Aim of Anti-Discrimination Agitprop

Natural law forbids the government’s punishing businessmen for refusing to serve the “wrong” customers, i.e., people belonging to any supposed Victim Group.

However, again, the purpose of installing Victim Groups is not just mindlessly to crush people, to ride roughshod over individual preferences and property rights, though this is always useful to statists, but to erase the distinctions that actually need to be observed and to make people stupid enough no longer to be able to observe them.

Economics of Anti-Discrimination Laws

For our purposes, we’ll use two allegedly hostile to each other groups: heteros and homos.

On the market, there will be 3 classes of businesses:

  1. those that want to deal solely with heteros,
  2. those that want to deal solely with homos, and
  3. those eager to deal with anyone irrespective of their sexual orientation.

The total is t) = a) + b) + c).

Now in every industry, let’s use Jeff Tucker’s example of AirBnB, there will be at any given moment generally successful entrepreneurs, i.e., those who for the time being are making profits; failures or those who are losing money; and what economists call marginal entrepreneurs, those who are just barely surviving and breaking even.

Marginal entrepreneurs are extremely sensitive to variations in market data; they have no “cushion” to soften any blows from misfortune in uncertain future.

Such entrepreneurs will be found in all 3 of our classes.

Now it is plausible that businessmen who insist on dealing exclusively with heteros or homos are doing so for a reason. They are sacrificing monetary revenues from those segments of the population whom they are purposely refusing to serve, because doing so yields to them some psychic profit. They would rather lose some money than compromise their principles or ideological commitments or “core values.”

Let’s now introduce anti-discrimination laws into the picture. No AirBnB apartment owner is permitted to ask a potential customer about his sexual orientation. Immediately, businessmen of types a) and b) are undone. Now it’s quite possible that many of them will still remain in business. They’ll swallow their pride, forget their loyalties, and grudgingly decide to do business with all people, thus transmogrifying into class c). The state will dissipate their psychic profits, and they may gain perhaps some smaller monetary profits. Still, the combined loss will not be enough to drive them out of business; despite the harm to them from the Discrimination Prohibition, they will carry on.

Let those choosing to keep producing be called a*) and b*).

But what of the marginal entrepreneurs in a) and b)? Those are already on edge. The thought “Maybe I should quit” already occurs to them often. The Prohibition, by obliterating their pleasure from choosing their customers as they see fit, will change their outlook from “marginal but still slightly profitable” to “now unprofitable.” These marginal entrepreneurs will shut down operations and leave the market.

Hence, a*) < a), and b*) < b).

As a result, the supply of AirBnB apartments will decline, pushing prices higher. The heteros will lose through the diminution of businesses of class a), and the homos will lose through the diminution of businesses of class b). The new universal class t’) = a*) + b*) + c) will be smaller than t) before the commencement of the Prohibition. Perhaps, homos expect that t’) will be greater than b) + c), such that the influx of a*) will more than compensate for b) – b*). If so, then they fail to take into account the demand for t’) apartments. Before, heteros were served by a) + c), and homos, by b) + c). Now both groups are competing for the goods in the now fully common pool t’). As a result, the Discrimination Prohibition will reduce economic efficiency by diverting the conduct of entrepreneurs from satisfying the most urgent needs of all kinds of consumers, both straight and gay.

It is impossible to say a priori how big the margin will be; that is, precisely how many existing firms will be driven out of business and how many new firms will be unstarted, but rest assured, in a big world, there will be some and can be plenty.

Who then benefits? It seems no one. My feeling is that gay activists understand this, but, blinded by their hatred for non-gays, are willing themselves to suffer if it means that straight people suffer, as well. I wish I were mistaken about this.

Metaphysics of Discrimination

“Discrimination” or treating different people seemingly, but not really, arbitrarily is part and parcel of our daily lives. The most obvious example of discrimination is taking interests of family members over the interests of strangers. One helps his grandmother with her shopping but not other old ladies, and everyone correctly thinks this is reasonable. The explanation why is that no man is by natural law required to love other people; only not to hate them and thereby to abstain from unjustly harming them. Bestowal of benefits on strangers is supererogatory, i.e., beyond the call of natural duty. Duties to family members are more rigorous than duties to fellow men in general, however.

So then, suppose, given 1) that nations and races are also very extended families, both biologically and in terms of natural sentiments and 2) that morally better people are superior companions, Smith thinks that white people are closer to him than blacks, or straight people closer than gays. Does it mean that he hates blacks? Or that he hates gays? Obviously not. It does not even mean that he fails to love either group. All that is entailed by his attitudes is that he loves whites somewhat more than blacks, and straights somewhat more than gays, and in giving their preferences more weight, serves them, if he is a businessman, with more readiness than other customers.

Blacks and gays have confused the issue utterly by calling people who “discriminate against” them racists and homophobes. But once again, the vast majority of people who discriminate in an un-PC way do not hate blacks or gays. They may well consider them wonderful people, just slightly less wonderful than whites and straights. Just as one shows his uncle greater affections than a stranger, or his cat, than a stranger’s cat, so he shows an arbitrary white person more hospitality than an arbitrary black person.

And there is not one thing disgraceful about that.

We can easily see that anti-discriminationists are extended family wreckers, love wreckers, as opposed to love-builders they pretend to be.

Anti-Discrimination Laws Harm the Marginalized Elite

Let us consider discrimination in employment. Let there be in a certain community the majority of Blues and the minority of Yellows. Let a “Civilized” person be one who is qualified to work at a well-paying job in all senses; he is not only competent, say, but also has good “communication skills,” is punctual, will not steal office supplies, and has a variety of other useful virtues. A “Savage” person is one who would be speedily fired from a well-paying job as soon as his character flaws are discovered by the boss.

It so happens that 80% of Blues are Civilized, and 20% of Yellows are Civilized; the rest are Savages. (I am sorry, but there ain’t nothing anyone can do about raw facts like this.)

It should come as no surprise that the efficient ways of hiring Blues as opposed to Yellows differ. It can make sense to subject a Yellow applicant to a more stringent interview. For example, a hiring manager may want to run a background check on a Yellow, have him drug tested, check his references and employment history more thoroughly, hire him on strict probation, or keep him as an apprentice (such as contract-to-hire) for a longer period of time. This is an aspect of discrimination not primarily between Blues and Yellow, but between the Civilized and Savages, given the information in the market.

Let certain employers prejudicially refuse to go to the trouble of finding Civilized Yellows. The competition for Yellow workers from businesses declines concomitantly, and these workers’ wages will fall. This is an immediate incentive to less biased entrepreneurs to pick up those perfectly good Yellow workers as a lower price. As we can see, stubbornly refusing to seek out qualified Yellows is costly to a firm; it shrinks the pool of its applicants, drives up prices of labor for it, and thus increases its costs of doing business.

In short, then, businessmen who do not discriminate between Blues and Yellows but do discriminate between the Civilized Yellows and Savage Yellows will obtain an advantage in the marketplace: they’ll slurp up the Civilized Yellows — who by stipulation are as good as Blues — at a lower wage. Moreover, there is an incentive to all firms to improve their discrimination of Yellow characters with time, as outdoing one’s competitors at the discriminating business means superior matching of candidates with jobs and hence profits.

Let’s see what happens when the state forbids discrimination. Clearly, now both Blues and Yellows have to undergo the same “objective” qualifying procedures. The background check, the drug test, etc. now have to be administered either to all job applicants or to none of them irrespective of their color. It is obvious that thusly verifying both Blues and Yellows introduces new extra costs to any business, and some businesses will no longer be able to afford them. They’ll choose rather to not verify anybody, but, knowing that doing that will pollute their workplace with many Savage Yellows, will refuse to hire any Yellows at all.

Here’s the lowdown: Whereas a businessman’s false belief that YS = “all Yellows are Savages” was unprofitable before, will, with the advent of anti-discrimination laws, become — surprise! — profitable. This is because the alternative to YS before was “some Yellows are Civilized” (which is true); now it’s “Yellows are exactly like Blues” (which is also false, and the consequences of extending belief to it are even more disastrous). The government gives an incentive to agents in the market to make mistakes; it subsidizes those mistakes, and when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

Since the number of discriminating businesses decreases, the competition for who will be best discriminators also weakens, and improvement of discriminating techniques slows down, as well.

As a result, employment of Yellows in good jobs will decline. Since it’s only cost-effective to discriminate for longer-term high-paying jobs (because spending a lot of money to filter out bad applicants for an $8 / hour job is too expensive), the Yellow elite will suffer the most.

The only remedy for that is quotas, but at that point, when human resources issues within companies are so regimented by the state, we are no longer dealing with a capitalist labor market at all. We’ll have a totalitarian state which today imposes quotas of Blues to Yellows, and tomorrow, upon a change in policy, will send the Yellows to gas chambers, because why not if it can? Of course, under quotas, business efficiency will decline substantially, and consumers — both Yellows and Blues — will be poorer than before.

It may be said that it is impolite (or some such thing) not to firmly believe in the perfect equality between Blue and Yellow workers, regardless of the facts of the matter. But to quote Mises,

economics does not say anything either in favor of or against myths.

It is perfectly neutral with regard to the labor-union doctrine, the credit-expansion doctrine, and all such doctrines as far as these may present themselves as myths and are supported as myths by their partisans.

It deals with these doctrines only as far as they are considered doctrines about the means fit for the attainment of definite ends.

Economics does not say labor unionism is a bad myth. It merely says it is an inappropriate means of raising wage rates for all those eager to earn wages.

The same can be said about the Blue and Yellows equality myth. Economics says merely that employment of Yellows will decline, and that the pursuit of the equality myth by the government is not in the pecuniary interests of Yellows. “It leaves it to every man to decide whether the realization of the [equality] myth is more important than the avoidance of the inevitable consequences of [non-discrimination] policies.” (HA, 884)

The State Is an Enemy of Blacks

It is precisely when we acknowledge substantive race differences, such as that blacks on average are more: lazy, stupid, corruptible, present-oriented, amoral-like-wolves, criminal, etc. than almost all non-blacks, that we see that the state bears full responsibility for setting back the evolution and progress of blacks.

Take minimum wage, for example. It is blacks who most benefit from wide availability of low-paying jobs. This is not just so that they can provide for themselves but to grant them a measure of upward mobility, wherein the skills, powers, and virtues they learn while in these entry-level positions can be used for personal and career-wise growth, i.e., to graduate toward more responsible and productive and therefore higher-paying jobs.

These low-paying jobs are never meant to suffice to “support a family.” No 14-year-old, black or white, who works at Walmart or McDonald’s is supposed to support a wife and 3 children. These jobs instead, while serving the consumers in their own right, teach crucial skills that render their owners, again, upwardly mobile.

With prudent saving, the income even from these jobs, aided by support from the family, can be used to buy further training in colleges or vocational schools.

The litany of the evils of the state regarding blacks is endless, seen most clearly just when race differences are fully grasped. Slavery, the original American sin, bred blacks for strength and endurance at, of all things, picking cotton rather than problem-solving in engineering or understanding subtle arguments in philosophy.

The drug war has a different effect on blacks than on whites.

“Welfare” spending has ravaged the black family, unlike the white family which has proven more resilient.

White people are not allowed to but still do in the privacies of their own hearts or families say “There goes the neighborhood” when blacks more into their communities. It is true that blacks ruin vast stretches of real estate, but the problem has its root in government public housing, aka the infamous “projects,” where the stench of physical and spiritual decay is palpable. Subsidized housing is marginally better. It is the blacks who leave these projects and receive these subsidies who end up devastating normal communities.

Affirmative action has caused whites to despise rather than sympathize with blacks who now are stuffed into occupations and pursuits for which they are manifestly unqualified and into social positions which are obviously undeserved. Race relations are ruined concominantly.

Anti-discrimination laws have butchered one of the most natural liberties of mankind: freedom of association and its corollary freedom not to associate with anyone for any reason, once again bringing about strife between the races.

Such are the sad facts. But they are not written in stone. The situation is eminently correctible. Let us not fight one another but focus instead on our common enemy: the state.

Whether “Discrimination” by Private Enterprise Is Ok?

The various Civil Right Acts, such as of 1964, grossly violated property rights of private businessmen. This was done by spuriously labeling “facilities which are open to the public — hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments” — “public accommodations.”

The libertarian argument from basic justice insists that property rights are absolute and the state cannot lawfully interfere with their exercise. The argument is powerful and correct; but I wonder if there is a more to it. What is the rationale for such callous treatment of business owners? To justify one’s nonchalant contempt for basic justice requires considerable ingenuity. I have argued that that answer may lie with the misunderstood notion of “consumer sovereignty” which has been taken from its context within pure economic theory and given a perverse normative meaning.

Now as I have pointed out in my comment on an article by John Goodman, the government tends to distinguish between consumers and producers in banning or regulating things. For example, regarding the Alcohol Prohibition, the 18th Amendment did not outlaw drinking or threaten drinkers with fines or prison terms; it rather outlawed “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors,” i.e., the acts of business that precede drinking and in fact supply the essential means to drinking.

(The current Drug Prohibition is an odd exception to the rule, since it ignores this distinction. Even consumers are punished when caught.)

Perhaps there is some sense among the people that “discrimination” is un-American. First, private property in the factors of production is a means to an end. The rights to capital goods and money capital are precisely not absolute but conditional on whether they promote the greatest good for the greatest number. Businessmen serve the consumers. They “should” care for nothing but monetary profits, because that is how they fulfill their social function. They should not discriminate between the consumers. It is “wrong” for businesses to do anything other than make money.

Second, value judgments are the domain of the consumers. Any consumer is free to buy whatever he wants, to change his tastes, to spurn a product or develop a loyalty to it. But the market should be fully responsive to these desires. It should manufacture whatever is being demanded, whether toys for kids, hard liquor for adults who beat their kids, or atomic bombs that vaporize kids. It’s not the job of business to play favorites or to judge which consumer desires are “virtuous” and ought to be satisfied and which are “vicious” and ought to be despised. The ideal entrepreneur is value-free, though in a different sense than an ideal economist. He satisfies 1st-order desires or increases narrow happiness and “should” abstain from all judgments of his customers’ characters. He should always ask his customer simply, “What’s your poison?” and promptly deliver the poison to him, not shower him with contempt for his choice of a pleasure and refuse service.

Everyone’s money is exactly like anyone else’s, green and valuable. It’s “irrational” to discriminate. Moreover, Smith must think pretty badly of Jones if he goes so far as to decline Jones’ money for an ordinary everyday product of Smith’s company. I can understand if Jones would feel like an outcast or loser after such treatment.

Hence people seem to think that it is perfectly Ok for a homosexual consumer to choose which business firm to patronize and which firms to wave aside regarding his wedding cake, but illegitimate for a devoutly Christian business owner to choose his customers.

I have four objections to this argument.

First, the economic distinction between businessmen and consumers is irrelevant when it comes to law. It is fine to assert that an entrepreneur produces but does not labor while a worker labors but does not produce; or that production is distinct from consumption; or that a corporation is a “legal person.” But when we reduce this down to the individual level, all we see is market actors exchanging goods and services for money. The position of every member of society, regardless of his specific economic function, is 100% symmetrical. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest,” as per Adam Smith. These interests should be able legitimately to include any personal biases.

Second, this Americanist spirit hardly holds sway universally across the board. Homosexuals and blacks can sue for discrimination, but midgets and bald people cannot. The left in this country, in search of “classes” to sic on each other, has identified a number of official “Victim Groups” who in their eyes are being unjustly oppressed. The “victims” have been granted special privileges and become powerful and ruthless government pressure groups. The rest of the people are supposed to endure their insolence quietly.

In fact, the actual purpose of the victimhood ideology is not to secure some utilitarian outcome but to humiliate, intimidate, and loot the majority.

Third, actual discrimination is rare in today’s America. Even if a bakery refuses to do business with a homosexual, the latter can easily find another company that would eagerly sell him a cake. It’s not as if no one will do business with him, and he’ll literally starve to death. So, it’s unlikely that any civil rights legislation adds much good to the already existing happiness for greatest number. Another aspect of this is that some people may, realizing that the law requires them to serve even those people they dislike, be deterred from starting a business in the first place. Society loses when people are forced to forego occupations in which they would be especially efficient.

Finally, even if we grant that discrimination by businessmen between their customers is indeed un-American, it does not follow that it should be illegal. Communism is un-American, but communists are not thrown in prison on account of holding false and vicious political views. Moreover, the practical problems of enforcing non-discrimination are quite serious and costly to society. For example, if the refusal to cater to a gay wedding is due to one’s religious beliefs, the courts may rule that having such beliefs respected overrules the importance of non-discrimination. Thus, Christians who will not serve to gays will not be prosecuted, but a business owner who dislikes gays because, say, he was raised by two lesbians and has bad childhood memories is outside the pale. This introduces needless complexity to law and creates arbitrary precedence of values, precisely what Americanism told us to avoid. Some groups (gays) are privileged not to be discriminated against, yet other groups (Christians) override this privilege, and only in some contexts, and so on. Is it not better for all simply to respect private property rights than to try to settle personal scores by battling for political power?

For these reasons, I think the argument from “consumer sovereignty” fails even on its own terms.

Low-IQ Hypocritical Left

I would actually be very impressed if a leftist were to use the argument in favor of anti-discrimination laws from “consumer sovereignty” analyzed in the previous post. It would demonstrate some understanding of how the economy works. But I fear that’s hopeless.

In addition, of course, the left and the mainstream cheer when big business like Google and Amazon de-platform non-leftist dissenters. So, they are precluded from using this argument at the outset by their casual hypocrisy.

Duncan: Democratic Liberalism: Politics of Dignity

In this chapter Duncan propounds a tedious, meandering, and economically naive interventionist fantasy. There is no rhyme or reason to it; for example, he writes that “lesser constraints, such as reasonable taxes, red lights at intersections, anti-pollution laws, and so on, will leave citizens largely free to choose the shape of lives.” (90) By “reasonable” our author means what he, Duncan, personally finds reasonable according to his own peculiar fancies. Yet though his notions are many, rational defenses of them are scarce. I will therefore focus on some of his clearer arguments.

Duncan calls his system “democratic liberalism.” He exalts democracy, saying that it blurs the distinction between the rulers and the ruled. Democracy “recognizes in a significant way [the citizens’] equal status as beings capable of responsible choice.” (90) But democracy is neither necessary nor sufficient for liberty. There can be sharp conflicts between the two. After all, democracy is not each individual ruling himself; it’s the majority ruling the individuals, including those who are in the minority. What happens when a democratically elected government takes away individual liberties? What’s to guarantee that the voters in a democracy will prefer a free society? In addition, in my personal life, I internalize the costs of my mistakes; in a democracy, a single vote never matters in an election. This dramatically weakens the incentive to each citizen to vote correctly. Finally, democracy is entirely useless at limiting large states.

Duncan lists the right “against discrimination (as a job-seeker, employee, or consumer)” as one of his “basic economic rights.” The problem here is twofold. First, why is it that only the employer is burdened with punishments for choosing his employees as he sees fit? If worker Smith does not want to work for an Asian boss, he is perfectly free to reject a job offer from him for any reason or indeed none at all. But manager Jones who dislikes Asians cannot legally refuse to hire Smith. Similarly, why is Smith allowed to discriminate between the buyers of his labor, while Jones is not allowed to discriminate between the buyers of his wedding cakes? Why the asymmetry, given that, as I mention in a post below, every economic actor makes the same general moves of exchanging goods and services for money? Duncan must be guided by some version of the (false) Marxian exploitation theory. Second, this alleged right conflicts with Duncan’s own “personal right” prohibiting “interfering with a person’s choices regarding friends, sexual relations, and children.” (92) What is the reason both for forbidding the state from telling me who I should befriend and for giving it the authority to micromanage who I should hire?

Duncan makes several exceptions to freedom of speech. “Incitement to riot,” libel, slander, censorship of TV sex and violence, and others can be banned. (94) Regarding the first of these, Rothbard disposed of it in Ch. 12, “Self-Defense” of Ethics of Liberty:

Should it be illegal, we may next inquire, to “incite to riot”? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: “Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!” and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities.

Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes.

“Inciting to riot,” therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime. (81)

Libel and slander are dissected competently in Ch. 16, “Knowledge, True and False”:

Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement. The counter-view, and the current basis for holding libel and slander (especially of false statements) to be illegal is that every man has a “property right” in his own reputation, that Smith’s falsehoods damage that reputation, and that therefore Smith’s libels are invasions of Jones’s property right in his reputation and should be illegal.

Yet, again, on closer analysis this is a fallacious view. For everyone, as we have stated, owns his own body; he has a property right in his own head and person. But since every man owns his own mind, he cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet Jones’s “reputation” is neither a physical entity nor is it something contained within or on his own person. Jones’s “reputation” is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people. But since these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people. (126)

Regarding the alleged right to privacy, Rothbard argues:

But is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force from disseminating knowledge which he possesses?

Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns his own body and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, including his knowledge about Jones. And therefore he has the corollary right to print and disseminate that knowledge.

In short, as in the case of the “human right” to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right “to privacy” is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. (121-2)

Why won’t Duncan read the requisite introductions to libertarian thought? If he had bothered to engage Rothbard’s arguments, this might have been a far more interesting book.

Following Rawls, our author distinguishes between “formal equality of opportunity” defined as the demand “that jobs be granted to people on the basis of their qualifications, regardless of how they came by these qualifications,” and “fair equality of opportunity” which “requires that job seekers have equal opportunity to obtain qualifications in the first place.” (101-2)

Regarding the former, we’ve already dealt with freedom of association-destroying “anti-discrimination” laws.

Regarding the latter, in my book I write that economist Paul Davidson

has a faulty view of competition. His reasoning is that competition, if it is to be legitimate, must be somehow fair. Everyone must start out in the same conditions.

Davidson does not grasp that the purpose of market competition is to improve consumer welfare, and this purpose is served even if entrepreneurs have varying amounts of starting capital, and even if the prices of the nearby factors of production differ for them.

Second, real-world competition is marked by the rivals’ attempts not only to win under “fair” conditions but precisely to position themselves better relative to others even at the onset of any productive endeavor. That, too, serves consumers.

Moreover, American entrepreneurs have no duty to pay high wages to American workers. Escaping overseas into China and collecting the benefits of cheap labor are not a violation of any plausible moral law. The notion of fairness of catallactic competition is nonsensical. (SAtK, II, 26)

Duncan agrees that because of numerous accidents in a person’s life, including the quality of the family he is born into, “economic opportunity… will never be equal.” (103) But why strive for it at all? I share the sentiment that we as a society want to squeeze the most productivity out of each individual in order for all of us to grow in wealth at the fastest possible speed. The question, however, is not of ends but of means. How can each person best realize his potential and in so doing enrich the rest of us? For example, we know full well that government schooling reliably destroys both the minds and morals of the kids. Based on this result, fully privatized and unsubsidized education is recommended.

Duncan fares better at describing the argument that market producers “deserve” what they earn:

The better one is able to produce goods that consumers desire, the more money one will typically earn; the producing of goods that consumers desire is a type of social contribution; hence, one’s financial rewards in the free market match one’s social contributions. …

An individual’s contribution to the firm should be measured by whatever price his skills can command on an open labor market. (106-7)

His own objections to these points are lacking. For example, after presenting some irrelevant statistics, such as that the ratio of the average wages of top 100 CEOs and all workers has undergone “a tremendous increase in less than a generation,” Duncan concludes: “America’s increased prosperity in the last thirty years has not been shared with average workers.” (109-10) But insofar as his complaint is justified, it is merely an inevitable consequence of his own anti-market interventionist policies.

Duncan predictably blames what remains of the free market in our economy for the faults of government interventions into the free market. So typical is this behavior among statists that we must agree with Mises that interventionism is intellectually an internally inconsistent and futile system: it tends to slouch toward full-blown socialism.

I don’t, as a matter of fact, think that basing a defense of the free market on “desert” is fruitful. Desert works for contracts — if you’ve done your part of the bargain, you deserve it that the other party does his, too; for torts — when wrongfully injured, say, you deserve restitution; and for crimes — if you’ve committed a crime, you deserve punishment. But to say that I deserve my life or fortune or income in general, as if God owed me something or life could not turn from pleasant to awful on a dime, seems unhelpful.

At the same time, as Machan pointed out in Part 3 of this book, one has a right to his kidneys or his wages despite perhaps not deserving them in some general sense. The argument making use of the idea that people do not “deserve” their incomes is like replying to the exhortation “But he’s innocent!” with “Who’s innocent?! I’m sure he’s a sinner in something!” Fine, I admit that many of our blessings are not 100% the work of our own hands. Does that mean it’s suddenly Ok to plunder and pillage one’s fellow man?

In Defense of Blacks

Black celebrity Wanda Sykes has tweeted, “‘White people don’t steal wallets.’ They steal countries.”

This is entirely true.

Blacks cannot be accused of starting World Wars I and II, of genocides, of “inventing” socialism and starving millions, of torture and concentration camps, of imperialism, of terrorism, of persecution of heretics and dissenters, of creating and using chemical and nuclear weapons, and so on and on. Blacks are not smart enough to do truly horrible evils.

The fact that blacks are half-devils is made less consequential by the fact that they are half-children.

It may be that “black capitalism” won’t succeed, because the natural society of blacks is a primitive tribe of hunters-gatherers. They are thus not capable of capitalistic social cooperation. But there is no harm in a genuine and earnest attempt which will involve the abolition of the welfare state including incentives for blacks to reproduce mindlessly, drug war, minimum wages, public or subsidized housing, non-discrimination laws, and other political perversions. Cops ought to be unleashed to bring order to black slums and ghettos.

Non-blacks should really get a grip and quit coddling and exalting blacks far beyond what they deserve.

Here’s a typical syllogism popular on the left:

1) Obama is black.
2) Therefore, he is a half-devil, half-child.
3) Therefore, since I am a complete intellectual pervert, Obama is a god.

This nonsense ought to come to an end. White men need to take their burden seriously and shape blacks into something not ugly or criminal. The success of blacks depends entirely upon how white people take account of substantive race differences and deal with the nature of blacks as it is, without illusions or self-deception.