Often though, ‘latino’ is just a catch-all category of otherwise unrelated Spanish speaking groups. That graph cites ‘Latinos of all races’. It would be interesting to see the change if you subtracted Cubans from that.
If Jesús Huerta de Soto was a student in the United States, he would be eligible for financial aid and would be subject to affirmative action.
I was talking about inequality of income across racial/ethnic groups. If skin color is irrelevant to worker productivity, then I can’t imagine any reason why median black income should be significantly different from median white income.
Since median income is infact very different between these two groups (and has been for decades), there must be something else going on here. Maybe there is discrimination in wage setting (less likely these days I think). Or maybe there are factors that are making black workers less productive than they otherwise would be–like maybe fewer educational opportunities, living in more violent communities, etc.
Like abskebabs noted, libertarians have ideas for solving these problems like abolishing the public school system so that competition among private schools will improve educational quality and open doors to higher education or ending the war on drugs to reduce gang violence. I don’t necc agree with these policy prescriptions, but if you’re a libertarian I’m sure they probably make sense to you.
Of course, how often do you see any politically prominent libertarian making these policies or issues their number one priority??? They certainly are not Ron Paul’s priority. By my count he has written 5 entire books on the Gold Standard or monetary policy and not a single book on poverty or income inequality. And of course its not just him. Look at this board, it is clearly not a big issue here How many threads are there on this forum about poverty or income inequality across races? By comparison, how many threads do you think there are about frickin’ Homesteading?
The simple fact of the matter is that libertarian generally don’t care about income inequality across races and neither do most of their supporters. So I am not surprised that the OP thinks the libertarian base is not very diverse.
Higher intelligence is strongly correlated with higher income, so if median black intelligence is lower than median white intelligence, that would explain the difference.
That’s right. We don’t care about races.
I think there is more to it though, as immigrant blacks in the U.S. have a slightly higher median income than that of native U.S. whites (so much for the racism holding black income down nonsense!), so even with I.Q. there must be a cultural reason as well.
I think the OP has found his answer right here.
IMO it’s the lack of capital accumulation amongst blacks. After all, they never got their 40 acres and a mule, then had to suffer through Jim Crow, then they had to deal with the Federal Reserve stealing the value of their wages and savings (to disproportionate effect since credit inflation most hurts the poor, who lack assets which would appreciate in value). Then MLK hit the scene and turned the situation into a call for socialism.
An ugly situation but I’d not put it down to blacks being less intelligent. I tend to not really buy in to those statistical analyses that say otherwise, given the lack of economic understanding of those who conduct them.
being white! [:D]
Lmfao.
KILL WHITEY! [6]
Who cares?
Let me know when I should start feeling guilty for the big-bang; I’m sure plenty of dark matter was created / affected with it’s ocurrence.
“Then MLK hit the scene and turned the situation into a call for socialism.”
I’m uncomfortable with placing the blame for an ideological tendency towards socialism in the African-American community at the feet of Martin Luther King Jr. That tendency already existed and had for some time. If the blame should be placed anywhere, it should be spread pretty evenly. However, if any one man more than others deserved credit or scorn for doing so, I’d look no further than W.E.B. du Bois, who remains highly lauded while his ideological foe Booker T. Washington remains on the margins of black intellectual favor, where he resides with Zora Neale Hurston. Du Bois and his acolytes went on a true hate campaign against Washington and their victory was near total. What the black intelligentsia of the 1940s did to Zora Neale Hurston was particularly shameful (it involved a truly pernicious hoax at ZNH’s expense: false allegations that she had sexually molested two ten year-old African-American boys).
African-Americans exhibiting tendencies towards classical liberalism, individualism, and libertarianism were marked for destruction in the wake of Du Bois’s crusade to root them out. Classical liberals such as Frederick Douglass (who would likely abhor today’s “Black Leadership”) were recast as proto-progressives. Struck from the record was Douglass’s time crossing the British Isles on foot with Cobden and Bright expounding upon the benefits of free trade, free association, and every other cast of liberty. Martin Luther King Jr., whatever the faults of his socio-economic convictions, was a man of peace who set an example for popular protest we’re going to need to emulate as best we can as the shitstorm that is facing us advances. We’d be far better off not trying to knock from a pedestal a man who, frankly, deserves to occupy it and opting instead to concern ourselves with reminding our opponents of the African-American classical liberal tradition. God, to read Booker T. Washington sometimes, the man may have been something of a proto-Rothbardian.
If anything, the rewriting of Douglass’s biography and the trashing of black classical liberals ought to serve as an example of how insidious the institutionalization and regimentation of “socially-acceptable” parameters for African-American intellectual discussion really is.
Black Americans have an antipathy towards markets due to being sold in them, while Native Americans have an antipathy towards property rights, because Western conceptions of property rights were used as a justification for killing nearly all of them.
The simple fact of the matter is that libertarian generally don’t care about income inequality across races and neither do most of their supporters.
Because they’re on the ‘winning’ side of the inequality?
No, but both of your statements are equally assumptive.
Last time I checked it was also part of their culture.
I’m going to answer the question of why libertarians are just a point of white guys from the stand point of evolutionary psychology:
Firstly Libertarianism is fundamentally Jewish in origin. Mises, Rothbard and Rand were all jews who provided the intellectual base for the movement. It is an ideology that promotes Jewish ethnic interests by a) legitimising their high status at the top of the economic food chain and b) reducing anti-semitism by using individualism to undermine group identity of the native populations they reside in.
Secondly, libertarianism attracts whites because they have a tendency to view things in universal terms and for evolutionary reasons have weak group cohesiveness. It attracts a subsection of whites who beleive that the they stand to gain from a free market, which is why all of you generally fit the profile of white middle-class graduates who are not facing the prospect of their livelihood being shipped to China.
Thirdly, non-whites have high group cohesiveness and view things in particularist terms i.e. whats good for Black’s? and will promote ideologies that maximise their group interests, whether its marxism, liberalism or good old white guilt. Hence it’s no point arguing to a Black man holding a cushy affirmative action job that society as a whole will better offer in a free market. He will, having comparatively low IQ with Whites, to give up his high status affirmative action post for a menial low-status job.
I hate to break it to you white boys but your messianic movement is going nowhere because it doesn’t understand basic evolutionary psychology.
Your post is full of collective thinking, which means that, according to your post, that you are probably non-white.
Calling me a ‘collectivist’ is just your way of saying my arguments are nasty. Well nasty as they are do you actually care to refute them?