Racism, drug prevention, discrimination, and recidivism

"At midyear 2008, there were 4,777 black male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents being held in state or federal prison and local jails, compared to 1,760 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents and 727 white male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents"

From the U.S Judicial Branch Statistics.

I agree, that nothing like Affirmative Action helps, and that Government spending to reduce this is stupid. However, while its the community that should help, and volunteers how can they do it alone? Charity/Donation money barely funds these NPO's for three months. I got into an argument with a friend of mine about Drug Preventative programs.

 

Isabel says:
 it's the community that should help
Blood moons and Pagan circles says:
 Yeah it is
 Not the government, it only makes the problems worse
Isabel says:
 and the government should fund those projects
Blood moons and Pagan circles says:
 No
 Donations/Charity
 Government shouldn't be involved in anything
Isabel says:
 do you have any idea how hard it is to get donations/charity?
 it's not even enough to fund for a 3 months
 the government usually funds for a year or more
Blood moons and Pagan circles says:
 Why does everyone think that Government money is "free"?
Isabel says:
 it's not free
Blood moons and Pagan circles says:
 That money comes from taxpayers
Isabel says:
 I dont think it's free
Blood moons and Pagan circles says:
 Nobody should HAVE to pay for anything like that
Isabel says:
 so it's not good to fund for a drug preventative program?
Blood moons and Pagan circles says:
 and theres plenty of volunteer work
 hell no its not
Isabel says:
 most people dont have time for that
Blood moons and Pagan circles says:
 Drug preventative programs are worthless
 programs like DARE
 make people want to do drugs MORE
Isabel says:
 good bye Christopher.
 you are such an idiot.

 

What the hell do you say to people like this? They think so one sided, that they don't see the Voluntaryist solution at all. Everyone seems to think the Government solves everything. How the hell do Drug Preventative programs help at all? I don't see how they have helped, but regardless I've likely lost a friend over that disagreement, but whatever.

Maybe you should argue better. And be more socratic if you don't have the raw firepower to win a head on debate.

I have a small tension span with mainstream liberals. I give up on being socratic with them, because they never listen most of the time. Its also annoying being socratic with someone who's reason is overridden by emotion.

Democracy for Breakfast:

I have a small tension span with mainstream liberals. I give up on being socratic with them, because they never listen most of the time. Its also annoying being socratic with someone who's reason is overridden by emotion.

Then go the other way. But you're going to need to buff up on your arguments as well as knowing which ones to use at the right time...

I think when you say " Drug preventative programs are worthless programs like DARE make people want to do drugs MORE" you're going off track. Because the illusion liberal statists are under is that yes the government is bad now but we can change the government and make it good so all your examples of bad government don't matter.

So you should probably anticipate this and either not lead the conversation down that road, or if it comes up, clearly point it out and have a strong response ready.

Democracy for Breakfast:

"At midyear 2008, there were 4,777 black male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents being held in state or federal prison and local jails, compared to 1,760 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents and 727 white male inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents"

Most of those crimes are related to illegal drugs.

So then what can volunteers do about recidivism, and social discrimination? I really don';t see how you can argue with people like this, and how they think their solutions will work when even after 30+ years they haven't already.

Democracy for Breakfast:

So then what can volunteers do about recidivism, and social discrimination

They can... pool their resources to start up non-racist and therefore more efficient businesses to compete with racist businesses and drive them out of the market.

I'm sure you've heard the argument that the free market fights racism.

So when a liberal says, man all these white business owners are extorting black workers cus they dont pay them what white workers get paid, respond: Well if the black workers are really worth as much as white workers, and I believe they are, then you should be able to start a business where you can hire a bunch of black people and beat out these racist businesses that overpay white people. Right? So basically what you're telling me is that there's free money to be had. Go start a business. Go. Go. Go. Go.

Snowflake:

Democracy for Breakfast:

So then what can volunteers do about recidivism, and social discrimination

They can... pool their resources to start up non-racist and therefore more efficient businesses to compete with racist businesses and drive them out of the market.

I'm sure you've heard the argument that the free market fights racism.

So when a liberal says, man all these white business owners are extorting black workers cus they dont pay them what white workers get paid, respond: Well if the black workers are really worth as much as white workers, and I believe they are, then you should be able to start a business where you can hire a bunch of black people and beat out these racist businesses that overpay white people. Right? So basically what you're telling me is that there's free money to be had. Go start a business. Go. Go. Go. Go.

While I agree with this, it isn't the issue. The argument is that charity/volunteer organizations are not enough to solve these problems. Government money funs them up til a year, while charity/donations barely funds 3-4 months.

Snowflake:

Democracy for Breakfast:

So then what can volunteers do about recidivism, and social discrimination

They can... pool their resources to start up non-racist and therefore more efficient businesses to compete with racist businesses and drive them out of the market.

I'm sure you've heard the argument that the free market fights racism.

So when a liberal says, man all these white business owners are extorting black workers cus they dont pay them what white workers get paid, respond: Well if the black workers are really worth as much as white workers, and I believe they are, then you should be able to start a business where you can hire a bunch of black people and beat out these racist businesses that overpay white people. Right? So basically what you're telling me is that there's free money to be had. Go start a business. Go. Go. Go. Go.

That's what the founder of Black Entertainment did.

Democracy for Breakfast:

While I agree with this, it isn't the issue. The argument is that charity/volunteer organizations are not enough to solve these problems. Government money funs them up til a year, while charity/donations barely funds 3-4 months.

a) maybe if government didn't take half of everyone's money (income tax, sales tax, 10% inflation by pre clinton CPI, etc) we'd have a lot more money to solve our problems.

b) http://www.nonprofitcareerguide.org/fact_sheet-scope.php looks big as hell to me.

c) I think your friend just doesn't want to go all out to help other people. She wants other people to help them. I bet she has her eye on rich people and thinks she's doing okay. Well, rich people who don't give away money are a reason private charity can fail. But people like her are also a reason. Does she buy her clothes from goodwill? Does she have room in her house for women fleeing domestic violence to take shelter in? How much has she really extended herself?

I guess, I don't want to make the argument be all about her, but you can't say private charity fails when the people calling for it haven't even come close to going all-out on it.

d) While it is physically possible for the government to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, the incentive structures move wealth redistribution the other way. The rich get richer under government because they own it, and can use it to further their interests. Make your friend realize that elites and government are one in the same.

Its like asking a thief to guard your house just because the thief is richer (from stealing) than the honest people down the road. If anything we should reclaim our wealth from the government and use it to fund our private charities.

GOVERNMENT CREATES POVERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Democracy for Breakfast:

What the hell do you say to people like this?

The Conquest of Poverty; read it  http://mises.org/books/conquest.pdf

that's right, all vulgar socialists require homework. (keep them busy)

Snowflake:

Democracy for Breakfast:

While I agree with this, it isn't the issue. The argument is that charity/volunteer organizations are not enough to solve these problems. Government money funs them up til a year, while charity/donations barely funds 3-4 months.

a) maybe if government didn't take half of everyone's money (income tax, sales tax, 10% inflation by pre clinton CPI, etc) we'd have a lot more money to solve our problems.

b) http://www.nonprofitcareerguide.org/fact_sheet-scope.php looks big as hell to me.

c) I think your friend just doesn't want to go all out to help other people. She wants other people to help them. I bet she has her eye on rich people and thinks she's doing okay. Well, rich people who don't give away money are a reason private charity can fail. But people like her are also a reason. Does she buy her clothes from goodwill? Does she have room in her house for women fleeing domestic violence to take shelter in? How much has she really extended herself?

I guess, I don't want to make the argument be all about her, but you can't say private charity fails when the people calling for it haven't even come close to going all-out on it.

d) While it is physically possible for the government to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, the incentive structures move wealth redistribution the other way. The rich get richer under government because they own it, and can use it to further their interests. Make your friend realize that elites and government are one in the same.

Its like asking a thief to guard your house just because the thief is richer (from stealing) than the honest people down the road. If anything we should reclaim our wealth from the government and use it to fund our private charities.

GOVERNMENT CREATES POVERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You came pretty close. She works at a Domestic Violence agency. DV is her main profession.

