I made a point against some socialists, opposing anti-racial discrimination legislation, most obviously based on the idea that it is unethical to force people to work with certain people, you wouldn't force them to be friends with other races if they didn't want to etc. However, I also made the economics point that the racist customer, employer or labourer pays if they choose to restrict themselves to purely their own ethnicity/race.
Is this second point valid?
Basically I made an example where the black guy would work for £1,000 less a year, and so the employer had to choose between satisfying his racial preferences or an extra £1,000. I was attacked for gerrymandering the example. I've got a mental block on this subject so I was wondering if anyone could help me think this over/explain it to me.
To make it clear, I'm fully against anti-discrimination laws on ethical grounds - but I was wondering if the economic grounds were solid too.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
You're quite correct. Essentially any employer would have the choice of satisfying his customers desires as much as possible, or to some degree acting in accordance with his own personal preferences. To the extent that the two coincide there would not be much of an issue for the entreprenuer, and this is certainly possible. One can imagine, for example, people who might desire to go to a bar with individuals of their own ethnic groups or whatever. On the other hand if the two aren't the same then it would follow that any entrepreneur practised racial discrimination in the face of this he would lose money to those who are willing to employ those individuals best for the job. This would put capital in the hands of the non discriminatory entrepreneurs, and the rest follows logically.
Now, one could make the argument which I think I am somewhat in agreement with that it may be more profitable to some degree or another to have a culturally homogenous workforce (less conflict etc.) and that therefore some discrimination may be necessary in the workforce. Also, individuals from some races may be better at doing certain jobs. A job that requires a lot of mathematics may favour Asians and an employer could choose to discriminate on those grounds, whereas a job that requires a lot of running will favour blacks or whatever.
By the way there's one point to keep in mind, there is a reason that laws are necessary to inforce anti discrimination, it's not natural to the market.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Anti discrimination laws are just completely unecessary. An employer should simply be free to hire whoever he/she wishes, and for whatever reasons. Just like we think it's fair, to freely choose who our friends are, who we marry, what family member to attach to. The employer-employee relationship should be no different. If you study history you will find that all racial tensions, slavery, black codes etc, have always begun with a government. Racial problems exist because of the government, it's that simple
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
GilesStratton: By the way there's one point to keep in mind, there is a reason that laws are necessary to inforce anti discrimination, it's not natural to the market.
I disagree. Branch Rickey hired Jackie Robinson as the first black baseball player in the major leagues. Robinson's teamates rallied around him, not because he was black, but because he was a key player who helped the Dodgers win the pennant that year (and winning the pennant results in more ticket sales the next year). For a comprehensive treatment of this topic, see Race and Culture by Thomas Sowell.
DougM:I disagree. Branch Rickey hired Jackie Robinson as the first black baseball player in the major leagues. Robinson's teamates rallied around him, not because he was black, but because he was a key player who helped the Dodgers win the pennant that year (and winning the pennant results in more ticket sales the next year).
It's not relevant. I never claimed that discrimination will always occur in a free market. Just that multiculturalism is not feasible without the state to support it coercively.
DougM: GilesStratton: By the way there's one point to keep in mind, there is a reason that laws are necessary to inforce anti discrimination, it's not natural to the market. I disagree. Branch Rickey hired Jackie Robinson as the first black baseball player in the major leagues. Robinson's teamates rallied around him, not because he was black, but because he was a key player who helped the Dodgers win the pennant that year (and winning the pennant results in more ticket sales the next year). For a comprehensive treatment of this topic, see Race and Culture by Thomas Sowell.
That is because there was a market incentive for the the MLB to break into the Negro League - namely, that they were missing out on alot of good players playing for them. You'll notice that they did this without a government mandate. The incentive for additional players outweighed the desire for racial hemogony, just as without civil rights laws eventually many businesses would probably have started doing business with blacks because they want their money.
GilesStratton: It's not relevant. I never claimed that discrimination will always occur in a free market. Just that multiculturalism is not feasible without the state to support it coercively.
Run the arguments for that past me again (a link will do, if you have one)?
Is that multiculturalism in the workplace, in schools, or what?
Read Hoppe, specifically On Cooperation, Tribe, City and State and Conservatism and Libertarianism.
GilesStratton:By the way there's one point to keep in mind, there is a reason that laws are necessary to inforce anti discrimination, it's not natural to the market.
1. It does not logically follow that since anti-discrimination is not natural to the market, there needs to be laws to enforce it.
2. While it can definitely be argued that discrimination is wrong from a moral perspective, does that make it wrong from a legal perspective?
Schools are labour camps.
GilesStratton:multiculturalism is not feasible without the state to support it coercively.
In what way?
eliotn:It does not logically follow that since anti-discrimination is not natural to the market, there needs to be laws to enforce it.
No, but it follows that if individuals wish to enforce enforce their own multicultural morality on the population the market won't acheive this end. If the market won't acheive this end the state will.
eliotn: While it can definitely be argued that discrimination is wrong from a moral perspective,
To begin with, whether or not discrimination is wrong from a moral perspective is not relevant. Discrimination is an is. It's part of human nature, and I don't see why it is wrong from a moral perspective. Humans discriminate all the time, on a huge number of grounds, why the cultural left make such a deal about it when it concerns race is beyond me.
eliotn:In what way?
Multiculturalism isn't feasible because it goes against human nature. More importantly, it is not economic to have culturally different individuals living amongst one another, no doubt their culture will be deeply ingrained in them, this will inevitably lead to conflict. Insurers will go lower rates to those living amongst their own ethnic groups because the chances of conflict are far lower. I'll give you a good example. Imagine two neighbourhoods a white neighbourhood and a black neighbourhood. If an individual walked through the former in a white gown with a pointy hat it might well be seen a a bad joke. In the latter it will most likely be seen as an act of aggression.
Moreover humans have an inherent distrust for those who are dissimilar to them, given evolution this is hardly suprising.
GilesStratton:Multiculturalism isn't feasible because it goes against human nature.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: The thing is, people concerned with 'culture' live in a world of their own in which arbitrary and reactionary customs are seen as a god-ordained natural order.
I fail to see how religion plays any part in this, so it would be great if we could keep this on topic. Especially since non religious members of this forum seem to be able to appreciate the insights of Professor Hoppe. As for being concerned with culture, I don't really know what to say, other than that I find a lot of what passes for entertainment today is cheap and unsophisticated, I do not truly believe it will dissappear, the common man might not be able to appreciate good music, good wine or good literature, but that doesn't mean that culture is not being eroded by the state.
Juan:Some people confuse theistic delusions and tribalism with 'human nature', but, if human nature means anything at all, it means the ability to raise above such cheap superstitions.
Once again, let's not bring irrelevant issues into this. Are you really denying that it is in our nature to dislike those that are not similar to us? Or that individuals with different cultures tend to come into conflict more often than individuals of the same culture do? I believe any denial of those to be rather ad hoc.
Juan:Libertarians always thought that there's a common human nature (hence human rights) shared by all human beings. Free trade, the end of the state, and free movement of people, key features of libertarianism, all undermine such a backward concept as 'cultural identity'.
How does free trade and the end of the state undermine concepts of cultural identity? It simply does not follow. As for movement of the people, I would deny that. The state subsidizes travel, not only that but it makes it possible due to eminent domain and more importantly forced integration. Once again, if you want to prove what you've asserted you're going to have to try harder than that.
Juan: Libertarians always thought that there's a common human nature (hence human rights) shared by all human beings. Free trade, the end of the state, and free movement of people, key features of libertarianism, all undermine such a backward concept as 'cultural identity'.
Libertarians always thought that there's a common human nature (hence human rights) shared by all human beings. Free trade, the end of the state, and free movement of people, key features of libertarianism, all undermine such a backward concept as 'cultural identity'.
Tell that to the Asian, Hispanic, Slavic, and African American communities where I live. Vast numbers of them choose to live in common neighborhoods and they even have whole community shopping areas dedicated to the tastes and culture of their own unique people's.
The thing is that I, as a white guy, am still allowed to live or shop there and they are still allowed to not live or shop there, yet huge percentages of these communities choose to do just that.
From an opportunity cost viewpoint there seems to be no real downside to living/shopping/working around others who share the same cultural identity and there are potential benefits.