peacenik

Originally posted by Eikonoklast
Well, I think what Red Dave and others are trying to say is that Libertarianism, which supports capitalism without any regulation over private entities, would basically allow employers to continue with their status quo of discriminating against workers on the basis of race.

Libertarians have a couple of assumptions that are simply incorrect. First, they assume that all employer's are rational decision makers and that they will hire the most productive workers without regard for race because that would be in their best economic interest. However, this is simply not the case because many employers are so racist that their own prejudices override their concerns for profits when it comes to hiring members of a certain race. Also, even if an ethnic minority is the most qualified candidate, it still may not be in the employer's best interest to hire the ethnic minority if their workforce and/or their customers are bigoted and the hiring of an ethnic minority would cause dissention in their workforce or anger their customers.

Second, they assume that it is fair to expect ethnic minorities, who must overcome generations of racism, oppression, and poor education, to compete with applicants who have not suffered these disadvantages in a manner that ignores the disadvantages suffered by ethnic minorities. This facially neutral system is analogous to having a marathon where during the first 15 miles certain contestants were required to run with 30 pound bricks around their necks while the others were allowed to run free and then after fifteen miles the bricks are lifted and the runners are said to "be on an even playing field" with those who were allowed to run free for the entire marathon. This would obviously be an unfair marathon, and neither is a system of hiring workers that ignores the effects of past and present discrimination suffered by ethnic minorities.

For the above reasons, government regulations over private employer's hiring decisions to ensure that they are not disadvantaging ethnic minorities are critical to a well-functioning capitalist ic society. Unlike Red-Dave, I believe that regulated capitalism can work well; however, unlike the libertarians I believe that government regulation is necessary in a capitalistic society to ensure that we do have real competition(not monopolies and collusion), to ensure that corporations bear the full costs of their production(including external costs such as pollution that would not be accounted for without regulation), and to ensure that powerful companies do not exploit their workers(through racism, wrongful discharges, and unsafe working conditions; these concerns are amplified where their is little to no information available to workers about the risk of wrongful discharge or the unsafe nature of working conditions when hired).

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by peacenik
Libertarians have a couple of assumptions that are simply incorrect. First, they assume that all employer's are rational decision makers and that they will hire the most productive workers without regard for race because that would be in their best economic interest. However, this is simply not the case because many employers are so racist that their own prejudices override their concerns for profits when it comes to hiring members of a certain race.

Partially agree. However, the market will eliminate them in time.

Also, even if an ethnic minority is the most qualified candidate, it still may not be in the employer's best interest to hire the ethnic minority if their workforce and/or their customers are bigoted and the hiring of an ethnic minority would cause dissention in their workforce or anger their customers.

Then they will find themselves losing business to the guy who does hire them.

It's not a perfect solution but it's basically self-correcting over time. Therefore it's not justification for a major government intrustion.

Second, they assume that it is fair to expect ethnic minorities, who must overcome generations of racism, oppression, and poor education, to compete with applicants who have not suffered these disadvantages in a manner that ignores the disadvantages suffered by ethnic minorities.

Immigrants do it fine. Why can't they?

peacenik

Originally posted by Loren Pechel
Yes, the libertarian cure for everything. The market will cure all. Ignore and/or downplay market imperfections, which often times are the rule rather than the exception in the real world, and assume that the market will function perfectly with only rational decisionmakers and pure competition with no anticompetitive behavior or external costs.

By the way, if the market is ALWAYS so great and government intervention is ALWAYS so evil, then explain to me why racism persisted throughout the nation for hundreds of years and especially in the South up until 1964 when private employers were left to their own devices, but since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which regulates private employers to ensure that they don't disadvantage minorities(a libertarians nightmare), the culture has changed drastically and although racism still persists, it is much less prevelant. Can you honestly contend that through market forces alone, which failed miserably for literally hundred of years in preventing racism in this nation, we would have made the same progress in the fight against racism that we have made since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Really? Then once again, please explain to me why the market failed miserably for hundreds of years at remedying racism prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which finally employed government regulation to remedy racial discrimination?

Here you are comparing apples to oranges. While immigrants may very well come to this nation to escape oppression, unlike ethnic minority American citizens, particularly blacks and native Americans, their suffering has not been the result our own government's policies. In other words, while immigrants may have been victims of oppression, we were not their oppressors and thus we are not responsible for their injuries. In contrast, our society has supported and condoned racist policies that are to blame for the disadvantages suffered by ethnic minorities todays; thus, our society must bear the costs of remedying our society's past injustices by lifting up those citizens that have suffered from the present effects of past or present racist policies supported and/or condoned by our society.

Loren Pechtel

[B]Originally posted by peacenik
Originally posted by Loren Pechel

Yes, the libertarian cure for everything. The market will cure all. Ignore and/or downplay market imperfections, which often times are the rule rather than the exception in the real world, and assume that the market will function perfectly with only rational decisionmakers and pure competition with no anticompetitive behavior or external costs.

By the way, if the market is ALWAYS so great and government intervention is ALWAYS so evil, then explain to me why racism persisted throughout the nation for hundreds of years and especially in the South up until 1964

1) The market isn't perfect. Something deeply entrenched can take a *LONG* time to go away.

2) I have never disagreed with the implementation of AA! It was a needed fix. However, it's outlived it's usefulness, it's now worse than what it's supposed to treat.

Really? Then once again, please explain to me why the market failed miserably for hundreds of years at remedying racism prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which finally employed government regulation to remedy racial discrimination?

Mind explaining where these hundereds of years came from?

Here you are comparing apples to oranges. While immigrants may very well come to this nation to escape oppression, unlike ethnic minority American citizens, particularly blacks and native Americans, their suffering has not been the result our own government's policies. In other words, while immigrants may have been victims of oppression, we were not their oppressors and thus we are not responsible for their injuries.

No wonder they look like oranges--you're looking at the issue backwards.

I'm saying that all the situational (as opposed to internal) disadvantages that you claim are keeping blacks down apply to immigrants. Yet they aren't kept down.

In contrast, our society has supported and condoned racist policies that are to blame for the disadvantages suffered by ethnic minorities todays; thus, our society must bear the costs of remedying our society's past injustices by lifting up those citizens that have suffered from the present effects of past or present racist policies supported and/or condoned by our society.

We already have, though. It's reached the point that further aid is counterproductive.

peacenik

Originally posted by Loren Pechel
You've got that right!


Really, well where is your evidence to back up this assertion that AA is so harmful to whites that it is no longer useful. Contrary to what you may believe, racism and societal discrimination still persists in America and AA is still unfortunately needed to remedy this ongoing discrimination. Yes, we have come a long way since Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but unfortunately we still have a ways to go before we can honestly say we have "remedied" racism and discrimination. Consider the following evidence, which is only the tip of the iceberg:

1. http://www.urbanthinktank.org/yourname.cfm

2. http://www.usatoday.com/news/vault/nv96023.htm

3. http://www.fdp.dk/uk/racism.php


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While blacks and whites are murdered in roughly equal numbers in the USA, the killers of white people are 6 times as likely to be put to death, according to a statistical analysis released last week by the anti-death penalty human rights organization Amnesty International USA. It found that of 845 people executed since the U.S. resumed capital punishment in 1977, 80% were put to death for killing whites, while only 13% were executed for killing blacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



4. http://www.amnesty.ca/usa/racism.htm

5. http://www.counterpunch.org/brinker0813.html

6. http://www.afsc.org/hipp/news/HIPP1.HTM


Sure, blacks were legally oppressed throughout the U.S. and especially in the South from the time that the our nation was founded(1776) and even well before that right up until 1964 when the government finally began the long path toward ending societal discrimination against ethnic minorities with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

No I'm not. My point is simple. When you or something that you are responsible for causes a problem, you are the one that should shoulder the burden of fixing that problem.

This is not true either. First of all it does usually take more than one generation for immigrants to become successfully immersed into society(unless they are well to do immigrants who have the resources to make their own way immediately by for example starting their own business). Second of all, white immigrants do not suffer the disadvantage of having the stereotypes that are inevitably placed upon non-white immigrants placed upon them.

Eikonoklast

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peacenik

No I'm not. My point is simple. When you or something that you are responsible for causes a problem, you are the one that should shoulder the burden of fixing that problem.

Not to completely dismiss the rest of your post, but I'd like to address this one statement. I'm not responsible for the problem and am not responsible for fixing it. The people that are responsible for the problem are not the ones that are affected by AA. In fact, it is the people that are not responsible for the problem that have to deal with the "burden" imposed by AA legislation.

I think this will probably be gone by the time all of you old people are dead and out of the way. I think the feelings concerning race by people of my generation and younger than me can't compare to the racist sentiment held by older generations. It was their problem while they were younger, and it's still their problem now that they're older. Younger people have nothing to do with any of this shit, yet the older generation just wants to keep on perpetuating it.

Also, I think that the fact that there is less racism today can be attributed to more widespread media more than anything.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by peacenik
Rights Act, but unfortunately we still have a ways to go before we can honestly say we have "remedied" racism and discrimination. Consider the following evidence, which is only the tip of the iceberg:

I haven't said we have remedied it. I'm saying that it's at a low enough level that we don't need AA. Rather we should simply go after the offenders.
Nobody seems interested in even addressing my point that AA perpetuates racism.

However, I don't see this as evidence of racism. Consider: Blacks have a much higher crime rate than whites. Most murders are either domestic or drug deals gone bad. Both of these are likely to be with associates--therefore more likely to be of one's own race. These seldom get the death penalty.
The remaining murders tend to be far more random in their targets. This group includes the particularly henious ones that tend to get the death penalty. Society is mostly white. When someone commits such a crime the odds are their victim is white.
Thus the death penalty is more likely when the victim is white without *ANY* racism involved.

Sure, blacks were legally oppressed throughout the U.S. and especially in the South from the time that the our nation was founded(1776) and even well before that right up until 1964 when the government finally began the long path toward ending societal discrimination against ethnic minorities with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

While they were legally oppressed how do you expect the market to fix the situation? That's my point about where you found the time. The market hasn't had that long to act!

This is not true either. First of all it does usually take more than one generation for immigrants to become successfully immersed into society(unless they are well to do immigrants who have the resources to make their own way immediately by for example starting their own business). Second of all, white immigrants do not suffer the disadvantage of having the stereotypes that are inevitably placed upon non-white immigrants placed upon them.

My wife is an immigrant--I've known many through her. None have been in the sort of poverty a lot of blacks are in, even when handicapped by language barriers. Even the illegals make money--and they have a much higher barrier.

beyelzu

in a similar proof, using similar logic

god is love

love is blind

ray charles is blind

god is ray charles.

oh and all of you antiracism libertarians are racists slave owners.

peacenik

Originally quoted by Loren Pechtel
I don't believe that racism and racial disparities have dissipated as much as you would like to believe. Yes, we have made progress. In fact much progress was made in the initial years after the Civil Rights Act was passed when we had a vigilent EEOC that had no qualms with fighting racism whole heartedly by any means possible including utilizing AA when necessary. AA was working, and in the initial years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the wage gap fell significantly, but then AA was hampered and hamstrung by Reaganonics. However, fortunately Clinton's policies ameliorated to some extent the harsh effects of Reagon's economic policies and AA programs were able to succeed to some degree in the 1990s. (See two paragraphs below for more discussion on the affect of Reagonomics).

See these links:

http://www.hri.ca/racism/humanrights/daniels.shtml

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pd120299g.html

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8</a>

Where is your evidence for this claim? The fact is that racism and racial disparities declined with the implementation of AA. It only stopped declining when the implementation of Reagonomics (i.e. cash transfers to the rich through massive tax cuts for the wealthy who just happened to be predominantly white, the revival of the military industrial complex, and corporate welfare) and the consequential revival of the "good ole boy system" as well as the weakening of affirmative action programs counteracted any gains that could be made by AA.

Then in the 90s, when Clinton moderated the economic policies of Reagan by raising taxes on the rich, raising minimum wage, and by cutting military spending and corporate welfare, lo and behold affirmative action programs began to once again produce some positive results toward eliminating the wage gap between blacks and whites. AA works so long as it is not undermined by policies that unjustly reward those who are currently rich(i.e. disproporationately white) at the expense of those who have made the rich their wealth in the first place but are nevertheless currently poor(i.e. disproporationately black).

See this link: http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pd120299g.html

Your argument assumes that the average white is 6 times more likely to be the victim of a random murder than a black person. This assertion is clearly incorrect because a higher percentage of blacks per capita live in high crime neighborhoods than whites where random violence including random murders are much more likely to occur. The truth is that the average predominantly white jury considers the life an innocent white victim from a nice suburban neighborhood who gets killed as a result of random violence more valuable than the like of an innocent black victim that is gunned down in a similar random act of violence. Your argument is really a pathetic attempt discount the obvious racism that pervades our criminal justice system, which must be taken account of whenever we discuss AA because as you should know, crime is often a function of economic hardship. What's next, are you going rationalize the out of this world disparity in sentencing between those who are caught with coccain(predominantly white users) and those who are caught with crack(disproportionately black users)? Maybe you should attempt to justify racial profiling?

What do you mean "The market hasn't had that long to act!"? Before the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the market had had literally hundreds of years to act, and it utterly failed. Yes, it is true that prior to this period racism was not proscribed, but it wasn't compelled either. Thus, your market theory was completely free to work its course and eliminate racism. Under your theory, rational white employers would have provided blacks with an equal amount of training because it would be in their best interest to fully utilize their human capital in order to be more efficient and out source their competition. Additionally these employers would have ceased discriminating against blacks in their hiring and promotional decisions because it would be in their best economic interests to hire the most qualified individuals, many of whom would have been black since blacks would have had equal access job training. No law prevented employers from acting in such a manner, only custom and outright bigotry prevented this from happening. This was particularly true after slavery was abolished and all persons including blacks were free to contract, see the 13th Amendment and U.S.C. Section 1981, especially in the North where Jim Crow laws were not in effect. However, even in the North the market utterly failed and government regulation was required and in my opinion is still required to remedy discrimination against blacks. (Please note that the same reasoning applies to other racial minorities, especial Native Americans who have suffered from similar types of discrimination for centuries).

Well, first of all I believe you are off the mark if you are suggesting that the average illegal alien makes as much or more than the average African American. Although, I don't have any statistics on what they average illegal American makes, I know that it is very, very low(often lower than minimum wage), and I doubt it comes anywhere close to what the average or median African American worker makes. Second, while your wife and other immigrants like her may have suffered through some hardships, your wife does not necessarily have to contend with a culture of racism centuries old that involves having judgements made against her based on the mere color of her skin. Additionally "[d]isparities in wealth between blacks and whites are not the product of haphazard events, inborn traits, isolated incidents or solely contemporary individual accomplishments. Rather, wealth inequality has been structured over many generations through the same systemic barriers that have hampered blacks throughout their history in American society: slavery, Jim Crow, so- called de jure discrimination, and institutionalized racism."

See this link: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/economic02.htm

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by peacenik
Originally quoted by Loren Pechtel

I don't believe that racism and racial disparities have dissipated as much as you would like to believe.

Racism and racial disparities are different things. I think most racism is gone other than perhaps in the south. I think most racial disparity is not the result of racism.

Where is your evidence for this claim? The fact is that racism and racial disparities declined with the implementation of AA.

Racism is an attitude, not neccessarily an action. Thus AA suppressing acting on it does not mean that the attitude is not there.

From paying attention to the news it should be obvious that unqualified blacks are showing up in the workforce. There's simply too many cases where they fail badly on objective tests (ie, police promotion exams etc.)
You can't help but question the qualifications of a black because of this. Some are fine, some aren't. If you are hiring the only reason to take a chance is beacuse of the AA law.

Your argument assumes that the average white is 6 times more likely to be the victim of a random murder than a black person. This assertion is clearly incorrect because a higher percentage of blacks per capita live in high crime neighborhoods than whites where random violence including random murders are much more likely to occur.

Nope. I'm specifically talking about the especially severe cases that get the death penalty. Those are far more random and not very local like the average random murder (ie, drug deal gone bad). Since there is more than a 6:1 ratio of whites to blacks in society it's not surprising that they are the main targets of such crimes.

What do you mean "The market hasn't had that long to act!"? Before the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the market had had literally hundreds of years to act, and it utterly failed.

I already addresses this. Your time frame is wrong. The market couldn't act until the legal barriers were removed.

Yes, it is true that prior to this period racism was not proscribed, but it wasn't compelled either.

Slavery basically compelled it.

Thus, your market theory was completely free to work its course and eliminate racism. Under your theory, rational white employers would have provided blacks with an equal amount of training because it would be in their best interest to fully utilize their human capital in order to be more efficient and out source their competition.

No. That's not what the market would do. What it would do is that the rational employer would treat his blacks a little less badly than the competition. As time goes on this will cause the difference to get smaller and smaller until it's gone.
It will not happen in one step!

Well, first of all I believe you are off the mark if you are suggesting that the average illegal alien makes as much or more than the average African American.

No. I'm saying they make more than the average person in poverty.

Although, I don't have any statistics on what they average illegal American makes, I know that it is very, very low(often lower than minimum wage),

Yes, it's low. However, they work, generally hard. You don't see the massive unemployment that you do in the black areas.