"You tell the trucking company that we have to service our customers. If they're not gonna help us, we're gonna find somebody who will."
--Brantley Foster (The Secret of My Success)
Some people argue that a producer should not be able to discriminate between customers. A baker, for example, should not be able to make a wedding cake for one couple while refusing to make a wedding cake for another couple. If a customer is refused service, then the strong arm of government should be applied to force the issue.
Proponents of this approach face several questions. Why isn't this situation akin to slavery? Slavery involves forcing individuals to produce output for others.
Furthermore, if it should be illegal for producers to discriminate between customers, then why shouldn't the opposite be true? Shouldn't customers be barred from discriminating between producers? If, for example, a buyer does not care for a seller's policy on making bathrooms available to the public, then why should that buyer be allowed to discriminate by boycotting that seller and/or taking business elsewhere?
The solution on both the buyer and seller sides is to remove government intervention from the equation and permit peaceful discrimination of all types. Indeed, markets operate on the basis of peaceful discrimination. Economic actors must prioritize, choose between alternatives, and cope with trade offs. This can only be done effectively through processes of discrimination.
If those processes of discrimination lead to bad decisions, then no government force is necessary to correct them. Poor discriminatory processes are sanctioned naturally by economic forces. A baker who refuses a customer loses business. A customer that boycotts a producer foregoes valuable products.
Because poor discrimination dents people's wallets, it causes people to think twice about perpetuating those unwise decisions. It also creates opportunity for entrepreneurs to better satisfy needs that have gone unmet in the past.
When not subject to violent intervention, discrimination in markets facilitates natural learning and improvement.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query discrimination. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query discrimination. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Monday, August 19, 2013
Discrimination and Private Property
"My old man was just so full of hate that he didn't know that being poor was what was killing him."
--Agent Rupert Anderson (Mississippi Burning)
Generally defined, discrimination is the ability to recognize or discern differences. In social contexts, discrimination involves making distinctions in favor of or against people based on categorical features such as race, gender, social class, etc.
In a free society, private property entitles its owners to discriminate. Because a dimension of freedom is the freedom to associate, people are free to elect who they associate with. This may be for better or worse, of course, as there are benefits and costs of inclusion and exclusion.
Take, for example, the owner of a hotel that decides to serve only those persons with a skin color similar to his own. Because he can rightly dispose of his property as he wishes, the hotel owner has the right to discriminate based on skin color.
Observe that he is not committing on act of aggression by doing so. He is not forcing his way into the interests of others. On the contrary, others would be acting with aggression against the hotel owner if they forced him to serve particular individuals against his wishes.
The owner may collect psychic income from his discrimination. He might gain satisfaction from having control over his property. He may gain feelings of superiority by serving only those people who like like him while turning away those who don't look like him.
However, one thing that the owner probably will not gain from his discrimination is economic income.By discriminating against particular customers, the hotel owner loses business. His productive assets are less well utilized. Rivals who choose not to discriminate gain business at the bigoted hotel owner's expense. The hotel owner's discriminatory policies weaken his economic position.
In unhampered markets, people are free to discriminate as they wish, as long as that discrimination does not forcibly interfere with the pursuits of others. However, if those discriminatory policies result in poorly serving consumers, then those policies will be punished by the market while others who choose more consumer-oriented policies will be rewarded.
--Agent Rupert Anderson (Mississippi Burning)
Generally defined, discrimination is the ability to recognize or discern differences. In social contexts, discrimination involves making distinctions in favor of or against people based on categorical features such as race, gender, social class, etc.
In a free society, private property entitles its owners to discriminate. Because a dimension of freedom is the freedom to associate, people are free to elect who they associate with. This may be for better or worse, of course, as there are benefits and costs of inclusion and exclusion.
Take, for example, the owner of a hotel that decides to serve only those persons with a skin color similar to his own. Because he can rightly dispose of his property as he wishes, the hotel owner has the right to discriminate based on skin color.
Observe that he is not committing on act of aggression by doing so. He is not forcing his way into the interests of others. On the contrary, others would be acting with aggression against the hotel owner if they forced him to serve particular individuals against his wishes.
The owner may collect psychic income from his discrimination. He might gain satisfaction from having control over his property. He may gain feelings of superiority by serving only those people who like like him while turning away those who don't look like him.
However, one thing that the owner probably will not gain from his discrimination is economic income.By discriminating against particular customers, the hotel owner loses business. His productive assets are less well utilized. Rivals who choose not to discriminate gain business at the bigoted hotel owner's expense. The hotel owner's discriminatory policies weaken his economic position.
In unhampered markets, people are free to discriminate as they wish, as long as that discrimination does not forcibly interfere with the pursuits of others. However, if those discriminatory policies result in poorly serving consumers, then those policies will be punished by the market while others who choose more consumer-oriented policies will be rewarded.
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Age Discrimination and Guns
They're seeing through the promises
And all the lies they dare to tell
Is it heaven or hell?
They know very well
--Journey
In the wave of emotional capture following the Valentines Day school shooting in Florida, some retailers, most notably Dick's Sporting Goods, have proclaimed that they will no longer sell 'assault-style' rifles. It is, of course, completely within a seller's rights to do so. No one can put a gun to retailers' heads and order them to sell...guns.
Other retailers who do sell guns have announced that they will raise the minimum age for gun and ammo purchase to 21. Under federal law the minimum age for firearm purchase is 18.
No problem here either, you say. Just like no one can force a retailer what to sell, no one should be able to force a retailer who to sell to.
In a free market environment, this would be true. People should be free to associate with whomever they wish--including associations for business transactions.
The counterargument has been that freedom of association breeds discrimination, and discrimination should not be allowed. Even if, say, a baker does not care to bake a cake for a gay couple, legally the baker should be forced to do so.
Consequently, freedom of association has not been permitted. Laws have been put on the books that prohibit discrimination when selling goods and services.
It is not difficult to apply the discrimination argument to the case of young people and guns. If it is legal to sell guns to 18 year olds, and a retailer chooses to sell guns, then why isn't that retailer legally obligated to sell guns to 18, 19, and 20 year olds?
This is different, you might argue. It is an issue of maturity, and those younger than 21 are not really adults yet. They are generally not mature enough to own and operate guns.
That is a difficult argument to make given what people of that age group are legally allowed to do. For instance, they are permitted to drive cars, to vote, and, ironically, to join the military.
Does, a 20 yr old single mom who wants to protect her home have a legal case against a retailer that refuses to sell her an AR-15 from the gun rack in the store because of her age? Under extant laws that prohibit discrimination in retail sales, I believe that she might.
And all the lies they dare to tell
Is it heaven or hell?
They know very well
--Journey
In the wave of emotional capture following the Valentines Day school shooting in Florida, some retailers, most notably Dick's Sporting Goods, have proclaimed that they will no longer sell 'assault-style' rifles. It is, of course, completely within a seller's rights to do so. No one can put a gun to retailers' heads and order them to sell...guns.
Other retailers who do sell guns have announced that they will raise the minimum age for gun and ammo purchase to 21. Under federal law the minimum age for firearm purchase is 18.
No problem here either, you say. Just like no one can force a retailer what to sell, no one should be able to force a retailer who to sell to.
In a free market environment, this would be true. People should be free to associate with whomever they wish--including associations for business transactions.
The counterargument has been that freedom of association breeds discrimination, and discrimination should not be allowed. Even if, say, a baker does not care to bake a cake for a gay couple, legally the baker should be forced to do so.
Consequently, freedom of association has not been permitted. Laws have been put on the books that prohibit discrimination when selling goods and services.
It is not difficult to apply the discrimination argument to the case of young people and guns. If it is legal to sell guns to 18 year olds, and a retailer chooses to sell guns, then why isn't that retailer legally obligated to sell guns to 18, 19, and 20 year olds?
This is different, you might argue. It is an issue of maturity, and those younger than 21 are not really adults yet. They are generally not mature enough to own and operate guns.
That is a difficult argument to make given what people of that age group are legally allowed to do. For instance, they are permitted to drive cars, to vote, and, ironically, to join the military.
Does, a 20 yr old single mom who wants to protect her home have a legal case against a retailer that refuses to sell her an AR-15 from the gun rack in the store because of her age? Under extant laws that prohibit discrimination in retail sales, I believe that she might.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Civil Rights Irony
"My old man was so full of hate that he didn't know that being poor was what was killing him."
--Agent Rupert Anderson (Mississippi Burning)
We have noted that there are two primary definitions of equality in the social context. One definition pertains to equal treatment under the law. This definition appears to be the one preferred by the Founders as implied by the country's founding documents. Let's call it the classical definition.
The other definition pertains to equality of income (or economic resources, or opportunities, or living standards). The definition has gained popularity over the past century with the rise of the Progessive movement. So let's call this one the progressive definition.
Not only are these definitions diametrically opposed w.r.t. liberty, but they also conflict in their implications for policy. Policy that is developed on the premise that both definitions of equality can be supported is likely to be confusing and unconstitutional in some manner.
An example of such policy is Public Law 88-352, more commonly known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act is divided into 11 sections, or 'Titles,' that are intended to address various issues related to discrimination and segregation.
Many sections seem consistent with the classical defintion of equality. Title 1 guarantees equal treatment for all voters. It is sad to think that this policy actually had to be written into civil code--nearly 200 years after the Declaration and Constitution generally guaranteed it in the name of liberty. Sections such as Title 5 related to the desegregation of public schools and Title 6 that prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs, also seem consistent with the classical definition because they address equal treatment of public (shared) property.
Two sections, however, support the progressive definition of equality. Title 2 prohibits discrimination in places of public accomodation, which is specified to include privately owned businesses. Title 7 mandates 'equal employment opportunity' in hiring practices with the scope again including privately owned businesses. These conflict with the other sections because private property owners and 'protected classes' no longer receive equal treatment under the law. Private property owners are required to surrender property--which includes economic resources as well as the decision rights over them--to other groups (i.e., the 'protected classes'). This is unequal treatment under the law. Property owners are being treated differently than others. Protected classes gain access to resources that are not rightfully theirs.
The central conflict of the competing definitions of equality is well captured in the Civil Rights legislation. It boils down to this: Should the liberty of one group of individuals be infringed upon in order to advance the welfare of another group?
A tangential issue involves how discrimination can be decisively demonstrated. Sadly, most of the remaining sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and well over half the total page count of the PL, are directed towards the establishment of the bureaucracy to oversee enforcement of a highly subjective behavior.
Finally, it must be noted that in truly free markets, chances of persistent discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc are extremely low. Producers who make bigoted decisions lose customers as well as talented workers to entrepreneurs who recognize the opportunity. Bigoted operations get weaker and disappear.
Bigoted operations are likely to persist when markets are not free. For example, regulations that discourage entrepreneurs from entering a bigoted industry are likely to make discrimantory behavior more durable.
Ironically, regs like those imposed by Public Law 88-352, which raise cost of business thru EEO and compliance programs, are likely to do just that.
Another case of unintended consequence writ large...
--Agent Rupert Anderson (Mississippi Burning)
We have noted that there are two primary definitions of equality in the social context. One definition pertains to equal treatment under the law. This definition appears to be the one preferred by the Founders as implied by the country's founding documents. Let's call it the classical definition.
The other definition pertains to equality of income (or economic resources, or opportunities, or living standards). The definition has gained popularity over the past century with the rise of the Progessive movement. So let's call this one the progressive definition.
Not only are these definitions diametrically opposed w.r.t. liberty, but they also conflict in their implications for policy. Policy that is developed on the premise that both definitions of equality can be supported is likely to be confusing and unconstitutional in some manner.
An example of such policy is Public Law 88-352, more commonly known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act is divided into 11 sections, or 'Titles,' that are intended to address various issues related to discrimination and segregation.
Many sections seem consistent with the classical defintion of equality. Title 1 guarantees equal treatment for all voters. It is sad to think that this policy actually had to be written into civil code--nearly 200 years after the Declaration and Constitution generally guaranteed it in the name of liberty. Sections such as Title 5 related to the desegregation of public schools and Title 6 that prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs, also seem consistent with the classical definition because they address equal treatment of public (shared) property.
Two sections, however, support the progressive definition of equality. Title 2 prohibits discrimination in places of public accomodation, which is specified to include privately owned businesses. Title 7 mandates 'equal employment opportunity' in hiring practices with the scope again including privately owned businesses. These conflict with the other sections because private property owners and 'protected classes' no longer receive equal treatment under the law. Private property owners are required to surrender property--which includes economic resources as well as the decision rights over them--to other groups (i.e., the 'protected classes'). This is unequal treatment under the law. Property owners are being treated differently than others. Protected classes gain access to resources that are not rightfully theirs.
The central conflict of the competing definitions of equality is well captured in the Civil Rights legislation. It boils down to this: Should the liberty of one group of individuals be infringed upon in order to advance the welfare of another group?
A tangential issue involves how discrimination can be decisively demonstrated. Sadly, most of the remaining sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and well over half the total page count of the PL, are directed towards the establishment of the bureaucracy to oversee enforcement of a highly subjective behavior.
Finally, it must be noted that in truly free markets, chances of persistent discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc are extremely low. Producers who make bigoted decisions lose customers as well as talented workers to entrepreneurs who recognize the opportunity. Bigoted operations get weaker and disappear.
Bigoted operations are likely to persist when markets are not free. For example, regulations that discourage entrepreneurs from entering a bigoted industry are likely to make discrimantory behavior more durable.
Ironically, regs like those imposed by Public Law 88-352, which raise cost of business thru EEO and compliance programs, are likely to do just that.
Another case of unintended consequence writ large...
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Discrimination and Intolerance
Judge Mel Coffy: I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted.
Henry Drummond: Well, you honor has the right to hope.
Judge Mel Coffy: I have the right to do more than that.
Henry Drummond: You have the POWER to do more than that.
--Inherit the Wind
Recent passage of a religious freedom restoration act in Indiana has once again ignited debate about the legality of discrimination in society. In this context, discrimination can be viewed as refusal to associate with certain people perceived to possess some categorical characteristic. Because these characteristics tend to be readily observable (lest their discriminatory power would be low), they usually involve demographic categories such as age, race, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation.
Popular arguments against discrimination, such as the one employed here by Apple CEO Tim Cook, claim that refusing to associate with a person because of their race, gender, et al violates the principles of freedom and equality upon which America was founded. Laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are therefore necessary in order to force people to not discriminate.
It doesn't not take a genius to recognize the inconsistency in such an argument. Truly free people can decide who they want to associate with--regardless of how idiotic their rationale might seem for doing so. If people are forced to associate with others, then they are not free.
Those wanting to employ the strong arm of government to force people not to discriminate are the intolerant ones. They want to impose their values (religious or secular) on others using aggressive means.
As correctly observed here, the right to discriminate is the very essence of freedom. Being offended by someone else's discriminatory behavior manner is something that free societies must tolerate.
Henry Drummond: Well, you honor has the right to hope.
Judge Mel Coffy: I have the right to do more than that.
Henry Drummond: You have the POWER to do more than that.
--Inherit the Wind
Recent passage of a religious freedom restoration act in Indiana has once again ignited debate about the legality of discrimination in society. In this context, discrimination can be viewed as refusal to associate with certain people perceived to possess some categorical characteristic. Because these characteristics tend to be readily observable (lest their discriminatory power would be low), they usually involve demographic categories such as age, race, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation.
Popular arguments against discrimination, such as the one employed here by Apple CEO Tim Cook, claim that refusing to associate with a person because of their race, gender, et al violates the principles of freedom and equality upon which America was founded. Laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are therefore necessary in order to force people to not discriminate.
It doesn't not take a genius to recognize the inconsistency in such an argument. Truly free people can decide who they want to associate with--regardless of how idiotic their rationale might seem for doing so. If people are forced to associate with others, then they are not free.
Those wanting to employ the strong arm of government to force people not to discriminate are the intolerant ones. They want to impose their values (religious or secular) on others using aggressive means.
As correctly observed here, the right to discriminate is the very essence of freedom. Being offended by someone else's discriminatory behavior manner is something that free societies must tolerate.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Capitalism and Discrimination
"My old man was so full of hate that he didn't know that bein' poor was what was killin' him."
--Agent Rupert Anderson (Mississippi Burning)
Some people do not like capitalism because of the profit motive. Businesses "are only in it to make money," they say.
Many of these same people support legislation that prevents business from discriminating against people of a particular race, point of origin, sexual orientation, etc.
Can these people not see that these two positions are incompatible?
A business cannot be both "only in it to make money" and discriminatory at the same time. A business that refuses to serve people because of, say, their skin color, leaves money on the table. Such a business is clearly not driven solely by the profit motive.
In a capitalistic system a business that does discriminate loses receipts to competitors who choose not to discriminate. Discrimination is thus an expensive endeavor that weakens competitive advantage and, given enough time, is bound to put bigots out of business in unhampered markets.
Discrimination can only flourish in markets that are hampered. For example, regulations and other laws raise barriers to entry that impede entrepreneurs from competing away bigotry. As markets become more free, discrimination declines.
Capitalism, driven by the profit motive, is a bigot's nightmare.
--Agent Rupert Anderson (Mississippi Burning)
Some people do not like capitalism because of the profit motive. Businesses "are only in it to make money," they say.
Many of these same people support legislation that prevents business from discriminating against people of a particular race, point of origin, sexual orientation, etc.
Can these people not see that these two positions are incompatible?
A business cannot be both "only in it to make money" and discriminatory at the same time. A business that refuses to serve people because of, say, their skin color, leaves money on the table. Such a business is clearly not driven solely by the profit motive.
In a capitalistic system a business that does discriminate loses receipts to competitors who choose not to discriminate. Discrimination is thus an expensive endeavor that weakens competitive advantage and, given enough time, is bound to put bigots out of business in unhampered markets.
Discrimination can only flourish in markets that are hampered. For example, regulations and other laws raise barriers to entry that impede entrepreneurs from competing away bigotry. As markets become more free, discrimination declines.
Capitalism, driven by the profit motive, is a bigot's nightmare.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Where Discrimination Can't Flourish
John Cutter: Charlie, ever play roulette?
Charles Rane: On occasion.
John Cutter: Well, let me give you a word of advice. Always bet on black!
--Passenger 57
Prof Williams uses recent racist comments made by Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, to demonstrate a point made several times on these pages. Market forces impose serious economic penalties on for-profit enterprises when they make employment decisions on any basis other than worker productivity.
Although he talks like a racist, Sterling has made employment decisions as if he has been color blind. The Clippers' three highest paid players, who pulled down $46 million last season collectively, as well as 85% of the Clippers roster, are black. If Sterling was behaving in a manner consistent with his words, then he should be employing a lily white roster.
He couldn't do so and expect to profit, of course. Black talent has dominated the sport of basketball for years. Were he to pass up superior talent of any skin color, then competitors would scoop those players up, putting Sterling at a disadvantage. Chances are that if Sterling employed an all white team, then the Clippers record would plummet as would the franchise value.
Sterling knows this. We know that he knows because of his business decisions.
Unhampered markets punish discriminatory bias. The solution to discrimination is not more rules and regulation. The solution to discrimination is to make opportunity depend on one's productivity.
Capitalism is a bigot's nightmare.
Charles Rane: On occasion.
John Cutter: Well, let me give you a word of advice. Always bet on black!
--Passenger 57
Prof Williams uses recent racist comments made by Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, to demonstrate a point made several times on these pages. Market forces impose serious economic penalties on for-profit enterprises when they make employment decisions on any basis other than worker productivity.
Although he talks like a racist, Sterling has made employment decisions as if he has been color blind. The Clippers' three highest paid players, who pulled down $46 million last season collectively, as well as 85% of the Clippers roster, are black. If Sterling was behaving in a manner consistent with his words, then he should be employing a lily white roster.
He couldn't do so and expect to profit, of course. Black talent has dominated the sport of basketball for years. Were he to pass up superior talent of any skin color, then competitors would scoop those players up, putting Sterling at a disadvantage. Chances are that if Sterling employed an all white team, then the Clippers record would plummet as would the franchise value.
Sterling knows this. We know that he knows because of his business decisions.
Unhampered markets punish discriminatory bias. The solution to discrimination is not more rules and regulation. The solution to discrimination is to make opportunity depend on one's productivity.
Capitalism is a bigot's nightmare.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Pay Discrimination Myth
Alice Baxter: Um, Miss McGill?
Tess McGill: Yes.
Alice Baxter: That's your desk...in there.
Tess McGill: I don't think so.
Alice Baxter: Oh, yes.
Tess McGill: Sorry, but I thought the secretary would sit out here.
Alice Baxter: That's right. I'm the secretary. If you don't mind, I'd prefer assistant.
--Working Girl
Today is Equal Pay Day--at least according to some special interest groups seeking to highlight differences in wages earned by men and women. On average, women have been found to earn about 75% of what men earn.
Special interests claim that the 25% difference proves discrimination. It proves nothing of the sort, of course, as these pages have noted several times (e.g., here, here, here, here).
An intellectually honest effort would first need to consider other factors that could be causing pay differences. Prof Steve Horwitz discusses some of them here:
Educational choices
Career path expectations
Full versus part-time work
Tenure on the job/work experience
What these factors amount to are decisions that influence the development of human capital. And studies indicate that men and women have generally differed in their choices in this regard. These difference influence productivity--the amount of output produced per hour of work.
Axiomatically, in the market for labor, wages are directly related to productivity.
The straightforward way to evaluate the effects of these choices on pay is to develop a multivariate regression model using the above factors as independent variables and wages as the dependent variable. As Prof Horwitz summarizes, empirical study after empirical study using this approach shows that, once wages are controlled by these factors, gender-related pay differences virtually disappear.
Another way to think about it: If women are indeed underpaid versus their productive capacity, then why wouldn't profit-seeking employers hire them at higher wages and compete away the discriminatory effects? The answer, of course, is that's precisely what labor markets will do unless forced to do otherwise (and even then black markets will form to normalize wages toward productive capacity).
Stated differently, unhampered markets temper prejudice of any kind in the name of self interest.
All of this falls on deaf ears to progressives, of course, as the discrimination narrative plays well with the 'war on women' crowd and motivates political energy among the ignorant.
Tess McGill: Yes.
Alice Baxter: That's your desk...in there.
Tess McGill: I don't think so.
Alice Baxter: Oh, yes.
Tess McGill: Sorry, but I thought the secretary would sit out here.
Alice Baxter: That's right. I'm the secretary. If you don't mind, I'd prefer assistant.
--Working Girl
Today is Equal Pay Day--at least according to some special interest groups seeking to highlight differences in wages earned by men and women. On average, women have been found to earn about 75% of what men earn.
Special interests claim that the 25% difference proves discrimination. It proves nothing of the sort, of course, as these pages have noted several times (e.g., here, here, here, here).
An intellectually honest effort would first need to consider other factors that could be causing pay differences. Prof Steve Horwitz discusses some of them here:
Educational choices
Career path expectations
Full versus part-time work
Tenure on the job/work experience
What these factors amount to are decisions that influence the development of human capital. And studies indicate that men and women have generally differed in their choices in this regard. These difference influence productivity--the amount of output produced per hour of work.
Axiomatically, in the market for labor, wages are directly related to productivity.
The straightforward way to evaluate the effects of these choices on pay is to develop a multivariate regression model using the above factors as independent variables and wages as the dependent variable. As Prof Horwitz summarizes, empirical study after empirical study using this approach shows that, once wages are controlled by these factors, gender-related pay differences virtually disappear.
Another way to think about it: If women are indeed underpaid versus their productive capacity, then why wouldn't profit-seeking employers hire them at higher wages and compete away the discriminatory effects? The answer, of course, is that's precisely what labor markets will do unless forced to do otherwise (and even then black markets will form to normalize wages toward productive capacity).
Stated differently, unhampered markets temper prejudice of any kind in the name of self interest.
All of this falls on deaf ears to progressives, of course, as the discrimination narrative plays well with the 'war on women' crowd and motivates political energy among the ignorant.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Freedom to Exclude
And you didn't have to stoop so low
Have your friends collect your records
And then change your number
I guess I don't need that though
Now you're just somebody that I used to know
--Gotye
The right to discriminate can also be called freedom to exclude. The 'reason' (skin color, religious beliefs, non-paying customer, etc) doesn't matter. Assigning a judge to determine 'right' or 'wrong' reasons for exclusion plainly leads to problems.
Discrimination and exclusion are central to property rights. Ownership must include the ability to exclude others from using property. If owners cannot exclude others from using the property, then they do not own it.
Lessening the negative effects of discrimination involves reducing barriers to entry in industries that discriminate--so that entrepreneurs can exploit the stupid discrimination decisions of others. This means cutting, not increasing, regulations and interventions that discourage competition and protect franchises of operators that discriminate in unwise ways.
Have your friends collect your records
And then change your number
I guess I don't need that though
Now you're just somebody that I used to know
--Gotye
The right to discriminate can also be called freedom to exclude. The 'reason' (skin color, religious beliefs, non-paying customer, etc) doesn't matter. Assigning a judge to determine 'right' or 'wrong' reasons for exclusion plainly leads to problems.
Discrimination and exclusion are central to property rights. Ownership must include the ability to exclude others from using property. If owners cannot exclude others from using the property, then they do not own it.
Lessening the negative effects of discrimination involves reducing barriers to entry in industries that discriminate--so that entrepreneurs can exploit the stupid discrimination decisions of others. This means cutting, not increasing, regulations and interventions that discourage competition and protect franchises of operators that discriminate in unwise ways.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Minimum Wage Laws and Discrimination
When you said goodbye
You were on the run
Tryin' to get away from the things you'd done
Now you're back again
And you're feeling strange
So much has happened, but nothing has changed
--Glenn Frye
In part 2 of a missive on the damage wrought by minimum wage laws (part 1 here), Thomas Sowell observes that minimum wage laws have historically been an instrument of racial discrimination. This is because these laws not only constitute compulsory unemployment, but they also disproportionately force low skilled workers, who often come from minority groups, to the sidelines.
Cases of using minimum wage laws to promote discriminatory agendas have been documented in other countries such as Canada, Australia, and South Africa. The United States has been no exception. For example, supporters of the first federal minimum wage law in the US, the Davis Bacon Act of 1931, included Northerners seeking to keep Southern construction companies that employed non-union black workers from heading north and under bidding unionized firms on building projects.
The irony, of course, is that many proponents of minimum wage laws also claim to oppose racial discrimination.
These people have either not thought things through or they possess ulterior motives.
Those who empathize with minorities and 'underprivileged' classes should be the last to support minimum wage laws because these laws disproportionately force minorities from labor markets and put them out on the street.
You were on the run
Tryin' to get away from the things you'd done
Now you're back again
And you're feeling strange
So much has happened, but nothing has changed
--Glenn Frye
In part 2 of a missive on the damage wrought by minimum wage laws (part 1 here), Thomas Sowell observes that minimum wage laws have historically been an instrument of racial discrimination. This is because these laws not only constitute compulsory unemployment, but they also disproportionately force low skilled workers, who often come from minority groups, to the sidelines.
Cases of using minimum wage laws to promote discriminatory agendas have been documented in other countries such as Canada, Australia, and South Africa. The United States has been no exception. For example, supporters of the first federal minimum wage law in the US, the Davis Bacon Act of 1931, included Northerners seeking to keep Southern construction companies that employed non-union black workers from heading north and under bidding unionized firms on building projects.
The irony, of course, is that many proponents of minimum wage laws also claim to oppose racial discrimination.
These people have either not thought things through or they possess ulterior motives.
Those who empathize with minorities and 'underprivileged' classes should be the last to support minimum wage laws because these laws disproportionately force minorities from labor markets and put them out on the street.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Combating Discrimination Peacefully
There seemed no way to make up
'Cause it seemed your mind was set
--Phil Collins
God has blessed us with a tool to combat unjust discrimination in a peaceful manner: the market. If someone discriminates against another, the discriminator loses resources (material and/or psychic) as the target of discrimination takes his/her business elsewhere and trades with someone else.
If needs of the target are not served well, then entrepreneurs take advantage of the opportunity by adding capacity to better serve the target. If the labor of the target has been erroneously shunned by the discriminator, then others hire the target to gain productivity.
No government force, no earthly laws are necessary. God has provided a non-violent system that sanctions those who violate His law.
'Cause it seemed your mind was set
--Phil Collins
God has blessed us with a tool to combat unjust discrimination in a peaceful manner: the market. If someone discriminates against another, the discriminator loses resources (material and/or psychic) as the target of discrimination takes his/her business elsewhere and trades with someone else.
If needs of the target are not served well, then entrepreneurs take advantage of the opportunity by adding capacity to better serve the target. If the labor of the target has been erroneously shunned by the discriminator, then others hire the target to gain productivity.
No government force, no earthly laws are necessary. God has provided a non-violent system that sanctions those who violate His law.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Institutional Racism
Sgt Major John Rawlins: I ain't sure I'm wantin' this, Colonel.
Col Robert Gould Shaw: I know exactly how you feel.
--Glory
As he has done times before (e.g., here, here), Prof Williams criticizes popular claims that poor socioeconomic conditions among many blacks are primarily caused by racism lingering from times past. This does not make sense, he observes, because the pathologies evident in black neighborhoods are relatively recent phenomena.
Parents. 1880s three quarters of black families two parent. 1925 NYC 85% of black families two parent. Today overwhelming majority of black families are single parent.
Illegitimate child birth. 1940 illegitimate birth rate among blacks 14%. 1965 25%. 1980 56%. Today nearly 75%.
Poverty rate among black married couples since 1994 has remained in single digits.
Black youth unemployment. 1948 9.4% vs 10.2% for white teens. Today black teen unemployment exceeds 50% in some cities. Since the 1960s both employment and labor force participation rates among black youths have been falling to where they are today.
Associating these data with institutional racism is a tall order. For starters, one would have to argue persuasively that racism has been increasing over the past few decades in order to fit black socioeconomic trends. While racism certainly hasn't been (and never will be) completely eliminated, claims that racial discrimination has been on the rise over the past half century should strike most as ludicrous. Moreover, locating compelling data to support such claims would be challenging. Explaining socioeconomic inconsistencies between single parent and married black households using a racial discrimination overlay will prove difficult.
As Prof Williams demonstrates, straightforward explanations of socioeconomic trends among blacks can be developed by examining various interventions concocted by the welfare state and constructing economically grounded propositions about the effects of those interventions. For instance, having children outside of wedlock is less burdensome when housing subsidies, welfare payments, and food stamps reduce the cost of unproductive behavior. Minimum wage laws and other labor regulations force black teens and other low skilled blacks out of the labor market. Such compulsory unemployment effectively cuts off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, disabling the poverty stricken from climbing toward higher standard of living.
Suppose that you are a bigot intent on restraining progress of a particular class of people. I can think of few better strategies than what progressives and race hustlers have implemented and continue to promote with respect to the black community. Subsidize unproductive behavior. Create economic dependency. Lock workers out of the job market.
Those who support such policies reflect actions of true institutional racists.
Col Robert Gould Shaw: I know exactly how you feel.
--Glory
As he has done times before (e.g., here, here), Prof Williams criticizes popular claims that poor socioeconomic conditions among many blacks are primarily caused by racism lingering from times past. This does not make sense, he observes, because the pathologies evident in black neighborhoods are relatively recent phenomena.
Parents. 1880s three quarters of black families two parent. 1925 NYC 85% of black families two parent. Today overwhelming majority of black families are single parent.
Illegitimate child birth. 1940 illegitimate birth rate among blacks 14%. 1965 25%. 1980 56%. Today nearly 75%.
Poverty rate among black married couples since 1994 has remained in single digits.
Black youth unemployment. 1948 9.4% vs 10.2% for white teens. Today black teen unemployment exceeds 50% in some cities. Since the 1960s both employment and labor force participation rates among black youths have been falling to where they are today.
Associating these data with institutional racism is a tall order. For starters, one would have to argue persuasively that racism has been increasing over the past few decades in order to fit black socioeconomic trends. While racism certainly hasn't been (and never will be) completely eliminated, claims that racial discrimination has been on the rise over the past half century should strike most as ludicrous. Moreover, locating compelling data to support such claims would be challenging. Explaining socioeconomic inconsistencies between single parent and married black households using a racial discrimination overlay will prove difficult.
As Prof Williams demonstrates, straightforward explanations of socioeconomic trends among blacks can be developed by examining various interventions concocted by the welfare state and constructing economically grounded propositions about the effects of those interventions. For instance, having children outside of wedlock is less burdensome when housing subsidies, welfare payments, and food stamps reduce the cost of unproductive behavior. Minimum wage laws and other labor regulations force black teens and other low skilled blacks out of the labor market. Such compulsory unemployment effectively cuts off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, disabling the poverty stricken from climbing toward higher standard of living.
Suppose that you are a bigot intent on restraining progress of a particular class of people. I can think of few better strategies than what progressives and race hustlers have implemented and continue to promote with respect to the black community. Subsidize unproductive behavior. Create economic dependency. Lock workers out of the job market.
Those who support such policies reflect actions of true institutional racists.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Affiliation, Groupthink, and Discrimination
Can you imagine no love, pride, deep fried chicken
Your best friend always sticking up for you
Even when I know you're wrong
--Train
Thomas Jefferson said that he sought kept his affiliations to a minimum in order to preserve independent thought. He understood that belonging to groups invites groupthink and clouds judgment.
Social identity theory posits that people join groups to enhance self-esteem. As they do so, individuals begin to assume characteristics thought to belong to the group.
To advance self-esteem, however, people must believe that they belong to the 'right' group. They will defend their group against perceived threats from outsiders. Group members will go also along with what the collective wants even if they personally believe it to be wrong. Failure to do so would constitute admission that their affiliation is a mistake.
A consequence of affiliation is inherent tendency to discriminate. Outsiders are apt to be seen as inferior in some way. Discrimination enhances self-esteem to be gained from joining groups.
Because he thought this was not a worthy route to self-esteem and sound judgment, Jefferson sought to be as group-free as possible.
Your best friend always sticking up for you
Even when I know you're wrong
--Train
Thomas Jefferson said that he sought kept his affiliations to a minimum in order to preserve independent thought. He understood that belonging to groups invites groupthink and clouds judgment.
Social identity theory posits that people join groups to enhance self-esteem. As they do so, individuals begin to assume characteristics thought to belong to the group.
To advance self-esteem, however, people must believe that they belong to the 'right' group. They will defend their group against perceived threats from outsiders. Group members will go also along with what the collective wants even if they personally believe it to be wrong. Failure to do so would constitute admission that their affiliation is a mistake.
A consequence of affiliation is inherent tendency to discriminate. Outsiders are apt to be seen as inferior in some way. Discrimination enhances self-esteem to be gained from joining groups.
Because he thought this was not a worthy route to self-esteem and sound judgment, Jefferson sought to be as group-free as possible.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Unemployment Among Black Americans
All the way from Washington
Her bread winner begs off the bathroom floor
"We live for just these twenty years
Do we have to die for the fifty more?"
--David Bowie
GMU prof Walter Williams discusses the unemployment situation among black Americans. Black unemployment has been double that of whites for more than 50 years. Among black youths, the unemployment rate is more than 40%. In some cities, unemployment among black working age men exceeds 50%.
It hasn't always been this way.
In the first half of the 20th century, black male labor force participation rate equaled or exceeded that of white males. Black youth unemployment was equal to or was less than white youth unemployment. Average duration of black unemployment was 15% less that white unemployment; today it is 30% longer.
Obviously, as they used to say in problem solving class, something has changed.
As WW observes, blaming racial discrimination for today's high black unemployment rates rings hollow. It is difficult to argue that discrimination is higher now than during the early 20th century period when employment among blacks was much stronger.
Williams himself recounts the multitude of jobs he worked while growing up in North Philadelphia's housing projects. Youngsters who sought after school, weekend, or summer jobs found them.
Few of those jobs are available today. The reason is minimum wage laws. As we have noted many times on these pages, minimum wage laws are a form of compulsory unemployment. Marginal workers willing to take jobs for less than the minimum wage are prohibited from doing so.
Minimum wage laws hit the young and uneducated particularly hard because these people usually seek low paying jobs. Over the past 60 years, the scope of minimum wage laws has expanded to cover nearly all jobs--forcing low skilled black out of work.
Williams also observes the backing of minimum wages laws by unions--which is no surprise because minimum wage laws protect union franchises from being undercut by non-union black workers willing to work jobs for less pay.
Public education constitutes another explanatory factor as blacks populate K-12 public school systems at higher rates than whites, particularly in urban areas. The poor performance of US public schools has also been discussed on these pages. The restraining effect of public schools on young minds therefore hits black youths particularly hard.
The underlying cause of high black unemployment, therefore, can be tied to government intervention in labor and education markets. As long as government hampers these markets, then high black unemployment is likely to persist.
As uncomfortable as it may be for those who have put their faith in the State, the solution is for government to back away from these markets.
Her bread winner begs off the bathroom floor
"We live for just these twenty years
Do we have to die for the fifty more?"
--David Bowie
GMU prof Walter Williams discusses the unemployment situation among black Americans. Black unemployment has been double that of whites for more than 50 years. Among black youths, the unemployment rate is more than 40%. In some cities, unemployment among black working age men exceeds 50%.
It hasn't always been this way.
In the first half of the 20th century, black male labor force participation rate equaled or exceeded that of white males. Black youth unemployment was equal to or was less than white youth unemployment. Average duration of black unemployment was 15% less that white unemployment; today it is 30% longer.
Obviously, as they used to say in problem solving class, something has changed.
As WW observes, blaming racial discrimination for today's high black unemployment rates rings hollow. It is difficult to argue that discrimination is higher now than during the early 20th century period when employment among blacks was much stronger.
Williams himself recounts the multitude of jobs he worked while growing up in North Philadelphia's housing projects. Youngsters who sought after school, weekend, or summer jobs found them.
Few of those jobs are available today. The reason is minimum wage laws. As we have noted many times on these pages, minimum wage laws are a form of compulsory unemployment. Marginal workers willing to take jobs for less than the minimum wage are prohibited from doing so.
Minimum wage laws hit the young and uneducated particularly hard because these people usually seek low paying jobs. Over the past 60 years, the scope of minimum wage laws has expanded to cover nearly all jobs--forcing low skilled black out of work.
Williams also observes the backing of minimum wages laws by unions--which is no surprise because minimum wage laws protect union franchises from being undercut by non-union black workers willing to work jobs for less pay.
Public education constitutes another explanatory factor as blacks populate K-12 public school systems at higher rates than whites, particularly in urban areas. The poor performance of US public schools has also been discussed on these pages. The restraining effect of public schools on young minds therefore hits black youths particularly hard.
The underlying cause of high black unemployment, therefore, can be tied to government intervention in labor and education markets. As long as government hampers these markets, then high black unemployment is likely to persist.
As uncomfortable as it may be for those who have put their faith in the State, the solution is for government to back away from these markets.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Ultimate Learning Disability
"Why don't you do yourself a favor and go back to your white-bread, suburban, cesspool land while you still have a chance?"
--Victor Duncan (The Principal)
There are those who refuse to learn because an instructor (defined as anyone who has something useful to teach) is not like the student in some demographic way. The instructor might have a different skin color, gender, country of origin, social status, income level, et al.
Although social identity theory suggests we might expect as much, this is a foolish form of discrimination. Choosing not to learn because the teacher is not 'like me' may be the ultimate learning disability.
Doing so compromises the quest for knowledge and truth.
--Victor Duncan (The Principal)
There are those who refuse to learn because an instructor (defined as anyone who has something useful to teach) is not like the student in some demographic way. The instructor might have a different skin color, gender, country of origin, social status, income level, et al.
Although social identity theory suggests we might expect as much, this is a foolish form of discrimination. Choosing not to learn because the teacher is not 'like me' may be the ultimate learning disability.
Doing so compromises the quest for knowledge and truth.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Equitable Solution to Urban Decay
When you said goodbye
You were on the run
Tryin' to get away from the things you'd done
Now you're back again
And you're feeling strange
So much has happend, but nothing has changed
--Glenn Frey
How to prevent or reverse accumulative decay in cities? Walter Williams suggests the officials skew provision of city services toward neighborhoods that house the highly productive. Keeping the best and brightest increases the likelihood of 'net positive fiscal residual' necessary to fund city services.
As Prof Williams notes, some people might find this type of discrimination distasteful or unfair.
A far more equitable solution would be to cut back on city services altogether. No public education or libraries. Allow local residents to contract with private providers for services such as street and park upkeep.
Less 'positive fiscal residue' would be required to fund city services. Plus, the highly productive would have greater capacity to shape their urban environments. The positive spillover from productive activity would once again create opportunity in cities for lower income individuals.
You were on the run
Tryin' to get away from the things you'd done
Now you're back again
And you're feeling strange
So much has happend, but nothing has changed
--Glenn Frey
How to prevent or reverse accumulative decay in cities? Walter Williams suggests the officials skew provision of city services toward neighborhoods that house the highly productive. Keeping the best and brightest increases the likelihood of 'net positive fiscal residual' necessary to fund city services.
As Prof Williams notes, some people might find this type of discrimination distasteful or unfair.
A far more equitable solution would be to cut back on city services altogether. No public education or libraries. Allow local residents to contract with private providers for services such as street and park upkeep.
Less 'positive fiscal residue' would be required to fund city services. Plus, the highly productive would have greater capacity to shape their urban environments. The positive spillover from productive activity would once again create opportunity in cities for lower income individuals.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Accumulative Decay
The city desert makes you feel so cold
It's got so many people but it's got no soul
And it's taken you so long
To find out you were wrong
When you thought it held everything
--Gerry Rafferty
Many US cities that were major population centers in the early 20th century are less so today. Some, such as Detroit, Cleveland, and St Louis, sport less than 50% of their previous pops. People have left these cities in droves, primarily for the suburbs where schools were better and property was more secure.
During the 1960s, civil rights advocates claimed that urban decline was due to racism--'white flight' to the suburbs. However, as Prof Williams notes, blacks were fleeing many of these cities at higher rates than whites.
Central to this phenomenon is a process Williams terms 'accumulative decay.' When schools, neighborhoods, and city services become run down, the first people to leave are those who care the most about their quality of life and have the resources to move. Because this inaugural group tends to be the most productive, they tend to put more to city coffers than they take out.
Once this group leaves, it is replaced with people who care less about things like schools and city amenities. Moreover, since the city has lost tax resources from the productive group that has left the area, officials must either raise taxes or allow city services to deteriorate further. This the next round of people who can do better to leave.
And the downward spiral of accumulative decay gains momentum...
To reverse the cycle, Williams suggests that city officials must recognize that their first order of business is to retain what economists call 'net positive fiscal residue.' This means creating conditions that makes the most productive people want to stay in city environments. This might mean discriminating when it comes to the provision of city services. For example, provide better lighting, libraries, schools, and other amenities in more affluent neighborhoods.
Although some might argue that city service discrimination is unfair, Williams counters that it is even more unfair for cities, once magnets of opportunity for low income individuals, to devolve into economic wastelands.
It's got so many people but it's got no soul
And it's taken you so long
To find out you were wrong
When you thought it held everything
--Gerry Rafferty
Many US cities that were major population centers in the early 20th century are less so today. Some, such as Detroit, Cleveland, and St Louis, sport less than 50% of their previous pops. People have left these cities in droves, primarily for the suburbs where schools were better and property was more secure.
During the 1960s, civil rights advocates claimed that urban decline was due to racism--'white flight' to the suburbs. However, as Prof Williams notes, blacks were fleeing many of these cities at higher rates than whites.
Central to this phenomenon is a process Williams terms 'accumulative decay.' When schools, neighborhoods, and city services become run down, the first people to leave are those who care the most about their quality of life and have the resources to move. Because this inaugural group tends to be the most productive, they tend to put more to city coffers than they take out.
Once this group leaves, it is replaced with people who care less about things like schools and city amenities. Moreover, since the city has lost tax resources from the productive group that has left the area, officials must either raise taxes or allow city services to deteriorate further. This the next round of people who can do better to leave.
And the downward spiral of accumulative decay gains momentum...
To reverse the cycle, Williams suggests that city officials must recognize that their first order of business is to retain what economists call 'net positive fiscal residue.' This means creating conditions that makes the most productive people want to stay in city environments. This might mean discriminating when it comes to the provision of city services. For example, provide better lighting, libraries, schools, and other amenities in more affluent neighborhoods.
Although some might argue that city service discrimination is unfair, Williams counters that it is even more unfair for cities, once magnets of opportunity for low income individuals, to devolve into economic wastelands.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Class Dismissed
I'm the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck
Between the rock and the hard place
And I'm down on my luck
--Warren Zevon
Lew Rockwell discusses the notion of 'class' based on the recent class action lawsuit vs Wal-mart (WMT) that was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The notion of class in this context pertains to the view made widespread by the publication of the Communist Manifesto (Marx & Engels, 1848). It posits that the world is composed of various social groups and that these groups are constantly battling each other to gain the upper hand.
Economically, Marx (1867) centered the contest between 'labor' and 'capitalists.' He theorized that capitalists, i.e., those who own the means of production, exploit workers by extracting 'surplus value' from production in a manner that makes capitalists increasingly richer and labor increasingly poorer. (In Marx's theory, this continues until the working class revolts and appropriates the capitalists' property. After a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' phase, then society settles into the Communist version of socialism whereby all are content and earn equal incomes.)
As Rockwell notes, the traction that this theory has gained over the years is strange because it is obviously untrue. There are no homogeneous 'classes' of people acting as monolithic units. Instead there are individuals acting in their own best interests. The class notion is a construct of the mind.
Moreover, when an individual agrees to work for someone else, that individual is not being exploited. Both parties are engaging in mutually beneficial exchange. The exchange is voluntary, and both are free to negotiate the terms of the deal. Both parties can decline to trade, and they are free to associate with whomever they wish.
If a worker was being exploited by an employer, then that worker can walk away and associate with a different employer. If the employer was, say, discriminating against a worker because of age, skin color, gender, et al, then another employer would step in and capitalize on the bigotry by hiring the talent. The bigoted employer therefore operates at a competitive disadvantage.
In unhampered markets, bigoted discrimination is penalized. Bigotry can only persist in hampered markets which, by definition, are created by government intervention.
Rockwell suggests that class action lawsuits are a product of lawyers exploiting a group of people in order to pick deep corporate pockets. Perhaps, but one cannot dismiss the motives of the individuals who sign on as plaintiffs in the 'class.' Because people prefer to satisfy their needs using the least effort possible (a.k.a. the law of parsimony), then they will be prone to engage in activities such as class action lawsuits that allow them to 'get something for nothing.'
The Marxist concept of class can only exist by legislation that pits one group against another. It is a classic example of the State creating a problem that is purports to solve.
no positions
References
Marx, K.H. 1867. Das kapital, Vol 1. Hamburg: O. Meissner.
Marx, K.H. & Engels, F. 1848. The manifest of the Communist Party. London: Burghard.
Somehow I got stuck
Between the rock and the hard place
And I'm down on my luck
--Warren Zevon
Lew Rockwell discusses the notion of 'class' based on the recent class action lawsuit vs Wal-mart (WMT) that was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The notion of class in this context pertains to the view made widespread by the publication of the Communist Manifesto (Marx & Engels, 1848). It posits that the world is composed of various social groups and that these groups are constantly battling each other to gain the upper hand.
Economically, Marx (1867) centered the contest between 'labor' and 'capitalists.' He theorized that capitalists, i.e., those who own the means of production, exploit workers by extracting 'surplus value' from production in a manner that makes capitalists increasingly richer and labor increasingly poorer. (In Marx's theory, this continues until the working class revolts and appropriates the capitalists' property. After a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' phase, then society settles into the Communist version of socialism whereby all are content and earn equal incomes.)
As Rockwell notes, the traction that this theory has gained over the years is strange because it is obviously untrue. There are no homogeneous 'classes' of people acting as monolithic units. Instead there are individuals acting in their own best interests. The class notion is a construct of the mind.
Moreover, when an individual agrees to work for someone else, that individual is not being exploited. Both parties are engaging in mutually beneficial exchange. The exchange is voluntary, and both are free to negotiate the terms of the deal. Both parties can decline to trade, and they are free to associate with whomever they wish.
If a worker was being exploited by an employer, then that worker can walk away and associate with a different employer. If the employer was, say, discriminating against a worker because of age, skin color, gender, et al, then another employer would step in and capitalize on the bigotry by hiring the talent. The bigoted employer therefore operates at a competitive disadvantage.
In unhampered markets, bigoted discrimination is penalized. Bigotry can only persist in hampered markets which, by definition, are created by government intervention.
Rockwell suggests that class action lawsuits are a product of lawyers exploiting a group of people in order to pick deep corporate pockets. Perhaps, but one cannot dismiss the motives of the individuals who sign on as plaintiffs in the 'class.' Because people prefer to satisfy their needs using the least effort possible (a.k.a. the law of parsimony), then they will be prone to engage in activities such as class action lawsuits that allow them to 'get something for nothing.'
The Marxist concept of class can only exist by legislation that pits one group against another. It is a classic example of the State creating a problem that is purports to solve.
no positions
References
Marx, K.H. 1867. Das kapital, Vol 1. Hamburg: O. Meissner.
Marx, K.H. & Engels, F. 1848. The manifest of the Communist Party. London: Burghard.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Gay Marriage
Matthew Harrison Brady: We must not abandon faith. Faith is the most important thing!
Henry Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the ability to think? Mr Brady, why do you deny the one faculty of man that raises him above the other creatures of the earth? The power of his brain to reason.
--Inherit the Wind
Someone seeking an example of how convoluted legal thought has become in the land's highest court need look no further than the recent Obergefell v. Hodges ruling on gay marriage. Convoluted logic in the majority opinion underwritten by Justice Kennedy is only trumped by even more convoluted logic in dissenting opinions authored by four other justices.
Many pages of analysis have and will be generated on this ruling. One that I found particularly insightful is here. In this post, I want to discuss what I believe to be the proper basis for the ruling.
At its heart, marriage is co-habitation. Two people living together in voluntary union. Co-habitation, one aspect of freedom of association, is a natural right--a dimension of liberty endowed by our Creator. It is with us at birth as a function of our humanity. It is unalienable, meaning that no one can justly take away the right of co-habitation, whether that union is between members of the opposite sex or same sex.
Over time, and for various reasons including economic ones, the construct of marriage has evolved. One aspect that has developed is a social one where the union between two people is recognized as legitimate by others. However, this social recognition is not a right to those in voluntary union. Married people cannot force others to recognize their union.
If this was the issue in Obergefell--that gay couples were seeking to force others in society to respect their union--then the plaintiffs have no case. They cannot force their beliefs onto others.
But that is not the issue here. Unfortunately, others in the past have successfully forced their definition of marriage on others. They have done this by getting state governments to pass laws declaring that only a certain type of co-habitation arrangement, that between man and woman, will be legally recognized.
It is important to note that contemporary legal recognition of marriage does not preclude same sex unions. It does not make it illegal for gay couples to live together. Laws outlawing gay marriage would be outright violations of natural law.
What legal recognition of a particular union does do in the current system is confer particular benefits to couples who are deemed legally married by a state. Some of the benefits listed by Justice Kennedy in his opinion include (p.17) favorable treatment related to taxes, inheritance, health care access, government certificate making, and worker's compensation. Moreover, Kennedy notes that "valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law." Consequently, states have placed the institution of marriage "at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order."
Of all dissenting justices, only Justice Thomas acknowledged this. By failing to legally recognize marriage among same sex couples, "the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements." (p. 10).
Therein lies the basis for the ruling. Primarily through democratic process, people have used the strong arm of government to force their definition of marriage on others. Along with this legal status has followed a set of government-granted entitlements to those couples who meet the legal definition.
