From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:43:56 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| 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.

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
| 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?

There probably are some.  I have no access to the kind of library
which would enable me to provide the references.  However, in the
suburbs of New York City, after (and maybe before) World War II,
racial and religious discrimination in real estate matters was
pretty much prohibited by law, and physical coercion was rare
(although hardly unknown).  However, persons of visibly African
descent were kept out of large areas of the suburbs for decades,
mostly by unspoken understandings.  But does this constitute
discrimination enforced by private coercion?  The penalty for
violating the rule was not usually violent; it was social and
commercial ostracism, usually.  For a real estate dealer or
landlord, then, it meant being put out of business.

In general, in speaking of the Tasmanians I've been proposing
a simplified theory to abstract some of the social forces present
in structures of discrimination.  The aboriginal Tasmanians died
out many generations ago, and present-day Tasmanians, being
mostly white Australians, would be welcome in the most racist of
American suburbs (except for the few which were racist in favor
of a non-European "race.")  My Tasmanians are a metaphor for a
number of discriminated groups.  In the New York City area,
East European Jews began to be constructed as "white" in the
1950s at the latest.

[ bigots and Tasmanians compete for housing supply ... ]
| 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.

I think you're forgetting that the real estate dealers, 
developers, and landlords won't sell or rent to the minorities.
They're not principled classical liberals, by and large, just
guys who want to maximize profits.

| 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.

In the case of supermarkets?  How?

| }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.

But much less than Blacks or Hispanics.  Also, it depends on
the Asians.  Often, wearing a suit and tie and speaking 
passable English brings the Asian over the line.  The 
tendency to allow Asians to pass -- probably because of their
morale, culture, and wealth -- has actually had a beneficial
effect in the county where I live, because many Asian Indians
are as dark as African Americans.  The bigot community has
become confused by meeting dark people who are much smarter
and better off than they, and who have not only "white"
friends but "white" relatives (paler persons of the same
ethnicity).  But we digress.

| }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.

What I've tried to do is demonstrate that discrimination is
distributed by the market.  I leave it to the reader to explore
whether it is good or bad to be discriminated against.  I have
been discriminated against, and I would prefer not to be.  I
can't see that it did me a lot of good, except in the sense
that "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc