New York Times: Slavery and Jim Crow were part of the free market

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/opinion/22sat4.html?ref=opinion

"It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market."

 

Cause you know, in a free market, defined as voluntary exchange free of coercion, there will be so much... slavery.  

In reality, it was *government* that instituted slavery and Jim Crow...

Exit question: is the NYT this dumb, or are they just intentionally and knowingly lying?

Yeah, that damned free market cannot end laws that the government enacts... only government power could supersede itself and abolish its enfranchisement of slavery and segregation.

*rolling eyes

If you think about it, it is true. It just happens to make our point (that government is the problem).

Clayton -

Thank you government for ending your racist laws.

All hail the government.

I hear an axe grinding.

There's no name on the article...............

It's the lead editorial... the opinion of the entire editorial board.

Here is a letter I sent to the editor: Leviathan Contra Leviathan.

Er, were you aware that the Jim Crow laws were enacted once the Federal troops were removed from the Southern States? You know, the troops who were there to uphold the 13th Amendment rights of 'freedmen'? The moment Big Brother stepped away, all his little brothers decided they could and should do whatever they like.

80 years of racial segregation and hardship followed. Google the Redeemers. Not a sterling argument for the removal of the Federal government in such cases.

Also, the 'instutition' of slavery was made in concession to the Southern States during the time of the Convention, who declared that they would not join the Union unless slavery were allowed. The clauses in the Constitution stating that 'all other persons' (that is, non-white citizens) were to be counted as three-fifths of a white person are clear indication of the intent of the document, and the very reason the South wished to cling to this notion was because it was profitable.

I think you'll find that was the chief defense of it for decades. Yes, it most certainly did take the Federal government, under the Presidency of Lincoln, willing to go to war to put an end to the practice altogether. The Constitution was held to be out of date and inadequate to uphold liberty in the land, and thus was made a 13th Amendment to it.

Seriously. Perhaps it escaped your notice that slavery was a TRADE?

Lodatzor - are you in the right thread?  The discussion is about whether slavery was part of the free market, which of course it isn't cause it is coercive.

" Not a sterling argument for the removal of the Federal government in such cases."

To the extent that the federal government was protecting against rights violations, nobody is arguing against that.

Texas is passing this. They want to change "slavery" to "the triangular atlantic trade"

To the extent that the federal government was protecting against rights violations, nobody is arguing against that.

Then I must be misinterpreting the part where Libertarians want the Federal government to butt of out local affairs, return to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and believe that anti-discrimination laws are infringements upon liberty.

Rand Paul might not be a racist, but he's sure going to make a lot of them happy.

[EDIT] - thread was not about Rand Paul...never mind.

Lodatzor:

To the extent that the federal government was protecting against rights violations, nobody is arguing against that.

Then I must be misinterpreting the part where Libertarians want the Federal government to butt of out local affairs, return to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and believe that anti-discrimination laws are infringements upon liberty.

Rand Paul might not be a racist, but he's sure going to make a lot of them happy.

 

Three cheers for government opression and your wonderful public school interpretation of the civil war!

In all seriousness here, if a certain segment of the American population wants to partake in stupidity and lose profits, let them.

I wouldn't try to pull the argument, "Well Lincoln ended slavery" argument here. That's untrue first of all and you won't come off as a very bright person if you continue to push that ubdoubtedly false point.

You should know that in no means do I support slavery or any idiot stupid enough to advocate such a horrible thing. But, the answer here is clearly not the federal government or a civil war that cost the lives of 600,000 individuals.

Three cheers for government opression and your wonderful public school interpretation of the civil war!

In all seriousness here, if a certain segment of the American population wants to partake in stupidity and lose profits, let them.

I wouldn't try to pull the argument, "Well Lincoln ended slavery" argument here. That's untrue first of all and you won't come off as a very bright person if you continue to push that ubdoubtedly false point.

Well, you can say that, but I myself am not inclined to think to highly of your argument, either.

Seeing as the article being cited, and the ensuing discussion absolutely was about ending slavery and Jim Crow, I feel that the 'public school' version of the Civil War is all that is appropriate. Unless you feel there are other facets which are relevant other than the fact that Lincoln's Federal government was the instrument used to abolish the practice of slavery in States which had chosen not to conform to this (surely libertarian) idea?

What, exactly, is that but the use of force to defend liberty? Presumably this was unnecessary because the pragmatism of losing out in trade would have surely eventually won over the minds of the Southern owners who were getting rich from owning slaves?

But, seeing as we're coming back to seriousness, if the loss of profts to private owners who choose to discriminate were such a potent device for ending the problem, why, in 80 years of experiment did nothing change? You can blame Jim Crow only so far, because after all, they could have been repealed any time the profit-motivated traders wanted.

What was the hold up?

"Then I must be misinterpreting the part where Libertarians want the Federal government to butt of out local affairs, return to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and believe that anti-discrimination laws are infringements upon liberty."

Most libertarians around here want no federal or state tyranny.  Stop straw-manning libertarians.  However, of course if a state-government is infringement upon rights, it would be nice if the Federal government stopped that.  But anti-discrimination laws do not infringe rights.  Slavery does, of course. And Jim Crow laws did too. So don't mix rights-infringments with non-rights-infringements.

 

EDIT:M I made a typo above!  I meant to say "anti-discrimination laws do infringe rights.  Getting rid of slavery doesn't infringe rights - it protects them.

Lodatzor:

To the extent that the federal government was protecting against rights violations, nobody is arguing against that.

Then I must be misinterpreting the part where Libertarians want the Federal government to butt of out local affairs, return to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and believe that anti-discrimination laws are infringements upon liberty.

Rand Paul might not be a racist, but he's sure going to make a lot of them happy.

It was protecting rights that it first took away. Stop apologizing for the state and familiarize yourself with libertarian doctrine. The central pillar of libertarianism is the right to property (your body is your property).

Most libertarians around here want no federal or state tyranny.  Stop straw-manning libertarians.

Alright, I'll take your word for it.

However, of course if a state-government is infringement upon rights, it would be nice if the Federal government stopped that.

Um, how? And for what, if their involvement is only to be mocked, denied and (hopefully to some) repealed decades later?

But anti-discrimination laws do not infringe rights.  Slavery does, of course. And Jim Crow laws did too. So don't mix rights-infringments with non-rights-infringements.

If anti-discrimination laws do not infringe rights, what is the problem with them? Either I am in error in that I thought you were against them, or you meant to type something else.

If you meant to say that discrimination itself does not infringe upon rights, then I would heartily disagree. I would also point out once more that if the argument is that allowing dicrimination to exist will eventually eradicate it, then why did it lead to enforced segregation which was only undone by, once again, the long arm of the Federal office?

It was protecting rights that it first took away. Stop apologizing for the state and familiarize yourself with libertarian doctrine. The central pillar of libertarianism is the right to property (your body is your property).

What apology was given? I came to the Mises Institute for the very familiarization you speak of, and had hoped that here at least the argument had evolved beyond: "You're a Statist apologist!"

I did not make any 'apology' for the State. I stated that the Federal government was instrumental in enforcing a right which quite assurednly should have been there in the first place. The fact that the original government was in error does not change the fact that the same error was quite happily clung to by the very people who asked for it, and refused to give it up unless forced to.

Lodatzor:

why, in 80 years of experiment did nothing change?

But it did... Scroll down to see the table. In fact it has only gotten worse since then due to the minimum wage, which allows employers to express their racism. Why hire a black dude for $5 an hour when you can get a white dude for the same price?

Lodatzor:

What apology was given? I came to the Mises Institute for the very familiarization you speak of, and had hoped that here at least the argument had evolved beyond: "You're a Statist apologist!"

You said,

Also, the 'instutition' of slavery was made in concession to the Southern States during the time of the Convention, who declared that they would not join the Union unless slavery were allowed.

How does this statement support your position? It's pure apologetics. The government first institutionalized it and then got rid of it 80 years later; good job government! Once you stop apologizing for the state we can have a serious discussion about the nature of free market activity and property rights.

The fact that the original government was in error does not change the fact that the same error was quite happily clung to by the very people who asked for it, and refused to give it up unless forced to.

Yes but it ignores the fact that the government is the ultimate human rights violator. The market does not, nor can it, institutionalize slavery, engage in genocide, declare war, create hyper-inflation's, ect.

Slavery, as a legal institution, was protected and installed because it served certain special interests that were able to use the government as a tool of oppression. It's not unlike those special interest groups today that lobby for laws and regulations which protect them from competition (hurt consumers), or bail them out when they get into trouble ect. The government is merely a tool employed by those who seek privilege; that's all. Capitalism (a system of property rights and competition) and slavery are entirely incompatible (never mind the fact that slavery and racism are unprofitable).

Finally, the government does not cause social change, but rather is forced to respond to social change. Legislation is a lagging variable.

Some responses to Lodatzor's original response,

Er, were you aware that the Jim Crow laws were enacted once the Federal troops were removed from the Southern States? You know, the troops who were there to uphold the 13th Amendment rights of 'freedmen'? The moment Big Brother stepped away, all his little brothers decided they could and should do whatever they like.

I'm not sure what you're arguing.  The laws were enacted by state and local governments, not by Southerners who took advantage of a lack of 'Federal troops'.  Black freedoms in the south, up to that point, were protected only by the rule of government, and if you look at the origins of the Jim Crow laws it becomes apparent that it was an abuse of government, and the use of government, that allowed white southerners to segregate black southerners in that fashion.

Also, the 'instutition' of slavery was made in concession to the Southern States during the time of the Convention, who declared that they would not join the Union unless slavery were allowed.

Not sure what your point is, or how this suggests that it was the market, not government, which strengthened the institution of slavery.

...and the very reason the South wished to cling to this notion was because it was profitable.

Profitable only when there is low productivity.  Paid workers are more productive than slave workers, but in areas of low productivity relatively high productivity becomes irrelevant, unless there is a need to increase productivity to compete.  Why did this increase in productivity not come about in time?  I'm an expert on American economic history, but a factor could have been the tariffs enacted by the Federal government, which had the unfortunate secondary effects of hurting the South's trade of raw materials (since the South was never really industrialized until after the end of the civil war). 

Furthermore, industrialization in the north had only began in the early 19th century, and most of the industrialization in the south came in the form of lower-order capital-goods.  As such, there was not much competition for greater productivity in actual agriculture until the era of the mechanization of farmer's equipment.

Nevertheless, I think there is evidence that the the institution of slavery was weakening around that time:

1. There was broad non-government abolitionist movements.  Not only does this mark a trend in the change of people's mentality towards slavery, but many of these abolitionist movements were violent.
2. There was increased violence between slaves and slave owners.   The cost of putting down insurrections are high, and over time become an incentive to introduce changes to the institution to appease slaves enough to dissuade them from resisting their owners.
3. Increased productivity both in the north and in the south would have created competition for more productive workers.

Yes, it most certainly did take the Federal government, under the Presidency of Lincoln, willing to go to war to put an end to the practice altogether.

It's not clear that Lincoln's war was fought to end slavery.  For example, had the south capitulated would had Lincoln emancipated the slaves?  Lincoln, at the time, decided to emancipate slaves in Confederate states as a method of creating instability.  Until the end of the civil war, the Union protected slave-owning states not forming part of the Confederacy.

Seriously. Perhaps it escaped your notice that slavery was a TRADE?

When a big company buys regulators in government that is a trade too.  Just because it involves exchange doesn't mean it's part of the free market.

But it did... Scroll down to see the table. In fact it has only gotten worse since then due to the minimum wage, which allows employers to express their racism. Why hire a black dude for $5 an hour when you can get a white dude for the same price?

Interesting link, Thank you for sharing.

Couple of problems, though. Firstly, this is a discussion of the minimum wage law. What this does not take into account is the fact that segregation meant that blacks were employed primarily by blacks and white were employed primarily by whites. Having a job does not mean prosperity, nor does it mean in any way that anyone is suffering because of their market choices. I would be interested to see what businesses we are talking about which were hiring, and whether unemployment rises bore any relation to the ability of white and black employers to pay the minimum wage. If the primarily black workforce worked for primarily black employers who did not have enough money to pay them, then undoubtedly unemployment would rise.

This is, of course, a What If? But then, so is the reasoning given by the article itself. I mean, for a second point, notice the mathematics given to calculate profits for the employer. Remove the minimuge wage law from the equation. He assumes that the employer would be willing to hire the black worker in the first place (which is kind of where racism becomes a problem) and that his desire to profit would trump the hatred or prejudice felt toward someone of a different color. He also assumes that the racist element was only among a FEW, when we know that it most certainly was not. When you have unity of cause and belief among all or most available employers, then the choice of the worker is severely reduced, and they need sumbit to the unfair, arbitrary but unassailable whim of the employer.

Finally, I had to groan when I saw the immortal line: racism does not dictate market outcomes—at least not in the long run, because racist employers eventually incur market penalties, and that where racism perseveres in the marketplace, we can assume that extra-market intervention allows it.

Of course. I should have known. Always, always it's something else causing the problem. This is merely being an apologist for the inability of a market-based exchange in dealing with a very human problem. Profit is not all that motivates humankind. There are some men who would rather walk 1,000 steps than take a single 30-second ride with a person of a group they hate. Profit, indeed, is quite often swept aside by passion. The 'gain' the person chooses over the rational gain, is the self-satisfaction of getting one over on the 'other guys'.

There is another cause of this self-satisfaction; approval by the group. You assume that those who would discriminate would be shunned (and I dare say you are right) and therefore lose business. But again, you are appealing to a mathematical rationality of profit, not an emotional one. If their peers nod and grunt their approval, then I doubt they would care about your lost custom. Indeed, while we can both agree that these folks are hideously misguided, they do not, and never will see it that way.

Indeed, in their mind, it gives them even more reason to hate social integration and cordon off society into 'camps'. In short, the problem perpetuates because it is never dealth with, and is always given more fuel. Education and tolerance never occur.

Conversely, by forcing this issue, a key objective is achieved: increased exposure to ideas and experiences which disprove, cast doubt upon or otherwise dispell preconceived notions. If Cletus and Tyrone are forced together, in whatever fashion, they are forced to confront one another's preconceptions, and realize how half of them were a load of crap. Thus is prejudice attacked, by simply not allowing deliberate division of society based upon those prejudices.

Over time, the strong ideas survive, and the weak, or disproved fade from public thought.

So goes the theory, at any rate. What would you contend?

Lodatzor, I'm confused. What exactly are we talking about? I was under the impression that this conversation was about the alleged connections between slavery and capitalism (markets). It seems like you want to talk about Rand Paul and the civil rights act of 64.

"If anti-discrimination laws do not infringe rights, what is the problem with them? Either I am in error in that I thought you were against them, or you meant to type something else."

Lodatzor - I made a typo.  Sorry!  I meant to say that anti-discrimination laws do infringe rights.  Getting rid of slavery does not infringe rights - it protects them.  And that is the difference.

"If you meant to say that discrimination itself does not infringe upon rights, then I would heartily disagree."

And herein we disagree.  Free association - and the resulting discrimination that results - is non-coercive and thus in my libertarian opinion doesn't infringe rights.  But I'll have you know, even in a system with anti-discrimination laws (which don't help blacks at all), people still discriminate with every action.  That's what action is.

I'm not sure what you're arguing.  The laws were enacted by state and local governments, not by Southerners who took advantage of a lack of 'Federal troops'.

Erm, it was entirely done by Southerners who took advantage of a lack of Federal troops. Google the Redeemers, as I suggested, and you will find lots of uplifting reading about how it was the will of zealous racists which was enacted in those state and local government. My argument was to suggest that once the states were left to do as they please, which I have perceived to be a major tenet of today's libertarian goals, that it pleased them to violate the rights of one portion of their population due to skin color. Not a home-run for state independence.

Black freedoms in the south, up to that point, were protected only by the rule of government, and if you look at the origins of the Jim Crow laws it becomes apparent that it was an abuse of government, and the use of government, that allowed white southerners to segregate black southerners in that fashion.

This is a slight twisting of the truth. Black freedoms were protected by the strength of the Federal government, and it was not the abuse of this that gave rise to the repugnant segregationist policies. You also have not explained how in all this time, even with suffering profits, these laws were never repealed. Snowflake gave a decent argument for the miniumum wage law having an effect, but this is far from the whole story.

Not sure what your point is, or how this suggests that it was the market, not government, which strengthened the institution of slavery.

It was the slave trade which suggested and demanded the institution of slavery. Esuric calls this 'state apologetics', but then he seems inclined to call everything state apologetics if he doesn't like it. The fact of the matter is that slavery was coerced into the Conventions, because of the profit motive of the Southern States. This does not excuse the decision of the other States to relent, but it does explain it. Once again, the Founders held that black people were legitimate property. This was seen as victory for the power of the merchant over interfering government.

Profitable only when there is low productivity.  Paid workers are more productive than slave workers, but in areas of low productivity relatively high productivity becomes irrelevant, unless there is a need to increase productivity to compete.  Why did this increase in productivity not come about in time?

I don't know why you would say this. The invention of the cotton gin alone in 1793 increased cotton productivity 50-fold, and there was an immense demand for slave labor.

Nevertheless, I think there is evidence that the the institution of slavery was weakening around that time:

1. There was broad non-government abolitionist movements.  Not only does this mark a trend in the change of people's mentality towards slavery, but many of these abolitionist movements were violent.
2. There was increased violence between slaves and slave owners.   The cost of putting down insurrections are high, and over time become an incentive to introduce changes to the institution to appease slaves enough to dissuade them from resisting their owners.
3. Increased productivity both in the north and in the south would have created competition for more productive workers.

Indeed, but what cause was there for this rise in abolitionist sentiment? Why the increase in slave rebellion? Because one half of the country had not engaged in slavery, and thus their tolerance for it had faded over time until it was a cause well-accepted enough to give courage to insurrection on its behalf.

I would call this the free market of ideas, personally, and is what anti-discrimination policy is supposed to be about.

It's not clear that Lincoln's war was fought to end slavery.

You're right, but then it's not clear that Washington's war was fought on behalf of the common folk, either. It still happened, regardless.

For example, had the south capitulated would had Lincoln emancipated the slaves?  Lincoln, at the time, decided to emancipate slaves in Confederate states as a method of creating instability.  Until the end of the civil war, the Union protected slave-owning states not forming part of the Confederacy.

...and then what happened? I am not challenging your knowledge, but, if it was not a priority, or a foregone conclusion, why did the non-Confederate States get the same imposition, in the end?

When a big company buys regulators in government that is a trade too.  Just because it involves exchange doesn't mean it's part of the free market.

Neither I, nor the article claimed that it was. The article suggests that the free market would have been unable to address or solve the issue, for one key reason: blacks were property.

Now, I know what you are saying. Obviously such a thing would not be possible now, but, this is now. No application of the free market now would allow slavery. But, we're not talking about now, we're talking about 200+ years ago, when the freedom-loving revolutionaries who believed in the inalienable rights of man... only believed this about white folks. :P

What trades do we have now which in 200 years might seem 'impossible' to more enlightened generations? How would our present libertarians even be aware of them?

Esuric may consider this last part a response to his post, also, since I am already spamming way more than is my share.

Lodatzor, I'm confused. What exactly are we talking about? I was under the impression that this conversation was about the alleged connections between slavery and capitalism (markets). It seems like you want to talk about Rand Paul and the civil rights act of 64.

I started out merely adding context to the role of 'government' in ending slavery and the Jim Crow laws, seeing as history appeared to be ignored in a bid to make that government is bad, government is evil, and down-down-with-government.

The article never said that slavery was 'part' of the free market, only that the free market would be powerless to end it, and I felt context would back this up. Too often, and too rashly, are human actions broken down into merely 'rational' self-interest. Given the name of this site, we all know why that might be. ;)

But, yeah, this has gone off on tangents. I'll cease them and take the blame for that, if you wish, though I hardly acted alone. ;)

I think you are confusing our argument.  Using the government to coerce others is not libertarian.  You keep describing how southerners used government to institutionalize slavery.  How is this different from what we've been saying?

I don't know why you would say this. The invention of the cotton gin alone in 1793 increased cotton productivity 50-fold, and there was an immense demand for slave labor.

See my comment on lower order capital-goods versus higher-order capital goods.

Indeed, but what cause was there for this rise in abolitionist sentiment? Why the increase in slave rebellion? Because one half of the country had not engaged in slavery, and thus their tolerance for it had faded over time until it was a cause well-accepted enough to give courage to insurrection on its behalf.

I would call this the free market of ideas, personally, and is what anti-discrimination policy is supposed to be about.

Okay, I agree, but the NY Times editorial didn't say this.  The NY Times said that it was only because of government, and without government we'd still be practicing slavery in the United States.

The article suggests that the free market would have been unable to address or solve the issue, for one key reason: blacks were property.

Property in the eyes of the state, as well as the slave-owners.  I don't have time to research and bring it up now, but there were a myriad of laws which retarded the process of making slavery uneconomical (including returning runaway slaves to their owners).

Lodatzor:

What this does not take into account is the fact that segregation meant that blacks were employed primarily by blacks and white were employed primarily by whites.

So? Voluntary segregation isn't a problem if it doesn't lead to a lower quality of life than forced integration otherwise would. I don't even think you can make this comparison because you run into problems of comparing interpersonal utility.

Lodatzor:

Having a job does not mean prosperity, nor does it mean in any way that anyone is suffering because of their market choices. I would be interested to see what businesses we are talking about which were hiring, and whether unemployment rises bore any relation to the ability of white and black employers to pay the minimum wage.

I looked, and it is ungodly hard to find these statistics. The mises.org article was my last resort.

Lodatzor:

If the primarily black workforce worked for primarily black employers who did not have enough money to pay them, then undoubtedly unemployment would rise.

When money becomes scarce, nominal wages fall. Real wages may remain the same. As the articule insinuates, the unemployment rate rises in response to minimum wage laws.

Lodatzor:

Remove the minimuge wage law from the equation. He assumes that the employer would be willing to hire the black worker in the first place (which is kind of where racism becomes a problem) and that his desire to profit would trump the hatred or prejudice felt toward someone of a different color

It could. On the other hand, another employer could just cash in on all the cheap marginalized laborers and put that dude out of business.

Conversely, the minimum wage law actually removes the market penalty for arbitrary discrimination, since it creates a large pool of unemployed from which you can pick your favorite color. Marginalized groups have no way to fight back if they can't out-compete mainstream laborers.

So no, the market probably doesn't solve all problems. If we got rid of anti discrimination laws, everyone could just refuse to hire gay black women. Its possible. But it isn't likely because of the way the incentive structure of the market is set up: lower production costs, more stuff, or you go out of business.

We also haven't considered that its insanely hard to really enforce these laws. For example, there are laws against firing someone because they're gay, so it makes employers really cautious about hiring gays in the first place, especially if they have a prejudice. Conceivably, someone who's gay could start working, demonstrate they are a model employee, and then the owner, if he ever found out, might just choose to keep him on.

Lodatzor:

When you have unity of cause and belief among all or most available employers, then the choice of the worker is severely reduced, and they need sumbit to the unfair, arbitrary but unassailable whim of the employer.

So you're imagining a world where the folks who own the means of production are homogenous in their distaste for a certain group. First, this might not be illegitimate. I doubt pedophiles would find many people willing to hire them. But again, I remind you, that there are market forces against this. It is possible for all of society to systematically exclude certain demographics, but its not likely. Its actually much more likely under the state:

Transgender people, Illegal drug users, smokers, etc. The masses don't give a crap about these people. They have the bare minimum amount of rights just so people don't feel like total douchebags when they deny counsiling/homronal therapy, jail and gun down, and extort these groups.

It should be interesting to note that, since there are no international discrimination laws, we can see whether businesses care about their worker's skin color more than their bottom line. But we seem to see a lot of business moving jobs overseas, to laborers offering to work for lower hours, and no one seems to care about race. Though some nationalists do emphatically want us to Buy American, the vast majority of people do not.

Lodatzor:

Profit is not all that motivates humankind. There are some men who would rather walk 1,000 steps than take a single 30-second ride with a person of a group they hate. Profit, indeed, is quite often swept aside by passion. The 'gain' the person chooses over the rational gain, is the self-satisfaction of getting one over on the 'other guys'.

You're referring to psychic profits. Fine. Conceded. But the incentives are there to prevent this kind of behavior. I don't know what kind of punishment you want for someone who would rather walk 1000 steps than take a 30 second ride. Maybe walking all that extra distance IS the punishment.

Robert Murphy talks about how socialist's ideal way to deal with racism would probably be fines. If someone hires a white dude over a more qualified black dude, he should be fined. A lot if the difference in qualification is high, less if the difference in qualification is low. But we already have a built in fining system on the free market, since the company suffers a hit in lost income to its bottom line if it doesn't make efficient production decisions.

Statists' minds typically work like this: They come up with an outcome they want, like for poor people to be middle class, or for everyone to accept everyone's race and religion. Then, they just make whatever they don't like illegal. Low wages, intolerance, etc. Such a view only treats the symptoms, rather than the cause of the problem.

It is also revealing of the statists' pessimistic bias. They observe inequality NOW but don't expect it to get any better in the future. This is probably due to ignorance of market process.

Lodatzor:

You assume that those who would discriminate would be shunned (and I dare say you are right) and therefore lose business.

Nah, I don't have to assume this.

Lodatzor:

Conversely, by forcing this issue, a key objective is achieved: increased exposure to ideas and experiences which disprove, cast doubt upon or otherwise dispell preconceived notions. If Cletus and Tyrone are forced together, in whatever fashion, they are forced to confront one another's preconceptions, and realize how half of them were a load of crap. Thus is prejudice attacked, by simply not allowing deliberate division of society based upon those prejudices.

Well, there's still a free market in marriage, and only .4% of whites marry blacks. Maybe that's racist. I doubt you would support legislation that forced it so that whites would marry a proporationate amount of blacks (1/5 whites HAS to marry a black), just so liberals can have what they think is the best happy outcome.

And in the situation you've outlined, its really just a variation on parents forcing children to eat their vegetables. They hate them, but vegetables are good for you. In this analogy, parents have millions of years of biological incentive to do the right things by their children, as well as much, much more information about nutrition than the child does. And in this case, the child's needs are physical, and easy to predict. This kind of forceful planning dies out slowly as the child reaches adulthood, when the child's needs become more complex. There is also an intrinsic worth to his independence. I won't bother with any sort of value-calculus. Just putting it on the table.

Anyway, to have institutional coercion work properly you need three things:

1) A very strong tie of altruism between the coercers and the coercee
2) Lots more information about stuff than the coercee
3) Simple wants and needs of the coercee

These all fail when the coercer is the state, and the coercee is an adult. You should be able to just think about each one and come up with a ballpark answer. If you're interested, I can link you material to whichever one you have a problem with.

Lodatzor:

Over time, the strong ideas survive, and the weak, or disproved fade from public thought.

So goes the theory, at any rate. What would you contend?

Among the masses? No. Among the natural elite (intellectuals, entrepreneurs, anyone whos JOB it is to know the score)? Yes.

Lodatzor:

only that the free market would be powerless to end it, and I felt context would back this up. Too often, and too rashly, are human actions broken down into merely 'rational' self-interest. Given the name of this site, we all know why that might be. ;)

Well, it's difficult to say what the market would have done because the government installed, institutionalized, and protected slavery. Slave revolts were suppressed by government authorities, slaves were returned to "owners," et al. But we can safely assume that without government protection slavery would have merely faded away, as it did in most nations during the latter part of the 18th century. Slavery is simply not profitable, mainly because it's costly and there are enormous agency problems. You have to feed, clothe, and house the slaves; you would need your own private police force in order to suppress rebellions (without the state doing it for you), slavery destroys worker morale, it requires monitors (another cost), ect.

Slavery, like cartels, monopolies, and unions, simply cannot survive without the state's protection (requires privilege).

There's also this view that modern mainstream society is more tolerant etc etc of minority groups. It is true that I do not think any first world country today would ever pass laws that explicitly stated 'minority groups can't do X'.

On the other hand, Europe is virtually closed borders. No non-citizen can work there without government approval. There would be no point in having racist policies, since nationalist protectionism does the job when all your citizens are ethincally homogenous.

Also, a lot of french were pissed off when france gave up their overseas colonies, granting many of their residents french citizenship. Lotta brown muslims entered the country, and every now and then there will be a big hissy fit over les immigrants hogging les health care and les stinky cheeses. (i'm so funny)

So I think Nationalism is the new racism. It is typically promulgated through the state ;)

esuric:

Slavery is simply not profitable, mainly because it's costly and there are enormous agency problems. You have to feed, clothe, and house the slaves; you would need your own private police force in order to suppress rebellions (without the state doing it for you), slavery destroys worker morale, it requires monitors (another cost), ect.

There was actually a really good Austrian Scholars Conference lecture given by a professor of finance. He discusses this kind of thing and how it relates to the state, explaining why voluntary association is by far the optimal way to organize things. You (Lodatzor) should watch it if you have time.

There was actually a really good Austrian Scholars Conference lecture given by a professor of finance. He discusses this kind of thing and how it relates to the state, explaining why voluntary association is by far the optimal way to organize things. You (Lodatzor) should watch it if you have time.

Thanks. I'll check it out.

is it better for 'the cause' of libertarianism if it is largely ignored by the mainstream or if it is misrepresented and attacked?

 

I guess a lot has to do if we are allowed a fair shake at correcting the misrepresentations and also the lies spouted off in favor of statism.

I meant for Lodatzor to do so. You can check it out too, if it sounds interesting. With all your economics education you might not gain anything from it, but I hope you do.

Er, were you aware that the Jim Crow laws were enacted once the Federal troops were removed from the Southern States? You know, the troops who were there to uphold the 13th Amendment rights of 'freedmen'? The moment Big Brother stepped away, all his little brothers decided they could and should do whatever they like.

Bogus. Jim Crow laws were born in the North, before the civil war.

Yes, it most certainly did take the Federal government, under the Presidency of Lincoln, willing to go to war to put an end to the practice altogether.

Is that what did happen, or is that what had to happen? Every other country on earth ended slavery civily, so I'm going to say that it did not have to happen.

The clauses in the Constitution stating that 'all other persons' (that is, non-white citizens) were to be counted as three-fifths of a white person are clear indication of the intent of the document

What "intent" is that?  (You know that effected a reduction in the power of slave states, right?)

Yes, it most certainly did take the Federal government, under the Presidency of Lincoln, willing to go to war to put an end to the practice altogether.

Does that make it a good idea?  Would it be good if, say, China decided that US drug laws were too oppressive, and invaded the US to open up the drug trade?  (Britain did exactly that to China a while back).  Or perhaps to put an end to the US "IP" regime?

Oh, yes, and that statement about "willing to go to war to put an end to the practice altogether" is completely wrong: Lincoln was willing to sign a constitutional amendment enshrining slavery forever.

before deciding to scrap the constitution altogether, back when he was an abolitionist, Lysander Spooner argued that slavery was actually unconstitutional

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm

The article suggests that the free market would have been unable to address or solve the issue, for one key reason: blacks were property.

But there were black people who were not slaves.  There were black slave-owners.  (I suspect there probably weren't any white slaves by the time of the so-called Civil War, but for all I know there may have been)