some institutionalized dictation through an institution such as the state. This isn't to say that there cannot be some degree of sucess for the racist's goals in a free society, but it ultimately is not sustainable and they are going to have to resort to force to truly implement what they want. But I think that even if they do resort to force, their ultimately goal of total cultural homogeniety is ultimately impossible, moreso as society and technology evolves. So this is the sense in which I gladly proclaim that racism is incompatible with a free society. And I strongly believe that from a long-term social evolutionary standpoint it is unfunctional.
Well, racists have every right to shoot themselves in the foot by engaging in activities that are damaging to their economic well being. It seems that folks who are vocal racists have weighed the economic damage this done in their heads and have come to the conclusion that it's worth the cost.
About racists and statism; would you call white or black separtists to be necessarily incompatible with libertarianism? I mean if folks voluntarily choose to create a society that excludes other types of people then is that incompatible with libertarianism?
I think I see where we are differing here. You're using "Libertarian" in a strictly governmental sense. I may be in the wrong here, being a relative "newb" on the subject, but I see libertarianism as an overall philosophy–a philosophy with which any sort of racism or other collective judgment is mutually exclusive.
CrazyCoot: About racists and statism; would you call white or black separtists to be necessarily incompatible with libertarianism? I mean if folks voluntarily choose to create a society that excludes other types of people then is that incompatible with libertarianism?
I wish I could say that it would be inherantly incompatible. I have no love for such idiots, but in truth, in a free society they would have a right to exclude others on their own private property. It would be more dangerous to deny them such a right. I also have the equal right to denounce them and to exclude them from MY property.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
No, but I''m merely saying that in the absence of any institutionalized framework to force their vision onto society, they simply lose in the end. I'm saying that even if such a society is possible to be voluntarily formed, it cannot be voluntarily sustained in the long-term. It will marginally be undermined until their homogeniety is broken up.
Sweet Mercury: CrazyCoot: One can certainly be a racist and be a libertarian, or hold any other stripe of less than desirable attitudes towards groups of people. The important thing is that one does not use the state to further ones goals. Say I don't like Canadians and a bunch of them move into my neighborhood; it would be perfectly libertarian of me to express my disapproval, without resulting to violence of course, or to move out of the area voluntarily. The use of the state in social engineering with the idea of creating a society of love and piece is just as bad as yearning for the Jim Crow laws. I think I see where we are differing here. You're using "Libertarian" in a strictly governmental sense. I may be in the wrong here, being a relative "newb" on the subject, but I see libertarianism as an overall philosophy–a philosophy with which any sort of racism or other collective judgment is mutually exclusive.
You're not being "newbish" in this regaurd. You're being a "thick" libertarian, I.E. you're extending libertarianism beyond political philosophy and into a broader sense of the term. In terms of the overall philosophy of individualism, I cannot help but agree with the sentiment that racism and nationalism is incompatible with it. "Thin" libertarianism confines itself to politics and economics, while "thick" libertarianism extends to cultural and broader philosophical questions.
In the "thin" sense of libertarianism as a political philosophy, you can theoretically hold onto any personal or cultural preferences so long as it's within a voluntary context. I hold to that position strongly. However, this does not prevent me from simultaneously believing that certain cultural views may be more compatible or less compatible with the functionality of a free society or may more readily or less readily lead to one. And I think that things such as racism, nationalism, and religiosity should be opposed alongside the state in this regaurd. So I'm sort of in the middle of the whole thick/thin dychotomy.
Brainpolice: it cannot be voluntarily sustained in the long-term
libertarian: Brainpolice: it cannot be voluntarily sustained in the long-term You made this statement with no proof. It can be voluntarily sustained. Why cannot a homogeneous society be sustained? Why can't above-average intelligence voluntary associations be sustained? Above-intelligent societies can invent stuff and innovate so they can export and compete goods and services that increases economic growth. They would be much more stable than some average-intelligence association. Their efficient businesses invented by smart people would be protected by trade secrets. Hoppe is a racist. He favors closed borders, limit immigration to Europeans, and mandate IQ tests for immigrants.
What do you mean by "above-average intelligence voluntary associations"? I never said anything about intelligence. I can see now though that you are making assumptions of racial superiority in intelligence and assuming that this would make it counterproductive for them to associate with the "dum dums" from other races. Of course, intelligence levels is irrelevant to the benefits of economic relations. Even if you could prove that one race is inherently superior to the other, it would still be advantageous for them to have some degree of economic interaction. The sum total of production of social cooperation far surpasses that of the isolated individual. The same is true of isolated "nations" and "races" vs. social cooperation between them.
Do I really have to do a run-down of comparative advantage and its implications? Do I really have to explain to you the mutually beneficial nature of trade and how discrimination is a suicidal buisiness practise? Do I have to explain that someone on the margin is going to undercut the discriminators and cultural homogenists, and consequentially they will be outcompeted in time? I would think that the fact that racists lose in a free market is common knowledge around here. Another, non-economic reason that a homogeneous society cannot be sustained is the mere fact that the human race is slowly ethnically interbreeding.
Racists would of course prefer an anarchist society than our current one. Their ideal society, however, is a ministatist society that performs racial discrimination and eugenics. This kind of society is not possible to attain, so racists would ally with anarchists.
I disagree. Most racists I've encountered are far from libertarian in their political views. The level of state power necessary to implement what they want hardly would constitute a "ministatist society". Many of them wish to use state power in the name of producing cultural homogeniety. Furthermore, the political doctrine of white nationalists is relatively interventionist on economic matters and particularly highly protectist. They are far from friends of libertarianism.
Brainpolice:Do I really have to do a run-down of comparative advantage and its implications? Do I really have to explain to you the mutually beneficial nature of trade and how discrimination is a suicidal buisiness practise? Do I have to explain that someone on the margin is going to undercut the discriminators and cultural homogenists, and consequentially they will be outcompeted in time? I would think that the fact that racists lose in a free market is common knowledge around here. Another, non-economic reason that a homogeneous society cannot be sustained is the mere fact that the human race is slowly ethnically interbreeding.
I wasn't accusing you of being either. But in either case this theory has no scientific evidence to back it up. It is either a strange sort of biological determinism or a naive theory of social engineering.
Brainpolice: Furthermore, the political doctrine of white nationalists is relatively interventionist on economic matters and particularly highly protectist.
STT:Are there any ethnically "pure"people? You might find some deep within the Amazon forest. Aren't we all "Mongrels" to some degree.
We're all "muts" to some extent, especially many Americans. The history of mankind is in part the story of endless migrations and intermixing between different tribes and nations.
Charles Murray? Is that you? Intelligence is not an inherited trait like blue eyes and blond hair. You can test this by raising your child in a basement cut off from all human contact.
Furthermore, intelligence cannot be objectively measured, because it is a subjective value. An IQ test is like a happiness test - which is to say, utterly meaningless, because there can be no objective definition of what intelligence actually is.
And anyway, categories like "Black" and "White" are biologically meaningless. Pseudo-scientists like the folks at the Pioneer Fund take socially defined categories and treat them as if they were objective categories of humanity.
*edit*
I shouldn't say "socially defined," because they're actually just unilaterally defined by the state - and totally arbitrary. Stop thinking that human beings come in different species. Real life is not Dungeons and Dragons. Dark skinned people do not start life with +2 strength and +2 dexterity and -2 intelligence and -2 wisdom. It's total fantasy.
I reject racism on moral grounds (though not voluntary disassociation), but please provide proof for the assertion that race does not exist. This is commonly proclaimed by individuals like Gould, Lewontin etc., although their research is highly controversial itself. I was hopeful that libertarians would be more skeptical with regard to the mainstream science on the subject than most (to the extent that such exists, given how controversial the subject is.)
Libertarian, I am not sure how you can assert with such certainty that Hoppe is a racist. It's easy to quote his arguments out of context etc. and say he is, of course.
Race is a concept that is asserted to exist by the state. Why do you reject so many other naked lies of the state, but judge this one to be worthy of consideration?
Here's a good primer: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Lifescience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm
And a concise academic paper. One of the authors is an untermensch, hopefully you can stomach it: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60116.pdf
This type of genetic divergence is nonexistent in the human species. To be classified as separate races, humans would need to possess this hybrid disability. The “races” of the human species are variable in degrees of melanin, which does not qualify them to be called as such.
Race is simply an arbitrary definition based on the melanin levels of your skin. It is not otherwise indicative of genetics. Any two people might disagree on the racial identity of a "mixed" person, which is a misnomer anyway because everyone is the product of millions of years of "mixing."
The modern state is hardly favourably disposed towards the idea of race (except when it comes to affirmative action), so I am not sure how it fits in today. It is impossible to do dispassionate research on the matter precisely because it is so controversial.
What you just mentioned is precisely what is controversial - that the only variation amongst human races is melanin levels. I am indifferent as to whether race exists or not, but denying biological differences amongst various subgroups seems completely mistaken. As for the "untermensch" comment, what was its point?
The snark wasn't really directed at you.
It is not controversial. What is race, as defined by the state? It is based on what a person looks like. Ancestry has nothing to do with it. You can be "Black," yet have 50% ancestry coming from Western Europe, and the rest coming from Western Africa. You can still be "Black" and have 80% of your ancestry coming from East Africa, and the remaining 20% coming from South East Asia. Do you see the glaring problems associated with conflating socially defined categories with genetics?
Murray has a PhD in Political Science. I don't see why he is perceived as a biology expert.
I think your problem is that you are confusing the denial of racism with the denial of the existence of genetics.
J.C. Hewitt:Murray has a PhD in Political Science. I don't see why he is perceived as a biology expert.
But fortunately he can access the journals, works and other literature of biology experts. That's what these journals are therefore to make the knowledge generated by scientists in a certain field accessible to others.
We should also differentiate between the following: people acknowledging differences between race groups, people that advocate policies refering to race and people that prefer/dislike certain races or their members. Problem is that all these concepts are summarized under the umbrella term of "racism", which has become a slur word for politically incorrect ideas or those representing them. So the word itself is pretty useless as descriptive term for political debate.
Given my experience and thinking the issue through I'm in favor of that a nation should consist of people that are racially compatible with each other. I acknowledge their are diffences between race groups as well, but that doesn't mean that I waste my time on "hating" people, because they belong to another race. I btw. think that this is what the founding fathers of the United States had in mind as well.
Torsten:We should also differentiate between the following: people acknowledging differences between race groups, people that advocate policies refering to race and people that prefer/dislike certain races or their members.
It's a bit like saying: "steretypes are true, but I do not have prejudice against Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, etc. etc, but, but, but, all the stereotypes about them are TRUE!"
What a laugh. There is no biological basis for "Race" as melanin level is a continuous spectrum for humanity. There is no biologically definable "Race" based on skin color just like there wasn't a biologically definable "British Race," "French Race," "German Race," "Italian Race," etc. etc.. "Race" was simply a device invented for identity politics. What's idenity politics, you ask? It's just a sort of mafia scheme for finding brotherhood between you and me so we can both go exploit someone else. That's why in the early use of "Race," the term meant supposed nationality and tribal affiliations; that's why you have "Germanic Race," "Slavic Race," etc. in the early days of Racism. Because back then, state borders did not neatly co-incide with ethnic borders. The object of Racism was to make a lot of Irrendentist claims. What followed in Europe was massive "ethnic cleansings" between Germans vs. Slavics, and Germans vs. French. "Race" is simply a tool for those kind of identity politics.
Inquisitor: The modern state is hardly favourably disposed towards the idea of race (except when it comes to affirmative action), so I am not sure how it fits in today. It is impossible to do dispassionate research on the matter precisely because it is so controversial.
You answered your own question half way through the first sentence. The modern state is very keen on the idea of "race"; affirmative action is only one of the latest tools for identity politics.
libertarian:Racists prefer a racially homogeneous society to avoid miscegenation. That's the only major objective that they want. Miscegenation creates "mongrels" which cannot be as smart as either of the parents.
Where is this claim coming from? If anything, in agriculture (where you can see the success vs. failure of breeding experiements more quickly than for humans), hybridization is a well-established method for avoiding genetic disease.
libertarian:Intelligent people reproduce with other intelligent people within that association and create more intelligent people.
I guess, by that logic, only Jews and far east asians should be allowed to reproduce . . . what a proposterous idea!
libertarian:As long as anti-miscegenation laws are practical in preserving the intelligence of pure races.These racists would usually define "pure" according to the criteria: If a person passes an IQ test, then he is pure. A "pure" person is as a person with four pure-looking grandparents of the same race.
It seems to me these two criteria combine to produce inbreeding based on looks . . . What a dumb idea; how in the world would the government be able to go back in time and give IQ test to the grandparents? If intelligence is truely the goal here, the racists should really ban themselves from breeding