From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:30:14 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

[ Bigotry against Tasmanians is distributed by market, causing
them to confront near-universal discrimination; result includes
higher housing prices for Tasmanians. ]

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
| This still isn't clear to me.  Seems to me like the result of this arrangement
| would be mere market segregation, not any rise in the price of commodities
| like housing.  Specialization also seems to be overlooked.  Firms will special-
| ize in serving the Tasmanian market, and thus will be exempt from the pressures
| to discriminate AGAINST Tasmanians, and will instead discriminate in favor of
| them.

Historically, under conditions of discrimination, the dollar
of the discriminated is worth less.  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.  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.

| }Now, strictly speaking, there is no political problem, but
| }only as long as the Tasmanians consent to their role in the
| }social contract.  If they find that the operation of the
| }social contract consistently injures them, individually and
| }as a community, then it will be both rational and
| }emotionally satisfying for them to revolt.  After all, we
| }can see in the United States that racial discrimination
| }shortens as well as worsens the life of its objects; it is a
| }kind of murder, even though no single person holds a gun.
| }Only a very few people will consent to being murdered,
| }however slowly and anonymously.
| 
| This isn't clear either.  First of all, this is an ethical problem primarily,
| thus the primary resolution would also be ethical.  If ethical arguments against
| anti-Tasmanian prejudice fail, that would require that non-Tasmanians be
| unethical in this respect.  I don't know of any historical example of this
| being tried upon sound ethical grounds (i.e., egoistic rather than altruistic
| in my opinion - judgement based upon the content of character is part of the
| good life) and has failed this way.

A good deal of the anti-prejudice propaganda of the 50's and
the 60's that I can recall make use of material self-interest
as the main argument -- it's a very good one.   But people are
"spiritual" as well as "material" and in their hearts, a good
many just don't like people who are different from themselves
and will willingly pay various costs to exercise their pre-
ferences.  And they will construct a kind of ethics that 
is consistent with their prejudices if necessary.

| Plus, even if this were the case, that the non-Tasmanians remained immune to
| anti-prejudice argument, this hardly makes it rational for Tasmanians to
| revolt politically.  Might doesn't make right; the ends don't justify the
| means, and the elimination of prejudice depends on the volition of the
| prejudiced, thus making it immune to coercion.  Bigots can be killed, but
| not forced to change their mind.

You can raise the costs of bigotry through direct force,
non-violent direct action, the operation of the state, and
in other ways.  As the cost rises, fewer will wish to pay it.
However, one must remember that many are thrilled by violence
and not encourage the substitution of one bad preference for
another.  Hence the dull weight of the law is better than
rioting in the streets.

| 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."  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.

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

I think another thread is needed for the fall of statism.
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics