If racist behavior is immoral, why shouldn't it be illegal?

Bill excellent points. I wanted to point out the following as well;

Jordan originally wrote:

But racism is not conducive to survival according to Objectivism. It is irrational and immoral, which means necessarily anti-survival.

This is actually quite a chilling statement.

By this same logic, Christianity is also not conducive to survival. It is irrational and in some instances the way one practices Christianity is immoral.

We should arrest Christians.

By this same logic, making fun of a classmate because he has big ears is not conducive to survival and is irrational and immoral.

We should arrest school children who taunt others.

By this same logic, going skydiving is a high risk behavior that may cause death for the skydiver and is not conducive to survival. It is irrational and immoral.

We should arrest skydivers.

By this same logic, drinking alcohol to excess is not conducive to survival and is certainly irrational and immoral.

We should arrest anyone if they're drunk.

By this same logic, anyone who advocates a philosophy not in accordance with objectivism is not conducive to survival and is irrational and immoral.

Anyone who is not an Objectivist should be arrested.

I mean really?

Being denied a hotel, a job, a loan, a mortgage, a drink from the water fountaion, a sandwich, etc. -- That doesn't just hurt people's feelings. It seriously hinders their quality of life. But consider that it's not just the people discriminated against who are harmed. The discriminators, by their own irrational and immoral behavior, are also harmed, at least according to Objectivism, lest you consider the discriminators' behavior rational and moral.

I see. So now the concern for man's rights is the maximization of his quality of life? So if it is moral for someone to get a hotel room, a job, or a mortgage and simply denying someone that is immoral, is this at all any different than a Socialist advocating that people should be guaranteed a hotel room, a job, or a mortgage whether or not they have a sufficient amount of money or credit? (Oh wait didn't we already arrest all the Socialists?) Afterall if it's just "quality of life" we are worried about then lets all make sure everyone gets that.

I think hear Karl Marx right now.

Post 21

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 3:40am

Being denied a hotel, a job, a loan, a mortgage, a drink from the water fountaion, a sandwich, etc. -- That doesn't just hurt people's feelings. It seriously hinders their quality of life.

Only if there are no alternatives for those people. Only if those people are too stupid and/or lazy to recognise, act on, or create, alternatives.

I can walk into any establishment (even record stores and Home Depot) and buy a bottle of water when the fountains don't look well maintained. I have a choice.

I quit my old job for a new one recently. I had a choice. I received at least 6 different calls from other employers within three months of starting that new job, but decided to stay. Lots of choices, all potentially good alternatives.

My mailbox is bombarded with mortgage offers every week. I have a choice.

There are at least two dozen fast food places within a few square blocks of where I sit. Not to mention grocers. At least...I'm counting... 5 large grocery stores within 2 miles of here. One caters specifically to the Hispanic population here. Everything's in Spanish. The owners are Middle Eastern. They've hired all bi-lingual clerks. So many choices, I could get fat real fast if I'm not careful.

You're suggesting people don't really have a choice, or that the selection of choices is terribly limited, because there isn't any, or enough competition. I don't accept that as true, Jordan. Can you prove its true?

Its just silly to suggest there are no private alternatives, so the gov'ment has to step in and create public alternatives. Ain't so. Ain't true.

Post 22

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 6:46am

The reason for not "legislating morality" is that people are not infallible. We can't count on elected officials to have the best moral standards. (There's an understatement!)

The people doing the legislating can be wrong, or can disagree with you about what's moral. Because we are fallible, in order to have any rights at all, we have to ensure that people's right to be wrong is protected.

So, the best approach is to only legislate against violation of people's rights, which means against the use of force or fraud. That way, people are free to act and to figure out what's the moral thing to do.

Just look at the morality laws that exist in the world currently. We have laws against discrimination in business establishments... but we used to have laws enforcing discrimination in business establishments. Some countries have laws forbidding religious dress, other countries have laws mandating religious dress. We got a law requiring airbags in new cars, then we got a law telling us not to put kids or short people in an airbag-protected seat. Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient to just allow people to adopt behaviors that they come to understand as being moral, on their own, rather than having the government codify every moral trend?

Post 23

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 7:50am

Laure:

" ...in order to have any rights at all, we have to ensure that people's right to be wrong is protected."

This that is exactly right and it isn't fully enough appreciated or argued in Objectivist fora. I have a right to make bad (as they retroactively turn out to be) investment decisions as long as my destitution doesn't force the rest of society to take care of me. Every personal decision should be protected in the same way.

I think the phrase, "The right to be wrong" has more impact and implications than, "The freedom to choose," although they are pretty much equivalent.

Sam

Post 24

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 12:22pm

This isn't the first time that Jordan presented a "legal" case for managing otherwise-moral matters. A long time ago, he brought up a theory by (Ronald?) Coase. Coase is a guy who said that in property rights disputes, the property should always go to the party with the most to lose. If Walmart can better use the land that a golf course is on, then Walmart should be 'awarded' the land (because Walmart would lose out on a huge potential of capital gains).

This would, of course, lead to antidisestablishmentarianism -- with a few mega-corporations controlling all property, and no room for rising (unestablished) companies. Jordan made the case that, in the short run, it would lead to intelligent resource allocation. The long-run monopolization effect didn't seem to bother him at the time.

Is that still true, Jordan?

Ed

Post 25

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 1:15pm

So much to respond to. Must pick and choose.

Cheerleader Ed,

Imagine sex police who make sure that you're wearing a condom.

Sounds kinky.

Or neat police who make sure that your counter is clear.

Sounds like Mom. :)

But control of one's own life is required for one to make the best of it.

Control might be required, but again - not all control is required for making the best of one's own life. Sometimes control of the wrong sort turns one's life into poop. Responsible control, or thoughtful control, or reasoned control, or some control along those lines might be required -- but not so much whimsical, irrational, dangerous control.

Also -- and this is to Bill, too -- just because you can't do something for yourself doesn't mean you can't do it for others. For instance, I can't fix my own, say, keyboard, because it's too complicated for me and I'll screw it up, but I can fix my neighbor's keyboard, which is simple and easy for me to fix (note: my neighbor has zero tech skills.) I still don't think that's an important point. This is far from the main issue.,

If we don't have it all, then we have nothing.

I'm not saying it's all or nothing. I think we do have and should have plenty of control. I just don't see why we always should get all the control we can, especially when such control can muck our life up.

Bill,

You quoted VOS:

". . . . the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action -- which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. . . ." (emphasis added)

It does not say the freedom to take any actions anyone chooses, which is what I think you're incorrectly claiming as the Objectivist viewpoint on ethics. To be sure, Objectivism holds that rights entail such freedom. But I think this is a disconnect, for "rights" that do not further life but threaten it run contrary to life, Objectivism's highest value.

But in order to engage in self-sustaining, self-generated action, one must be free to act on one's own judgment, even when others view it as irrational or mistaken.

This is just wrong. If one's judgment is objectively (not just because someone else says so) serious crapola, then it will not be conducive to self-sustaining and self-generated action. Now I'm not sure if someone else gets or should get the right to boss you around in some instance just because in that instance you don't have the right to boss yourself around. You'd think if someone else had that right, then he could do whatever he wanted to you in that situation, not necessarily something beneficial for you. I don't think that's justificable. I'd suggest interference, if at all, for the benefit of the dangerously irrational fellow. But assuming that someone else were entitled to some degree of freedom to boss you around in lieu of your poor ability to do so in some situation -- like if I have the right to disarm my irrationally distraught suicidal friend -- it's a stretch to call you my slave and I your master. That's just hyperbole. He's a beneficiary of my actions. Objectively so. I'm helping him achieve his highest value -- life -- even though he doesn't recognize that it's is highest value at that time.

And this isn't just a question of whose judgment should govern. If we objectively know what's right or wrong, and if the wrong is horrendously and dangerously wrong, there's little point in letting the wrong person suffer the consequences for it. It won't just be a learning experience. And it certainly won't sustain and generate his life. Sure, someone has discovered what's objectively right, but that doesn't make it any less objectively right. The fact that racism is wrong does not depend on one's ability to judge it so. Just because the racist guy disagrees doesn't mean the truth of the matter is unclear. Good and bad aren't just a matter of personal judgment.

Next, the value of life is not always preserved by the right to kill yourself. All I'm saying is that when killing yourself clearly doesn't further your life, there is little ethical justification for preserving that right, if that right exists at all.

John,

We should arrest Christians

Oh if only! I'm not suggesting we arrest racists. And I do think there would be similar ethical justification for intervention against Christians or anyone else if their behavior were objectively irrational and seriously horrible, as is the case with racists.

Teresa,

I can walk into any establishment (even record stores and Home Depot) and buy a bottle of water when the fountains don't look well maintained. I have a choice.

That's right you can, white girl!

You're suggesting people don't really have a choice, or that the selection of choices is terribly limited, because there isn't any, or enough competition. I don't accept that as true, Jordan. Can you prove its true?

See the pre-civil rights era.

Jordan

Post 26

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 1:26pm

Ed,

That's not Coase's view. Not mine either. But you're right that I did bring him up back in the day.

Jordan

Post 27

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 2:04pm

Jordon:

I originally wrote:

By [Jordan's] logic, Christianity is also not conducive to survival. It is irrational and in some instances the way one practices Christianity is immoral.

We should arrest Christians.

You responded:

Oh if only! I'm not suggesting we arrest racists. And I do think there would be similar ethical justification for intervention against Christians or anyone else if their behavior were objectively irrational and seriously horrible, as is the case with racists.

So you do not suggest arresting them, what kind of intervention do you suggest?

Post 28

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 3:21pm

John,

So you do not suggest arresting them, what kind of intervention do you suggest?

Well, I'd prefer to distill the principle of whether to intervene before determining how and when to apply that principle, but... In this discussion the interventions I'm thinking about are mainly civil actions -- letting those injured by racist behavior sue for specific performance or for damages. It's by and large the law as it currently stands.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/19, 3:24pm)

Post 29

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 5:41pm

That's right you can, white girl!

What an incredibly ignorant thing to say, Jordan. You want an incident of birth to have some kind of deep emotional meaning to me?

Does the clear mistake of your birth render you guilty of anything?

Are you forbidden from any purchase? I think not, despite any vendor's secret relish to procure your dollar.

See the pre-civil rights era.

Please note that racism in the South was instituted by government. Rosa Parks was riding a city owned bus when she took her famous seat.

Please note that it was civil dis-obedience by private citizens, black and white, that ended government instituted and protected racism in the South. The Federal government did nothing but try to protect the protestors and prosecute their murderers. Then it passed a bunch of meaningless laws that could do nothing to change bad thinking.

Also note mass migration to the North shows no one was forced to live in the South. Alternatives were present, and taken. Also note the government's widespread use of racist policies to keep individuals "controlled." Japanese, Chinese, even "white" foreigners.

Please read up on the Harlem Renaissance.

Please recognise how the Federal government set up black people to fail during the 60's to this very day.

Everyone knows racism is big business. How much are you getting?

Post 30

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 6:15pm

That's quite the selective history you got there, Teresa. You think a racist hotel owner who refuses to rent to a black would-be customer behaves as a racist because of the government? Same with the fellow who doesn't allow a black guy to drink from his water fountain, or buy a sandwich from his grocery store, or apply for a job, or be treated at his hospital? You really believe that at least some targets of racism didn't have seriously compromised quality of life because of racism? No doubt government has mucked up matters on trying to alleviate racism, but come on!

Then it passed a bunch of meaningless laws that could do nothing to change bad thinking.

Doubly wrong. First, the laws did change people's thinking. Look at the general mindset before and after the civil rights movement with regard to racism. Night and day. Many peoples' morals are highly influenced by what the law says. Now, to many people, it's a sin not to where your seatbelt, or not to fence in your pool if you have kids. Second, even if the laws didn't change people's thinking, it did change their behavior. And for the better, both for the racists and their victims.

Jordan

Post 31

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 6:16pm

And Jordan, what would be the damages sued for in a civil lawsuit? What were the damages suffered by the plaintiff? There was no contract and no agreement for services to begin with. Could one prove that there was any kind of compensatory damages suffered by the victim? Unless you mean to say people are just simply entitled to other people's property? And are entitled to force a business owner to make a transaction with them? How is it not ok for a racist business owner to choose whom he wishes to sell his property to but it's ok for the plaintiff to use force against a racist business owner to make him give up his property? You have perverted justice to the detriment of man's right to own private property. You're saying the discriminated is entitled to the private property of the racist business owner. If you say that the government, or other individuals can dictate to another individual how he ought to dispense with his property you have abridged someone's right to own property. The right to own property must include the right of the individual to transfer that property to whomever he wants for whatever agreed upon price. Otherwise you are operating from a contradictory definition of the right to own private property.

You made the argument that we ought to do this because racism diminishes the quality of life for the discriminated. So your argument is for a maximization of quality of life i.e. for the greater good. I really can't see the difference between how you're arguing for what the role of government ought to be, and what Vladimir Lenin argued what the role of government ought to be.

People do not have a right to a "quality of life". They have political rights, i.e. freedom from oppression. Once we say man has rights to a "quality of life" we are now discussing a Marxist ideology of material freedom. That is freedom from a material existence. So when one says someone has a right to a "quality of life" what one means to say is that someone should provide a quality of life to someone else by force. But this is a contradiction. One cannot be entitled to a quality of life, one is only entitled to be free to pursue a quality of life.

Take this for example, the government can expropriate a significant proportion of Bill Gates wealth and redistribute it to the poor. This immensely helps the "quality of life" for the poor.

If you are to be consistent with your argument that man is entitled to a quality of life, this is exactly what you are arguing for and is nothing but Marxism.

It's by and large the law as it currently stands.

Of course. Jesse Jackson comes to the rescue and shakes down a company for loot. That's not justice, that's plain and simple government sanctioned extortion.

Jordan I realize you have many people to answer to on this issue but please answer my questions because I'd like to know how you reconcile these contradictions.

Post 32

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 6:20pm

That's quite the selective history you got there, Teresa. You think a racist hotel owner who refuses to rent to a black would-be customer behaves as a racist because of the government?

Ah ok, so then I can apply for a lifetime membership to the Italian-American club even though I'm not Italian?

Post 33

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 7:04pm

Teresa is correct. In almost every case, it has been Jim Crow laws that were instituted by governments that have established racist segregation. Even before the civil war, the racists in the South were complaining that railroad companies were allowing black passengers to ride with white ones, and were trying to use federal regulation over interestate trade to prevenet them damn greedy Northern capitalists from selling tickets to "undesirables."

In any case, I don't see why this thread continues. I said in post #1 what Laure said in post #22, and Jordan still hasn't provided one compelling example worth answering.

Ted

Post 34

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 8:20pm

Ted,

Jim Crow laws didn't create racism as much as it inherited racism. It's nutty to think that racism wasn't around before Jim Crow laws. It's nuttier to think didn't racism diminish after getting rid of Jim Crow laws. Also, your post #1 fallaciously begs the question as to whether criminal acts ought to be restricted only to immoral behavior that includes the initiation of force.

John,

Yeah, answering folks here is a mouthful. I can't keep this up. Anybody up for a live group chat?

what would be the damages sued for in a civil lawsuit?

Whatever the law says they are now.

Unless you mean to say people are just simply entitled to other people's property? And are entitled to force a business owner to make a transaction with them?

All I'm saying is that racist behavior is irrational, immoral, and dangerous, and that one ought not suffer because of such behavior. This doesn't necessarily mean that the victim of racism is entitled to someone else's property or entitled to someone else with whom to transact. It does mean the target of racism ethically should not to be subject to the irrational, immoral, and dangerous racist behavior.

They have political rights, i.e. freedom from oppression.

So racism is not oppression?

Laure,

we have to ensure that people's right to be wrong is protected.

Why? You say because people -- citizens and legislators alike -- might be mistaken on what's right and wrong? Ok. But there's no mistake that racism is wrong, at least according to Objectivism. The answer is in.

Jordan

Post 35

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 9:25pm

Jordan, if the answer is really in on some topic, then the culture will take care of the problem on its own without any laws to force it. Plus, the only reason you think the answer is in on racism is that you agree with the consensus. In Iran, the answer may be in on the question of religious dress codes, but that doesn't mean they got it right.

The question is, are you willing to be forced to behave the way the majority wants you to, regardless of whether you personally think it's right or wrong? Or do you want to be free to behave the way you think is best, as long as you allow others the same opportunity?

Post 36

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 9:37pm

Jordan:

John: what would be the damages sued for in a civil lawsuit?

Jordan: Whatever the law says they are now.

What kind of answer is that? What the laws says and what the law ought to say are two different things. So what are the damages suffered by the plaintiff?

John: Unless you mean to say people are just simply entitled to other people's property? And are entitled to force a business owner to make a transaction with them?

Jordan: All I'm saying is that racist behavior is irrational, immoral, and dangerous, and that one ought not suffer because of such behavior.

Jordan you are evading my questions. What damages did they suffer?

Jordan: This doesn't necessarily mean that the victim of racism is entitled to someone else's property or entitled to someone else with whom to transact.

Ok now I'm totally confused by your position. I thought you said there ought to be civil remedies to deal with business owners discriminating his customers based on race? You originally said:

"In this discussion the interventions I'm thinking about are mainly civil actions -- letting those injured by racist behavior sue for specific performance or for damages."

Is it me or did you just completely contradict yourself?

So racism is not oppression?

The question is too much of a generalization. Depends on what kind of racism. Not when it is a business owner discriminating his customers on the basis of race. It is oppression when it is government institutionalized racism, e.g. Jim Crowe laws because that kind of racism put individuals at different levels under the law. In order to be consistent with the principle all men are equal under the law, then there can be no government sanctioned racism. Government sanctioned racism is political oppression, not a private individual discriminating on who to transfer his property to otherwise you are advocating people are entitled to dictate how individuals should transfer their property, and that meets the definition of political oppression.

Do individuals have the right to private property or not? And does the right to private property not entail the right to dispense with that property however one wishes to dispense it? Whether that be selling dinners at an Italian American club meeting, or burning furniture in a big pile, or donating moeny to charity, or passing real estate on as inheritance to your children, or just keep it? Or do you think others should dictate to you how you should dispense with your private property?

Post 37

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 10:18pm

You are simply assuming that black/white racism is a given, Jordan, and that it preceded legal institutions and slavery. In fact it did not. You need to study history, noyt just make these outrgaed assertions. Slavery and Racism can go hand in hand. They need not. Slavery in Rome and the Levant was not race based. Racism in America was complex - but it was more a self-reinforcing consequence of slavery than it ever was a cause of it.

Anti-black racism was not an indigenous European phenomenon, it was a phenomenon necessary to the justification and maintenance of slavery as it was practiced on American tobacco and then Cotton plantations. With the shift of the Tobacco crop to the West Indies, slavery was dying out until the Cotton Gin lead to the need for field hands to pick Cotton prior to the Civil War.

The first indentured servants in America could have been either African purchased slaves or free white men who sold themselves for passage to the Americas or criminals of any race who got themselves put in that situation. Indentured whites were almost always male - they didn't have children, and they normally died or were freed. Black woman, on the other hand could produce black babies. This was a ready made stock, visually demarcated, and amenable to generational enslavement since they were intentionally kept uneducated and new African imported slaves didn't know English.

If slavery were purely a racist institution, why did it not spread in Europe? Why were not Indians enslaved on a large scale? The existence of "Moors" was long known in Europe. They were never imported as slaves, no structure of laws ever rose up to make Blacks inferior. The Indians were not enslaved because they could escape west in a land they knew to freedom, and the child of an Indian and a White would often be indistinguishable from a White. The Indians were hated, but never successfully enslaved. The Blacks were first enslaved - and then became hated.

Slavery was only possible in the South on a racial basis once the law pretended that men were property and made it a criminal offense to "steal" or to free a slave. The Northern states, not needing field hands, eventually removed the slave laws from their books, and abolitionists agitated to buy and emancipate or to free slaves however possible.

Anti-miscegenation laws had to be passed to keep the colors separate. If they intermingled, slavery would become intolerable in a country of free men. The main disputes between the North and the South before the Civil War were over the Federal Fugitive Slave act, the importation of slavery into the Western Territories, the resumption of the slave trade as it had been outlawed under the Constitution, and the refusal of the Northern states to be complicit in the Southern institution. Race laws and the preaching of anti-black racism increased from the period of our independence (When Jefferson could have an addition to his house built for Sally Hemmings) and just before the War when the practice of "House Slavery" became quite rare. Race laws became more and more harsh as slavery became more and more threatened. It became illegal to sell slaves there freedom, a common practice before the Revolution. It was made illegal for freed slaves to stay in the state of their enslavement, lest they be an example to their brethren. Then it finally became illegal for free black men to enter Slave territory.

The Southern states wanted Federal law to impose slavery in the West, because it could not be imposed by settlers themselves - the Slaves would simply head North and be free.

Post bellum Jim Crow laws were an attempt by resentful whites, after the end of Reconstruction, to reimpose dominance over blacks. These laws were not agitated for by businesses, but mostly by lower-class whites who saw blacks as competition. Businesses were compelled to follow these laws. Had the business already been enforcing segregation, the laws would not have been necessary.

You need to educate yourself on this issue, if you truly care for answers. I suggest Allan Nevins excellent, balanced and readable 8 volume history of the Civil War, especially volumes I-IV which cover 1847 until 1861.

Ted Keer

Post 38

Friday, July 20, 2007 - 3:41am

John A, I so agree with you on this:

It is oppression when it is government institutionalized racism, e.g. Jim Crowe laws because that kind of racism put individuals at different levels under the law.

Especially if some individuals sell services or goods. Totally different set of rules for those folks. But Jordan evaded that point too, calling it "beyond the scope."

Post 39

Friday, July 20, 2007 - 9:55am