Do you really want an end to all “isms?” I would hate it if swimsuit calendars didn’t discriminate by looks and age. Ugh.
Why should we persuade people that government is immoral and wrong?
Well obviously people still have free will and they can choose to end their racism. My arguments only go so far as to persuade them.
I’m not coercing anyone. I’m using arguments as to why they shouldn’t engage in some activity. If you see wrong in this then you see wrong in boycotting a business. That is essentially what I am doing, boycotting a social outlook and trying to convince individuals to boycott with me.
Labour is property in the sense that it involves an employees time/effort and they can sell such on the market itself.
Again we want the same end. The end to racism. I just think it will take a little more then just the market because like you said people can just compensate their racism with extra costs.
You think you know how people feel?
Hence why I talk about helping empower women to realize they no longer need be subservent to men. That can apply to any race or gender.
I totally agree.
What if they feel the racism is worthwhile? What if they feel it is profitable, or an acceptable cost? Who are you to determine that anti-racism should come before their own value judgments?
That is the question here.
The rest of your response was a lot of fluff except this.
You’re not listening. I don’t care about racism. I don’t care if it ends. It’s irrelevant to me. And I’m a target for it in the west.
I don’t have time for white-male guilt trips. You can’t correct any social woes until the state is overthrown. Then everything will change, and it’s impossible to know exactly what would be socially undesirable if people are interacting voluntarily, since it would be NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Peace.
Do you grant that racism is collectivism ?
If I run a health insurance agency, and I know that asians are more likely to get diabetes, and africans heart problems, and set my rates based on those collective traits when my clients are african or asian, is that collectivist?
If it is, then all racism is collectivism. If it is not, then all racism is not collectivism. You tell me. I don’t care about race.
Can you not say the same about violence? Injustice? State aggrandizement?
I don’t care for the assumption that I am instantly white simply because I don’t want there to be racism.
Well if I experience racism, can I not work against it to ensure I don’t experience it again? And in working against it can I not enlist the help of others?
Think of it like this Liberty.
Let’s say I dislike Corporation X. I want to boycott Corporation X for its high prices, unsafe work practices or because the parking lot is not big enough to fit my car. Now accordingly in waging my boycott cannot I say to those entering into Corporation X ‘Hey this corporation has severly high prices so I am boycotting it because it knowingly overprices its customers. Would you like to boycott it with me in order to get them to lower prices?’ That is what I am essentially doing with racism. I say unto the individual ‘I think racism is wrong and I am boycotting those who think it is right, would you like to boycott it wiht me in order to try and stop it?’
Racism is discrimination. Discrimination is not a crime. It is not violence. And injustice as libertarians understand it, is tied to property. You show me a property rights offense in racism and you might be able to make a case.
I assume you were always white, but if you can become instantly white, there might be a future for you in show business.
Obtain property.
You can do anything you want. In a free market, you can form a union, and picket. Oh wait, you can’t picket on private property. Well, you can deter the scabs from taking your jobs. But without violence. So you can beg them not to make a living in solidarity with you so you can make more money. You can stand on your head and smoke banana peels. You can write left handed in hindi. You can get big bone piercings in your nose.
That’s not the point. IF it really was a fact that some genetic traits lead to some diseases, so be it. However, that has no political relevance and is not usually called ‘racism’.
You are complaining about the left because they are ‘collectivist’ - what do you mean by that ?
What is collectivistic about rejecting right-wing ideologies such as racism and nationalism which are, well, collectivist ideologies themselves ?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t ?
Yes but we are talking about value judgements towards profitablility or acceptable costs. Is not violence more profitable? If I mug 5 people and take their money instead of working a regular 8 hour job then I could potentially make more money and thus gain more profit. Why should our value statements of non-violence come before their value statement of violence with profitability?
You know what I mean [:P]
Or just persuade others with my vast amounts of charisma
Good. That’s all I wanted to hear. So…you want to picket with me? [:D]
‘the left’ are collectivist in that they would violate the rights of the individuals, for the sake of the collective.
its the violations that are immoral and anti-libertarian. the “for the sake of” is just whatever stupid reason.
if they did it for the reason of thinking its funny, they would be humourists. and the humoursits would be the bane of libertarians.
there are two types of ‘racism’ , thinking stupid stuff about people, and violating their rights. i wish we could easily coin two different words so that we couldnt sweepingly confuse the two.
I don’t think I’m confusing the two. Rights violation are rights violation - criminal behavior. Attacking a group of people because of ‘stupid ideas’ is both criminal and collectivist. Having stupid ideas about groups delimited by traits like skin color is collectivism.
They see women and non-whites as victims, regardless of the individual experiences or preferences of the individuals in those groups.
It is impossible not to be racist, because to ignore race, is a form of racism, as is to discriminate against it. So the question becomes, is there benign discrimination? To steal from Dr. Block, I’m a hetero, and therefore I discriminate against men in sexual relations. Am I a sexist? I am making a value judgment based on sex.
Congressman John Lewis on racism and affirmative action
Socratic method ftw!
The left has equal claim to racism. Who keeps poor minorities on welfare plantations? Kill them with kindness is their motto. The left were the original eugenicists.
shakes fist Damn you Juan!
Maybe if you are a professional wrestler.
You’re so far from the original discussion I am losing interest.
So you’re going to go door to door? Beware of dog.
Never. Waste of time. You picket, I will accumulate currency and attract females.
Well I think you are discriminating on which brings you the most pleasure sexually speaking so it is not a discrimination of their gender, just what brings you sensual delight.
Or an individual with a gun.
Hey we’re just having a very deep and dispersed talk.
I actually just stand behind the Jevoha’s witnesses Ted and Ronald.
Fair enough.
its obviously both, and obviously no problem-o
So what if I discriminated for my profit delight? Or my psychological delight? Or my spiritual delight?
Well it is your subjective preference.
so was I strawmanning you when i assumed that this collectivism that does not involve rights violations but is ‘having stupid ideas’ was racism to you? Thats fine if its not racism to you, and you dont confuse it with the criminal rights violating racism.
note the reason that criminal rights violating racism is bad: it is because of the violation itself and not because of any reason that the violator might have had for violating