Under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, there can be no discrimination when it comes to government-granted entitlements. If people put government into the marriage contract business and confer privileges based on marital status, then both same and opposite sex unions are entitled to those benefits.
Why government is involved in marriage in the first place, and why unmarried people aren't privileged to the same treatment as married people are both excellent questions, but they aren't central to the immediate case.
Kennedy et al also claim that there is a due process issue here, as a fundamental right to marriage has been denied some individuals (p. 10). This would be true if marriage was defined only in terms of co-habitation, and laws had been passed that prohibit voluntary union among gays. But that is not the contemporary construction of marriage considered in this case. Instead, marriage is a legal status and benefit package conferred by government. It is erroneous and misleading to label marriage in this sense as a right because it is not a liberty grounded in natural rights. The contemporary legal construction of marriage imposes obligations, such as increased tax burdens, on those who are not married.
Under the current legal arrangement, marriage is an entitlement. Refusing to grant legally married status to a union because of sexual orientation is clearly discriminatory. As such, gay marriage must be legally recognized by all states under the Equal Protection Clause so that associated government-sponsored benefits can be equally distributed.
Henry Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the ability to think? Mr Brady, why do you deny the one faculty of man that raises him above the other creatures of the earth? The power of his brain to reason.
--Inherit the Wind
Someone seeking an example of how convoluted legal thought has become in the land's highest court need look no further than the recent Obergefell v. Hodges ruling on gay marriage. Convoluted logic in the majority opinion underwritten by Justice Kennedy is only trumped by even more convoluted logic in dissenting opinions authored by four other justices.
Many pages of analysis have and will be generated on this ruling. One that I found particularly insightful is here. In this post, I want to discuss what I believe to be the proper basis for the ruling.
At its heart, marriage is co-habitation. Two people living together in voluntary union. Co-habitation, one aspect of freedom of association, is a natural right--a dimension of liberty endowed by our Creator. It is with us at birth as a function of our humanity. It is unalienable, meaning that no one can justly take away the right of co-habitation, whether that union is between members of the opposite sex or same sex.
Over time, and for various reasons including economic ones, the construct of marriage has evolved. One aspect that has developed is a social one where the union between two people is recognized as legitimate by others. However, this social recognition is not a right to those in voluntary union. Married people cannot force others to recognize their union.
If this was the issue in Obergefell--that gay couples were seeking to force others in society to respect their union--then the plaintiffs have no case. They cannot force their beliefs onto others.
But that is not the issue here. Unfortunately, others in the past have successfully forced their definition of marriage on others. They have done this by getting state governments to pass laws declaring that only a certain type of co-habitation arrangement, that between man and woman, will be legally recognized.
It is important to note that contemporary legal recognition of marriage does not preclude same sex unions. It does not make it illegal for gay couples to live together. Laws outlawing gay marriage would be outright violations of natural law.
What legal recognition of a particular union does do in the current system is confer particular benefits to couples who are deemed legally married by a state. Some of the benefits listed by Justice Kennedy in his opinion include (p.17) favorable treatment related to taxes, inheritance, health care access, government certificate making, and worker's compensation. Moreover, Kennedy notes that "valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law." Consequently, states have placed the institution of marriage "at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order."
Of all dissenting justices, only Justice Thomas acknowledged this. By failing to legally recognize marriage among same sex couples, "the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements." (p. 10).
Therein lies the basis for the ruling. Primarily through democratic process, people have used the strong arm of government to force their definition of marriage on others. Along with this legal status has followed a set of government-granted entitlements to those couples who meet the legal definition.
Under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, there can be no discrimination when it comes to government-granted entitlements. If people put government into the marriage contract business and confer privileges based on marital status, then both same and opposite sex unions are entitled to those benefits.
Why government is involved in marriage in the first place, and why unmarried people aren't privileged to the same treatment as married people are both excellent questions, but they aren't central to the immediate case.
Kennedy et al also claim that there is a due process issue here, as a fundamental right to marriage has been denied some individuals (p. 10). This would be true if marriage was defined only in terms of co-habitation, and laws had been passed that prohibit voluntary union among gays. But that is not the contemporary construction of marriage considered in this case. Instead, marriage is a legal status and benefit package conferred by government. It is erroneous and misleading to label marriage in this sense as a right because it is not a liberty grounded in natural rights. The contemporary legal construction of marriage imposes obligations, such as increased tax burdens, on those who are not married.
Under the current legal arrangement, marriage is an entitlement. Refusing to grant legally married status to a union because of sexual orientation is clearly discriminatory. As such, gay marriage must be legally recognized by all states under the Equal Protection Clause so that associated government-sponsored benefits can be equally distributed.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Black Votes Matter
"And, Lenny, you would have saved the lives of millions of registered voters."
--Dr Peter Venkman (Ghostbusters)
Thomas Sowell observes that Democrats must pander to the fears, anger, and resentment of blacks in order to secure enough votes to win a presidential election. Should more than 10% of blacks turn their hats around and vote Republican or third party--or merely stay at home, then the likelihood of a Democratic victory declines appreciably.
Thus Democrats trot out the racism and victimhood cards, and the race baiting charlatans that promote them. Prof Williams notes (and Prof Sowell) that, while few would argue that racial discrimination exists, it is difficult to persuasively argue that racism is worse today than a few decades ago. It does not satisfactorily explain the deteriorating socioeconomic condition experienced by blacks over this period.
A more straightforward explanation of the plight of blacks involves destructive public policies, or what some have termed structural statism. Sowell and Williams posit that policies such as those related to welfare benefits and minimum wage laws explain socioeconomic trends among blacks in a straightforward manner--and in a manner that was predictable back when 'Great Society' and related legislation was enacted.
In fact, true 'institutional racism' can be seen in the policies promoted and implemented by Democrats that subsidize unproductive behavior and increase state dependency among blacks. These policies amount to bigotry that restrains the progress of a particular people.
If Democratic leaders were intellectually honest, then they would engage in a discussion of 'What else could it be?' What other factors might be contributing to black socioeconomic problems more so than the 'institutional racism' card that we propose?
Of course, Democrats can't afford to go down this path as it would lead to truth and likely defection of millions of black voters.
--Dr Peter Venkman (Ghostbusters)
Thomas Sowell observes that Democrats must pander to the fears, anger, and resentment of blacks in order to secure enough votes to win a presidential election. Should more than 10% of blacks turn their hats around and vote Republican or third party--or merely stay at home, then the likelihood of a Democratic victory declines appreciably.
Thus Democrats trot out the racism and victimhood cards, and the race baiting charlatans that promote them. Prof Williams notes (and Prof Sowell) that, while few would argue that racial discrimination exists, it is difficult to persuasively argue that racism is worse today than a few decades ago. It does not satisfactorily explain the deteriorating socioeconomic condition experienced by blacks over this period.
A more straightforward explanation of the plight of blacks involves destructive public policies, or what some have termed structural statism. Sowell and Williams posit that policies such as those related to welfare benefits and minimum wage laws explain socioeconomic trends among blacks in a straightforward manner--and in a manner that was predictable back when 'Great Society' and related legislation was enacted.
In fact, true 'institutional racism' can be seen in the policies promoted and implemented by Democrats that subsidize unproductive behavior and increase state dependency among blacks. These policies amount to bigotry that restrains the progress of a particular people.
If Democratic leaders were intellectually honest, then they would engage in a discussion of 'What else could it be?' What other factors might be contributing to black socioeconomic problems more so than the 'institutional racism' card that we propose?
Of course, Democrats can't afford to go down this path as it would lead to truth and likely defection of millions of black voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
