A friend of mine asked the following question:
"I have another question, the education one wasn't that good. I am not familiar with libertarianism. How does free-market capitalism influence injustices in our society such as racism, sexism, and poverty? If tomorrow we voted in Ron Paul, and he shrunk government and dropped all regulations on business some people would be financially ahead of many other people. What happens to those who are economically and socially disadvantaged by our society today in this transition?"
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Part of the answer: Such people will have greater opportunities provided by the removal of legal barriers and a livelier economy. Perhaps there are some blacks/women/whomever that are discriminated against by large, bureaucratic corporations; but many face legal discrimination through extensive licensing laws, which prevent such people from starting their own business (or being as successful as they otherwise could be).
Ideally, with the state rolled back, the muscles of civil society would regain some strength and we'd see people form more voluntary associations. I think many of the "disadvantaged" would come together to cooperatively pull themselves up by their collective bootstraps. Just as demeaning as the conservative attitude that the poor are lazy is the progressive attitude that the poor can't solve their own problems.
And of course there's the drug war, which is responsible for incalculable damage to poor and minority neighborhoods.
Oh brother. The first part has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. They have to do with culture and personal attitudes. It's up to individuals to change their own attitudes and attempt to change the attitudes of others. Besides that, the market is kinder to those who are more inclusive is it not? As for the second question, there have been tons of articles about how government destroyed private charities and mutual aid societies, etc. I'm guessing John James and others will have those links readily available.
Minimum wage repeal - boon for minorities
Removal of business startup regulations - boon for the poor
Removal of subsidies - leveling the playing field
Removal of monopoly status (such as utilities) - more competition
Opening up unowned US land for homesteading - boon for homeless (this itself might win the libertarian argument)
Cutting down military spending - more wealth for economy back home to make jobs
Decriminalizing drugs - end much violence
End corporate influence on regulators - increase competition
Initially, yes, of course the poor will be a bit worse off. They would not be receiving welfare, unemployment, Medicaid, etc. However, after the market adjusts they should be better off.
The people living off welfare are generally the same people with the states boot on their throught, for the reasons Wheylous mentioned. I would add abolitioning the fed, IP, and total free trade.
Yes, abolition-ing the fed would be great... Doh!
At the same time though people will argue that certain areas of the country/world will turn to hellholes for minorities. They bring up the specter of "White Only" restaraunts and such, or being blacklisted for being a homosexual. First off it's important to note that a lot of that was actually legally required under Jim Crow laws. No doubt these areas still exist in certain parts, but they're few and far between. Then again, I don't really live in Hicksville, Mississippi so I don't know. What I do know is that there certainly still area a good deal of racist/bigoted people out there and you can't hand-wave it away. Telling someone who lives in Texas or other states, where up until very recently there were still explicitly bigoted state laws, that "competition will sort things out" if we remove current statist protections is cold comfort for them. This is why I really disagree with Rothbard when it comes to pushing his "red button" to abolish the state. If society isn't ready for it, liberty will get crushed in the backblast. Yes his position is logically consistent, but so is mutually assured destruction.
It's always important to remember that we don't live in a libertarian world yet. But spreading libertarian principles is a natural remedy for this kind of intolerance. Self-ownership, non-aggression, the benefits of trade and non-antagonistic solutions, all help to end bigotry and promote tolerance and acceptance. It has to be a long-term social movement, otherwise it falls apart with the next generation.
there certainly still area a good deal of racist/bigoted people out there and you can't hand-wave it away.
True but "the State" is a non-sequitir from this.
1) Bigotry exists 2) ??????????? ----------------------- 3) The State
Telling someone who lives in Texas or other states, where up until very recently there were still explicitly bigoted state laws, that "competition will sort things out" if we remove current statist protections is cold comfort for them.
OK, I still don't see what this has to do with the State, even in a utilitarian sense. On net, the State is the single greatest oppressor, the single greatest enabler of bigotry.
I was thinking recently about the idea of an Air Force drone pilot who has inter-racially married to an Irani woman... what happens when he is ordered to fly his plane and shoot over his in-laws' neighborhood? The point is that there is a logic to bigotry and that logic resides not within peaceful society but within the militarized culture of the State. Most people will not choose to cross cultural boundaries but within peaceful society boundary-crossing does happen. Militarism makes it much more dangerous to maintain any form of relations across political boundaries.
This is why I really disagree with Rothbard when it comes to pushing his "red button" to abolish the state. If society isn't ready for it, liberty will get crushed in the backblast. Yes his position is logically consistent, but so is mutually assured destruction.
I also disagree with pushing the red button but I don't think human bigotry is a sensible reason for such opposition. There are a truly massive number of statutes and regulations (and bureaucracies that administer them) which really could be zapped with the red button which would only accrue the immediate benefit of society.
+1 on this
Clayton -
disclaimer: I speak from my own opinions and i do not necessarily represent Austrian economic thought.
Racism and sexism are not injustices, that is a matter of subjectivity. Of course discrimination as defined by the British government is a broad all encompassing term that can get you fined for going about your daily activities and committing victimless crimes. Of course this sort of topic is subjective and very dependent on semantics. Where i could bring up countless examples and we can argue about discrimination. Of course libertarianism does not permit violence so any violence that currently would be attributed to racist or homophobic violence would merely be treated as violence regardless of any sort of discrimination. Without a government dictating to the population that a group of straight guys beating up a black guy is a racist attack but a group of black guys beating up a white guy is just another attack and they are actually victims of their environment. This is not compatible with a free society. We can not have gay rights, women's rights, people with black hair rights. Rights are equal across the board and any sort of negative or positive discrimination would be unfavourable, especially in situations that include violence or victim based crimes.
But there are mechanisms to prevent discrimination, a lot of the arguments for discrimination laws use the excuse that without the government laws, all the shops could/would ban blacks or gays. There are many problems with this argument. Business owners have an interest in selling to whichever customers they decide. If a business decides to not sell to black people then they will be losing a lot of business and customers that are not black might not be happy that the shop does not sell to blacks and not shop there themselves. This would mean the business loses even more customers, if the business wants to continue on selling to only non blacks then that is the businesses right. As long as they are not involved in anything harmful then the blacks will just have to shop some where else. But in reality it is unlikely that we would have widespread shop owners discriminating on a large scale. Most types of large scale discriminations have come through government mandates. The government should not have the right to fine you or force you to sell or do business with someone that you do not want to. The discrimination laws are ridiculous and a waste of money anyway. Businesses have a right of admission reserved, they should decide who they want to do business with and suffer the consequences for that.
But there are acceptable types of discrimination there are man only clubs and bars and gay only bars and clubs for types of cars, if you don't have a ford mustang you can't go to the ford mustang club. Same sort of thing, just that violence and government oppression has been associated with certain types of discrimination. This just gives government an excuse to create more victimless and waste of money laws. That create George Orwell examples of double speak and thought police.
On welfare, i do not think that libertarianism ever said that it was a magic solution to welfare. It is government that tries to sell its system by the means of promises and free stuff for everyone. Libertarianism is not against charity, it just does not agree with charity from a state via taxation. They would try and get money like everyone else does, by working. The government welfare situation is unsustainable and it creates many more problems and affects the economy in many different ways.
Yes, "on net". However, if you're talking to individuals, you may not be speaking to someone who would benefit "on net" at least in the short term. I'm talking about people who live in pretty hostile areas, who may find themselves stuck without proper or effective law. This has come up specifically when talking about Ron Paul's opposition to incorporation, the 14th amendment, and such. Yes, that would lead to a more minarchist federal government. However, and unfortunately, that would likely lead to some pretty repressive state-level legislation. So in that situation, for them it's not a net gain, although it might be for society at large. I'm not talking about private-property regulation, like who can use a place of buisness or something, but things like same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and sodomy laws. Sodomy laws were still on the books in a few states until 2003 when they were struck down at the federal level. You still have state governments (by referrendum mind you, so it's not just the legislatures) getting high-percentage votes for banning gay marriage. If you're pro-choice, then that's another issue too.
Well, they may not be a moral injustice correctable by coercive action, but they are certainly ethically wrong. As many others have said, it's a form of class collectivism. I agree with you that as far as the LAW goes, things should be race and gender blind. The main problem here is that, in reality today, without a just and effective system of law, some people's liberty would be negatively impacted if we were to blow away some state protections without dealing with the core bigotry first. And this isn't in respect to things like being barred from a place of buisiness, but the core rights dealing with life and property. It's not something we should just hand-wave away. Competition won't solve these problems if the majority of a regional population is hostile enough.
Some people's liberty is being negatively impacted by the state. What problems exactly are you referring to? People always talk about the majority, the majority is what democracy is all about. So it is ok for the government to dictate to people what is bigotry and what is not.
How exactly is it ethically wrong to discriminate based on appearance or any other factors?
There's quite a large difference between "appearance" and race or sex. Furthermore, I'm not talking about denial of access to property or whatever, but rather the basic human rights of life, liberty, and property. Discrimination on ANY grounds at that level is immoral. In order for those rights to be established you need to have either 1.) a very widespread communally acceptance of those rights, and 2.) a system of law, private, minarchist, or otherwise, to address violations of thsoe rights. In highly racist, sexist, or homophobic societies/regions, you certainly don't have #1, and because of that you probably won't have a #2 to follow. It might be a libertarian system of law, but it may be a corrupt one.
Yes yes we can say all we want about market competition, but that's not going to really convince people who see this stuff in thier own lives on a regular occasion. In a society where the large majority is not bigoted, you'll have probably next to no problems. But if the bigots dominate? I don't know how I can say with a straight face you'll have a favorable outcome.
LogisticEarth: At the same time though people will argue that certain areas of the country/world will turn to hellholes for minorities. They bring up the specter of "White Only" restaraunts and such, or being blacklisted for being a homosexual. First off it's important to note that a lot of that was actually legally required under Jim Crow laws. No doubt these areas still exist in certain parts, but they're few and far between. Then again, I don't really live in Hicksville, Mississippi so I don't know. What I do know is that there certainly still area a good deal of racist/bigoted people out there and you can't hand-wave it away. Telling someone who lives in Texas or other states, where up until very recently there were still explicitly bigoted state laws, that "competition will sort things out" if we remove current statist protections is cold comfort for them. This is why I really disagree with Rothbard when it comes to pushing his "red button" to abolish the state. If society isn't ready for it, liberty will get crushed in the backblast. Yes his position is logically consistent, but so is mutually assured destruction. It's always important to remember that we don't live in a libertarian world yet. But spreading libertarian principles is a natural remedy for this kind of intolerance. Self-ownership, non-aggression, the benefits of trade and non-antagonistic solutions, all help to end bigotry and promote tolerance and acceptance. It has to be a long-term social movement, otherwise it falls apart with the next generation.
So the simple possibility of a white only restaurant necessitates the State? ABSURD! There's a frikking black caucus in the freaking United States CONGRESS. Get that?
Porco, if you read my posts you'll see I'm neither advocating for the nessecity of the state in the long run, nor talking about white-only restaraunts. My concern how to get from Point A to Point B without at some point leaving a whole lot of people in a really unjust situation. This is key to convincing people who would potentially be placed in those situations.
EDIT: Also if you'll read my post further you'll notice that the problem today doesn't exist so much at the Federal level, but at the state. Also, the fact that there's a black caucus in Congress really means very little to many other mintorities, particularly gays.
A rising tide lifts all ships...
Being dependent is not at all a good position to be in regardless of the system. The question is also way too general. Each individual may be dependent in ways much different from another.
Worst case: The Human Vegetable - a person with no way of caring for themselves and is at the mercy of others for survival. Even with all of the incentives by government not to help, people still do. So there's nothing to suggest that these folks would be left to die. In fact, there's evidence to suggest that these people would benefit from a vastly more efficient method of charity.
The Poor - there's no singular reason for a person to be poor. Capability, ambition, opportunity, judgement, etc. can be factors that determine whether a person is poor or not. The government attempts a one-solution-fits-all approach, and ends up making it largely ineffective if not even worse. My opinion is that the most meaningful way to help the poor is by human associations and instilling dignity. That tends to be a voluntary endeavor. I tend to believe most people will rise from their condition to do things that matter to them and benefit the rest of society. The use of force in that equation just doesn't work.
The Elderly - this tends to be the group statists target the most with their fear tactics. Health care expenses have increased due to government intervention, so eliminating that can certainly help. A segment of the elderly have bought into the government retirement plan, which is essentially a ponzi scheme. At the same time, the goverment has also put into place conditions that practically force older folks to retire in the first place. That portion of the elderly who have bought into all of the statist promises will have to adjust to reality and may need the charity of others. Again, there is no proof that a free society will allow the elderly to just die in their beds. Government, on the other hand, is prepared to do just that as their solution to health care costs.
The Children - among all of the dependent, this group represents those who have the most to gain from a free society. Whatever setbacks they experience at first will be more than offset by the gains down the road. And again, there's no proof that a free society will just forget about these people. There's a lot of cultural issues that go along with children, so whether you have a state or a voluntary society you'll still see some problems that people might not agree with. Everyone seems to be an expert on how to raise other people's children.
The Minority - it is the state that concerns itself about majority-minority, gender, race, class, creed, etc. A free, voluntary society concerns itself on individual value. It's human nature to associate and trade with whomever you want to, but by excluding others you tend to put yourself at a disadvantage. In the US, the state established the majority as the ruling group. The state prohibited women and non-whites from participating in government, from owning property, or even making such people property. The state has had its hand in things from the very beginning, leading to most of divisions people have experienced. Those parts of the country that were outside of state influence or control tended toward a greater degree of cooperation across many different groups, until the state re-inserted itself. The state creates sides and then sets both sides against themselves - all for the purpose of keeping power and influence over people. The state is just a group of people who do not support a free, voluntary society. So you'd think that by getting these folks out of the way, minorities would be much better off. For one, they wouldn't be minorities any more, they'd simply be human beings.