I wouldn’t but as it’s anecdotal I’ll leave the issue there.
Acquired? So it it’s acquired how is it that the PC establishment after all these years trying and all this money spent still hasn’t managed to stamp it out? I can’t walk around my university without seeing signs warning racists that they’re going to the gulag.
For Juan.
What Hoppe has done (or, more accurately, what you have done, via referance to Hoppe), in this particular case, is to conflate a particular cultural bias with an economic law. There is no economic law that says that your cultural preference is innately the most competitive. This is little more than confirmation bias.
Then why are you insisting on the claim if you admit that it is largely dependant on - semantics?
The thing is - what you expect people to be like isn’t necessarily what they actually are like. These are all rather speculative opinions.
There is nothing inherently “culturally conservative” about - having a family and taking care of one’s children. This is a near-universal trait in a sense.
It does not necessarily follow that because someone believes in an afterlife, they will have a lower time preference in “this life”. In some cases the exact opposite could be true - one could disregaurd this life as merely transitory and want to whisked away to the afterlife sooner than later, which certainly is not indicative of a low time preference.
That’s simpy false. He predicts a much more isolated social order - and encourages it.
It could just as easily be said that government enforcement of what it percieves to be “multiculturalism” will fail, and that multiculturalism could very well have a non-governmental context.
I doubt if the attempt to preserve monoculture or to have absolute cultural isolation in the industrial and post-industrial age is economically feasable.
Giles, you are setting up a false dichotomy between being totally PC and being either openly racist or indifferent to it. That is a false dichotomy, and I’m getting sick of watching people knee-jerkedly being called PC for not being completely indifferent to racism. Racism is not a strictly PC issue, and viewing it as an irrational presupposition does not automatically make someone PC.
And yes, it is aquired. The concept of racial identity itself is not innate, it is learned. The idea that people are “naturally racist” is absurd because, well, not only is this dependant on a blatant naturalistic fallacy but it simply flies in the face of the facts - which is that attitudes about race are cultural phenomenon. People are not born with a concept of race identity.
Is it moral to force businesses to discriminate?
Who does that?
Of course it is. I have the right to staff my business with whomever the hell I want for whatever reason I want. Like Giles said, people discriminate on factors beyond the control of the particular individual involved all the time. Race is no different than any of the other immutable characteristics that people base decisions on.
It seems like we have veered from the initial question, which is NOT the morality or immorality of racism, but its practical economic aspect. The question should be (1) is racism a rational ideology? and (2) is it economically beneficial, in the long-term, to have mass-discrimination? To both questions, my answer is “no” - racism is not a rational ideology, and to discriminate based on cultural preconceptions of race even when it clearly is in opposition to individual merit and economic benefit is irrational, and inherently has negative economic effects when compared to more strictly economically-based decision-making.
That is what this is about, not some retarded “culture war” bullcrap.
Racial groupings pre-date the State. Now, anything’s possible but my prediction is if/when the democratic state collapses, people will go back to Tribe faster than you can say blood is thicker than water. Personally, I think human biodiversity is a treasure worthy of highest regard.
Some cultures can.
And people generate culture, so culture will be around as long as there are people. Not even Pol Pot or Mao could eradicate their countries’ cultures and it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. The global corporate elite is trying to do the same thing via the market, but all they’re really doing is just promulgating an upper class Northern European culture.
This assumes some gnostic “strictly economically-based” standard against which individual preferences must be measured. Maybe I find homogenous workplaces are more productive. Or, maybe I’m willing to forego higher profits just because I prefer people of my own race around me.
If I miss the occassional outlier white tailback because I decide only to hire black tailbacks, I can tell you that there won’t be much financial fallout from that decision. The short odds are a more profitable bet in many situations. Life insurers know that black men have shorter lifespans so they charge them higher premiums than they do white men. Now, this doesn’t mean that ALL black men have shorter lifespans than white men but the underwriters bet on the white guy and make money off this unquestionably race-conscious generalization even though they would have “more” customers if they charged a uniform premium.
Nobody has conflated any cultural bias with economic laws. The demonstrating has merely been that various lifestyles are better suited to the market than others, and as such, without the state they will become more prominant and others will decline. Now if you ask me it seems to be somewhat obvious that cultures that emphasise the importance of responsbility as well as the importance of social etiquette will do better than others.
Because the subject is important besides the semantics.
Yes and no, conservatives stress the importance of a strong family structure far more than other groups.
Yes, an isolated social order. He also admits the businesses will most likely not discriminate to the same extent private residences will.
I would agree with that, but it’s not relevant anyway.