From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:22:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.103014.21718@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}[ Bigotry against Tasmanians is distributed by market, causing
}them to confront near-universal discrimination; result includes
}higher housing prices for Tasmanians. ]
}
}Historically, under conditions of discrimination, the dollar
}of the discriminated is worth less.

When you first mentioned the example of Tasmanians, it seemed to refer to a
historical example, but now it seems to be a hypothetical.  Which is it?

And I'm not sure you understand what I mean by an acceptable example: one in
which there is no public (de jure) descrimination (equal treatment under just
laws), and no discrimination enforced by private coercion.  This excludes most
of the situations I know of.  The case to study that would best meet these
conditions to my knowledge would be a U.S. suburb with a minority population
of east european jews.  Does anyone know of such a study?

As you note, the pool of
}bigots should eventually be exhausted, leading to a balance
}in the market.  I suspect that what happens is that prices
}rise first for Tasmanians to overcome the bigotry gradient,
}and that real estate dealers find it possible to continue the
}higher prices as a kind of tradition for a time.

Actually, the law of supply and demand would yield different results.  Assume
a housing market of 100 houses and 100 buyers, 30 bigots, 10 minorities.
Further assume that the bigotry is such that no bigot will buy a house neighbor-
ing that of the minority, or directly across the street.  The minorities buy
10 houses eventually, making 30 more houses effectually off the market for the
bigots.  This constitutes a reduction in housing supply for bigots, and a raise
for non-bigots.  Bigots have only 60 to choose from, while the rest of the
population, non-bigot and minority (60 buyers) have all of them to choose from.
Seems that the minority would benefit from this.  Besides which, the bigots
are paying opportunity cost which would also benefit the minority by
comparison.

Remember
}also that, as noted in the previous article, the Tasmanians 
}have less money, and the less money you have, the more you
}pay per item.  Check supermarkets in slums versus suburban
}areas for confirmation of this.

This may be empirically true, but irrelevant to a free market, as our slums are
far from this.

}| Thirdly, I challenge the claim about the destructiveness of prejudice.  There
}| is widespread prejudice against Asian men, yet I know of no positive correlation
}| between this and longevity or standard of living in the U.S.  And the comparison
}| to murder is false.  Murder involves the initiation of physical force; peaceful
}| prejudice (such as the refusal to deal) doesn't.
}
}In American, Asians are generally constructed as "white."

The hell they are!  I could cite numerous examples of asians being discriminated
against far more than whites.

Had
}I married a Chinese woman in my youth, it might have raised 
}eyebrows, -- it would have been like marrying a Catholic --  
}but marriage to a Black woman would have caused serious disorder 
}and possibly physical violence.  There is some discrimination 
}against Asians, but there is some in favor of them as well.  
}Asians are supposed to be hard-working, good at math, good at 
}business, and to maintain their property.  These are generally
}considered desirable values in America.

Your point seems to be that Asians are less discriminated against than blacks.
They sure as hell are more discriminated against than whites!  You haven't
addressed my point.

}One can define murder in different ways.  I define it as
}wrongly depriving another of life, and metaphorize it a
}little.

So, in other words, you didn't mean what you said about discrimination's
negative impact upon life.  If you're going to be philosophical, let's do
that.  If you're going to be empirical, let's have some evidence showing that
discrimination has negative impact by some metric under the conditions I've
given: free market, equal treatment under just laws, no private coercion,
and the only factor causing discrimination being one of the criteria of the
1964 Civil Rights Act, race, sex, ethnicity, religious belief.

Until then, your claims remain unverifiable.

}I think another thread is needed for the fall of statism.

True.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34928 alt.politics.elections:8698 alt.politics.perot:971