From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination in Libertaria
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:53:52 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes: 

>I think it [the low-paid jobs taken by Chinese immigrants] adequately
>belies the notion of Chinese-do-better-due-to- their-self-sufficiency.

I don't understand this.  If the way of life of a people doesn't give
them instant prosperity, but does help them manage their current
situation and build a better life for their children, what more can be
asked?

>|My claim was that the explanation of the success of the groups that
>|have been successful has not been AA and other forms of govt help, and
>|that reliance on such things is a distraction from the real task of>|desveloping the habits and institutions that will lead to success. 
>
>Well, develop this further then.  I'd argue that the facts do not
>support this well enough to allow a simple "claim" to stand.  This
>seems to me to be the problem of the myth of the model minority: it
>leads us to claim things that are incorrect.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Comments that may be relevant:

1.  The groups that have eventually prospered most (the Jews and the
Japanese, for example) have not prospered because they got involved in
politics and secured government benefits, but for other reasons.

2.  By its nature, government support can only raise you to the level at
which the government -- meaning your fellow citizens who pay taxes -- is
willing to support you.  That will generally be below the average level
of your fellow citizens.

3.  Government support tends to be a trap, because you lose it when you
are successful and don't need it.  The effect is equivalent to taxing
heavily the efforts of the unsuccessful to become successful.

>|>Further, as a liberterian, I would expect that one would find the
>|>requirement that one "assimilate" (that is subjugate one's individual
>|>cultural mores to the mainstream) in order to succeed somewhat
>|>distasteful.
>
>|What's the requirement?  You get what you pay for.  If you want to be
>|successful and prosperous you cultivate one sort of cultural mores.  If
>|there are other things you value more, that's fine but don't complain
>|that you're not successful and prosperous.
>
>I'm afraid that this doesn't follow from my point (or maybe it does
>and I just don't follow you).

It's not a matter of assimilation.  The Quakers prospered in
Philadelphia even though they dressed and talked funny and Orthodox Jews
seem to be prospering even though they resist assimilation.  In neither
case did their prosperity have anything to do with government support. 
It did have a great deal to do with the cultural mores of those
particular groups, though.

I don't see anything distasteful in saying that people should recognize
that how they live has consequences that they will have to live with. 
So if people want to prosper they will have to develop the habits and
capacities that lead to prosperity -- in an orderly commercial society,
these will usually include things like hard work, reliability, frugality
and so on.  I can easily understand someone preferring a different sort
of life -- savoring the pleasure of the moment, pursuing spiritual
enlightenment, or whatever.  The rewards of such a life will not include
material prosperity, though, and I see nothing wrong with that.

>All stats that I've seen note a very sudden spurt of growth [in the
>proportion of middle-class blacks] after 1965 which can be related
>almost directly to AA and other ways fo including Blacks in the
>mainstream work force . . . 

There's no doubt that the number of blacks who are middle class could be
raised by requiring that 12% of jobs in all categories go to blacks.  (I
take it that AA measures are intended in the aggregate to do something
very like that.)

I deny, though, that such a measure or similar measures would be in the
long-term interests of anyone.  I have touched on some reasons for
thinking freedom of association is a good thing in previous posts. 
Another issue is that imposing such requirements seriously weakens
whatever connections exist between (i) capacity and achievement, (ii)
the recognition of capacity and achievement by others and (iii)
occupational success.  The advantage of those connections is that they
encourage people who want to be successful to cultivate qualities that
will make their success a public benefit, and they link success with the
respect of other people.

>The other trend [toward high rates of illegitimacy and low rate of youth
>employment] can be attributed to many things, but the overall picture is
>more prophetic than anything else:  the gap between the rich & poor is
>widening and widening fast (this is also true of the overall
>workforce--I can almost assure you that we'll be talking about that
>constantly by decades end).

One thing that contributes to the gap between rich and poor is cultural
mores -- if 2/3 of black babies are illegitimate there will be a lot of
poor black families and poor black children.  I suggested above that
some of the benefit for blacks from programs such as AA is more apparent
than real.  If it's true that welfare programs result in more
illegitimacy then the same would be true of those programs as well.

>|In addition, of course, I think anti-discrimination laws are wrong, but
>|you don't seem much impressed by my arguments on that score.
>
>I honestly don't recall the arguments (I do remember the assertion)
>:-).  I'd argue that these laws make sense pragmatically and make
>sense ethically.  I'd be more than happy to discuss it further: 1)
>explain why you think they are wrong and 2) explain why you think they
>make bad policy (ie have bad real-world effects).

If you want to pursue this, could I ask you to look at and comment on
some of my earlier posts?  If you don't see anything that seems
relevant, I will send you the ones I meant.

>I recall you arguing that it [the MIT incident] would be less likely in
>Libertaria... perhaps I misread you.  I'll go back and re-read your
>article.  But if you weren't asserting that, what was your point?  

You said (as I recall) that one argument for anti-discrimination laws
was that they kept people from getting angry and gave the MIT incident
as an instance of people getting angry because of discrimination.  My
response was (1) the MIT incident would be no more likely to happen in
Libertaria, and (2) the kind of alienation from society in general that
lies behind the extreme reactions ("killing everyone") you seemed to
have in mind would be less likely in Libertaria because informal social
ties (e.g., to family, friends, relatives and neighbors) would be
stronger.

>I do not think Communism "degenerates" into what we have now.  I do
>think Libertaria *in particular* would.

As to Communism, we will have to see what happens in Eastern Europe. 
The people there say they want to live in a "normal country", which may
mean something like what we have now.  As to Libertaria, the history of
the United States suggests you may be right.

>In fact, particularly on issues of children, discrimination and the
>enivronment I've found that most Libs with whom I've had sustained
>email/personal conversations are much closer to the sort of compromises
>we've worked out in the USA than they are to the "official" Lib
>positions.

Radicalism is a difficult position to sustain for people who aren't
slightly crazy -- it's ever so much easier to go with the flow.
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)