From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:02:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.025917.19315@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) wanted me to email a
}copy of my argument that a free market distributed racism.
}I can't find it, so I reconstituted it.  And here it is,
}in case you didn't see the other one:
}
}Let us suppose that there is a population which includes a
}Tasmanian minority comprising about 10%, and that the
}non-Tasmanian majority is about one-third bigoted --
}sufficiently bigoted so that they will either not live near
}Tasmanians at all, or will at least pay a premium not to.
}Let us also suppose that there are a number of landlords and
}housing developers, and a free market in housing.
}
}Now, the landlords and developers will quickly find that if
}they serve the Tasmanians, they will lose the one-third who
}prefer Tasmanian-free housing, that is, about 30% of their
}potential customers, whereas if they refuse Tasmanians, they
}will lose only 10% of their potential customers.  Every
}single landlord and developer will thus feel economically
}pressured to discriminate against Tasmanians.  And so, even
}though only a minority of the population are bigoted, their
}preference for the "utility" of prejudice will be spread by
}market forces throughout the community. 
}
}This example is, of course, a considerable simplification of 
}a complex process.  For instance, we have not considered how
}the price of housing will rise for Tasmanians, or how
}analogous processes in the job market will cause them to
}have less money to bid for housing.  However, since we can
}see results in history which the theory would predict, we
}can assume the theory at least approximates the behavior of
}real communities.

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.

}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.

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.

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.

}There _are_ alternatives; a good anarchist would simply
}interfere with bigotry without waiting for the state to tell
}him to do so -- but evidently such people are few and far
}between.

Which means that we must maximize both the number and effectiveness of this
number, however small or large it may be.

}Tim Starr:
}| Given that we're experiencing the fall of statism globally, I find it hard
}| to believe that any big problems with prejudice were experienced by any
}| minority group in the past century sans state intervention being a major
}| means of oppression, but if I'm wrong, please inform me with specifics.
}
}I don't see any fall of statism anywhere.  But I recognize
}that the private corporation is a part of the state.  What
}we might fondly call the ruling class, if it weren't losing
}control, may be hiding its stuff, but they've still got
}most of it together.  In the United States, meanwhile, the
}Federal Government is increasing its police powers and
}activities while a supine Supreme Court does nothing.  But
}I digress.

You're taking to a libertarian activist; I'm probably about as apprised of the
condition of U.S. Statism and even global statism (given that I work for the
International Society for Individual Liberty HQ) as you are.  Statism is on
the downfall, even in the U.S., and even though U.S. statists are resorting
to desperate measures.

BTW - substract limited lability from privae corporations, and you don't really
have a part of the state anymore.  Connection to Statism is merely an acciden-
tal, although often significant, feature of joint-stock corporations.

}Even though it was against the law for many years, there is
}endless evidence that persons of color have suffered big
}problems with prejudice in essential areas like business and
}housing for generations, including the most recent ones,
}even in northern, supposedly liberal jurisdictions.  Ask 
}your question in soc.culture.african.american and let
}them tell you all about it.

This would only tend to refute my arguments if these problems happened in
free-market settings, which they decisively don't.  Zoning, for example,
is invidiously used to collectivize externalities in locales where racial and
ethnic minorities tend to reside, transact business, etc.


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

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc