Getting ahead in a society that hates you

Despite my apparent liberal and damned-commie leanings, I am – usually – here to read varying viewpoints instead of causing trouble. With that in mind, I have a question based on a comment I read to an Objectivist video on YouTube. The comment was that in the US a person can go from homeless and poverty to wealth simply by using their mind.

I just happened to be rereading A Room of One's Own tonight, so I couldn't help but think about Shakespeare's sister. I also remembered this comic about reverse racism. Then I remembered a friend talking about how hir* home state, Indiana, had no anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation, not to mention that most of the states have no protection for gender identity.

Let me say now that I'm well aware of the argument that capitalism rewards merit, and prejudice goes against a business owner's self-interest. (I will also note that I wholly support neither capitalism nor communism and am still making up my mind.) But clearly it's possible to survive – and do quite well – while only acknowledging the merit of white males.

Now my question: In a prejudiced society, and given that the capitalistic failings of prejudices are easily hidden or ignored by said society's citizens, what makes capitalism the best solution to prevent/eliminate discrimination? It's clear that it does work, but if it's not fast enough for my tastes (and I do consider quicker to be better in this case), what can be done (under any system) to hasten the elimination of prejudice?

* "Hir" is one of several gender-neutral pronouns replacing "his" or "her" that some gender-variant people go by.

Post 1

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 3:46am

Now my question: In a prejudiced society, and given that the capitalistic failings of prejudices are easily hidden or ignored by said society's citizens,

I don't accept this premise as true (hasn't been proven to be true, can't take it on faith as being true, etc), so the question is flawed (loaded, begs the question, etc, etc.) to begin with. The second part of the question can be answered while ignoring the first.

...what makes capitalism the best solution to prevent/eliminate discrimination?

No system will ever elimiate discrimination. And it can't be eliminated by force from the government, either. Nothing can eliminate free thought, accept death.

It's clear that it does work, but if it's not fast enough for my tastes (and I do consider quicker to be better in this case), what can be done (under any system) to hasten the elimination of prejudice?

Kill those who slow the system down, or, simply live your life as you wish and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Post 2

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 8:49am

Well that's certainly a more appalling response than I expected.

“I don't accept this premise as true (hasn't been proven to be true, can't take it on faith as being true, etc), so the question is flawed (loaded, begs the question, etc, etc.) to begin with.”

Hasn't been proven? Look at the subjugation of women in the past thousands of years. Look at racism in just the early 20th century. Look at queer rights today! I'm having a hard time understanding how it's not self-evident at this point.

“Kill those who slow the system down, [Um. No.] or, simply live your life as you wish and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing.”

Worrying about others' and my own subjugation is living as I wish.

Post 3

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 9:07am

Eve wrote:

Hasn't been proven? Look at the subjugation of women in the past thousands of years. Look at racism in just the early 20th century. Look at queer rights today! I'm having a hard time understanding how it's not self-evident at this point.

Laws that government has enforced over thousands of years with fists, swords, whips, and guns have kept women subjugated. One can say the same about African slavery, "Jim Crow" laws, etc. Take a look at history and you will find that capitalists opposed these laws because they harmed their ability to conduct business profitably, e.g. laws that forced segregation onto commuter train owners met opposition from those owners.

As for ordinary daily prejudice, you have to ask yourself:

Does the individual have the moral right to discriminate on the basis of personal tastes and preferences?

I say yes. You may say otherwise. I cannot determine your answer from your statements thus far.

For instance, if I want to open a bar for "men only," I have the moral right to do so. Sean Connery has openly stated that when playing golf, he prefers the company of men. The weight loss franchise Curves caters only to women. I have a friend who will only date and marry Asian women.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/16, 9:12am)

Post 4

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 9:23am

Index of Economic Freedom (iow Capitalism Index).
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 7/16, 9:24am)

Post 5

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 10:56am

Eve:

Now my question: In a prejudiced society, and given that the capitalistic failings of prejudices are easily hidden or ignored by said society's citizens

I'm wondering why this isn't a prejudiced statement? You are claiming society is prejudiced but aren't you then prejudging everyone in society to be prejudiced? I don't believe you've ever met me, so how do you know I'm prejudiced and are you saying you yourself are prejudiced? Who in society is prejudiced?

Post 6

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 1:58pm

One way to examine this issue would be to compare the levels of "prejudice" found in various countries, with some having adopted a primarily capitalist social system, and with some having adopted a primarily anti-capitalist social system. For example, here are some examples of extreme prejudice (from primarily anti-capitalist countries), examples which are not socially-acceptable in the USA [from amnesty.org] ...

China and Vietnam

... many prisoners of conscience remained in jail for the peaceful expression of their political beliefs.

Thailand

The Thai government appeared to condone killings of drug suspects as one method of fighting drug trafficking and use in the country. According to official statements, 2,245 people suspected of trafficking or using drugs were killed during a three-month campaign starting in February.

Jordan

In Jordan, proposals to amend Article 340 of the Penal Code (which relates to family killings) to make it more favourable to women were rejected by the Lower House of Parliament. The more frequently used Article 98, which allows for a reduced sentence for perpetrators whose crime was committed in a "fit of rage", remained on the statute books.

Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Togo and Zimbabwe

Violence against women continued to be widely seen as socially acceptable, ...

Nigeria

... there continued to be different standards of evidence for sexual "offences" such as zina (involving consensual sexual relations above the age of consent), and culpable homicide was used as a charge in cases of abortion and miscarriage ...

As a result, women, especially those from deprived economic backgrounds and with little formal education, were more likely than men to be convicted and sentenced to death or other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments for some crimes.

[many countries]

Female genital mutilation continued to be widely practised in different forms ...

I think that these examples provide important perspective for this debate.

Ed

Post 7

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 5:29pm

I'll respond to the easy things first, then I want to think a little more before responding to Ed.

Luke,

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this "preferential discrimination". Obviously, Sean Connery can play golf with whomever he pleases. Your friend can date and marry whomever he pleases. My roommates and I, for instance, barred a certain woman from our apartment because we continually and strongly disagreed with many political and philosophical things she said – blatant philosophical discrimination. Even more, I'd say that it's important – vital, even – for oppressed groups such as women or people of color to have private spaces. The freedom to say "We want to talk amongst ourselves about our own problems" is crucial alleviating that oppression.

While I'm not certain about the language you use ("moral right"), my answer to your question is also yes.

But I want to use some of your examples to make a point: If you want to open a men-only bar, or if Curves is women-only, we agree that it's perfectly fine. But what about transgender people? In other words, how do you, the business owner, define "men" and "women"? Will you say, "No women allowed, but if you're a transman who's female-bodied but looks like a man, we'll let you in." What if a transwoman Curves client looks like a linebacker but has had sex reassignment surgery?

I use transgender people for this example because they make up a very small percentage of the population. For most companies, there's minimal downside to having policy discrimination against transgender people. For industries such as medical insurance, it's even profitable to discriminate against transgender people. Being such a small group, it's extremely difficult if not impossible to create the market pressures needed to receive important services like health care. Capitalism may work to remove policy discrimination for substantial groups, but the marginalization of tiny groups is one of my largest gripes with the system.

John,

I think you're right that the question is prejudiced to assume that most people are prejudiced to some degree. I'm certainly open to discuss that, but I wonder if your comment has any purpose other than to be inflammatory, an intellectual version of "Nuh uh, you're a poo-poo head." If there's more to it, let me know. If not, I'll just ignore you as someone flaming the commie.

Dean,

You've confused me. Please expand?

Post 8

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 5:46pm

Eve wrote:

But I want to use some of your examples to make a point: If you want to open a men-only bar, or if Curves is women-only, we agree that it's perfectly fine. But what about transgender people? In other words, how do you, the business owner, define "men" and "women"? Will you say, "No women allowed, but if you're a transman who's female-bodied but looks like a man, we'll let you in." What if a transwoman Curves client looks like a linebacker but has had sex reassignment surgery?

