From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:04:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.164356.8538@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}| 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).

But there many factors that would skew this: zoning is largely "economic
segregation," which was what it was called by the judge who first struck it
down as unconstitutional in the twenties.  By that time, blacks were "income
segregated" by Jim Crow, and had been for about half a century.  Additionally,
blacks committed more crime (as they unfortunately still do) than whites.

}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.

But it's precisely that profit-maximization I'm counting on.  There's only
30 bigots, so they can and will only buy 30 houses.  That leaves 70 left
over, and in order to maximize those profits, the housing industry will end
up having to deal with the minority.  Otherwise tthey'll lose money on empty
houses.

The point is, that if there were no bigots, there'd be 100 competing for 100.
Since there are 30 bigots, there are only 70 competing for 100, in a way.  The
minority gains from this, since the price of housing will fall proportionately,
all else being equal.

}| 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?

The obvious way is, again, zoning.  Study how the "community activists" are
trying to restrain Korean liquor store owners from rebuilding in the areas
of LA that rioters destroyed for an example.  Another example is how, at least
in CA, hundreds of thousands of pounds of nectarines are being destroyed by
government order because they're just too small for the instrument to meet
size regulations.  Trained pickers can't tell they're too small, but consumers
are being robbed of their right to choose for themselves based upon their own
judgement.  Ahh, the myriad ways!

}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."

I thought you were trying to prove that private discrimination under the
sort of conditions I've given would be economically detrimental to minorities.
I accept the viciousness of prejudice, but I defend the right of bigots to
act on their prejudice so long as it's peaceful.


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

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire