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.
Firstly, it is interesting that YOU brought your hero Hoppe into this, when I didn't say a word about him. It is notable that you are unable to discuss the matter without appealing to Hoppe and making it about Hoppe.
Once again, I think that if one were to define cultural conservatism in terms of a lifestyle that exhibited low time preference, one could should praxeologically why it would tend to dominate. Or in fact, one does not even attempt to appeal to the low time preference aspect of this, rather, one need only to look at the features with which we choose to define cultural conservatism and trace their consequences in a free society. Which I believe Hoppe has done.
That would simply be to insert one's cultural bias in an economic analysis and to redefine cultural conservatism in a very broad sense. "A lifestyle that exhibits low time preference" is not "cultural conservatism" as such. There are plenty of people who are not cultural conservatives who "exhibit low time preference".
Another point to consider is that ideology does not necessarily translate into action, which is to say that people's motivations and actions aren't necessarily completely consistent with their ideology. One can have an ideology of low time preference while living "life in the fast lane". I'm sorry, but the assertion is simply arbitrary and biased. It does not causally follow that upon embracing an ideology of cultural conservatism one suddenly has a lower time preference. Furthermore, cultural conservatism tends to refer to more specific concepts (such as god, family and country), which should not be conflated with low time preference.
Hoppe admits as much, in fact this has no impact of any of his other claims concerning immigration or segregation.
Yes, it does impact such claims, because they tend to minimize or ignore the extent to which such mass-segregation is unsustainable given economic incentives and the demand for travel. The demand for labor and travel in the modern industrial world makes such romantic visions of absolute cultural isolation unrealistic or unsustainable and unreasonable at best.
Well that was entirely my point. Just like its attempts to "increase competition" its attempts to make society more conservative will fail. Simply put anytime the state attempts to coopt an institution it destroys the institution in question. Money and business are two very important example of this, as is, I believe, conservatism.
Your point is either irrelevant or out of context, since it doesn't prove your grandios assertions.
Leaving this issue aside, since I've never claimed such a thing. The plethora of anti discriminatory rules and regulations most certainly are "multicultural".
The problem is that it is an error to conflate "multiculturalism" as such with "government regulation of culture". That's a non-sequitor or misrepresentation. "Multiculturalism" as an attitude could merely imply that people personally see no need for arbitrary discrimination, and it is perfectly concievable for "multiculturalism" to have a voluntary context as such, since people can choose to recognize and engage in cultural overlap. It would simply be fallacious to conflate cultural overlap as such with government control. Furthermore, a lot of these regulations tend to harm the people that they are supposed to help.
Abolished? No, it has however done much to erode what might be described as "traditional culture".
It is itself a manifestation of "traditional culture".
Brainpolice:Firstly, it is interesting that YOU brought your hero Hoppe into this, when I didn't say a word about him. It is notable that you are unable to discuss the matter without appealing to Hoppe and making it about Hoppe.
I am perfectly able to discuss the matter without involving Hoppe, but I do not see the issue of bringing in a thinker who I believe has made great advances in this area. It is no difference from invoking Mises in a discussion concerning praxeology. You claimed that it is unreasonable to place culture above economics, and I agreed with you and yet stated that nobody has done so, and in fact Hoppe has done the exact opposite, I do not see what issue one could take with that.
Brainpolice:That would simply be to insert one's cultural bias in an economic analysis and to redefine cultural conservatism in a very broad sense. "A lifestyle that exhibits low time preference" is not "cultural conservatism" as such. There are plenty of people who are not cultural conservatives who "exhibit low time preference".
Well, yes, I do think you're correct here. One may simply change the terms in question, but then the best objection you can make is simply the terms in which the debate is framed. I don't think I've ever stated that low time preference lifestyles are conservative, although most certainly a lot of features of conservatism are indicative of low time preference.
Brainpolice: One can have an ideology of low time preference while living "life in the fast lane". I'm sorry, but the assertion is simply arbitrary and biased. It does not causally follow that upon embracing an ideology of cultural conservatism one suddenly has a lower time preference. Furthermore, cultural conservatism tends to refer to more specific concepts (such as god, family and country), which should not be conflated with low time preference.
Correct, ideology does not translate into action. But that's besides the point, I do not expect it to do so, rather, I merely expect people to live culturally conservative lifestyles consciously or not. As for God, family and country. The second of those almost certainly does result in lower time preference to the extent that individuals begin to provide for many future generations. As for God, I would most certainly argue that if one perceives they will be held accountable for their actions for eternity they are more likely to be more careful about the actions they indeed take.
Brainpolice:Yes, it does impact such claims, because they tend to minimize or ignore the extent to which such mass-segregation is unsustainable given economic incentives and the demand for travel. The demand for labor and travel in the modern industrial world makes such romantic visions of absolute cultural isolation unrealistic or unsustainable and unreasonable at best.
All you've demonstrated is that people will continue to work with one another, Hoppe does not deny this. Rather, he affirms it.
Brainpolice:Your point is either irrelevant or out of context, since it doesn't prove your grandios assertions.
No, it doesn't. But I never intended it to, I only inteded it to show that government enforcement of what it perceives to be conservatism will fail.
Brainpolice:It is itself a manifestation of "traditional culture".
That's simply not true, and if you wish to assert it I'm afraid I'll ask you to prove it also.
Brainpolice:"Multiculturalism" as an attitude could merely imply that people personally see no need for arbitrary discrimination, and it is perfectly concievable for "multiculturalism" to have a voluntary context as such, since people can choose to recognize and engage in cultural overlap.
I'll admit, it is conceivable, what I doubt is whether or not it is feasible.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
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:Hey Giles, I'm waiting for your hard data showing that children are more "race conscious" (euphemism for racist) than parents. Or else I missed a post ... ?
It was anecdotal, I never claimed otherwise either.
Ok Juan.
GS:People are by their nature race conscious,
call it a survival mechanism.
Actually, there's a good reason why children tend to be far more race conscious than adults,
they've not been brainwashed that it's a bad thing.
GilesStratton: 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.
What about saying that they must use coercion?
GilesStratton:Discrimination is an is. It's part of human nature, and I don't see why it is wrong from a moral perspective.
Discrimination, as a general feature of human nature, is not morally wrong. Rather, the moral issue arises in certain cases of discrimination. Is it right for someone to choose the white person over the black person, when the latter is more qualified?
Schools are labour camps.
I will dispute that children are necessarily race conscious - racism is rather stupid I think, and certainly acquired.
But this doesn't matter - opinions of different races are necessarily subjective and there's no point arguing about it, just as there's no point arguing about the relative merits of different works of art etc. The key point is: is having racist prejudices coercive? No, no it's not. So racism is ethically neutral.
eliotn:the moral issue arises in certain cases of discrimination
Is that what the voice on the PC telescreen told you? I'm curious which cases are immoral and which cases are not?
Thedesolateone:I will dispute that children are necessarily race conscious
I wouldn't but as it's anecdotal I'll leave the issue there.
Thedesolateone:racism is rather stupid I think, and certainly acquired.
Acquired? So it it's acquired how is it that the PC establishment after all these years trying and all this money spent still hasn't managed to stamp it out? I can't walk around my university without seeing signs warning racists that they're going to the gulag.
For Juan.
Howard Fishbein, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati, maintains that from infancy human beings are naturally predisposed to recognize differences. He says that the ability to discern difference served ancient societies by helping them keep their guard up against outsiders who might hurt or kill them. Research indicates that by the age of 3, children develop a sense of "outsiders"-people who are different from themselves-and because of societal influence, may target those outsiders for prejudicial behaviors (Sleek, 1997).
Source.
What Hoppe has done (or, more accurately, what you have done, via referance to Hoppe), in this particular case, is to conflate a particular cultural bias with an economic law. There is no economic law that says that your cultural preference is innately the most competitive. This is little more than confirmation bias.
Then why are you insisting on the claim if you admit that it is largely dependant on - semantics?
The thing is - what you expect people to be like isn't necessarily what they actually are like. These are all rather speculative opinions.
There is nothing inherently "culturally conservative" about - having a family and taking care of one's children. This is a near-universal trait in a sense.
It does not necessarily follow that because someone believes in an afterlife, they will have a lower time preference in "this life". In some cases the exact opposite could be true - one could disregaurd this life as merely transitory and want to whisked away to the afterlife sooner than later, which certainly is not indicative of a low time preference.
That's simpy false. He predicts a much more isolated social order - and encourages it.
It could just as easily be said that government enforcement of what it percieves to be "multiculturalism" will fail, and that multiculturalism could very well have a non-governmental context.
I doubt if the attempt to preserve monoculture or to have absolute cultural isolation in the industrial and post-industrial age is economically feasable.
Giles, you are setting up a false dichotomy between being totally PC and being either openly racist or indifferent to it. That is a false dichotomy, and I'm getting sick of watching people knee-jerkedly being called PC for not being completely indifferent to racism. Racism is not a strictly PC issue, and viewing it as an irrational presupposition does not automatically make someone PC.
And yes, it is aquired. The concept of racial identity itself is not innate, it is learned. The idea that people are "naturally racist" is absurd because, well, not only is this dependant on a blatant naturalistic fallacy but it simply flies in the face of the facts - which is that attitudes about race are cultural phenomenon. People are not born with a concept of race identity.
GilesStratton: Is that what the voice on the PC telescreen told you? I'm curious which cases are immoral and which cases are not?
Is it moral to force businesses to discriminate?