I use transgender people for this example because they make up a very small percentage of the population. For most companies, there's minimal downside to having policy discrimination against transgender people. For industries such as medical insurance, it's even profitable to discriminate against transgender people. Being such a small group, it's extremely difficult if not impossible to create the market pressures needed to receive important services like health care. Capitalism may work to remove policy discrimination for substantial groups, but the marginalization of tiny groups is one of my largest gripes with the system.

Perhaps you can persuade Bridget Armozel to offer some insight here. She is our only regular transgendered person on this site as far as I know.

Most of us simply do not know cognitively how exactly to handle people of questionable gender. People in general tend to wrap much of their personal identities in their respective genders, and to accept their genders as metaphysically given based on their physiology. If I see someone who looks like a man, has all the genitalia of a man yet insists on being treated like a woman, what exactly am I supposed to do? Courts have already ruled that such people still need to use a men's restroom and not a women's restroom.

No matter what happens, someone somewhere will launch a complaint against capitalism. Some will complain it makes mass appeals to the lowest common denominator. Others will complain it caters to elites at the expense of common people. Still others, like yourself, will complain it fails to handle the oddest of the odd. Why a system that does so much for so many should warrant your "largest gripes" because it fails currently to cater to "tiny groups" escapes me.

If you have a nose for business, perhaps you can corner the market on the transgendered community by offering services those "tiny groups" can get nowhere else. You could help them and make a fortune at the same time. Why not?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/16, 5:48pm)

Post 9

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 6:04pm

Eve:

John,

I think you're right that the question is prejudiced to assume that most people are prejudiced to some degree. I'm certainly open to discuss that, but I wonder if your comment has any purpose other than to be inflammatory, an intellectual version of "Nuh uh, you're a poo-poo head." If there's more to it, let me know. If not, I'll just ignore you as someone flaming the commie.

Eve, it was not my intent to be inflammatory nor do I think I was. The question I pose to you is a fair one. You claim that "society is prejudice" and I'm asking you to justify this statement as the rest of your concerns about Capitalism rest on that premise. I maintain you can't say society is prejudiced, because that in and of itself is a prejudiced statement. I assume you include me in "society" but you never met me, so how is it fair I accept the accusation I am prejudiced? And are you yourself prejudiced?

Post 10

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 6:39pm

Luke,

It's my largest gripe because I'm extremely bothered by any system that lets people fall through the cracks. How would such a system be just (or moral or whatever word you think is appropriate) in saying, "We reward you for your merit, and helping any one group by stealing from another is immoral. But you folks in this little group, you're too small to be concerned about. You will most likely not get good health care if you get any at all; your life is in greater danger from attack, and you often won't receive protection from police because they don't like how you look; should you be attacked, no one whose job it is to protect your health, safety, or rights will be punished if they ignore you. Should you survive, your merit will be celebrated by those whose negligence nearly killed you. As a bonus, they'll use you as an example for why they can continue to neglect others like you. Now then, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and start your own business."

Perhaps I'm overly empathetic. If so, it makes me sad that not everyone feels this much concern for others' well-being. That a few people go uncared for is my largest gripe because I give a damn about those people.

Alas, I have no "nose for business". I often ask my boss to explain various aspects of her business; her answers are very counter-intuitive to me.

John,

Very well. I'll think about your comments while I'm thinking about Ed's.

Post 11

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 7:13pm

Eve H,

Now my question: In a prejudiced society, and given that the capitalistic failings of prejudices are easily hidden or ignored by said society's citizens, what makes capitalism the best solution to prevent/eliminate discrimination? It's clear that it does work, but if it's not fast enough for my tastes (and I do consider quicker to be better in this case), what can be done (under any system) to hasten the elimination of prejudice?

I gave a link to an excellent list of countries that says how capitalist they are and why, I don't really have the time to debate that a more capitalist economy would be better for minorities. You can then pick countries off the top and bottom of the list, Google them or wikipedia them, and figure out what its like to live in each country as a minority. All I can say is... the more capitalist a country is, the less being a minority matters.

I don't think its a crime for a business man to be prejudice. I do think its government corruption for the government to be prejudice.

To hasten, Teresa Summerlee Isanhart's solution (killing or ignoring) seems like the only effective option (yes, these are not very satisfactory options). You could try education programs, but I don't see how that would have much effect. Making the government to be more capitalist seems like a better option, but who is going to change the government (again back to the killing)?

Post 12

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 8:52pm

Eve:

From what you have written I think you would agree that capitalism is unparalleled in its ability to provide wealth, and that controls inhibit its production. Your concerns are that you think that some people fall between the cracks and that that situation is unacceptable. Your alternative seems to be to apply force to redistribute the wealth that capitalism produces. The consequences of the controls are that the "pie" will be proportionately smaller according to the degree to which state controls are applied. We have ample evidence of exactly how small that pie can become when we observe all the past and present communist regimes ... poverty for all, except for the party elite. In that case all the ordinary citizens fall through the cracks.

I could make a utilitarian argument that capitalism is the only acceptable choice, but "utilitarianism" has negative connotations in Objectivist theory because it implies the enforced sacrifice of certain individuals to the collective (bad). However, in a context of freedom associated with capitalism there is no forcing and individuals aren't targeted. Accidents and other unfortunate circumstances occur. Shit happens.

That being said, it is my opinion that with laissez-fair capitalism there would be many, many more men like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. of enormous wealth who have so much money they don't know what to do with it. So, in the tradition of the philanthropists such as Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, John D. Rockefeller the new philanthropists would be inclined to provide a safety net for the unfortunates in our society.

Sam

Post 13

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 10:33pm

Xanax and Suicide

"Hir" is one of several gender-neutral pronouns replacing "his" or "her" that some gender-variant people go by.

Eve, you need to start over from scratch.

Society doesn't hate anyone, society is not an entity but a collection and society as such has no mind, emotions, or any such intentional states. If you seriously dispute this, you may be an early stage paranoid schizophrenic, and I suggest you talk to your doctor about your feelings.

Assuming you are not a paranoid schizophrenic, please stop making up pronouns for no reason. He, his and him are the default third person animate pronoun of English and all Indo-European languages. There is no inherent sexist bias in this. Originally, Indo-European distinguished only between the animate and the inanimate. The interrogatives, kwis (animate) and kwid (inanimate) developed into who and what in English, quis and quid in Latin, and so on. If you study Latin or Greek, or any good, non-PC intoductory class in linguistics, you will see that many nominal and pronominal declensions don't distinguish between the masculine and the feminine, only between the common (animate) and the neuter. The differentiation between the feminine and the masculine developed later on when certain plurals in -a and the word gwena- (queen, Gwendolyn, gynecology, Russian zhena) became associated due to their similar endings. Three third person pronouns, OE he hio hit or Latin is ia>ea id came about, but the interrogative pronoun never developed a feminine form, and the default answer to "who" is always "he."

Some languages (Burushaski) have four genders, masc, fem, animate neuter, inanimate, some (Mandarin) have none. Some (Bantu) have more than ten, with genders for such things as being ball-shaped or stick-shaped.

How, prey tell, does one pronounce "hir" ? Is that subject, object or possessive? Or is my asking inherently sexist? I mean inhimently sexist?

Such neologisms suggest magical thinking and the primacy of consciousness. If we change the word, the thing will change too. They did this in Communist Russia. It never works - if it did, you might get a society like that in Anthem.

Do they still talk about herstory in college? I loved that one. Or has (he)rstory become sherstory? Then s(he)rstory becomes ssherstory, and so on until we run out of esses?

Excluding a return to reason, there are two further alternatives Teresa didn't mention. Xanax and suicide.

Ted

Post 14

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 3:42am

That a few people go uncared for is my largest gripe because I give a damn about those people.

Why? If you want to help "those people," you're free to do that. I'm confident there are few, if any here who would argue that you don't have a right to help whomever you wish. Just as I am confident that there are few, if any here who would argue that "those people" have a right to our help.

You're not being clear regarding your goals. I can only assume that you hope for a system that will penalize individuals in some way for not accepting everyone who wants something from them.

What I'm against, and what most here will argue, is that no one has a right to the life, or lives, of others. It really is that simple. The fact that you care only goes to show the benevolence of human nature. But government can't (and shouldn't) force that quality in people. I don't want to "care" about self abusers. You can care about them if you wish, but nothing can force me to.

There would be far fewer "cracks" for people to fall into if the government would just stay out of people's business.

Post 15

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 6:55am

I just received this private e-mail from a lurker who has not posted here in quite a long time:

I once reached reached for Ayn Rand for the protection of my individuality against conformity and establishment, and the promise of a way of life which did not hold the individual guilty until proven innocent against the collective.

I happened to read the "Getting Ahead in a Society That Hates You" thread on RoR recently.

I am disgusted with myself for ever being taken in by this kind of "individualism." My congratulations to all of you capitalists for encouraging this ex-libertarian to take a second look at social democracy.

Whew!

Eve wrote:

You will most likely not get good health care if you get any at all; your life is in greater danger from attack, and you often won't receive protection from police because they don't like how you look; should you be attacked, no one whose job it is to protect your health, safety, or rights will be punished if they ignore you.

You mix improper and proper roles of government here. While government needs to stay out of the health care business, it does need to enforce laws against force and fraud consistently for every individual. So I have no argument against your contention that failure of the police to protect anyone regardless of "transgendered" status warrants penalites. I simply oppose "special" treatment of such people in favor of "equal" treatment of such people when it comes to objective law enforcement.
(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/17, 7:06am)

Post 16

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 8:17am

All right, I'm bowing out. I don't have enough time to argue with this many people when the whole thing is going off track.

Luke,

Equal treatment is what I want. If in just the areas you mention, that'd be a damn nice start.

Teresa,

I'm not arguing that anyone has the right to anyone else's help. Also, I'm not clear in my goals – though it's certainly not what you mention. I asked the question because I don't have a clear goal. I'm still trying to figure things out. If I were arguing for the things you mention, I would've put this thread in Dissent.

Ted,

A quick google turned up this site on some technical aspects of gender-neutral pronouns. Also, you're an ass.

Sam,

Yes, the past showing of Communism is depressing, which is why I didn't barge in saying, "Here's how we should do it!"

Shit does happen. I'd like to be able to help the people it happens to. But before I earn my millions, I have to figure out how I want to help.

Post 17

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 9:53am

The problem with the cartoon is that it is not the same person. It should more accurately show:

The black person dies, and their grandchildren arrive.

The white person dies, and from across the ocean another white person arrives, and their grandchildren arrive.

Now, does it make sense that you interact with one another based on grandfathers that may or may not have even been related to you? Does it matter if they were?

(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 7/17, 9:54am)

Post 18

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 10:00am

what makes capitalism the best solution to prevent/eliminate discrimination?

Thanks for your comments Eve, I would first start out by saying though that I don't think anyone here agrees with the premise this implies, that a system ought to be considered just or unjust based on how well it prevents/eliminates discrimination.

The society which best eliminates discrimination might very well be a horrifically controlling tyranny, which controls and dictates every single thought and action of an individual. Consider the rigorous life of the buddhist monk, everyone wears the same clothes, eats the same food, chants the same chants, thinks the same thoughts, every waking moment is controlled.

Consider another example, lets place a 1 foot spike on the steering wheel of every car pointed out toward the driver. I guarantee people will be much safer drivers, and we might over all have fewer deaths from car accidents. This is a utilitarian solution, but completely disregards individuals.

The idea is that capitalism is justified by utilitarian concerns, that is, adding up all the benefits and disadvantages and finding that capitalism (or communism) has fewer disadvantages according to some moral conception, is wrong to start out with. Capitalism is just and right because it is a natural extension of the idea that humans (male, female, or other) have a right to exist and thus must have a right to materially acquire and sustain the means to their existence. So whether or not it ultimately creates a system with less discrimination or more is irrelevant, because that is not the standard by which a society ought to be judged.

Additionally, the individual is the smallest minority, and frankly I don't care about races or ethnic groups, only individuals and what individuals want for themselves. Ultimately, though, capitalism probably does create a system with the least amount of discrimination, one might easily argue a very controlling communist system creates less 'discrimination' (when we consider discrimination to be a different relative treatment of ethnic groups) but it only accomplishes this by massive equal discrimination across all ethnic groups!

Post 19

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 10:31am