17 Sep 2014

The Market Loves Jackie Robinson

Economics, Shameless Self-Promotion 93 Comments

My latest article at LibertyChat. An excerpt:

There was another example of this pattern very soon afterwards in the movie. Jackie Robinson’s team (he was not yet with the Dodgers organization) was traveling on a bus and stopped for gas. He got off the bus and approached the bathroom at the station, but the white guy who had just started pumping the gas said, “Hey boy, you know you can’t go in there.” After a moment of deliberation, Robinson announced to his team, “C’mon fellas, we’re leaving. We’ll buy our 99 gallons of gas someplace else.” (These aren’t exact quotes, I’m just paraphrasing from memory.) Balancing his desire to make a big sale against his desire to uphold local customs of segregation, the white guy at the pump relents and tells Robinson he can use the bathroom, as he resumes filling up the bus with gas.

93 Responses to “The Market Loves Jackie Robinson”

  1. Harold says:

    The market will indeed exert pressure to remove discrimination. However, the market can only deliver according to how people act. If there is a large majority that wants discrimination, then that will be delivered. Human action, according to Mises and Rothbard is always rational. The market is the sum of these rational choices. However the reasons for these preferences may be irrational, or arbitrary. Since the market does not involve these underying structures, the market will continue to reflect them as long as they exist. One would expect the market to slowly erode these prejudices, but it may be a very slow process if members of the discriminating group are never presented with counter examples. Surely it is possible in principle to improve the situation by tackling these underlying irrationalities? Anti discrimination policies force people to address their prejudice by encouraging them into contact with the object of their prejudice. It is harder to maintain a prejudice such as group X are smelly and don’t work hard if one is presented with a contradiction every day.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Harold, yes it is crucial how people act in order for the market process to help reduce boneheaded prejudices.

      But your arguments on “anti-discrimination” are problematic. You said anti-discrimination laws “force people to address their prejudice by encouraging them into contact with each other. Let us be clear. The encouragement you speak of is not if and when it suits a person to come into contact with someone else (and that other person as well) according to their judgments relating to race and to material gains through trade. The encouragement you speak of is one person being threatened with kidnapping and a cage if they refuse to give service or allow land property entry to someone else because of the owner’s prejudices concerning race. I don’t see how forcing people who don’t otherwise want to come into contact with each other, to have one party decide for another against their will on whether there will be contact that you suggest will only have the consequence of reduced resentment, rather than increased resentment.

      Besides this however, the way you just non-chalantly propose to have me or anyone else on this blog kidnapped and imprisoned if we don’t want to provide a service using our own property, to someone else, strikes me as contradictory to the platform with which you have decided to publicize your beliefs. You seem to want to rationally convince people of something you believe in, but the content of what you believe in requires no convincing; you don’t actually need or want anyone’s thoughts or agreements on this. You want guns and prisons to reduce what would otherwise be effectively one person not allowing someone else to enter their house due to what that person looks like, all of this regardless of whether we are convinced or not. You’ve made up your mind on what you want to happen to others, at gunpoint.

      An irony here is that you are just replacing one form of prejudice for another. Your prejudice is that anyone who refuses service side of a potential trade should be imprisoned, but those who refuse the payment side of a potential trade should not be imprisoned. That is a prejudice against everyone who owns and might be willing to trade away goods and services. Instead of being a racist, you want to increase classism. Violence against those who might want to trade away something other than money, and peace for those who might want to trade away money. It is economic prejudice.

      You assert that the market process “may be a very slow process if members are never presented with counter-examples”. Well if those people are never presented with counter-examples, then anti-discrimination laws would never even in principle be enforced, because there would be no opportunity for violence against property owners who refuse to sell to those counter-example people. It would be like setting a law that says jail for anyone who refuses to sell to an exclusively Latin speaker.

      In my view, and the view of libeetarians, only violent actions that are aggressions against person or property should be met with violent responses. Since me refusing to give my property to someone else and not enter into any contract with them is as peaceful an action as you can get (since there is not even a possibility of “helping” thrm in a way that inadvertantly inflicts damages on them (hello 99% of all state laws!)), using violence here would be terribly inappropriate. If you insist it is appropriate anyway, then what is the principle behind it, and why do you prejudicially exclude money payers?

      (Hint: the state has an incentive to force people to accept dollars from people as much as they can get away with…I’ll leave it to you to figure out why).

      • Philippe says:

        in other words, the above is an illogical defence of racism based on the rhetorical/emotive use of words such as ‘guns’ and ‘cages’

        • Scott D says:

          I think that racists should not be shot on sight

          Therefore,

          I am a racist.

          • Philippe says:

            “I think that racists should not be shot on sight”

            like practically everyone else.

            “Therefore, I am a racist.”

            Well, no.

            there seems to be a basic problem with your logic… you have jumped a couple of steps.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              You’re right.

              He skipped peacefully refusing to pay any fines the state threatens him with, and peacefully refusing to trade with people of one or more races the state demands he trades with if those people want to trade with him, and if he only threatens to use force if and only if others threaten to initiate force against him.

              Then he will be shot on sight. All for refusing to give a guy a haircut and protecting his person and property from initiations of force.

              • Philippe says:

                ignoring your dumb and irrational rhetoric, it should be obvious to any sane person that no one should support the idea that ‘racists should be shot on sight’.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Ignoring your insults and evasions, you missed the point.

              • Harold says:

                No, he said “shot on sight.” the process you describe is not “on sight.” Shoot on sight means immediately on being seen. It is incorrect usage to say that the victim of a firing squad was shot on sight simply because the firing squad can see him.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Harold,

                Shooting someone on sight includes seeing that someone armed with a weapon.

              • Harold says:

                MF – this seems to be another case of words meaning whatever you want them to mean. Shoot on sight in all references I have found does not mean shoot only when someone has been seen with a weapon. It certainly was not what I understood by the term, so I thought I had better have a look in case this idiom varies geographically. But no, it pretty much seems to mean shoot on sight. not shoot only when arms are seen.

            • Scott D says:

              You advocate the use of force to stop racists from being, well, racists. Then, when someone finds a problem with you advocating the use of force, you accuse them of defending racism. Show me where I’ve misrepresented you, please.

              This is the same old ad hominem that we get from the New York Times and Huffington Post.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          That is an incorrect “in other words.”

          The use of the words “guns” and “cages” was accurate. The state’s laws are backed by guns and cages.

          What, did you think anti-discrimination laws were polite recommendations?

          I wasn’t defending racism. I was defending any and all actions that do not violate other people’s private property rights. It just so happens to include racism.

          You are trying to illogically defend state violence against otherwise peaceful people who have beliefs you don’t approve of.

          • Philippe says:

            “The state’s laws are backed by guns and cages”

            That’s funny. So I suppose your ‘peaceful people’ supposed laws are not ‘backed’ by ‘guns’ and ‘cages’.

            They are instead backed by sunflowers and happy faces. And rainbows and the smell of newly-cut grass.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              “That’s funny. So I suppose your ‘peaceful people’ supposed laws are not ‘backed’ by ‘guns’ and ‘cages’.”

              Non-aggressive laws are not backed by guns and cages.

              You want laws to themselves be initiations of force, against otherwise peaceful people who don’t want to trade with someone.

              I am not signing or agreeing or consenting to any state law by opening a business. Just because the state reacts the way they do, it does not mean I am the facilitator of binding a particular state law to my person or property.

              A law that is itself an initiation of force against people’s persons or property is a law “backed” by force.

              A law that is not an initiation of force against people’s persons or property is a law not “backed” by force.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              All attempts and acts of initiating force against person or property are attempts and acts of imposing laws backed by force.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              Glad you agree “guns” and “cages” are accurate descriptions of state laws.

      • Harold says:

        Of course such laws have a cost. You reject this cost as not worth it on the basis of a principle without considering the magnitude of the costs or benefits.

        Rather like the asteroid example, even if the consequences were destruction of mankind, the cost would be too high for you to pay.

        A law that prevented discrimination against people who spoke only Latin would have few costs. There are no such people, so there could be no breach or the law. Whilst the costs would be few, they do exist, and there would also be no benefits, so I would not recommend such a law.

        It is pointless to ban discrimination which does not exist. Only in the face of evidence that there is widespread prejudice does it become arguably worthwhile.

    • K.P. says:

      “Anti discrimination policies force people to address their prejudice by encouraging them into contact with the object of their prejudice. It is harder to maintain a prejudice such as group X are smelly and don’t work hard if one is presented with a contradiction every day.”

      What if some stereotypes just get confirmed by the increased interaction?

      • Philippe says:

        stereotypes are not necessarily the same thing as prejudices..

        • K.P. says:

          Didn’t say they necessarily were.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Woosh

          Philippe, in terms of evading arguments, you are the worst.

          • Philippe says:

            lol, you have no sense of irony at all, do you mf.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              The word you’re looking for is hypocrisy.

              THAT is ironic, lol.

              • Harold says:

                Prejudice “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.” It is unlikely that a preconceived notion not based on experience or reason will be supported by the facts. If it is, then it ceases to be a prejudice and becomes a conclusion. It is possible that some stereotypes are not based on prejudice, but I did not say stereotype, I said prejudice.

  2. Bob Roddis says:

    When the term “the market” is used, what is really meant? If the NAP is in effect, people and their property are safe from assaultive behavior. This applies to poor people in Central America as well as to blacks and whites in the south who wish to interact voluntarily. Economic theory would suggest that southern whites found it necessary to enact Jim Crow laws BECAUSE voluntary discrimination and segregation could not be enforced voluntarily. Thus, blacks and whites who wished to engage in voluntary interaction were subject to state power and threats from thugs like the KKK. Such an environment cannot be described as “the market” where all voluntary actors are safe from harm and threats of harm.

    I submit that the “progressives” purposefully refuse to differentiate democratically enacted Jim Crow laws and “the free market” regardless of the topic and especially when it comes to race.

    C. Vann Woodward’s book, “The Strange Career of Jim Crow” from 1955 demonstrated that southern segregation did not always exists and that it was the product of democratic action beginning in the 1890s. I read the book last year and this is a nice description:

    Woodward is an equal-opportunity myth-exploder. On the one hand, he demonstrates at great length that segregation was not a mere expression of racism, but in fact a complex and corrupt outworking of many political and economic interests in the impoverished, post-Reconstruction South. On the other hand, he also shows conclusively that segregation took time to develop: it was not, as its supporters claimed, the way things had always been, or even the way things had come to be immediately following the war, but had actually arisen thirty and even forty years later, with the removal of Northern troops, the disintegration of Republican influence, a national “taking up of the white man’s burden” with regard to “colored” peoples abroad, and increasing economic distress which allowed successive Populists and Democrats to consolidate power by limiting white exposure to the threat of competing (and competitive) blacks. These things, combined with a series of Supreme Court rulings sanctioning segregation, produced a wicked stew which more modern readers found extremely unpalatable upon Woodward’s closer examination.

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R35KGWFXXFC7G5/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0195146905&nodeID=283155&store=books

    All historical analysis should be undertaken employing a meticulous differentiation between voluntary activity and those activities subject to the initiation of violence and the threats of such violence. Power and Market, to coin a phrase.

    • Philippe says:

      “the market” where all voluntary actors are safe from harm and threats of harm”

      Who enforces this law in your imaginary ideal society?

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Guys, I don’t want this to turn into a discussion of anarchocapitalist law enforcement. Philippe you know full well what the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth responses from Bob R. would be. There are literally books that have been written on this topic.

        If you want to challenge the central claim in this post–that the free market tends to minimize unfair discrimination–go ahead and challenge.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          But he isn’t sure yet about the 6th through 10,000th response, and one day like a doomsaying Austrian, he is expecting a collapse…in the argument.

        • Philippe says:

          Bob,

          “If you want to challenge the central claim in this post–that the free market tends to minimize unfair discrimination–go ahead and challenge.”

          the problem is your definition of ‘the free market’ seems to be a radically different political/social system, i.e. ‘anarcho-capitalism’. So I am asking questions about this imaginary system.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            But you know the answers, that is Bob’s point.

            The free market is not “radically” different than the convention, by the way. It is almost exactly the same, except ancaps add security and protection, whereas normal, healthy, sane and productive members of society stop short of that.

            Clear?

            Back to the anti-discrimantion topic, how would adding security and protection to the free market affect incentives regarding racism?

          • Philippe says:

            In response to your post, you say:

            “In a free market economy, where the government doesn’t interfere with the voluntary exchange of property at market prices, unfair discrimination is costly.”

            Ok, but if the government creates the laws within its jurisdiction, then allowing unjust discrimination to occur within that area would represent a neglect of duty, or complicity with the unjust discrimination taking place.

            You can’t really say: yes there are unjust things happening in this country, but the government should do nothing because the amount of unjust things will probably diminish over time on their own.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              Philippe:

              ” Ok, but if the government creates the laws within its jurisdiction, then allowing unjust discrimination to occur within that area would represent a neglect of duty, or complicity with the unjust discrimination taking place.”

              Unjust discrimination? The question is whether such laws are just in the first place, and whether the market can reduce racial prejudice without bringing any normative claim into the racism question.

              • Philippe says:

                “The question is whether such laws are just in the first place”

                the assumption in Bob’s article is that discrimination simply on the basis of race is not justified, but that ‘the free market’ would reduce such discrimination on its own over time. My point is that if the govt legally permits such discrimination it is complicit, or neglecting its duty.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                My point is that if the govt legally permits such discrimination it is complicit, or neglecting its duty.

                That attitude is totalitarian. It can (and was) applied by racists who saw voluntary behavior of which they disapproved and had the state insistute separate toilets at all southern gas stations based on race (I personally saw them). To have done otherwise would have been a neglect of their duties (as some saw those duties).

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “the assumption in Bob’s article is that discrimination simply on the basis of race is not justified, but that ‘the free market’ would reduce such discrimination on its own over time. My point is that if the govt legally permits such discrimination it is complicit, or neglecting its duty.”

                Yes, I understand your point.

                I just don’t see how it relates to Bob’s point. Bob’s point applies whether there are government laws concerning racial discrimination or not.

              • Philippe says:

                “Bob’s point applies whether there are government laws concerning racial discrimination or not.”

                please elaborate… I’m not sure what you mean.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Not sure what you are not clear on. Elaborate how.

              • Rick Hull says:

                Philippe,

                The standard libertarian position on racial discrimination is that it should not be prohibited. Nearly always, we are ultimately talking about a two-party transaction that one party would like to refuse. There is no harm, moral or otherwise, in this refusal to transact. In fact, the refusal to transact (for any reason) can be held as a right.

                Keep this in mind, even if you disagree. What follows does not depend on the above.

                1. Market activity tends to reward non-prejudicial transactions. That is, economic benefit accrues to those who consider economic activity only on the merits and not on merely preliminary indicators such as eye color, fingernail length, or skin color.

                2. Every law has at least a minimal cost associated with it: the opportunity cost of deliberation across many groups of people, the ink and paper, the enforcement cost, the awareness cost, the search cost, etc.

                3. Some laws, in fact, violate natural rights and legal rights, even when the body of law holds otherwise. When recognized, these must be held as costs in any cost / benefit analysis.

                Where laws demand racial discrimination, market activity tends to reward defiance of such laws. Where laws prohibit racial discrimination, market activity tends to reward accordance. Where such laws do not exist, market activity tends to reward non-discrimination.

                Thus, laws regarding racial discrimination have little benefit and significant cost at best.

            • Bob Roddis says:

              Why won’t you engage the point that people would not tend to discriminate if it cost them money and if they were physically safe to not discriminate? Why won’t you engage the point that widespread discrimination occurred in the past mostly due to private and government threats of violence against the person and property of those who wished to engage in voluntary interaction?

              But we know why you are compelled to always change the subject.

              • Philippe says:

                “That attitude is totalitarian”

                No it isn’t. I was saying that it would be a neglect of duty if the government chose to allow an injustice to continue unabated within its jurisdiction.

                Your response seems to be that maybe the racist discrimination I am referring to wasn’t really unjust.

                This is a different argument to that made by Bob Murphy.

                His article suggests that the racist discrimination was not justified, but that ‘market forces’ would have somehow solved the problem over time.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe,

                Please engage the argument that in the market process of respect for private property rights, that there are money opportunity costs to refusing to trade with people because of their race.

                How about the counter-argument that perhaps the customers of someone will themselves stop buying from that seller if that seller is no longer refusing service to people the other customers are racist towards?

                How about the counter-argument to THAT, which is that there will be costs incurred by the customers if that seller is providing a better product than other sellers?

                Anything is better than reading how you don’t like ancapistan for the millionth time.

              • Philippe says:

                “Please engage the argument that in the market process of respect for private property rights, that there are money opportunity costs to refusing to trade with people because of their race.”

                Please engage the argument that the organization which determines private property rights and market rules can not pretend to be indifferent to injustices occurring within its jurisdiction.

                If it does nothing, it is complicit or neglecting its duty.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Assuming a government is “neglecting its duty”, please engage the argument about the market reducing racism.

                Imagine living in a country without state laws against discrimination.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            First, do you agree or disagree with the argument that a minarchist society that did not have laws against refraining from trade for any reason, will have incentives for people to do what the gasoline station attendant did?

            • Philippe says:

              “a minarchist society that did not have laws against refraining from trade for any reason”

              that’s a mischaracterisation. Anti-racial discrimination laws don’t force people to trade, they set minimum standards for trading within a jurisdiction. i.e. if you want to operate a business in this country you have to follow these basic rules. That doesn’t mean you have to operate a business.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe,

                You are mischaracterizing anti-discrimination laws.

                If a person of race X, call him Mr. X, wants to trade with Mr. Smith, specifically Mr. X wants to buy a haircut from Mr. Smith, but Mr. Smith does not want to provide a haircut to Mr. X because Mr. Smith is racist against X’s, then anti-discriminatory laws state that Mr. Smith is acting illegally, and subject to punishment under the anti-discrimination law.

                In other words, in order for Mr. Smith to avoid such punishment, backed of course by physical force, he is forced to trade with Mr. X. Being forced to do something by government means you will be subject to violence if you don’t do what the government says, which is to trade with Mr. X if Mr. X wants to trade.

                What you call “setting minimum standards for trading” doesn’t address what exactly happens and what force is being threatened and for what exactly. It is just sterile, pundit or journalist talk.

                To claim “well then just don’t a business then” is just assuming and sanctioning the violence inherent in the anti-discrimination laws that coerce people into trading with people they otherwise don’t consent to trading with.

                To set a “minimum standard” that is itself an initiation or threat of initiating force against people’s persons and property is what ancaps know to be immoral and unjust, regardless of whether the law says otherwise. What, are we not allowed to challenge any laws? Or just those you personally disapprove of? You can challenge any law you want, and I will not do what you do, which is to say “Then leave your own land” or “Just stop questioning and obey what other property owners demand from you regarding your own property” or some other silly response that just assumes I am right and you are wrong.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe,

                Do you agree that in a free market, there are money costs of being a racist?

              • Major.Freedom says:

                By that I mean money opportunity costs.

              • a says:

                “he is forced to trade with Mr. X”

                no, he isn’t forced to trade with Mr X. If he doesn’t want to trade with Mr X then he doesn’t have to.

                The law simply states that if he wants to operate a business in this jurisdiction then he has to abide by certain basic rules… No one is forcing him to trade with anybody.

              • Philippe says:

                “he is forced to trade with Mr. X”

                no, he isn’t forced to trade with Mr X. If he doesn’t want to trade with Mr X then he doesn’t have to.

                The law simply states that if he wants to operate a business in this jurisdiction then he has to abide by certain basic rules… no one is forcing him to trade with anybody.

              • Philippe says:

                “Do you agree that in a free market, there are money costs of being a racist?”

                what do you mean by ‘free market’?

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “no, he isn’t forced to trade with Mr X. If he doesn’t want to trade with Mr X then he doesn’t have to.”

                Yes, he does. If he doesn’t then he will be subject to the state’s punishment, backed by force.

                That is what is meant by being forced to trade.

                What, are you saying that if tomorrow, Microsoft declared that henceforth, they will no longer trade with people of a certain race, that the government will just sit on their thumbs and say oh well, I guess Microsoft is not going to agree with our polite recommendation?

                Don’t make me laugh. No, the state will send letters in the mail, perhaps from a lawyer of a person of race X. That lawyer of course would be appealing to the state to threaten force against Microsoft executives.

                Philippe, do I really have to go through the whole explanation here? Please wake up will ya?

                “The law simply states that if he wants to operate a business in this jurisdiction then he has to abide by certain basic rules… no one is forcing him to trade with anybody.”

                Those “basic rules” include “agree to trade with Mr. X if he wants to, you are not allowed to say no.”

                You are flat wrong Philippe.

                “Do you agree that in a free market, there are money costs of being a racist?”

                “What do you mean by ‘free market’?”

                Private property and free trade.

              • Philippe says:

                “Yes, he does. If he doesn’t then he will be subject to the state’s punishment, backed by force”

                no, you are not forced to open a business or forced to trade with anyone.

                If you want to start a business or trade within a given jurisdiction then you are required to abide by the rules in that jurisdiction.

                But no one is forcing you to start a business in that jurisdiction or forcing you to trade with anyone.

                The law simply sets basic standards for trading. You can choose to accept them or decline them.

              • Philippe says:

                for example, if you want to open a stall in a market you have to agree to the rules of the market, and pay your fees. No one is forcing you to open a stall, you choose to do so…

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “no, you are not forced to open a business or forced to trade with anyone.”

                Nobody is forcing the state to require permission from anyone who wants to sell haircuts to people.

                It doesn’t matter if you get the state’s permission to do what all along had a right to do without having to get the state’s permission.

                Libertarians do not believe in fascist ethics like you, where people can refuse to trade with others if they haven’t “opened a business”, i.e. requested and was given permission by the state to sell goods and services.

                If people do “open a business”, then those people are forced to trade with people they might otherwise not want to trade with. You can call this “merely abiding by minimum standards”, but it is in fact a violation of the seller’s property rights, regardless of whether they got permission to run that business on their own land or not.

                “If you want to start a business or trade within a given jurisdiction then you are required to abide by the rules in that jurisdiction.”

                Playing show and tell is not a justification for what you are showing.

                What you call “required to abide by the rules” is really “If Mr. X wants to trade, but you are wanting not to trade with him because you don’t want to deal with people of certain races, then its guns and a cage for you if you refuse to trade.

                “The law simply sets basic standards for trading. You can choose to accept them or decline them.”

                You are ignoring the consequences of not doing what the state tells you to do in this respect.

                Merely telling me “that is the law, obey it or else” is not a rational argument.

                Your argument can be used to JUSTIFY racism. If a government sets a law that says “If any Jew wants to open a business, then they must sell their goods at a 10% discount to gentiles.”.

                According to your “logic”, Jews are “not forced to open a business”, and the government is “merely setting a minimum standard for trading”, and Jews “can choose to accept them or not”

              • Philippe says:

                “If Mr. X wants to trade, but you are wanting not to trade with him because you don’t want to deal with people of certain races, then its guns and a cage for you if you refuse to trade”

                No. If you don’t want to trade with Mr.X then you don’t have to trade with Mr.X.

                However, if you want to trade in area Z then you will have to follow area Z rules. But you are not forced to trade in area Z.

                “According to your “logic”, Jews are “not forced to open a business”

                there is nothing in your comment which indicates that Jews are forced to open a business.

                Standards set by governments can be just or unjust. A racist rule which aims to discriminate against Jews might well be considered unjust… but that is precisely why we have generally eliminated such rules.

                in contrast, you want to allow such racist rules to come back, under the guise of so-called ancap ‘liberty’.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “No. If you don’t want to trade with Mr.X then you don’t have to trade with Mr.X.”

                “However, if you want to trade in area Z then you will have to follow area Z rules.”

                That IS being forced to trade with Mr. X, because Area Z rules are that you are forced to trade, even though Area Z is not owned by those enforcing such laws.

                “But you are not forced to trade in area Z.”

                “According to your “logic”, Jews are “not forced to open a business”

                “There is nothing in your comment which indicates that Jews are forced to open a business.”

                I know, that is the point. According to your logic, Jews are not being forced to give discounts because the discount law is predicated on them first “opening a business.”

                “Standards set by governments can be just or unjust.”

                Why are you not engaging ancap arguments that anti-discrimination laws are unjust, but you want us to engage your opinions on unjust laws only?

                “A racist rule which aims to discriminate against Jews might well be considered unjust…”

                Why is it unjust? The state isn’t forcing the Jews to open any business. They are only “setting rules for Area Z.”

                “ut that is precisely why we have generally eliminated such rules.”

                Why can a state law be unjust? Why aren’t all state laws just by definition?

                “In contrast, you want to allow such racist rules to come back, under the guise of so-called ancap ‘liberty’.”

                No, I want to stop/reduce initiations of force against people’s persons and property.

                You want some people to initiate force against others under the guise of justice.

              • Philippe says:

                “That IS being forced to trade with Mr. X, because Area Z rules are that you are forced to trade, even though Area Z is not owned by those enforcing such laws”

                Ok, this is an example of a logical non sequitur.

                “Why is it unjust? The state isn’t forcing the Jews to open any business”

                Ok, so you have contradicted yourself… Care to explain why?

                “Why aren’t all state laws just by definition?”

                Why do you think they should be? You apparently believe in the concept of ‘ancap private law’… are all supposed ‘ancap private laws’ just by definition? I’m guessing that no, they are not.

                “No, I want to stop/reduce initiations of force against people’s persons and property.”

                Ah, so you want to use meaningless and circular rhetorical devices to back up your pre-conceived ideological beliefs. It would be better if you were honest about this.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Please engage the argument by assuming a government not enforcing anti-discrimination laws and “neglecting its duty.”

                Bob’s argument requires that assumption. Please engage the argument Bob posted on his own blog.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Ok, this is an example of a logical non sequitur.”

                No it isn’t. A property owner choosing to produce and sell goods is not in itself an agreement to abide by whatever rules the state declares enforceable on that land.

                One person choosing to produce and sell goods using their own property is not a choice to never refuse to sell to people of certain races (or any other appearance).

                A black store owner should be able to refuse to sell to white KKK members.

                “Why is it unjust? The state isn’t forcing the Jews to open any business”

                “Ok, so you have contradicted yourself… Care to explain why?”

                I was just imitating you in the most obvious manner, hoping you would catch on.

                “Why aren’t all state laws just by definition?”

                “Why…”

                No, you did not answer the question. Please answer my questions as I have been courteous in answering yours.

                “No, I want to stop/reduce initiations of force against people’s persons and property.”

                “Ah, so you want to…”

                …stop and reduce initiations of force against people’s persons and property.

                Yes exactly. No circular logic.

              • Harold says:

                ““What do you mean by ‘free market’?”
                Private property and free trade.”

                This raises the question of what do you mean by free trade? Most definitions seem to mean unrestricted trade between countries. I am assuming you mean trade between individuals is not restricted by any laws.

                Under this definition there is no guarantee that there will be a monetary cost to discrimination. It will depend on the discriminatory and wealth distribution of the area in which one trades.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          For the sake of this argument, we can assume that there are no problems with the current government that can’t be cured with more protection for private property and person from whatever source that protection derives. We can assume simply that with properly enacted legislation, the police and our wonderful court system will make everyone and their property completely safe regardless of race, religion or neigborhood.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        It is not who, but what.

        The what is a process as well. The what is the market process for defense and security.

        You keep asking who as if you can’t fathom anything other than a select, elite group of specific people, instead of what anarcho-capitalism is all about, which is that any service is open to anyone to provide.

        The answer of a “who”, however inappropriate it is to ask, is: ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DO IT.

        ———

        Philippe, you also still have a question unanswered. A starving person continually putting up a barrier around his food every time someone else tries to go for it…is the hungry person killing the other by doing this?

        • Bob Murphy says:

          OK MF I’ll let this pass since maybe you were typing it when I posted the other comment, but anything further on ancap law enforcement is getting deleted. We can’t keep re-litigating the same controversies on every post.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Yup, was typing that as you were typing yours. I saw yours after I submitted.

            OK, I’ll can it.

        • Philippe says:

          in response to my question:

          “Who enforces this law in your imaginary ideal society?”

          MF said:

          “ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DO IT”

          So MF’s idea seems to be that there is a law and anyone can enforce it. But who decides how the law can be enforced? Who decides whether the law has been enforced or violated? MF’s only reply would appear to be: anyone. So either the situation described b MF is truly lawless, or else there is a flaw in MF’s reasoning… My bets are on the latter.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            For anti-discrimination laws, should you begin to enforce such a law against others, you might end up violating their individual rights of them choosing who to trade with and who not to trade with.

            For example, by threatening me with violence if I don’t give a haircut to Mr. X becauss I am racist against X’s, is to force me to trade with someone. According to libertarian theory, each individual has the same exact rights. Nothing changes if you offer haircuts every day to many people instead of one haircut to one person on one day. The libertarian knows that “opening a business” is not a flip of a switch. There is no point at which giving haircuts to people goes from no business below N haircuts per week, and abracadabra “business is opened” above N haircuts per week.

            You have just been lazily relying on people “registering” a business with the state, which is in fact just a permission for people to produce what they want using their own property, and arbitrarily defined that point to suddenly change the individual’s rights from “you used to be free to sell haircuts to whoever you want, but now we demand you obey us and run your business our way, and we’ll still leave you with some latitudes, but that is always subject to elimination if the majority whims it, or if we whim it and the majority is coerced via continued anti-liberty brainwashing.”

            In general, it is not who but what decides. Reason decides.

            The market process determines who are the best protectors, and who suck at it. If you offer someone protection against theft or trespassing, and they agree to trade with you, then YOU enforce that law. If your customer then learns of a better protector for himself, then you are no longer an enforcer of that law on their land.

            There is no flaw. You just keep wanting to believe, contrary to the theory, that private law is lawless. That is funny considering how in the previous sentence you seemed to get it that anyone can enforce property rights in ancapistan.

            When it comes to the state’s anti-discrimination laws, they are violations of the NAP, because to refrain from trading with people of race(s) ypu have a prejudice against, is not itself a violent action. It is just someone not trading. The reason is their own, their actions are non-violent.

            • Philippe says:

              “According to libertarian theory, each individual has the same exact rights”

              not really, because (according to you) you rights depend on how much land you control.

              • Philippe says:

                *your rights

              • Major.Freedom says:

                No,it doesn’t matter how much land you own.

                Each person has the same exact rights. Everyone has the right to not have their person or property aggressed against.

              • Philippe says:

                “Each person has the same exact rights. Everyone has the right to not have their person or property aggressed against”

                so if I am a poor person in ancapistan, and someone takes my stuff, who will enforce this supposed law?

                The answer is, there is no guarantee that anyone will enforce this supposed law, as in ancapistan your ability to enforce laws depends entirely on you control over resources. If you personally have little or no control over resources, then there is no law to protect you. There is no equality under the law in ancapistan, only people fighting over control of resources.

              • Philippe says:

                “Each person has the same exact rights”

                who guarantees, protects, or enforces these supposed equal rights?

                Answer: no one.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Poor people have the same right to not be robbed.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Who can guarantee a state enforces just laws and protects everyone?

                NOBODY.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Statism doesn’t guarantee what you WANT to have guaranteed Philippe.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe, I am not going to get into a debate on protection and security. Bob specifically asked us not to. Save it for another day.

                Talk about anti-discrimination and whether markets can help eliminate it. No, don’t bother asking about what a market means to us, because you have shown you just want to go off on a tangent

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Just imagine a minarchist society that does not have any anti-discrimination laws, as your frame of reference.

                Then inquire whether racism can be reduced via private means.

              • Philippe says:

                “Just imagine a minarchist society that does not have any anti-discrimination laws, as your frame of reference.
                Then inquire whether racism can be reduced via private means.”

                To begin with, minarchist society is radically different to a supposed ‘anarcho-capitalist society’.

                As I said above, if a [minarchist] government which sets the rules in a given area does nothing to eliminate injustices within its jurisdiction, then it is complicit with the injustice and/or is neglecting its duty.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Please engage the argument about the market reducing such racism given a goverment is “neglecting its duty” with respect to anti-discrimination.

                We are talking about what people think, not just what they do under threat of violence.

              • Philippe says:

                “Please engage the argument about the market reducing such racism given a goverment is “neglecting its duty”

                so… if injustices are legally allowed to persist, do I think they might diminish over time?

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe, I am not asking you about whether “injustices” are legally allowed to persist, I am asking you about whether the market process, which enables people to make mutual material gains through trade, can discourage and reduce refusals to trade based on race, and thus discourage and reduce what is called “racial discrimination.”

                As a help, consider the example of the gasoline station attendant that Bob gave in the original blogpost.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                What principles underlie your conception of “justice”?

                Why would my action of opening a business but choosing not to sell to someone because of their race, an “injustice”? I know that would be illegal, I am asking you why that would be an “unjust” action on my part.

  3. Bob Roddis says:

    The film “The Help” has a similar theme as “42” and concerns the stories of black maids in the south in the early 60s. Opie’s daughter, Bryce Dallas Howard, plays the most evil of the evil racist Mississippi housewives. Her story revolves around her attempts to pass a bill she calls The Home Help Sanitation Initiative. It would require all Mississippi families to build outdoor bathrooms for their black employees. The character seems to truly believe that black people carry special diseases that can harm white people (but apparently do not involve food preparation).

    That’s not “the free market” either.

  4. Pierre says:

    Philippe might just be the new Daniel, in a completely different way.

  5. DanB says:

    Sure…a black man backed by a multimillion dollar sports team can surely exert some market pressure. But this example leaves out about 99.9999% of blacks who were not wealthy athletes. The market does not work to the advantage the poor because the poor do not have the resources to leverage it.

    • Scott D says:

      Right, because poor people don’t buy things. They walk into the wilderness, root in the ground and use photosynthesis to make glucose.

      • John says:

        I suppose there is no way to prove or disprove the theory that the market will eventually eliminate racism in a society. Having dealt in my career with issues of job and other discrimination, all I can say is that the empirical evidence seems overwhelming to me that antidiscrimination laws have changed the lot of African Americans and others in this society for the better, including economically, and that instances of overt discrimination have decreased dramatically since the the 50s and the passage of the Civil Rights Act. I also believe there to be little other than thought experiments to support the idea that a free market will eliminate racism. It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction anyway that businesses and customers are prepared to pay a great deal to discriminate.

        That being said, I suppose MF is right: if one doesn’t think a government should have the power to eliminate certain types of economic discrimination (“we don’t serve your kind here”) through “initiation of violence” then one cannot possibly accept anti-discrimination laws.

        • K.P. says:

          I don’t think anyone said it would eliminate racism, just reduce it. And the evidence seems pretty overwhelming that is has.

        • Scott D says:

          A progressive and a libertarian are sitting in a cafe waiting to place their orders. A man enters, but is told by the server that his skin is the wrong color, and he must leave. The progressive, furious, starts dialing his phone.

          “What are you doing?” the libertarian asks.

          “I’m calling the police!” he growls. “I’m going to have that server and the owner of this place fined and maybe even thrown in jail! This is an outrage!”

          Sighing, the libertarian stands up from the table.

          “Where are you going?” the progressive asks.

          “I’m leaving,” he answers, “and I will not be back. I’m going to put his up on social media and see that this place goes out of business if possible. This is an outrage, and I want everyone to know about it.”

          • K.P. says:

            Can we sigh at both of them?

            • Scott D says:

              No, the progressive sees you sighing as a hate crime. Don’t be a hater.

  6. Gamble says:

    I just watched this movie for the first time, last night. If you like baseball I highly recommend it. It is probably good even if you are not all that into baseball.

    I have always known who Jackie Robison was, great baseball player, first Black. However I had never fully appreciated the racial struggles he overcame. I also never realized the story with the Dodgers owner and the Methodist religious under story.

    Go see it.

Leave a Reply to Philippe

Cancel Reply