Economics Questions

Re: Legalizing discrimination

nazgulnarsil — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:57:24 GMT

JohnG:
but what stops people from starting to believe this, or other stupid myths about other minorities, again?

nothing, and I have no desire to stop people from believing whatever they want. vote with your wallet not with a gun (legislation).

Re: Legalizing discrimination

Solomon — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:42:07 GMT

We free market apologists often like to say "the market punishes discrimination" when we really mean "the market punishes discrimination, all things being equal". So yes, you're quite right; it is entirely conceivable and possible for individuals to be discriminated against on a free market on the grounds that the benefit of disassociating oneself from them outweighs that of doing business with them. Believing anything to the contrary is just wishful thinking.

However, I don't believe this to be a real problem (though I should probably first say that, personally, I am almost spectacularly indifferent to discrimination, racism, people hating each other, and all those other horrible evils we're taught to fear). People think of discrimination in extremely simplistic and generic terms, no doubt due to its politically incorrect status in modern society; I don't believe I've ever heard or read anything gave it intelligent treatment. When people hear 'disrimination', their (knee-jerk) response is to think 'disallowing service on grounds other than inability to pay'. Entrepreneurs are by no means so limited. If they want to keep (for instance) disfigured people away from their outlets, they need not ban them, but rather just charge them more than other customers (i.e. whatever business is lost due to trading with them is added back). This is just one possibility. If the goal is simply to keep unsightly people out of other customers' field of vision (at a restaurant for example) then the disfigured people could receive service off store premises, whether via delivery or just behind the store. It all depends on what means are available and entrepreneurial creativity.

JohnG:
I saw a poll that said that 25 % of the population in my country (Sweden) would not accept a jewish prime minister, so it appears nazistic thoughts aren't really gone.

So pollsters in Sweden can be trusted to not ask seemingly innocuous questions of their poll-takers and then distort and misconstrue them to serve their various collectivist agendas (you know, the way US pollsters do)?

Re: Legalizing discrimination

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:46:27 GMT

There is no "problem" of discrimination to solve by force. If you are worried about it, find ways to increase awareness of whatever "problem" you perceive. Why people want the state, of all institutions, to deal with this issue is beyond me, when it is the biggest discriminator of all out there. Generally, there is very little reason for individuals on the receiving end of discrimination to remain in such societies, and with no centralized state to homogeneize the population, they're free to head to more tolerant societies. If there are none, then I suggest creating one.

Re: Legalizing discrimination

sirmonty — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:49:32 GMT

Yeah Paul from Accounting is a major dick.

Re: Legalizing discrimination

David Z — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:16:05 GMT

Who's property is the store? Are you "discriminating" when you don't invite the neighborhood bully to your kid's birthday party? Are you "discriminating" when you don't invite Paul from Accounting to lunch with you on Thursday?

Sure, you're talking about a systematic bias against one particular group, but as you've conceded, "it's not really that much of a problem." If there is a store that is systematically excluding people, there is another store which just won a captive customer base.

This has nothing to do with "Austrian" economics, just individual rights.

Legalizing discrimination

JohnG — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:27:16 GMT

Hello

I've just read The politically incorrect guide to capitalism, and I find it to be great. But there are some things that I wonder about, for example this thing about discrimination: The book points out that the free market punishes discrimination, and that it's more profitable to allow anyone to shop, than to for example exclude black people.

I'm sure they are right when it comes to black, but what about other grops? What about handicapped people? What about people who might have been born without certain body parts - eyes, noses, arms, legs etc? Since many people don't want to see these poor cripples, couldn't a shop owner actually win customers by banning cripples from the store? That way he would be able to guarantee that his customers would not have to see any of them while they're shopping at his store. Since cripples are a much smaller group than blacks, a shop owner in a normal town wouldn't lose much money by doing so.

Of course most shop owners wouldn't do so, and of course cripples are just an example, but the point remains: What about discrimination towards groups that people don't like or who's existence they would like to ignore? Would that also disappear in a free market? If so, why?

Why did discrimination after all exist in the southern states in the US before 1964? I mean, if it's unprofitable. One could of course claim that people knew very little about black people and though that they were some sort of monkies, but what stops people from starting to believe this, or other stupid myths about other minorities, again? Isn't assuming that all shop owners/customers know that jews don't have a world government, that all romanis aren't thieves, that blacks aren't monkies, to assume that people are a little bit more rational than they really are? I saw a poll that said that 25 % of the population in my country (Sweden) would not accept a jewish prime minister, so it appears nazistic thoughts aren't really gone.

These questions are merely questions, not arguments. I generally support the Austrian school, and right now I'm just trying to find information.

/John