 

Democracy for Breakfast:

You came pretty close. She works at a Domestic Violence agency. DV is her main profession.

You're not going to solve poverty with a system that is for the rich and by the rich. Any tax money her DV shelter gets inevitably comes out of the pockets of poor people.

I know, lets help poor people by taking their money and giving it back to them. Zero sum game. Derp.

Robinhood theories won't work with a state involved because the poor can't control the state. Its not that its physically impossible. Its the incentive structures that are all backwards.

Democracy for Breakfast:

You came pretty close. She works at a Domestic Violence agency. DV is her main profession.

My girl works at a "save the world/help the poor/social justice" agency.

Statistics don't work on her. Logic doesn't persuade her. The what if's of some mystical free market aren't convincing to her.

The only way I ever get through to her is to contantly remind her of the GUN. "Ok, I agree. But do you really want to threaten people with fines, jail time, or violence to make that happen?"

MatthewF:

My girl works at a "save the world/help the poor/social justice" agency.

Statistics don't work on her. Logic doesn't persuade her. The what if's of some mystical free market aren't convincing to her.

The only way I ever get through to her is to contantly remind her of the GUN. "Ok, I agree. But do you really want to threaten people with fines, jail time, or violence to make that happen?"

Im going to steal something I heard Roderick Long say today.

If you're poor, there are three ways you can get out of that situation.
1) you can start your own business
2) you can work for someone else
3) you can rely on charity

Long makes the case that the state makes all three of these more difficult

1) How difficult it is to start a business depends on the cost of starting a business. Surely there are always startup costs even in the free market, but the state adds costs on top of those. Taxes, regulations, licensing fees etc. These barriers to entry may not be a big deal to someone like bill gates who can hire a team of lawyers to deal with the red tape, and someone of middle class might still be able to start certain businesses, but to a poor person this becomes very difficult under the state. So the poor would have an easier time under the free market than the state using this method.

2) Or you can work for someone else. Obviously its good for employees if employers are competitive, since employers will have to pay you enough and treat you well enough so that you don't go work for someone else. So as mentioned above, if the state makes it harder to start a business, firms will be less competitive and workers will suffer as well. So the free market allows firms to compete more rigorously, and thus benefits both the worker and consumer since they have many choices available to them.

3) The same sort of argument applies to charity. Private charity is in competition with itself. I.e. non-profit firms are competing for donations with one another, and the firm that spends the money most efficiently on whatever social cause will continue to get more donations. This is why only 25% of money donated to charity is eaten up by overhead costs while 75% makes its way to the impoverished.

Conversely, the state has no incentive like this, which is why the ratio is flipped: 75% of welfare money is eaten up in overhead and only 25% makes its way to consumers. I.e. the state is 3x as wasteful.

But Long realized that even if the state were a lot more wasteful, there could still be more charity with a state if the state spent that much more money. While this is possible, it is unlikely to be persistently better than the free market, since the state must levy excessive taxes to pay for its inefficient charity a state-run economy will lag behind a free market economy, so that even if the free market economy donates a lower percentage of its wealth to charitable causes, it is still much better than the state since it is a piece of a bigger pie.

(Long ends here)

There are also other reasons to expect a state to fail at wealth redistribution; namely that elites either control government or grow out of government, and they have absolutely no incentive to make life better for poor people. So even if you think that wealth redistribution by force is an overall good thing, you shouldn't do it through the state since the state won't cooperate. Rather, the case for wealth redistribution has to be based off of legitimizing aggression by non-state institutions.

So state run wealth redistribution from rich to poor is unstable and likely to turn the other way.

I am with you (and Long) 100%. The problem is that most people aren't willing to make these simple logical deductions. I'll say it again:

MatthewF:

The what if's of some mystical free market aren't convincing to her.

I think we are doomed to be un-persuasive if we don't realize that the average person doesn't respond to logic. The key to being persuasive is to engage people's basic emotions: Fear and Hope.

MatthewF:

Fear and Hope.

But I am terrified of the state and hopeless about its reform :P

Snowflake:

But I am terrified of the state and hopeless about its reform :P

 

Now, if we could just bottle that feeling and sell it, we'd have Anarchist gold!