Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Rothbard and Race

rated by 0 users
This post has 31 Replies | 9 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 144
Points 4,300
you12 Posted: Sat, Feb 4 2012 1:32 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

Some quotes from the article:

Those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.

 

As a nonwhite libertarian I have no response to these kind of things. It puts me off that a man so admirably vehemant in defending 'individual ' liberty believes or writes this kind of hogwash. Opposers  say that such tendencies are inherant in libertarianism. I know better but their broad brush seems justified. And for a person like me being a libertarian becomes a baggage instead of an honor.

I can't get these things together. How can you be against the state, for individual liberty but support 'racialism' which is just a PC word for a flagrant racist.

I don't think Rothbard's shortcomings invalidate libertarianism nor does it invalidate his other works but it raises an important point. I don't believe Rothbard was a proponent of any sociopolitical arrangements based on race. But for many libertarians,the movement for liberty and individual rights was for everybody thus discrediting its central argument and losing many new believers.

I have no intention of bad mouthing anyone and the only reason I wrote  this post is becuase I am a libertarian but not because of the article cited above. I want to know how did our movement entertain and allow these kind of thoughts that were contradictory, selfdefeating and wrong.

I really wonder what libertarians and paleos were trying to achive by appealing to such sentiments. People who believe in race and arrangements based on race automatically invalidate the concept of individual libery and free will.

 

The article above is not libertarian. But I want to know why for a long time ideas such as those in that article were passed as acceptable in the libertarian sphere. I am a huge huge Ron Paul supporter but I do remain disappointed that he doesn't confront these issues head on. Even if he didn't write those letters. Obama for whatever we have to say about him did this wonderfully in his 'Better union' speech. Why can't Ron Paul who is clearly not racist confront the ugly past of racism and acknowledge that libertrians in the past probably strayed but its not representative of the libertarianism at large.

Its pathetic that libertarianism was once justified on 'racialist' grounds.

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 185
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 145
Points 3,690

What isn't libertarian about this article?

Rothbard is just commenting on what everyone already knows about race (that there's differences); he isn't advocating different legal rights for any particular race and isn't advocating forced integration/segregation. Instead, Rothbard is praising science and truth winning out (as opposed to this marxist egalitarian political correctness that infects even the way the natural sciences are conducted). Of course, non-whites finds biological truths to be disheartening; it so happens that blacks and hispanics, on average, have a full standard deviation of difference in IQ then that of whites and asians. This is a biological fact. Political correctness should never stand in the way of facts. Rothbard is celebrating this concept.

Ron Paul (like Mises; like Rothbard; like Hoppe) is not a left-wing libetarian; he's not going to speak on behalf of a certain race because that's just a collectivist concept. Blacks, hispanics, and other non-whites are already privileged in the public sector with affirmative action laws, work-place mandates, educational quotas, etc. Non-whites don't need any more political pandering.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

If intelligence varies from person to person, then it possible that the average intelligence of one group of people varies from another group of people.

 

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

FunkedUp:
[...] blacks and hispanics, on average, have a full standard deviation of difference in IQ then that of whites and asians. [...]

Were you trying to be PC here? Some Hispanics are black and some are white.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 145
Points 3,690

 

Daniel Muffinburg:

Were you trying to be PC here? Some Hispanics are black and some are white.

Heh, +1.
 
See how Cultural Marxism infects us all?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Feb 4 2012 3:23 PM
I simply wonder when "intelligence" became defined as "scores on this one kind of test."
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Feb 4 2012 3:27 PM

There's nothing unlibertarian about the article just as there isn't anything essentially pro-libertarian.  The difference with racist and racialism is that the racist, or racism, is making the claims that one race is proved superior to another, while the racialist merely acknowledges and points out social and cultural differences (if not biological also).  Someone being a racist can be a libertarian and vice versa, as long as their political philosophy is in line with libertarianism; culturally/socially/whatever they can really think what they want.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 867
Points 17,790

As a nonwhite libertarian I have no response to these kind of things.

