So wait, is Mises forum the third grade math classroom or am I supposed to be a third grader? Please explain. LOL [:P]
ha ha so charming.
lol [:D]
epic and true.
I’m black and libertarian. I really couldn’t care less if every other libertarian was white. Ideas don’t have colors. Liberty is not weakened by a lack of diversity. I could think of nothing worse than if mises.org threw up a couple of token black authors.
What do you mean?
Ok in no particular order I’m going to respond to some of the objections to what I have said.
Firstly I disagree with the idea that individuals simply have individual interests and have no group interests. The individual is motivated by an innate biological drive to replicate his genes. Beyond himself, the greatest concentration of genes are going to be his kin, parents, siblings and children, which of course explains the great psychological bond within families. This is not some social construct but a genuine biological phenomenon. These genes do not stop with an individual’s family of course but of course but are also shared in a more diluted form with his extended family which in a macro level is expressed by the tribe or nation. i.e. a group of individuals who share more genes with each other than they do with other groups.
Secondly it is important to be conscious of them because these traits are common to all human beings and have a great impact on the world. No amount of social engineering is going to eliminate these tendencies because they are hard wired into our natures.
Thirdly whilst a few token non-whites might be attracted to the libertarian movement it doesn’t mean non-whites are potentially going to rush into the movement. Exceptions to trends does not mean that trends do not exist and are not important. If 95% of a group believe A, and 5% believe B then society is going to be organised in accordance to A. Numbers matters and the politics and culture is going to reflect the dominant group.
Fourthly when I speak of Jews I define them as a racial group, not as a religious group. Though I might add their particular religion has racial implications, which has kept Jews as a distinct racial/ethnic group by not accepting converts. They are in affect a nation within a nation who feel more of a sense of kinship with fellow Jews in different countries than they do with the national groups they live in.
As for Jewish political beliefs reflecting their essentially religious heritage of being a light unto the world, I would say there political beliefs reflects their innate group interests and that Judaism the religion is also an ideology that reinforces that. Jews are a minority in all countries except Israel so in order to get the gentile population to serve the Jews interests they must package them in ideologies that which promise to be a universal benefit for all humanity. In Israel where Jews are a majority, they don’t waste much time on universalistic rhetoric and are content to use tanks, bulldozers and torture chambers against the Palestinians to pursue their ethnic group interests.
Finally, the idea that simply Libertarianism holds out the idea that every bodies social-economic status will converge is false. A Libertarian society mighty theoretically generate more wealth than a statist society could but it will not mean that everyone is going to get an equal slice. Status is a zero-sum game and for someone to have high status, somebody has to have low-status. Now even in your libertarian utopia somebody still has to be the janitor, get paid relatively low wages, live in a relatively poor neighbourhood whilst watching merchant bankers live the high life. What’s in it for the janitor when in a statist society he could ensure some of that merchant banker’s wealth is distributed to him?
Not to speak for locknroll cause it’s impossible, but after reading his/her post and relying upon the usual sense of the word “token”, what that would mean is if mises.org used black authors that had no ideas at all but only used them for their color. That would be a token black author. No ideas, just somebody that might appeal because of the color of his/her skin.
I got this far and stopped reading. Who are you arguing against? Do you know what a civil society and a free market is in the libertarian and Austrian sense of interpreting these concepts?
What I mean is that if mises.org just started putting up articles from minority authors just because they wanted to maintain a certain level of diversity it would feel a little disingenuous. Growing up I hated when people would give books/movies/articles to me and expect that I would prefer them because they had black authors. I was always much more interested in the content of a book rather than the skin colour of the author.
Indeed, I’m often reminded of one of my favourite bits of movie dialogue from the English Patient when confronted with this mindset:
Hana: There’s a man downstairs. He brought us eggs. He might stay.
Almásy: Why? Can he lay eggs?
Hana: He’s Canadian.
Almásy: Why are people always so happy when they collide with someone from the same place? What happened in Montreal when you passed a man in the street? Did you invite him to live with you?
Oh, ok. I see.
Larry Elder
“I got this far and stopped reading. Who are you arguing against? Do you know what a civil society and a free market is in the libertarian and Austrian sense of interpreting these concepts?”
Yes I know what these concepts are. I’m pretty well read on Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe. I know what libertarians mean by a civil society and free market. I’m not here to discuss whether your ideas are right or wrong, but whether your ideas can actually be implemented in practice.
I was giving my two cents on the actual thread question of why libertarians are just a (small) bunch of white guys? The short answer is that because it appeals to their interests and nobody elses.
“Yes I know what these concepts are. I’m pretty well read on Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe. I know what libertarians mean by a civil society and free market. I’m not here to discuss whether your ideas are right or wrong, but whether your ideas can actually be implemented in practice.”
They are in practice. Violence opposes them. So far peaceful, voluntary exchange is winning out or else there would be nobody left on this planet.
“I was giving my two cents on the actual thread question of why libertarians are just a (small) bunch of white guys? The short answer is that because it appeals to their interests and nobody elses.”
You have yet to provide an argument for that statement. Flesh doesn’t argue.
This is just stupid. It sounds like Marxist/racist polylogism. Security and prosperity benefits all humans who value living in civilization.
I think anarchism is correlated with intelligence
Wow, that’s self serving. Out of interest, do you have any figures to support that?
Except maybe the statists. They’ll never have this kind of power. Even state employees as low down as teachers probably value their job security in spite of their gross incompetence. They’re psychologically safe. Free association will rob them of this as their fellow man rids himself of the need for glorified babysitters. Blarg.
They would clearly lose only in the short term by having to adjust training and employment. So, that is not a much of an exception.
Im not saying they would be materially poorer. I agree that everyone would get richer. But I think they can’t remain children on a competitive market. Being an authority figure when you don’t deserve it does something special to people’s egos.