libertarianism isnt a theory about how people can be made ‘friendly’ ‘nice’ or ‘tolerant’. its an ethical theory that concerns justice.
your asking it to do too much. libertarianism isnt offering a utopia. once we have as much justice as is feasable you can set about influencing people to be nice and friendly and tolerant so long as you stick to just means. how can this seem unattractive compared to what rival ideologies to libertarianism offer?
I guess I wouldn’t mind it as long as we didn’t go back to the way things were in the 60s. I like the libertarian ideology… but I just think that some of the views in it are just a bit extreme for me. In the libertarian ideological spectrum I would be considered a moderate if I were to be considered a libertarian. That being said, many of the libertarian views have shaped the way I think about privatization and the free market. It’s just that I don’t know exactly how the discrimination libertarian view would work in reality.
“back to the way we were before”… Are you blaming libertarians for the Slave State that the United States was and for the legislation that the U.S. State would pass that kept racism on-going, such as in public schools and such? I don’t know why you made that comment. That’s why I asked you to explain what historical context in which this whole libertarian racist thing your bringing up comes from.
Ok, then, what libertarian views do you disagree with?
maybe the 60’s conjours up different thoughts for me than you. but if i think of things to get upset about in the 60’s, its crimes!
whether by the criminals of the state, or criminals who are also racists, or just other criminals.
whereas; people who are not nice friendly or tolerant are way way down the list of things to worry about. (and people who are rude self-exclude themselves from enjoying us nice people to our full potential anyhow, so…)
be a libertarian ! go on !
No I’m not blaming the libertarian views for slavery. I guess I just read a book from an anarcho-libertarian view so I’m against some of the views. The views in the book I disagreed with are the views on why people are poor, I disagreed with the view on ecology, and I disagree with the view of not allowing everyone an opportunity to use the court system. I also disagree with the view of buying protection… and a few other things to name a few.
Well, I’m a non ideological person. I’ve tried marxism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and a couple of other ideologies and they didn’t work for me. I’m more of an individual. But I like the libertarian view on the free market… I just can’t see myself completely embracing libertarian thought or any other ideology.
Ok, I didn’t read the book, maybe. I read the “For the New Liberty:…” one, but I don’t know if you mean that to be the same. Can’t comment on the poor, same with ecology (both are not specific enough). How everyone couldn’t use a court system and attain justice doesn’t sound libertarian. And buying protection is what we do now, except in a libertarian view the overhead economic cost and criminality (thus corruption) by the middle man (the State) needs removed.
At least this was a tiny bit more specific. Thanks
That was the same book I read. But I don’t know how it would actually work and I think it would discriminate against the poor because rich people would be able to afford better lawyers but only more so now. Then poor people wouldn’t be able to protect themselves. Also, I disagree with the idea that poor people are where they are because of their values. That isn’t true. I don’t know how you could make a blanket statement like that about a whole group of people.
There is clear evidence that Black incomes were on the rise right up until the civil right movement, after which they have remained stagnant. If anything, anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action programs are counterproductive. For an idea as to why, I recommend Sowell’s Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.
There is no such “right”, anymore than one has a “right” to be someone else’s friend. Moreover, no one thinks the market will absolutely and simply eliminate racism. It merely penalises it in some areas.
Why? It’s a service like any other. Whether it’s provided through traditional firms, coops, friendlies, or who knows what, it is to be done privately.
What quote about poor people and their values? Quote it. Put this into context. Cause this conversation turned from you blaming libertarians of being racists to now they don’t like poor people. So your reaching for straws I think. But provide the quote and show what you mean.
White chicks are hotter.
S/chicks/guys and I agree. The original statement is true too of course (IMO.)
Generally, I do believe blatant discrimination will be driven out of the market.
But there are some cases where it won’t be without state intervention. If there is imperfect information, something called statistical discrimination can emerge, which leads to an innefficient situation where one groups starts producing less overall than another even though “pre-market” they both had the same set of skills. This is not something the market can solve.
do you have a reference so i might read more of this?
Private Discrimination and Social Intervention in Competitive Labor Markets, Lundberg and Startz 1983
maybe they are using discrimination in a different sense than we would, in ‘race angst’ threads
the kind of discrimination i thought this thread was focused on, to my mind means that the discriminators opinion of the discriminated is unduly negative or positive, because the discriminator has a false belief about the discriminated’s qualities (A,B,C ) and the discrimination is triggered by the discriminated having some attribute (X) that is not causally correlated to (A,B,C). and so the discriminator has a false belief that X implies A,B,C.
however in the article you posted to, they stipulate that it is true that X implies A,B,C. i.e. that it is truly Harder to Judge a person from ethnic group A’s productivity compared to one from group B. so its the kind of true and correct discrimination, that allows me to discriminate between two wines of different qualities both of which i have tasted , which is different from discriminating between two wines i havent tasted based only about my arbitrary beliefs that wines from one place on earth are better than wines from other places.
Yes, it is a different kind of discrimination which is not related to prejudice, and may not even be considered discrimination at all. The firms are acting rationally when assessing the two groups and on average members from these two groups will be paid the same. But because the signals for the two groups are different, this can lead to a situation where real discrimination exists. The imperfect information, for example, can be about a group’s schooling. If the signal is not strong, that reduces the incentive for someone to invest in human capital and thus the labor market will split and the two groups will not on average be paid the same wage even though the pre-market characteristics were similar. The imperfect information has created a discriminatory situation. This is a case where the government can step in and prevent that from happening.
what would the government do, pass laws on hiring? qoutas? how could it do this either economically and morally?
This is their suggestion from the paper:
We demonstrate that a policy forbidding separate wage schedules for star workers and dagger workers results in an increase in aIlocative efficiency. Consider the consequences of the following policy restriction:employers may offer wages equal to the expectation of a worker’s marginal product conditioned on his test score, but may not consider group membership.