Your color of skin shouldn't matter at all when assessing this topic. The fact is that some ethnic groups fare worse than others when it comes to average income, education or professional achievement. This is regularly blamed on white privilege inherent in the capitalist mode of production, and the proposed solution is to have governments forcibly institute affirmative action and redistribution policies.

Any libertarian should find that abhorrent, and any libertarian should rejoice when scientific research provides us with the means to combat such fallacies.


How can you be against the state, for individual liberty but support 'racialism' which is just a PC word for a flagrant racist.

And there we go. Acknowledging aggregate differences between ethnic groups is "racism".


I want to know how did our movement entertain and allow these kind of thoughts that were contradictory, selfdefeating and wrong.

None of this is contradictory, self-defeating or wrong. These views are pretty mainstream among evolutionary biologists, but they're usually keeping quiet about it because someone is bound to cry "Racism!" once the genetic reasons beind aggregate outcome differences are being addressed.

Outcome inequality between ethnic groups is used as a political bludgeon by egalitarians to justify the welfare state, government involvement in employment relations and certain aspects of the nanny state. If it turns out that this inequality is not the result of "racism" or "discrimination", but different ability levels caused by a different genetic makeup of a particular ethnic group, their entire righteous indignation falls flat and the justification for such policies disappears.

There is absolutely nothing offensive about this article. Rothbard points out useful scientific information that libertarians can employ against professional "anti-racists" and their collectivist policies. Unless you believe that evolution stopped at the neck and genetic differences in cognitive ability are a "racist" concept, there's no reason to demand apologies or explanations.


  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sat, Feb 4 2012 3:56 PM

intelligence is very hard to measure. I actually think it is very useful concept for opressors, I don't believe in IQ tests (even if they have some truth in it..some). So in the end, the only measurement we have is simple human action. Humans shows their intelligence so to speak through their action, not "abstract thinking".

 

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Sat, Feb 4 2012 4:40 PM

Rothbard, when discussing race, always seemed brutally frank on the issue, almost angrily so, for reasons that have always escaped me. On several occasions he seemed outright paranoid, but inconsistently so. With this being said, no one can deny that race and intelligence is linked, but the exact link and the extent of this is very open to debate.

Racism can be abused, but at the same time egalitarianism (in the racial sphere) can also be greatly abused, to shirk the idea that races are different and that this might have a reflection on IQ and social behavior (or from IQ then by extension social behavior and attitude) is to be as close-minded as any racist ever was.

Libertarianism, at the end of the day, is only as racist as the people within society in question are racist. 

Finally, just to assuage any fears that you might have I'll do the stereotypical thing and pull some anecdotes out of my hat. I am, in the broad and all-encompassing meaning of the term in modern America, a racist. That is that I believe that there is a significant genetic IQ difference between the races, although I believe that these may well be slightly exaggerated from what many of a similar state of mind believe the true differences to be. Nonetheless I don't look down on other races and I don't look up to races that probably have a higher IQ than my own. Two of my best friends are black, and I have two other fairly close black friends and I'm on friendly terms with several other "minorities". I celebrate the idea of interracial marriage because I find it disgusting that so many people are so attached to the idea of "racial pride" and that interracial relationships are even an issue in today's society. I also think that Japan has the coolest pop-culture and food ever, Chinese history is amazingly cool, African-Americans have created one of the best genres of music (jazz), my favorite economists are Jewish, and African-American civil rights activists were some of the greatest figures in history. I have nothing especially to say about Native-Americans besides that I like their names. Sorry.

So that's my super cool life story, I hope it makes you feel better about the whole business laugh

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Feb 4 2012 5:32 PM

Sounds like you want us to take on some blemish upon ourselves, because you read something that made you feel bad. Sorry, no can do.

It puts me off that a man so admirably vehemant in defending 'individual ' liberty believes or writes this kind of hogwash.


So what? People have the right to be wrong. Here, I'm sorry Rothbard wasn't perfect enough for you. As long as he didn't argue for the police to come for this or that group he didn't need to be. What is your gripe? He expressed some views you find ugly? Yea, and what is the relevance?

Opposers say that such tendencies are inherant in libertarianism. I know better but their broad brush seems justified.

You should make up your mind. Do you know better or ar they justified? Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways, you can't but admitt they are wrong, but would still like for their complaint to be valid.

I can't get these things together. How can you be against the state, for individual liberty but support 'racialism' which is just a PC word for a flagrant racist.


Your statement is about as valid as saying 'how can you be for liberty but not be a racist'.

People have the right to be jerks, this is the founding principle of libertarianism. You would deny this principle to Rothbard, who unlike the rest of us he must be perfect, never be insensitive and never wrong? And you would link this to liberty?? I'm all ears, where in the doctrine of freedom does it say being a jerk is incompatible with being for freedom?

I don't believe Rothbard was a proponent of any sociopolitical arrangements based on race.


Oh, thats a very weak statement. How about saying like it is, that Rothbard was throughout his life absolutely unwavering in his opposing any sociopolitical arrangement founded on race.

But for many libertarians,the movement for liberty and individual rights was for everybody thus discrediting its central argument and losing many new believers.


Lol, what is this? You're insinuating Rothbard differred from these "many libertarians" in believing some groups weren't entitled to rights as individuals? How sneaky of you.

I want to know how did our movement entertain and allow these kind of thoughts that were contradictory, selfdefeating and wrong.


Sounds like you're trying to saddle someone with guilt. "Our movement" didn't entertain crap. We don't get to allow what Rothbard writes on race, no more than you get to allow what I write on stamp collecting.

Why can't Ron Paul who is clearly not racist confront the ugly past of racism and acknowledge that libertrians in the past probably strayed but its not representative of the libertarianism at large.


Though Ron Paul doesn't owe you anything, particularly not to dance to your tune or to set himelf up as the spokesman for libertarianism only to castigate it for phantom racism for your satisfaction.

Its pathetic that libertarianism was once justified on 'racialist' grounds.


It's pathetic you should make baseless assertions. Libertarianism was never jusfified with racialism. How about offering some proof? Libertarianism is justified based on natural rights and utilitarianism and the like. Racialism is not about ethics and is therefore not capable of "justifying" anything. The word you're looking for is "promoted".



Really, stop with the touchiness. Rothbard particularly in his Rockwell-Rothbard Report years wrote flamboyant, outrageous stuff on a number of issues. In his opinion pieces dealing with the wars on former Yugoslavia he offered some of the most stereotypical and caricaturish portrayal of the Balkans of all times full of insanely outrageous sweeping statements and while subsequentially getting most of the history catastrophically wrong. At one point he wrote "As readers of Triple R know by now, no one, even the most fanatical Croat or Bosnian Muslim, surpasses Triple R in hatred of the Serbs;" How insane is that? He claimed to in no uncertain terms hate a whole ethnic group, the Serbs (though he was really just saying it for effect, later he would similarly flamboyantly claim they made the best fighters in the Yugoslav wars (sweeping statement) and that if ever caught in an ambush he would love to have a few at his side). But so what? I should be upset he had a totally butchered understanding of the region, and basically saw all of us in terms that invoke some vengeful, half-naked Indians? (No offence to Indians.) No! His Balkanisms were never ground for him argue for any ethnic group there be bombed, so it was nothing to worry about. Whether despite or because of his excited (and warped) understanding of the region he always argued against intervention, so there was no harm, only possibly good. If only more people saw us as unreformable savages and consequentially left us the hell alone!

So Obama said some nice things and Rothbard said some ugly ones, but if it came down to it Obama would deport you if it meant the difference between winning and loosing an election, but Rothbard would stand at your side and raise a ruckus on your behalf, absolutely no doubt about it. So who is a good guy, and who is the enemy?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Sat, Feb 4 2012 10:01 PM

Rothbard on Race - Mises Forums.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 144
Points 4,300
you12 replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 1:07 AM

Sounds like you want us to take on some blemish upon ourselves, because you read something that made you feel bad. Sorry, no can do.

No I just want to know what can one get by promoting liberty on racialist grounds.

It puts me off that a man so admirably vehemant in defending 'individual ' liberty believes or writes this kind of hogwash.


So what? People have the right to be wrong. Here, I'm sorry Rothbard wasn't perfect enough for you. As long as he didn't argue for the police to come for this or that group he didn't need to be. What is your gripe? He expressed some views you find ugly? Yea, and what is the relevance?

That those views are ugly.

Opposers say that such tendencies are inherant in libertarianism. I know better but their broad brush seems justified.

You should make up your mind. Do you know better or ar they justified? Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways, you can't but admitt they are wrong, but would still like for their complaint to be valid.

There justification is that they have some sort of documents to portray libertarianism as racist. I know better that is I know that is not the case.


I can't get these things together. How can you be against the state, for individual liberty but support 'racialism' which is just a PC word for a flagrant racist.


Your statement is about as valid as saying 'how can you be for liberty but not be a racist'.

People have the right to be jerks, this is the founding principle of libertarianism. You would deny this principle to Rothbard, who unlike the rest of us he must be perfect, never be insensitive and never wrong? And you would link this to liberty?? I'm all ears, where in the doctrine of freedom does it say being a jerk is incompatible with being for freedom?

Its one thing being a jerkbut another entirely to argue using racialism which is about preserving racial differences. Racialism opposes immigration and interracial relations to preserve differences. How is that compatible with freedom of association. And racism says that only certain ill defined groups have power and rights but others don't. Very libertarian I guess.

I don't believe Rothbard was a proponent of any sociopolitical arrangements based on race.


Oh, thats a very weak statement. How about saying like it is, that Rothbard was throughout his life absolutely unwavering in his opposing any sociopolitical arrangement founded on race.

Yet he said that race was useful in promoting liberty.


But for many libertarians,the movement for liberty and individual rights was for everybody thus discrediting its central argument and losing many new believers.


Lol, what is this? You're insinuating Rothbard differred from these "many libertarians" in believing some groups weren't entitled to rights as individuals? How sneaky of you.

I want to know how did our movement entertain and allow these kind of thoughts that were contradictory, selfdefeating and wrong.


Sounds like you're trying to saddle someone with guilt. "Our movement" didn't entertain crap. We don't get to allow what Rothbard writes on race, no more than you get to allow what I write on stamp collecting.

I don't care that he wrote it. But why he did. He can write whatever he wants and the researchers can research or publish whatever they like. But I do have to ask question when something doesn't seem right.

Why can't Ron Paul who is clearly not racist confront the ugly past of racism and acknowledge that libertrians in the past probably strayed but its not representative of the libertarianism at large.


Though Ron Paul doesn't owe you anything, particularly not to dance to your tune or to set himelf up as the spokesman for libertarianism only to castigate it for phantom racism for your satisfaction.

When did I say thatlibertarianism or Rothbard were racist? I just don't like the way they structured their arguments for liberty.



Its pathetic that libertarianism was once justified on 'racialist' grounds.


It's pathetic you should make baseless assertions. Libertarianism was never jusfified with racialism. How about offering some proof? Libertarianism is justified based on natural rights and utilitarianism and the like. Racialism is not about ethics and is therefore not capable of "justifying" anything. The word you're looking for is "promoted".

Promoted. Exactly. Does anyone here really believe that aggregates of behaviour are useful for anything? There may or may not be differences in race  but what exactly do they prove when it comes ot determining individual behaviour. Exactly zilt.


Really, stop with the touchiness. Rothbard particularly in his Rockwell-Rothbard Report years wrote flamboyant, outrageous stuff on a number of issues. In his opinion pieces dealing with the wars on former Yugoslavia he offered some of the most stereotypical and caricaturish portrayal of the Balkans of all times full of insanely outrageous sweeping statements and while subsequentially getting most of the history catastrophically wrong. At one point he wrote "As readers of Triple R know by now, no one, even the most fanatical Croat or Bosnian Muslim, surpasses Triple R in hatred of the Serbs;" How insane is that? He claimed to in no uncertain terms hate a whole ethnic group, the Serbs (though he was really just saying it for effect, later he would similarly flamboyantly claim they made the best fighters in the Yugoslav wars (sweeping statement) and that if ever caught in an ambush he would love to have a few at his side). But so what? I should be upset he had a totally butchered understanding of the region, and basically saw all of us in terms that invoke some vengeful, half-naked Indians? (No offence to Indians.) No! His Balkanisms were never ground for him argue for any ethnic group there be bombed, so it was nothing to worry about. Whether despite or because of his excited (and warped) understanding of the region he always argued against intervention, so there was no harm, only possibly good. If only more people saw us as unreformable savages and consequentially left us the hell alone!

So Obama said some nice things and Rothbard said some ugly ones, but if it came down to it Obama would deport you if it meant the difference between winning and loosing an election, but Rothbard would stand at your side and raise a ruckus on your behalf, absolutely no doubt about it. So who is a good guy, and who is the enemy?

Quote

I don't doubt Rothbard's commitment to liberty, never have. He is not the enemy.  And I oppose the entire pond in which people like Obama swim. Not just him.  But don't you agree that libertarianism can be promoted on better grounds than racialism.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

 

I don't see how it's racist to say that there are differences between races. For example, am I racist if I say that asians tend to be even better (on average) at mathematics than whites? (I'm white myself). Also, as an individual, I myself am skilled in the calculus. Does that make me furious that asians tend to be better on average at math? No, it doesn't. http://nomorequo.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-asians-are-better-at-math.html

I'm not saying I completely agree with Rothbard on race - as I haven't even read his writings on race - but pointing out differences between races as your Rothbard quote does is not racist. As the OED defines racialism: "Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being." Contrary to the mainstream view, I would contend that to be racist there must be two things: 1) belief in superiority of X race and 2) prejudice caused by the belief in this superiority. You can have either 1 or 2, but for it to truly be racialism, there has to be both. I'd say Rothbard, even if he hypothetically has component 1, doesn't have component 2. Also, he was jewish.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 8:31 AM
First of all, its incorrect to take statistical analyzes of tests taken by certain populations of people and pretend that your findings apply to people ho didnt take the tests simply because they share some genetic material with your sample.

secondly, if racism is "Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races" and you a) believe that "asians tend to be even better (on average) at mathematics than whites" and b) you use that information to help profile applicants for a given job, that would be racist by definition. Any time you use that information (asians are better at math than whites) without confirming that it applies to a specific case, you can be said to have "prejudged" the objects and therefore prejudice occurred and therefore racism.

third, your article basically says that asians are better because of cultural factors. In that case, in order for the assertion to be meaningful you need to control for either genes or culture, so that you can examine culture or genes (respectively).

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 8:36 AM
"race" is a collectivist notion and therefore incompatible with libertarian tenets. The fact that this doesnt answer the OP clearly, utterly, and definitively just shows how conditioned we all are to the idea of "race."
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 653
Points 13,185

you12,

The two quotes you gave need to be put a little bit more in context.  The second one (which actually occurred at the beginning of the article, actually reads as such:

What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.

Rothbard is clearly addressing existing folk knowledge here, not putting forth his own theory.  If I said "For most of human history, individuals all shared a common belief.  It seemed a self evident fact that spirits and mysitcal beings were the cause of natural phenomena."  - You wouldn't just quote my second sentence, but that's what you did with Rothbard.

The first quote you gave occured at the very end of the article, and was essentially a side note to the entire thesis.  The majority of the article was historical in nature, discussing the politics behind egalitarianism and the shunning of "racialist" ideas.  Rothbard gives two reasons for concerning himself with racialism: "to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project."  He then gives a third reason, which you quoted.

I agree with you that he's flat out wrong with this point.  If poor black communities demand collectivism and blame markets for their woes, telling them that they just aren't as smart as the people in favor of markets is probably THE WORST argument one can make.

 

they said we would have an unfair fun advantage

"enough about human rights. what about whale rights?" -moondog
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 10:22 AM

Its one thing being a jerk but another entirely to argue using racialism which is about preserving racial differences. Racialism opposes immigration and interracial relations to preserve differences. How is that compatible with freedom of association. And racism says that only certain ill defined groups have power and rights but others don't. Very libertarian I guess.


I can't exactly argue with you on this when you define terms for me. Sure being in favor of use of force (curtailing freedom of association & immigration) is not libertarian, but who says that must be a component of racism? Being a racist means you feel that in some metaphysical sense people of one racially defined group are worth more than people of another, but you can still favor equality before the law regardless.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 10:54 AM

But don't you agree that libertarianism can be promoted on better grounds than racialism.


Sure I do, same as I think non-intervention in the Balkans could have been argued for in better style than the one emplyed. At the end of the day the guy wrote a huge number of articles in the process of writing of which he was clearly enjoying himself and going for being fun, flashy and outrageous — so some of his output was almost necessarily going to end up cringeworthy and less than fully tastefull. It is dissapoiting and irresponsible coming from the big man himself, but there isn't anything in there that conflicts with libertarianism.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 144
Points 4,300
you12 replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 11:00 AM

It would not be racism if you argue that races should be treated equally.  Racism is the clearest opposition to that idea.

Being a racist is to deny equal rights to others, racist people may be a lot of things but libertarian is not one of them.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 144
Points 4,300
you12 replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 11:07 AM

 

"race" is a collectivist notion and therefore incompatible with libertarian tenets. The fact that this doesnt answer the OP clearly, utterly, and definitively just shows how conditioned we all are to the idea of "race."

 

Ofcourse it is. That is why the opposition to racialism based arguments for libertarianism from Rothbard.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 11:10 AM

Seeing most racists I've dealt with were apolitical that's clearly a load of crap.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 11:13 AM

Well does Rothbard actually state in the article that he wants to treat the races unequally? If not then he doesn't seem to fit any of your definitions.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 144
Points 4,300
you12 replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 11:21 AM

Again I don't define Rothbard but merely point out that an argument he made for liberty was in error.

Look I dont oppose researchers doing researches or discrimination by private individuals but i do expect a heroic figure like Rothbard not to structure his arguments saying that If collectivists don't like it then we'll just tell em 'shove it your just dim'.

Rothbard has an defining and positive influence on Libertarianism but that doesn't mean that he was always making the best arguments.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 32
Points 470

"Racism" is a political bludgeon term. It means whatever its wielder at that time wants it to mean.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 9:16 PM

I don't know what you mean by "arguing for liberty"; he was using biological reality against leftists who use race denial in order to further their specific goals.  If they are going to argue from flawed assumptions (race doesn't exist, everybody is equal, the environment conditions everything, etc.), then you have every right to point that out.  Also, when talking about race and IQ, Rothbard hasn't ceased looking at people as individuals; the socialist argument is basing their analysis off of aggregate populations.  Thus, the basis of "race realism" deals in aggregates.  A race realist doesn't say that all people of X race behave a certain way and should be judged as individuals based on aggregate statistics.  They only point out a correlation in aggregate.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 13
Points 260
Jackm replied on Mon, Feb 6 2012 4:35 AM

You guys are just shooting yourselves in the foot with this race realist crap, whether it be true or not. Too concerned with winning debates over winning hearts.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 144
Points 4,300
you12 replied on Mon, Feb 6 2012 9:35 AM

Exactly Jack. IT is actually a disservice to libertarianism if you argue with this nonsense. Sometimes I think unconventional people will become too fringe and reactionary just to annoy the mainstream.

 

The consensus here clearly is that racialism and libertarianisms are not in any way related. Yet people rush to defend racialism eventhough it is not of any use to us.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 369
Points 7,175
baxter replied on Mon, Feb 6 2012 2:57 PM

This subject troubles me for a number of reasons:

1. Intelligence is not a linear, superimposable property like length.

2. There is no known way to quantify intelligence any more than there are ways to produce cardinal subjective values.

3. There is no meaning to computations like sums or averages of intelligence. One is simply playing childish games with numbers.

4 .There is no scientific meaning to "race". There is no scientific test to determine what races someone belongs to.

5. Intelligence is not necessarily a good thing. High intelligence can lead to social awkwardness and psychological problems.  It can be bad if a criminal is intelligent. A dumb football player can command higher pay for his services than an intelligent person can. I predict machines of superhuman intelligence will be constructed sooner or later as well as bionic implants which may make baseline human intelligence something of a historical curiosity.

6. There are so many differences between even two family members that the focus on race seems pointless.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Mon, Feb 6 2012 3:03 PM

Jackm:

You guys are just shooting yourselves in the foot with this race realist crap, whether it be true or not. Too concerned with winning debates over winning hearts.

 

 

QFT

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110

 

What does a disservice to your point is how you listed the two quotes, one right after the other but out of order!  It makes it look like one big comment.  The first quote is from the end and the second is from the beginning.  You make it look like one long statement in order to make it look like a long racist statement, when in fact the two quotes are entirely unrelated.
 
Let's look at the two quotes, but in order:
 
 
I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.
 
 
 
Okay, so what is wrong with this statement?  I
 
Is it false that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary?
 
Is it false that invididuals differ in intelligence and many other traits?
 
Is it false that ethnic groups and races differ in intellegence and many other traits?
 
 
 
If these are false statements, then you should provide reasons as to why you believe so.  I have read this thread and seen no such attempt from you. 
 
 
 
The second quote, which you listed as first, and then cropped, for some dishonest reason:
 
 
If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?
 
Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.
 
In any case, there is cause for jubilation these days, for it looks as if the left-egalitarian blackout-and-smear gang has been dealt a truly lethal blow.
 
 
So Murray Rothbard asks the question, and I'll actually quote him, unlike you: "If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?"
 
His response, in short:
 
1) "to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake"
 
2) "and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project"
 
and then he says, "wait! there's even a third possibility!" - I'll condense his quote for effect:
 
3) whatever, I'm talking to a bunch of idiots
 
 
 
Murray Rothbard is known for his scholarly approach to writing, but sometimes people forget his zingers. 
 
 
 
In addition, I also noticed that you managed to define "racialist" as "flagrant racist".  This. Is. Intellectually. Dishonest.
 
I will cite wikipedia: "Racialism is an emphasis on race or racial considerations.[1] Currently, racialism entails a belief in the existence and significance of racial categories, but not necessarily that any absolute hierarchy between the races has been demonstrated by a rigorous and comprehensive scientific process. Racialists usually reject some claims of racial superiority (such as "racial supremacy"), but may explicitly or implicitly subscribe to others, such as that races have acted in morally superior or inferior ways, at least in certain instances or periods of history."
 
In no way does this at all mean "flagrant racist".  Period.  If you want to define "racialist" as "flagrant racist" that is your choice.  But if someone else uses the word in a different way, in fact the more commonly accepted way, it is dishonest of you to foist your own definition on  the term someone else uses.
 
you12:
 
 Why can't Ron Paul who is clearly not racist confront the ugly past of racism and acknowledge that libertrians in the past probably strayed but its not representative of the libertarianism at large.
 
 
You have yet to demonstrate any libertarians that have been part of this "ugly past of racism".  You see, to me, when someone talks about the "ugly past of racism", it calls to mind slavery and Jim Crow laws.  What libertarian ever supported either?  So either when you say "ugly past of racism" you are not in fact referring to slavery and Jim Crow laws, or you are trying to link libertarians with enacting Statist policies.  If it is the former, then I find it amusing that you don't consider slavery and Jim Crow to be part of the "ugly past of racism".  If it is the latter, then I find it dishonest.
 
 
 
If I didn't make it clear earlier: those two quotes you provided are not the main thrust of the piece you linked to.  The second quote you provided (which actually appears at the very beginning) has nothing racist, bigoted, or prejudiced about it.  It may only appear to be "racist" when you place it after the first quote (which was in fact at the very end).
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 7
Points 95

I am unable to understand why some people are against a logical understanding of races.  It seems that so much of modern treatment of human races is profoundly anti-intellectual.  I don't think it is a good thing for people to irrationally dislike other races, that is simple-minded but I don't think that is what Rothbard is talking about.  Racial differences are so obvious it seems one must be willfully ignorant to ignore them.  For instance if africans are demonstrably more inclined to be physically fit then would it not follow that there are a myriad other differences between the races as well, but I do not think this implies the belief that one race is better then another, they are simply different.  I think the human species was clearly in the early stages of speciation hence our differences in appearance, but why is it a bad thing to study this sort of thing.  We could probably get past many of our problems if we were better able to understand them on a scientific level.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (32 items) | RSS