http://i.imgur.com/V58i1.jpg
Thoughts?
http://i.imgur.com/V58i1.jpg
Thoughts?
I disagreed until I saw economists discuss the mechanisms by which regulations against racism perpetuate racism and how the markets subvert racism. It's counter-intuitive, but that's how macroeconomics is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE
The short of it is that when racism is legal, the racist employer bears a cost for his racism because it means that he pays more for less production, while his competitor pays less for more production. Given how marginal standard business accounting is, none of them could survive their racism
I don't believe that's necessarily true. Surely an alternate outcome could simply be a very divided society where hatred and bigotry goes unchecked and creates such a then and us society that war would be very likely.
That outcome would be divergent from demonstrated reality though. We have loads of real life examples of ways in which anti-discrimination policy perpetuates racism and discrimination, and ways in which these problems work themselves out in the absence of law enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
To Dr. King's credit, his biggest accomplishment was to undo some of the state-sanctioned racism of his day. Private businesses that discriminated against blacks were never the problem. A mild nuisance at best. We can choose not to eat at a white-only restaurant, but we cannot choose not to have a racist judge, or a racist district attorney, or a segregated public school. As with most problems, its only really a problem when it involves the state.
You don't need a law against discrimination to prevent businesses from discriminating. The profit and loss system already takes care of that. A restaurant that only allows whites to walk in will be at a massive disadvantage to one that doesn't discriminate. A firm that only hires whites will be at a disadvantage to competing firm that hires the equally-qualified blacks at a lower salary and underbids them on every project (due to having lower overhead costs).
The only time something like a white-only restaurant or a white-only country club would exist in a free society would be where it is valued. That is, when racist customers so value being in an environment with only white people that they are willing to pay out the ass for it. And even in this case, the business has to worry about its reputation in the community. A lot of these problems just work themselves out culturally.
That assumes a mixed group to start with. If you already have a clear geographical divide then that economic incentive doesn't exist.
And doesn't the current system work reasonably well in mixed areas? I don't know that's true. But I assume life is easier for a black guy in New York now than it was 50 yrs ago.
It's much easier, but it is for everybody as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I think something we forget about is how racism against blacks in America is not unique. Slavery was unique, but racism, bigotry, and overall inherent dejection was/is not. Asians and many Europeans (the latter of whom are now considered mainstream whites) are just two groups who were treated just as poorly as blacks post-slavery. The argument could be made they were treated just as bad as blacks in slavery, but nobody wants to hear that. I said this to say that I have a theory that the main thing that has kept the black community from rising up like, say, the Chinese or Irish, is the expectation that the government must intervene. The government hardly did shit for Chinese and Irish, yet the epic levels of racism against them has deteriorated by magnitudes and they're at the top of the food chain now
Enter: free trade and free migration. These are among the main tools that subvert bad practices by businesses due to geography.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Another argument that is extremely hard to make since nobody wants to hear it (or even write about it) is that it is possible that slavery was being subverted by the markets as is (and the Civil War created more suffering for the "same" ultimate result). Slaves were not productive at all and the costs bore by slave-owners was bigger than people think. It wouldn't have taken that much industrial growth from the 1850s and on to price slavery completely out of the market
Look at where we have slavery today. People say sweatshops are slavery, but people are wrong. By definition sweatshops are not slavery and the workers choose the labor for the wages. They also very much do not want to give up what they have. The ignoramous West would have us think that sweatshop workers don't want to do it, but they do. Wages in them have skyrocketed too, because everybody in their positions want to do it. Or there's "prostitution slavery", which is duh a product of government laws. There would be zero market for forced prostitution if it wasn't black market exclusive
This post has been pretty side tangenty, but I guess I went there for a reason.
Proximity + diversity = conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
nazi germany & the jews?
I suspect that when a state has complete control of all things, if it doesn't make racism/xenophobia illegal, those may play a big role in how the society is organizedQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I wouldn't want to use the Nazis as an example of what goes wrong when it isn't illegal to be racist. It's one of the few examples in all history where the state had utter control over all things. Even industry was an arm of the state
If you give racists total control, they're gonna use their huge power to express their racism. Your statement is an argument against socialism and the government, not against regulation of racism by the government. In fact, Nazis regulated racism big time. They just regulated it on values that you and I disagree with
Discrimination is just a negatively-connoted version of the word "choice." It's completely subject to the individual. People should be able to choose to do and not do whatever they want, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. A law against sexual or racial discrimination, whether it applies to employee hiring or customer service, is problematic for a few basic reasons.
First, in many cases, it's prosecuting thought crime. If I own a restaurant and I don't admit a customer, it could be for a number of reasons. He could be blackballed by the local restaurants as someone who walks out without paying his bill. He could be against the stated dress code. He could just be a guy I don't like. But if he is black or Hispanic or whatever, it doesn't matter what the real reason is, I'm not letting him in because he's a minority, end of discussion. If I'm an employer and I turn down a female applicant or fire a female employee, again, it could be for any number of legitimate reasons, but laws attempt to assume what my real reasons are.
Second, even if you know for sure that someone is discriminating solely based on race or sex, it is wrong and in fact hurtful to society to have a law against that behavior.
Two funny stories about bakeries:
1) A bakery in Oregon was in the news a few months ago because they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, saying it was against their Christian beliefs. This was in violation of laws, and they're now facing a $150,000 fine that probably will bankrupt them.
2) A bakery in Colorado has was requested by a customer to make a cake with a picture of two guys holding hands and an 'X' over it. They refused to bake this cake, and now are being sued by the customer for discrimination. And the case actually has legs.
I think one of the most grotesque things about law as it applies to businesses, especially those which serve walk-in customers directly, is that they're considered by the legal code to be "public places," a term which makes my skin crawl. I own a restaurant, barbershop, whatever, I pay the bills every month, the property tax, the maintenance and upkeep, but it's a public place that I don't have full control and ownership of. I don't even have the full autonomy to choose my staff, or to choose to let them go when they're not productive enough to keep.
It's very telling actually about the underlying state of things. In reality, there is no ownership, no automony, and restricted choice. We just lease everything we have from the state. If we do anything that goes against the state's arbitrarily-manufactured morality, we forfeit all privileges to participate.
Wowowowow, hold your horses.
Remember the "blacks-only" toilets? Do you mean we should go back to that era? And that society should dictate whether or not this sticks?
because society already decided way back when, btw.
Of course I don't think we should go back to that era, I'm just saying a law was unnecessary. If someone wants to have a white-only toilet in their privately-owned business, I think that they should be allowed to do that. There shouldn't be a law against being a cunt, otherwise there would be (and in fact are) way too many laws. Voluntary society already does plenty to dissuade people from conducting their businesses in cunty, unprofitable, and discriminatory manners such as this. There is no way that a restaurant with a white-only toilet would survive in a modern economy. And where one would happen to survive, it would have great difficulty because of massive public shaming campaigns and boycotts on behalf of black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
let racists be racists so we can all punish their racism
when you make racism illegal, you just push it underground, where it lives forever
If it weren't obvious from my previous posts in this thread, I should add that civil rights legislation was likely necessary in America, but ONLY because of the fact that the government meddles unnecessarily in so many aspects of the economy. For example, since the vast majority of children go to government schools, it is necessary to legislate desegregation of those schools. But this is like saying you needed to take penicillin for your appendicitis, when the real underlying cause was your defective organ. You take the medicine again and again and keep getting sick.
^definitely
besides, the private market does a far better job stopping racism than the government. look what happens whenever a public figure says anything remotely racist yet totally legal. most of them become pariahs. it ruins their lives
if we truly want to stop racism we would get the government out of it. there is far more racism enacted that is sponsored by the government than we find in the private sector. the hardest thing in the world is to run a business or be an employee and appear to be racist, but the government systematically engages in racist behavior that ruins the lives of millions
I understand the stance you're taking, but I don't believe for a second that racism would have reduced at the rate it has without government intervention. You seem to forget that things like forcing schools to not segregate has a massive effect on the kids in those schools and the generations that follow in terms of realising stereotypes based on colour have very little to do with reality. If you start in an extremely polarized position it takes something big and bold to give alternative perspectives a chance to gain some momentum.
Now from the position we're in now you may have a point because we have things like the internet that allows information to move incredibly quickly. But 60 years ago this wasn't the case.
I think the more polarized and segregated the population is the greater there is a need for equality to be given a bit of a nudge by legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Because of government schools. My point in a prior post was that this discrimination is only *really* hurtful when the state does it.
one of your overall points is accurate. it's basically that for something to grow, it needs nurturing. which is trueQuote:
Originally Posted by rong
for the most part, though, i think these things arent positively nurtured by the government. gotta keep in mind that slavery existed by government sponsorship already. essential in the foundation of government is that it operates on consensus within its power reach. this is why government policies mostly reflect what the citizens think, not vise versa
government didnt fight the civil war, citizens did. because they believed in it. imo government is most accurately defined as a cog in the system. where you get change that government adopts, you would have had it without government. but where you get change, government stymies it
I don't think you can do away with it outright but it has definitely overshot its purpose and is causing more problems than it is solving. It's a complicated matter because people do behave differently and are perceived differently because of that.
Asians don't like black people. Black-only cast Hollywood movies do very poorly in Asia, a growing market that is already like 40% of the expected audience of a Hollywood movie. There was an email from the hacked Sony archives where someone explained this to his superior. Racism vs business.
And I read an article yesterday that a group of black people are suing a certain McDonalds outlet. The management fired all the black people and told them they were going to hire more white people and had to "make it look less like the ghetto". Racism or a business decision? For sure they'll get convicted because they were so open about it but to what degree do you want to force people to ignore their bottom line?
From Renton's post a few up:
Some people may argue that racism does hurt people.Quote:
Discrimination is just a negatively-connoted version of the word "choice." It's completely subject to the individual. People should be able to choose to do and not do whatever they want, so long as they aren't hurting anyone.
But never mind that shit. Is there such a thing as a capitalism index, some form of table ranking how capitalistic each country is?
The only thing that is hurtful to people is aggression. Aggression in the name of racism can be hurtful, but laws against discrimination do not effectively curb this.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
As far as your second question, yeah I'm sure there is such a thing, probably just a matter of googling it. The one I'm most familiar with is the heritage foundation's index of economic freedom. It's reasonable but any index like this is going to have weaknesses. This particular one doesn't appear to ascribe enough tyranny to taxation. A lot of the highly-ranked countries have very high tax burdens.
From Renton:
I strongly disagree with the bold. It's necessary to hurt at least some people at least some of the time.Quote:
Discrimination is just a negatively-connoted version of the word "choice." It's completely subject to the individual. People should be able to choose to do and not do whatever they want, so long as they aren't hurting anyone.
Yeah the more I read some peoples posts on here the more I completely agree that people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't physically harm anyone else and I mean directly not through indirect ways. I do however disagree that previous posts such as that company getting destroyed for being dicks to pizza men is a bad thing and should be gotten rid of that is the public wrath deciding completely irrationally what should and shouldn't be allowed, which is absolutely no different to the public acting on mass outrage to absolutely any public issue regardless of how wrong or right we later decide we were as a community to act that way.
Why is aggression to any issue any different, this is exactly what private police forces or militias do. Not that I'm arguing this is what any police force does. If you mean people acting uneconomically towards people who are different in a way society perceives (a completely human condition) then you must admit they would only adapt faster when the market was free so it isn't hurtful in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Aggression is pretty clear cut.
1) Destroying or taking someone's property. This includes all forms of vandalism, theft, and fraud.
2) Destroying or coercing someone. This includes all form of murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault.
You don't even need a 2) if you believe in self-ownership. Private police forces will not initiate aggression except as a response to aggression. If they did, they wouldn't survive their competitors. Again and again I need to emphasize the fact that private entities are more accountable to liability than states are. The free market simply cannot support the kind of wholesale tyranny that states are famous for, try as anti-capitalist muckrakers may to misrepresent the issue.