RoR: Forum

Will Thomas may be conceding too much to the race hustlers.

Mr. Thomas may only be stricken with a bad case of racial stereotyping -- but the reverend, Jesse Jackson, recently said (on NPR) that having racial stereotypes doesn't necessarily make you a racist. Back when Juan Williams got fired for admitting he had been afraid of some Muslims in the airport, Jesse Jackson came to his defense. Jackson would, I surmise, say that Juan Williams is in the grips of experiencing the world through a clouded lens of racial stereotypes, but that that doesn't make Juan Williams a racist.

There apparently needs to be a differentiation of racism from racial stereotyping. Definitions for both terms would be a good start.

Ed

Post 1

Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 8:55am

Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about Racism in The Virtue of Selfishness:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

As to racial stereotyping: Stereotyping is taking an assumption, true or false, or a statistical fact, regarding a group and assigning it to an individual. When the stereotyping is racial, it might be racism, or it might just be poor reasoning.

So, applying this to, say, Affirmative Action at a university, a person could say that the policy is racist in it's implication that a black skin color means lower academic abilities. But someone else might argue that is not what is in their mind. That they see Affirmative Action as an attempt to correct for the statistical measure of poverty being much higher among black neighborhoods, which in turn has led to lower academic skills via poorer schools which is not a racist viewpoint. Now, depending upon the accuracy of their statistics, they might be stereotyping... like a person who thinks all blacks come from an inner-city, ghetto-like neighborhood.

I don't think we will be free of racism, or racial stereotyping, till it is morally, socially unacceptable to mention race or racial characteristics (real or otherwise) - a policy of being blind to skin color. Nothing said that is positive, or negative - as if we were actually blind to any physiological differences associated with race. Some people would, of course, remain racist in their minds, but after a few generations that would not have been passed on to many and would lose its force. When you look at the horrors that racism has made possible, it should be made a pariah.

The differences that matter are social, political, cultural, moral, legal, etc. Those differences that arose from our minds, and by choice become fixed in our character.

Post 2

Sunday, September 1, 2013 - 3:16pm

As to racial stereotyping: Stereotyping is taking an assumption, true or false, or a statistical fact, regarding a group and assigning it to an individual. When the stereotyping is racial, it might be racism, or it might just be poor reasoning.

So, applying this to, say, Affirmative Action at a university, a person could say that the policy is racist in it's implication that a black skin color means lower academic abilities. But someone else might argue that is not what is in their mind. That they see Affirmative Action as an attempt to correct for the statistical measure of poverty being much higher among black neighborhoods, which in turn has led to lower academic skills via poorer schools which is not a racist viewpoint.

The argument for affirmative action -- preferential treatment on behalf of designated minorities (Asians excluded) -- is that it is necessary to correct for past racial discrimination, but if racial discrimination is bad because it involves judging people based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character, then affirmative action is bad for the same reason. Hence, the charge that affirmative action is itself an example of racism. If affirmative action were done simply to give poor people a leg up, then it wouldn't involve racial preferences, but preferences based on level of income.

I don't think we will be free of racism, or racial stereotyping, till it is morally, socially unacceptable to mention race or racial characteristics (real or otherwise) - a policy of being blind to skin color. Nothing said that is positive, or negative - as if we were actually blind to any physiological differences associated with race.

Sometimes it is necessary to mention race or skin color. For example, if a criminal is being sought, a description that includes his or her physical appearance (race, gender, etc.) may be an invaluable aid in finding and arresting the person. The media has at times been so politically correct in their reluctance to mention race in reporting on a crime that it interferes with efforts to apprehend the criminal. Opposition to racial profiling is another obstacle to dealing with criminals. Sometimes, racial profiling is necessary. If police know that a bank robber fits the description of a middle-aged white man, there is nothing wrong with profiling men who fit that description in the search for potential suspects.

Moreover, since 85% of the felonies against cab drivers are committed by young black men, it is prudent for cabbies to profile that group and to refuse to accept them as passengers. It would also be prudent for pizza deliverers to refuse delivery to dangerous black neighborhoods where their drivers are repeatedly attacked and robbed. The lives and safety of their drivers depend on not exposing them to unnecessary risk. Unfortunately, there are now laws against pizza deliverers refusing service to black neighborhoods, just as there are laws against cab drivers' refusing to pick up young black men as passengers. Evidently, lawmakers want us to pretend that there are no differences in the crime rate or the character of people living in different neighborhoods or belonging to different subsections of the population.

Or consider housing discrimination. In studying the history of rental housing, George Sternlieb found that discrimination was practiced by black landlords as well as by white. The reason for the discrimination was not irrational bigotry, but simply that white tenants were judged on the average to be more reliable in paying the rent and less likely to damage apartments. Landlords sometimes charged whites as much as 25% less for identical apartments in the hope of retaining them as tenants. Yet this kind of discrimination has also been made illegal, even though the discrimination was necessary to protect the landlord's property and his rental income and was, therefore, entirely appropriate.

A similar kind of group discrimination is practiced by life-insurance companies, who charge women lower premiums than men. The reason is not that insurance executives are sexist, or that they hate men, but simply that women as a group have longer life expectancies than men. Nor are insurance executives so blinded by stereotypical thinking that they believe that every woman will outlive every man. They recognize that there are many exceptions to the longer female life-expectancy. They are simply going by the law of averages, which is the best they can do.

It is true that better information can sometimes reduce or eliminate the advantages of discriminating on the basis of group membership. For example, if a black applicant has better references and a better rental history than a white applicant, then it would be foolish for a landlord to discriminate in favor of the white applicant simply because whites on the average are better tenants than blacks. Arbitrary discrimination is not in a landlord's economic self-interest. It is this kind of arbitrary discrimination that is characteristic of racism and makes it irrational. But the kind of discrimination that these landlords, both black and white, were engaged in is neither arbitrary nor irrational, nor is it bigoted or racist.

In fact, if black tenants were as likely as whites to respect the landlord's property rights, there would be virtually no rental discrimination at all. The reason is not that no landlords are bigots -- some undoubtedly are -- but that such discrimination could not be successfully maintained, because competition from other landlords would make it unprofitable. Consider, for example, the price discrimination reported by Sternlieb. If such discrimination were to exist without any rational basis for it, then competition among landlords would eliminate it by bidding down the rents of blacks to equality with those of whites. As economist George Reisman explains:

"[A]ssume that blacks had to pay monthly rents just five percent higher than those of whites, while the landlord's costs were the same in both cases (emphasis added). [Obviously, if blacks on average were less reliable in paying the rent and more likely to damage apartments, then the landlord's costs would not be the same.] This five percent premium would constitute a major addition to a landlord's profits. If a landlord's profit margin -- his profit as a percentage of his rents -- were normally ten percent, a five percent addition to his rents would constitute a fifty percent addition to his profits. Even if his profit margin were initially as high as twenty-five percent, a five percent addition to his rents would constitute a twenty percent addition to his profits. In response to such premium rates of profit, housing construction for blacks would be stepped up, and a larger proportion of existing housing would be rented to them. The effect of this increased supply of housing, of course, would be to reduce the rental premium paid by blacks. And because a mere one percent premium would mean significant extra profits in supplying blacks with housing, even a premium of this small size could not be maintained. Thus, blacks would pay no higher rents than whites, and obtain housing equal in quality to that obtained by whites." ("Capitalism: The Cure for Racism")

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/01, 3:34pm)

Post 3

Thursday, September 5, 2013 - 5:59pm

William, allow me to suggest that you substitute the word "corporations." Perhaps 85% of corporations receive some sort of direct government benefit. Corporations certainly benefited from the mortgage crisis and then from the bailouts. Corporations received a trillion dollars in direct government payouts since 2009. Corporations pollute rivers. Corporations get local governments to use eminent domain to hand over to them other people's property. All of which is to say that it is statistically rational to distrust corporations.

99% of women who are raped are assaulted by men. Of those, overwhelmingly the victim knew her attacker. Because men rape women it is rational for any woman to be afraid when in the company of any man and any woman would be rational to hire another woman rather than another man, even granted that the man was more qualified, as he is 99% more likely to attempt to rape her.

The difference, William, is that you personally are not afraid of corporations and you personally are not afraid of being raped by a man. You are, clearly, afraid of colored people. Recognize that and deal with it.

Post 4

Thursday, September 5, 2013 - 11:51pm

Michael,

Thank you for your kind advice. Perhaps you'd consider directing it to the cab drivers who are actually doing the discriminating, as I was simply commenting on it. But let me ask you, do the cabbies who refuse to pick up young black men as passengers also have an unwarranted fear of "colored people" that they must "recognize and deal with"? Is it your view that they arbitrarily pass up large numbers of peaceful, paying customers for no other reason than race? Did it ever occur to you that they may simply be acting out of concern for their very lives?

As one cabbie put it, "Cab drivers have only one effective way of protecting themselves against the murderous thieves who prey on us. And that is to exercise experienced discretion in whom we pick up. . . . Half of New York's cab drivers are themselves black, and act no differently from white drivers." (J. R. Green, "Cabbies Practice Passenger Selectivity to Protect Themselves," The New York Times (March 22, 1990), p. A26. Cited in Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions, p. 58.)

A study by Howard University in Washington, D.C. concluded that when similarly dressed blacks and whites tried to hail a cab, blacks were turned down seven times more frequently than whites. But in the lawsuits that arose from this study, none of the cab drivers accused of discrimination was white. All were African immigrants, native-born blacks or Middle Easterners. In Washington D.C., a reporter interviewed a dozen black cabbies, and found that nearly all of them refused to pick up young, black men at night. In exercising their right of refusal, these drivers risk a $500 fine for discrimination and eventually a suspended license, but said one, "I'd rather be fined than have my wife a widow".

So, Michael, why don't you extend the same advice to these black and Middle Eastern cabbies that you gave to me, namely, "You are, clearly, afraid of colored people. Recognize that and deal with it." I'm sure they'd love to hear it, and you'd sound so intelligent, fair and reasonable in giving it to them!

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/05, 11:53pm)

Post 5

Friday, September 6, 2013 - 2:00pm

William, I worked as a cab driver in 1972, 1977, and 1980-81, admittedly in Lansing/East Lansing a combined city less dangerous than either Washington DC or New York City.

That said, while in Washington DC for a White House Conference, I went "exploring" and got off at the wrong bus stop. I was the only White Guy in a Suit for about 1000 city blocks. But, you know, I got my head straight about that and just walked to the next bus stop and waited for taxicab to roll by -- being, after, all a White Guy in a Suit. I knew that no one was going to bother me. A guy out of place is just a problem.

It is true that 60% of the people in prison are Black males, but the inverse claim (60% of Black males are felons) is a logical fallacy. It may be true that 99.7% of the people who rob taxicabs are Martians, but it is not true that 99.7% of Martians rob cabs.

As an engineer you must apply the same standards to all claims and not give in to emotion. You did this before when Libertarian Racist Brad Trun asked if in a dark city alley you would be more afraid of a Black Youth or an Old White Woman. Bill, as a degreed criminologist and a licensed security guard, I swear on a stack of Atlas Shruggged, that in a city alley late at night, an old white woman would scare the shit out of me. The Black kid I could figure out. The Old White Woman is an anomaly. But you caved in to your emotions and validated Racist Libertarian Brad Trun. Here, too, again, you underscore the implicit racism of the American Conservative, I am sorry to say.

In answer to your rhetorical question: "Zero percent: I am not a racist."

(Edited by J'onn J'onzz: Martian Manhunter on 9/06, 2:01pm)
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 9/06, 2:08pm)

Post 6

Friday, September 6, 2013 - 5:27pm

Michael,

You have picked up that truly ugly leftist habit of calling people racists when it doesn't apply. I can't put in to words how disgusting that is.

....the implicit racism of the American Conservative

That is so wrong! There are racists among the liberals, among the conservatives, and among the libertarians. But the "American Conservative" is not a group of which all members are racists, nor is it a group whose philosophy includes racism.

You are "a degreed criminologist and a licensed security guard", but if an old white woman in a dark alley "scares the shit out of [you]", then you are either purposely ignoring Bill's point, or you are a bit weird and a wuss of major proportions. Sorry, but that's the way it strikes me.

As a degreed criminologist can you tell us what percentage of late night cab pickups of young black males result in robberies versus the pickups of others during the same hours? You didn't answer Bill's question. Why are cabbies turning down paying customers if they don't think the risks are too high?

I don't get why you don't understand that none of your degrees or studies qualify you to read Bill's mind and tell us what his emotions are, much less declare to us that he "caved in" to them. And I certainly don't remember him validating any racist positions.

The far left works so hard to accuse others of being racist, and works so hard to be non-racist, like it was a holy calling, that they actually become a weird kind of racist in that they refuse to see reality of any kind if it relates to a people of color and is negative. I could look at a white person, and based upon evidence, say they were dishonest when they said X. I could do exactly the same for a black person. But the ubber liberal, can only do it for a white person and then get upset and do a strange dance rather than to say anything negative about someone who is black.

Post 7

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 6:06am

Civil Right Act: "racial discrimination is illegal."

Affirmative Action(Johnson Executive Order): "racial discrimination is mandatory."

Black is white, up is down, left is right, 2+2=5. Perhaps the purpose of such an obvious contradiction. Start telling people nonsense, watch them accept ever more of it, until they have no justifiable rational defenses left at all; after all, we accepted all the previous gibberish, so on what basis do we deny the latest?

Example: when the Treasury plays a shell game with Fed printed money and the Fed declares "record profits turned over to the Treasury" the nation largely passively accepts that announcement as fact except for a few fringe cranks who chase the details. Reality: they are running the printing presses(by the amount of record 'profits' turned over by the Fed to Treasury. Perception: these are 'record profits;' didn't a former Princeton professor just tell us that?

I no longer wonder how the horrors of Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany came about; we're living it. Is it via the deliberate and appaently easy targeting of an electorate best catagorized as a massive Sea of Stupid(which I used to associate only with high school football; apparently, the sea is much larger than I once thought)?

No, it's not even so much that the nation is stupid. We're all just trying to live our lives. Nobody wants to constantly check their math or accounting principles, it makes our eyes glaze over. Yet, under such ready cover the inevitable agenda driven rats scurry, until at last, forced to look at the state plumbing details, we fringe cranks scratch our heads and ask "what the Hell have these creatures been up to?"

regards,
Fred

Post 8

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 9:16am

Steve,

You have picked up that truly ugly leftist habit of calling people racists when it doesn't apply. I can't put in to words how disgusting that is.
....the implicit racism of the American Conservative
That is so wrong! There are racists among the liberals, among the conservatives, and among the libertarians. But the "American Conservative" is not a group of which all members are racists, nor is it a group whose philosophy includes racism.

Great point. The hypocritical dishonesty (i.e., the scapegoating) around racism is appalling. I'm not directing this personally at Michael -- who is just a victim, in this one instance and on this one subject, of failing to integrate and generalize -- I'm speaking in broad terms. Mike has accidentally adopted the popular meme that conservatives/republicans have always been the ones who advocate for racism -- e.g., such as for slavery, in the past -- and that liberals/democrats, the champions of race-based political policy, have always been the ones who argued against such racism.

It -- the hypocritical dishonesty -- is so dumb it'd be funny (like a 3-Stooges skit), if people's lives weren't getting destroyed in the process.

Ed

Post 9

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 10:22am

Ed,

...the popular meme that conservatives/republicans have always been the ones who advocate for racism -- e.g., such as for slavery, in the past -- and that liberals/democrats, the champions of race-based political policy, have always been the ones who argued against such racism.

You are so right on this piece of false history. It was the Democratic party (mostly in the South) that housed the out-in-the-open, in-your-face racists. Back then you would have had a hard time finding a KKK member who was a Republican. It was the Southern Democrats who supported segregation and Jim Crow laws... up until the passage of the civil rights act in the sixties.

Liberal used to mean one in favor of personal liberty, but it shifted to mean one who favors the welfare state. The establishment Republicans have become a joke - they and the establishment Democrats are nearly indistinguishable. The Social Conservatives are the advocates for a Christian version of Sharia, and the libertarian conservatives are still a tiny minority.

The old-school Democrats are pretty much gone - replaced by the Progressives (just another word for Fabian Socialist or useful idiot). People forget that Eisenhower eliminated segregation in the military forces, and put together the first Civil Rights Act (and that LBJ was in the Senate and stopped it's passage).

The Progressives make fighting racism their major emotional push, but what was heroic and just in the fifties and sixties has become phony. Because it's really about identity politics and class warfare. They want to gen up support among minorities and they don't really focus on any race-related issue that doesn't accomplish that purpose. They won't talk about black-on-black crime, or inner-city school quality (unless it is to throw more money that way), and they treat any disparity between black quality of life and white quality of life as evidence of racism and the need for more programs to cure problems caused by 'racist Republicans'. They won't look at any harmful beliefs that are part of a sub-culture in the black community or any negative side-effects of existing programs. Calling people racist is the way they try to stop anyone from looking at what they are really doing. All, as you say, hypocritical dishonesty

Post 10

Saturday, September 7, 2013 - 5:28pm

Michael,

How you could have read my post and missed the point so completely is difficult to understand. I can only suggest that you read it again, and actually think about what I said.

You wrote,

In answer to your rhetorical question: "Zero percent: I am not a racist."

What rhetorical question? I never asked you if you're a racist! Are you referring to my question: "So, Michael, why don't you extend the same advice to these black and Middle Eastern cabbies that you gave to me, namely, 'You are, clearly, afraid of colored people. Recognize that and deal with it.' I'm sure they'd love to hear it, and you'd sound so intelligent, fair and reasonable in giving it to them!"

The point I was making is this: Do you think the advice that you gave to me, that I should "recognize and deal with my fear of colored people" would have been appropriately directed to the black and Middle Eastern cabbies who were discriminating against young black men by refusing to pick them up? And if not, then how was it appropriate when directed at me?

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/07, 6:22pm)

Post 11

Monday, September 9, 2013 - 6:08pm

What matters is body language: how they stand, how they walk, how they gesture. Color is irrelevant.

Steve Wolfer has admitted that he is a racialsit even though "race" has absolutely no biological definition. By every genetic marker known to science, this girl is Asian. (And by the way, so am I)

People of crude mentalities cannot be allowed to define the language of discourse. Race does not exist any more than do angels or the epicycles of the planets.)

As a taxicab driver, I would pick up any young "black" man in suit coming out of Goldman-Sachs, even though I know them to be collectivist looters. Chances are slim that he would loot me at gunpoint: he has the government to do that for him. I would llook forward to a good ride to the airport and a decent tip.

Steve resists identifying conservatives as racists because he self-identifies as a conservative. .

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 9/09, 6:11pm)

Post 12

Monday, September 9, 2013 - 7:55pm

Gotta love discussions on race! (sarcasm)

It is a truth that different instances of organisms have different sets of genes. Even "identical" twins have differences.

It is a truth that gene-behavior/ability correlation is statistically dependent.

There are truths that genetic studies show that: The origin of modern humans originated in Africa; That African people have the largest genetic diversity; That Caucasians have a collection of genes more closely related to each other and diverging from Africans at a particular point in history; That Asians have a collection of genes more closely related to each other and diverging from Africans at a particular point in history; That within Asians, from pacific islanders to India there are a couple different branches from Africa.

Genes change. Changes are generally propagated in a branching like form when a sub-population is disconnected from the remainder of a species. Changes can also propagate horizontally across branches via sexual reproduction between branches, or via viral/bacterial modifications.

Given these truths, "race" is undeniable... its just a fuzzy question of where do you draw the lines between the races? I like to use African, Caucasian, and Asian. Then if someone is a mix of those three, then I'd specify the mix percentages. Then if someone really wants to get down into the nitty gritty details, we could look at which Asian movement out of Africa or which area of Asia/Europe/America a person's genes are generally from ~1600's pre melting pot. Some deny "race", but all they are doing is mentally blocking the idea of grouping together people by these genetic heritages.

Then comes the debate of "nature vs nurture" err how much a persons genes vs a person's experience influence their personality. To me personally, I don't really care too much. By some's standards here you'd call me racist because I accept IQ test results and generally think they are about right for general intelligence... but then I also agree that there is a large variation within races... so I'd agree that the general isn't really useful for predicting an individual's behavior/ability, that you really need to get to know an individual in order to make a useful judgement for most purposes.

If I were a taxi driver in DC, I don't how I'd profile people. I'd want to talk with the people and other taxi drivers there first. At first glance, I'd figure race would contribute towards giving me a feel for a person's character, but it wouldn't be the only defining characteristic. There's surely more I'd be concerned about than just race, such as age, sex, clothing, location, time of day, what kind of other people they are with, ...

If there were a feline, if it was a Persian I'd probably pick it up, but if it were a bobcat I'd not. Not to say there is that much of a distinction between Caucasian and African-mix Americans. 'Just saying... genes do matter to some degree, and they do contribute to my first-glance prediction of character.

Post 13

Monday, September 9, 2013 - 10:49pm

Marotta wrote:

Steve Wolfer has admitted that he is a racialsit even though "race" has absolutely no biological definition.

That is an outright lie.
---------

And he wrote:

Steve resists identifying conservatives as racists because he self-identifies as a conservative.

That is a lie twice over. I don't identify conservatives as racists because, as a group, they aren't racists. And I am NOT a conservative.
----------

Evidently, Marotta's far left, anarchist roots must have been badly tweaked by something in this thread causing him to loose what bit of civility and rationality he had. How else to explain his decision to engage in cheap lies and smears.

Post 14

Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 1:05pm

Michael wrote,

What matters is body language: how they stand, how they walk, how they gesture.

Yes, that's important. The cabbies would probably be reluctant to pick a young white man who looked like a gang banger. But recognize that if they did refuse to pick him up, they wouldn't be risking a $500 fine and a suspended license. If they refused to pick up a young black man, regardless of his body language and appearance, they would. And yet, they are willing to take that risk and in the process pass up a potential paying customer. What does that tell you? And remember these are black and Middle Eastern cabbies, not white.

Color is irrelevant.

Evidently, the cabbies didn't think it was irrelevant, and they had the most to lose if they were wrong.

Steve Wolfer has admitted that he is a racialsit [sic] even though "race" has absolutely no biological definition. By every genetic marker known to science, this girl is Asian. (And by the way, so am I).

Michael, you do realize, of course, that calling Steve a "racialist" is an unsupported, perhaps even libelous, accusation. As for "race," even if there is no precise biological definition, what's generally viewed as a defining characteristic is, for all practical purposes, physical appearance, which is what the cabbies are basing their decisions on. Obviously, there are borderline cases, but the girl in your picture would probably be viewed as black by virtually everyone who saw her.

People of crude mentalities cannot be allowed to define the language of discourse. Race does not exist any more than do angels or the epicycles of the planets.)

I know you don't believe this, Michael, because it's contradicted by your very own statements throughout this discussion. For example, you write,

As a taxicab driver, I would pick up any young "black" man in suit coming out of Goldman-Sachs . . .

Well, sure, but I doubt that the cabbies were referring to that kind of exceptional case. A little common sense, please!

Post 15

Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 11:22am

Let us be clear on this. A "racialist" admits to the existence of human races. Generally, they claim three, sometimes five: Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid; plus Australoid and "Native American" perhaps.

A "racist" attributes behavior to the genetic characteristics of race. As a corollary, racists favor the ascendancy of one race (their own) over the others. In our complex and fascinating milieu, we do have "white" people who favor the ascendancy of "African-Americans" via "affirmative action." Tom Wolfe parodied this in Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak-catchers."

As traditionalists, most Americans who identify themselves as "conservatives" are racialists; many are racists.

Steve, I grant that in the long history of our interactions here and our independent posts, that I do take a "left wing" viewpoint. Although I came to Ayn Rand's Anthem via a comrade in Young Americans for Freedom, I do use the word "comrade." I spent a lot of time on political left and I did so because I took seriously Ayn Rand's self-defintion: "We are radicals for capitalism." As a political radical, I searched for political roots.

Ayn Rand herself endorsed labor unions qua labor unions. She also said that it should be a criminal offense for any employer to offer an unsafe workplace, even if no one actually had been injured. As you know, she generally approved of the intellectual approach to social problems evidenced by the liberals of the Adlai Stevenson campaign, even as she disagreed with every proposal.

Objectivists are not conservatives. Objectivists are not liberals. By the same token although lowercase-o objectivism is lowercase rational-empiricism, Objectivists are not Rationalist; and Objectivists are not Empiricists.

If I offered a good idea that was logically consistent and highly suggestive, but lacking in hard evidence, you might disagree and argue. And I would say, "Steve is an empiricist." Hopefully, you would not question my integrity as a result of that.

But "race" is a highly-charged word with great potential and it gives off a lot of energy when it moves around. Best, perhaps, just to let it rest...

Post 16

Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 1:40pm

Marotta,

Let us be clear on this. A "racialist" admits to the existence of human races.

Yes, let us be clear. The term "racialist" has such a wide range of meanings that no clarity is possible. In Wikipedia, they say:

"Racialism is a term used in different ways by different people. ... Some ... define the term as synonymous with racism. Others see racialism as the belief that there are distinct races at all. ... The term "racialism" is also sometimes used to describe racial policy, such as the jim crow laws that occurred in the Southern United States, the past apartheid of South Africa, or the "affirmative action" policies of various contemporary nations. ... "Racism" implies a presumption of racial superiority and a harmful intent, whereas advocates of positive racial differences use the word "racialism" to indicate a strong interest in matters of race without the presumption of superiority or the desire to cause harm to others.

Definitions include things like, "Racialism: The belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics as determined by hereditary factors..." And in many places it is described as interchangeable with "racism" and "racist"
----------------

You said, "Steve Wolfer has admitted that he is a racialsit(sic) even though "race" has absolutely no biological definition." That contains three assertions:
1. That I'm a racialist,
2. That I admitted to being a racialist.
3. That "race" has absolutely no biological definition.

You are wrong on all three assertions.
1. I am not a racialist.
2. I would never say that I am a racialist.
3. There is a biological definition of a race. It is any group within a species that can be distinguished as a group by heritable characteristics.
---------------

You are damned right 'race' is an emotionally charged subject, and you are the one throwing around the sloppy accusations, not me. You suggested that we just let it rest. You libeled me, and you owe me an apology, then I'm happy to let it rest, but not before.

Post 17

Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - 12:11pm

Michael wrote,

Ayn Rand herself endorsed labor unions qua labor unions. She also said that it should be a criminal offense for any employer to offer an unsafe workplace, even if no one actually had been injured. As you know, she generally approved of the intellectual approach to social problems evidenced by the liberals of the Adlai Stevenson campaign, even as she disagreed with every proposal.

It is true that Rand had nothing against labor unions that are non-coercive. As Nathaniel Branden wrote originally in he Objectivist Newsletter (November 1963) and later in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal ("Common Fallacies About Capitalism", p. 86:

"[M]en have a right to organize into unions, provided they do so voluntarily, that is, provided no one is forced to join. Unions can have value as fraternal organizations, or as a means of keeping members informed of current market conditions, or as a means of bargaining more effectively with employers -- particularly in small, isolated communities. It may happen that an individual employer is paying wages that, in the overall market context, are too low; in such a case, a strike or the threat of a strike, can compel him to change his policy, since he will discover that he cannot obtain an adequate labor force at the wages he offers. However, the belief that unions can cause a general rise in the standard of living, is a myth."

However, I think it's misleading to say, without further qualification, that Rand "endorsed" unions. In The Ayn Rand Letter (August 14, 1972), she wrote as follows:

The artificially high wages forced on the economy by compulsory unionism imposed economic hardships on other groups—particularly on non-union workers and on unskilled labor, which was being squeezed gradually out of the market. Today’s widespread unemployment is the result of organized labor’s privileges and of allied measures, such as minimum wage laws. For years, the unions supported these measures and sundry welfare legislation, apparently in the belief that the costs would be paid by taxes imposed on the rich. The growth of inflation has shown that the major victim of government spending and of taxation is the middle class. Organized labor is part of the middle class—and the actual value of labor’s forced “social gains” is now being wiped out."

This is not to say, however, that Rand supported such anti-union measures as "right-to-work" laws. In the June 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, Barbara Branden criticized these laws as follows:

"As advocates of laissez-faire capitalism. Objectivists are opposed to any legislation that abridges the freedom of production and trade. We are, therefore, opposed to the 'right-to-work' laws.

"The 'right-to-work' laws prohibit employers and unions from contractually agreeing to and stipulating a closed and/or union shop. As such, these laws clearly represent an infringement of the rights of the parties involved; these laws rest on the principle that the government has the right to prescribe the terms of contractual agreements -- which is Statist concept. In a free society, an employer who voluntarily negotiates with a voluntary union, may sign any agreement with the union that he wishes. Although it is doubtful whether a closed and/or union shop agreement would ever be economically wise, the choice is the employers to make. . . . [Unions acquired their power] only by virtue of legislation, which had the effect of forcing men into unions whether they wished to join or not and of forcing employer's to deal with these unions. Unions did not and could not achieve, in a free society, the monopolistic, destructive power they possess in today's 'mixed economy'. . . . . The solution lies, not in passing new laws, but in repealing the laws that caused the disaster in the first place."

As for your claim that Rand considered it a criminal offense for any employer to offer an unsafe workplace, you need to offer textual evidence for that statement, because, according to Objectivism, the safety of a workplace is something that is subject to voluntary agreement by workers and employers. If workers choose to be employed in an unsafe work environment in exchange for higher wages, they have a perfect right to do so, as long as the safety conditions are transparent.

Clearly, high construction and certain mining jobs do not guarantee safe work environments. These occupations involve potentially hazardous conditions, as do police work, firefighting and military service. The only requirement is that potential employees are aware of the hazards, and that the employer gains their informed consent.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/18, 4:01pm)

Post 18

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 6:17am

Thanks for the references and citations, Bill. You are 100% correct. Moreover, the passage from Barbara Branden is especially important today. Michigan just became a (so-called) "right to work" state. Texas always has been. On another board, when I made the same argument as Barbara Branden, I drew flak from anti-union conservatives. I do not have The Objectivist Newsletter back issues. (I lent mine to someone who passed away.)

WD: "As for your claim that Rand considered it a criminal offense for any employer to offer an unsafe workplace, you need to offer textual evidence for that statement, because ..."

From my blog article, "Ayn Rand versus Conservatives."

In 1972, Edwin Newman interviewed Ayn Rand for his show “Speaking Freely” on NBC-TV. Among other statements, Ayn Rand said: “I am not an enemy of labor unions. Quite the contrary. I think that they are the only decent group today, ideologically. I think they are the ones who will save this country, and save capitalism, if anybody can.” She went on to say: “But the one flaw is that labor unions are government-enforced and become a monopoly and can demand higher wages than the market can offer. This union power creates the unemployable. It creates this vast group of people, the unskilled laborers who have no place to go for work. The artificial boosting of the skilled laborer’s income causes unemployment on the lower rungs of society. Every welfare measure works that way. It doesn’t affect the so-called rich, if that the humanitarians are worried about it, always affects the poor.”

A few minutes earlier, on the same show, speaking of the proper role of government, she said:

“But on the matter of protecting people from physical danger, if certain conditions of employment, let us say, are unsafe and it can be proved that there is a physical risk – I don’t say that we have to wait until somebody dies – then the employer who is creating this risk can be sued, and can be severely punished financially. In other words, there can be a law protecting a man from physical injury by another man. In this case, the employer who puts men into conditions of danger – not accidentally, but intentionally or carelessly – can be penalized because he is infringing the right of his workers not to be injured physically.”

The entire interview and many others are collected in the anthology Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz (Lexington Books, 2009).

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 9/24, 6:24am)

Post 19

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 1:19pm