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.
Who does that?
It seems like we have veered from the initial question, which is NOT the morality or immorality of racism, but its practical economic aspect. The question should be (1) is racism a rational ideology? and (2) is it economically beneficial, in the long-term, to have mass-discrimination? To both questions, my answer is "no" - racism is not a rational ideology, and to discriminate based on cultural preconceptions of race even when it clearly is in opposition to individual merit and economic benefit is irrational, and inherently has negative economic effects when compared to more strictly economically-based decision-making.
That is what this is about, not some retarded "culture war" bullcrap.
Brainpolice: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.
Nobody has conflated any cultural bias with economic laws. The demonstrating has merely been that various lifestyles are better suited to the market than others, and as such, without the state they will become more prominant and others will decline. Now if you ask me it seems to be somewhat obvious that cultures that emphasise the importance of responsbility as well as the importance of social etiquette will do better than others.
Brainpolice:Then why are you insisting on the claim if you admit that it is largely dependant on - semantics?
Because the subject is important besides the semantics.
Brainpolice: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.
Yes and no, conservatives stress the importance of a strong family structure far more than other groups.
Brainpolice:That's simpy false. He predicts a much more isolated social order - and encourages it.
Yes, an isolated social order. He also admits the businesses will most likely not discriminate to the same extent private residences will.
Brainpolice: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 would agree with that, but it's not relevant anyway.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan