MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

What you can’t say

Posted by M. C. on July 29, 2022

https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/whatyoucantsay?e=fa1aba8cd8

Years ago my friend Michael Malice told me about Paul Graham’s essay “What You Can’t Say,” and said the ideas in it had influenced him quite a bit.

Well, I finally got around to reading it, and I see what he means.

Here’s a passage I like:

Let’s start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?

If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you’re supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn’t. Odds are you just think what you’re told.

The other alternative would be that you independently considered every question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered acceptable. 


And that’s pretty unlikely, isn’t it?

This passage reminds me of the challenge that Professor Robert George poses to his students at Princeton. He asks them: how many of you, in 1840, would have been abolitionists?

Of course all their hands go up. Why, they would all have been abolitionists, silly!

And George says to them, in effect: I don’t believe you.

Approximately two percent of northerners were abolitionists. And yet everyone in George’s classes would have been among them. What are the odds!

His point is: it’s easy to say now that you would have been an abolitionist, when that is the opinion of everyone. It would have been hard to be one in 1840, when you would have been shunned.

And how many times, he asks, have you taken a position that caused you to lose friends, possibly your job, and become exceedingly unpopular? May I guess probably never?

So why am I supposed to believe you would have done so in 1840?

What we have is a very large population that considers itself brave for believing what all right-thinking people are expected to believe. Meanwhile, they condemn anyone who has the genuine bravery to stand against the crowd.

Here’s an example of something you can’t say, or you’ll be shunned and ruined. Try arguing, in a woke HR indoctrination session at your company, that disparities in income among the races is not evidence of “discrimination.”

It won’t matter that Thomas Sowell smashed this woke argument in his books Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? and Discrimination and Disparities. Because none of this has to do with facts or reason.

Here’s the podcast episode I did on Graham’s essay and these topics:

Now think about this:

There are things you can’t say in health — as we’ve seen with Big Tech suppression of dissident voices, and the Fauci/Collins collaboration against dissident scientists.

There are things — perfectly true things — you can’t say on the job.

Schoolteachers are going out of their way to teach things that are downright false.

The Biden Administration is redefining what a recession is, and its compliant media is dutifully spreading that redefinition.

This is Clown World, ladies and gentlemen.

And we either live in a world of lies, or we live by the truth.

That means withdrawing from the liars, and rallying to the truth-tellers.

And of course, those truth-tellers are the people you’ll hear from and have your life improved by inside my School of Life.

We reopen on Monday. Watch this space.

Tom Woods

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Poor Forgotten Baker – LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Posted by M. C. on November 10, 2021

The libertarian position on discrimination has nothing to do with racism, sexism, prejudice, bigotry, hate, intolerance, homophobia, or xenophobia and everything to do with freedom.

Anti-discrimination laws are an attack on property rights, freedom of association, the free market, and freedom of thought.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/11/laurence-m-vance/the-poor-forgotten-baker/

By Laurence M. Vance

Earlier this year, Colorado baker Jack Phillips got in trouble again for exercising what he thought was his right in a free country to discriminate. Some libertarians have been strangely quiet about his plight.

In 2013, Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, was accused by Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission (CCRD) of discriminating against a homosexual couple because he refused to bake them a cake for their “wedding.” An administrative law judge found in favor of the couple, and this was affirmed by the Commission. The decision was appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which again affirmed the Commission’s decision in 2015. A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court in 2016, and was granted in 2017. The Court, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), in a 7-2 vote, ruled in favor of Phillips because “the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause.”

But the radical left wasn’t done with Phillips.

Soon after the Supreme Court decision, Autumn Scardina—who was born and remains a man no matter how many left-libertarians call him a woman—requested that Phillips bake him a cake pink on the inside and blue on the outside to celebrate his birthday and seventh anniversary of his “gender transition” from male to female.

Phillips refused, so Scardina filed a complaint with the CCRD.

CCRD director Aubrey Elenis concluded that there was probable cause that Phillips had unlawfully denied Scardina “equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation,” and ordered the two to enter mediation. Phillips, represented again by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), sued the state of Colorado in U.S. District Court in Denver for renewing its “crusade” again him because he again refused to bake a cake that would have violated his religious beliefs.

In March 2019, the state Attorney General’s office announced that it and Phillips’ attorneys had “mutually agreed to end their ongoing state and federal court litigation,” including the CCRD action against Phillips.

So Scardina filed a civil suit of his own in state court.

In June of this year, Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Phillips violated Colorado anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake the special cake and fined him $500. (I wonder if the judge would have likewise ruled that a Jewish baker who refused to bake a cake for Nazis in honor of Hitler’s birthday and a seamstress who refused to monogram robes for Klan members violated Colorado anti-discrimination law? Of course he wouldn’t.)

For months now I have been watching carefully the libertarian reaction to Phillips’ recent plight. It is almost non-existent from some quarters. And when the right of Phillips to discriminate is mentioned, it is usually tempered by some statement implying that his beliefs are wrong. As one prominent libertarian said back in June: “You may not agree with Phillips’ beliefs—I don’t—but a liberal, pluralistic society requires tolerance for people of different moral beliefs coexisting without using the state to crush dissent out of one another.”

CDC libertarians are so enamored with the Covid-19 vaccine that they have forgotten about the poor baker. They have been so busy telling us that private businesses have the right to require that their customers wear masks, social distance, and get the Covid-19 vaccine that they have ignored Jack Phillips. Never in their life have they talked as much about the right of businesses to discriminate as they have during the past year. But it is usually always in reference to the right of businesses to discriminate against the unmasked and the unvaccinated.

Since CDC libertarians rarely make an unequivocal case for the absolute freedom of discrimination, let me state the libertarian position on discrimination as clearly and succinctly as I can: Since discrimination—against anyone, on any basis, and for any reason—is not aggression, force, coercion, threat, or violence, the government should never prohibit it, seek to prevent it, or punish anyone for doing it.

The libertarian position on discrimination has nothing to do with racism, sexism, prejudice, bigotry, hate, intolerance, homophobia, or xenophobia and everything to do with freedom.

Anti-discrimination laws are an attack on property rights, freedom of association, the free market, and freedom of thought.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Death of Religious Freedom by a Thousand Cuts | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Posted by M. C. on August 10, 2021

For Biden, the preservation of religious freedom is incompatible with the advance of liberalism. Since his goal is universal recognition of abortion and LGBTQ “rights,” he must force everyone, including the religious, to accommodate them. If the religious resist, he accuses them of discrimination. In this twisted view, nurses who merely decline to assist at an abortion, or doctors who decline to perform gender-reassignment surgery, are guilty of discrimination. This is a complete reversal of the philosophy of religious freedom underpinning the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom for the religious, not from the religious.

https://spectator.org/biden-religious-freedom/

by George Neumayr

The Biden administration’s position on religious freedom grows more and more narrow. In a grim measure of its unwillingness to defend religious freedom, Biden’s Department of Justice last week dropped a lawsuit filed against the University of Vermont Medical Center for allegedly forcing a nurse to assist at an abortion.

When the lawsuit was filed last December, Trump’s Department of Justice accused the hospital of an egregious violation of religious freedom. Eric Dreiband, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division at the time, called the hospital’s treatment of the nurse “the kind of indecent coercion [that] violates everything this country stands for.”

“Federal law protects health care providers from having to choose between their job and participation in what they sincerely believe is the taking of an innocent human life,” Dreiband said, adding: “Coercing people to perform abortions violates the law, and the U.S. Department of Justice will not stand for this shocking and outrageous attack against the right of all people in this free country to follow their conscience.”

Trump’s Department of Justice argued that the Vermont hospital violated federal laws called the Church Amendments, which “prohibit grantees of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from discriminating against health care personnel who ‘refuse[ ] to perform or assist in the performance of [an] abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.’”

Biden’s decision to abandon this case demonstrates his essential view of religious freedom as an obstacle to the fulfillment of liberalism’s agenda. He supports restrictions on religious freedom wherever it conflicts with his conception of “rights.” Just as he denies the religious freedom of the Little Sisters of the Poor — he supports coercing them into paying for the contraceptives and abortive drugs of their employees — he also won’t defend the religious freedom of pro-life nurses and doctors.

For Biden, the preservation of religious freedom is incompatible with the advance of liberalism. Since his goal is universal recognition of abortion and LGBTQ “rights,” he must force everyone, including the religious, to accommodate them. If the religious resist, he accuses them of discrimination. In this twisted view, nurses who merely decline to assist at an abortion, or doctors who decline to perform gender-reassignment surgery, are guilty of discrimination. This is a complete reversal of the philosophy of religious freedom underpinning the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom for the religious, not from the religious.

Biden disguises his secularist intolerance as a defense of rights, even as he violates a foundational one. What Biden calls progress, the Founding Fathers would have called tyranny. What is left of the meaningful exercise of religious freedom if nurses can’t even opt out of performing abortions?

We are witnessing the death of religious freedom by a thousand cuts. If Biden gets his way, religious freedom will mean little more than the narrowly prescribed freedom to worship within the four walls of a church. Either submit to Biden’s secularism or leave the public square — that is the choice the religious increasingly face.

In yet another example of his cavalier treatment of the religious, Biden recently appointed a lesbian rabbi, Sharon Kleinbaum, to the U.S. Coalition on International Religious Freedom. “Kleinbaum is the spouse of American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten,” reports Fox News.

The Coalition for Jewish Values, which represents around 1500 orthodox rabbis, expressed dismay at the appointment. A spokesman for the group told Fox News: “At a time when religious people are persecuted worldwide for their personal, sincere beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman, and gender is permanent, biological, and determined at conception, placing Kleinbaum on a commission devoted to ensuring religious freedom sends precisely the wrong message and could hardly be more counter-productive.”

From Biden’s perspective, the appointment is highly productive. He is perfectly willing to enlist the heterodox religious in his campaign to undermine religious freedom. Barack Obama deployed this same tactic during the debate over his contraceptive mandate, citing liberal Catholics in favor of it. Cardinal Timothy Dolan recalled a White House meeting at which Obama’s aides “advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the ‘enlightened’ voices of accommodation.”

That destruction of accommodation is the death knell of religion. The survival of religious freedom and integrity necessitates resistance to Biden’s coercion.

George Neumayr, a senior editor at The American Spectator, is author most recently of The Biden Deception: Moderate, Opportunist, or the Democrats’ Crypto-Socialist?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Minimum Wage, Maximum Discrimination | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021

So does history. As Princeton’s Thomas Leonard has demonstrated in his book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, the early minimum wage advocates saw it as a prime tool to exercise “dominion and discrimination” over those they deemed ill-suited to reproduction. The minimum wage was well suited to perform the Progressives’ dirty work of discriminating against (what they considered) the least productive by making them unemployable.

It has been over a hundred years since the Progressive Era. But the laws of economics haven’t changed. The only question is: Have we? Author:

https://mises.org/wire/minimum-wage-maximum-discrimination

Caleb Fuller

Since the days of Adam Smith, economists have sought a set of social institutions which permit “neither dominion, nor discrimination,” to use Nobel Prize–winning economist James Buchanan’s phrase. In this, economists are joined by all people of goodwill—including those in the Biden administration, which has enshrined equity and inclusion as cornerstones of how they’ll govern.

What separates the economist from other social do-gooders, however, is an unflinching focus on the means used to achieve noble goals. It’s therefore with alarm that I consider the Biden administration’s dual focus on “diversity and equity” and its doubling down on the “fight for $15.” I’m alarmed because the minimum wage impedes our ability to foster a society genuinely built on “diversity and equity.”

Here’s the straight talk on the minimum wage that you probably didn’t learn in school: the minimum wage has been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of racists and bigots. Economists have illuminated the devastating effects of the minimum wage on minorities with empirical evidence and entire books on the subject, but to see one reason why the policy targets minorities, first consider a little basic economics.

Consider the demand side of the labor market. Firms will hire fewer workers if the government criminalizes voluntary agreements to work for less than $15 per hour. This is an uncontroversial point to make about virtually any other market. If the price of apples doubles, people buy fewer apples. They buy more oranges instead. Employers do the same thing. Under the minimum wage, they start buying more machinery, like the kiosks you see in Panera. The upshot: fewer jobs.

Now let’s consider the supply side of the labor market, where the higher minimum wage attracts new workers to the labor market—those, like college students, who might have sat on the sidelines otherwise. The upshot: more job seekers.

Fewer jobs plus more job seekers means that more people will be searching for jobs than there are jobs available—a labor surplus. In other words, the minimum wage creates a “buyer’s market” in labor, because it causes job seekers to line up in front of employers who have limited jobs to offer.

Suppose an employer receives a hundred applicants for a job opening. How does he choose whom to hire? Without the minimum wage, whoever wants the job most will outcompete other jobseekers by offering to work for less.

With a minimum wage, the employer can’t say: “Who will work for $14.95?” If he does, he’s a criminal; he literally violates the law. Since he can’t just pick the most eager job seekers, he needs some alternative way to select from his hundred applicants. When you have a surplus of labor in a market with a minimum wage, prices aren’t allowed to adjust, so the employer picks from that surplus based on personal preferences. These may include race, sex, gender, religion, or other personal characteristics that have little to do with productivity. In fact, in the past, it has included just that. Faced with more job seekers than there are jobs available, a bigoted employer bears little cost when he refuses to hire a member of a group he dislikes. He knows someone else in the applicant pool will be from his preferred group.

In a market without a minimum wage, when an employer turns down an applicant to satisfy his bigoted tastes, he doesn’t have ninety-nine other job seekers to choose from. There’s no labor surplus. If he chooses to indulge his bigoted tastes, the job remains unfilled for longer, which means less money for our racist employer. Consider that in the United States the African American teenage male unemployment rate was lower than the white teenage male unemployment rate through the late 1940s. The 1950s saw the single largest increase (in percentage terms) of the minimum wage. The reasoning I just gave explains why the African American teen joblessness rate then soared above that of whites. That gap remains to the present day. Like Adam Smith, James Buchanan, and the Biden administration, I too desire a society where the power of bad people to exercise “dominion or discrimination” is constrained, even eliminated. Presumably, my fellow Pennsylvanians do too. The fact that nearly two-thirds of them (and 89 percent of liberals) support a $15/hour minimum wage is therefore troubling. My fellow citizens should consider whether this policy facilitates or impedes the ability of bad men to do harm. Economics says it facilitates.

So does history. As Princeton’s Thomas Leonard has demonstrated in his book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, the early minimum wage advocates saw it as a prime tool to exercise “dominion and discrimination” over those they deemed ill-suited to reproduction. The minimum wage was well suited to perform the Progressives’ dirty work of discriminating against (what they considered) the least productive by making them unemployable.

It has been over a hundred years since the Progressive Era. But the laws of economics haven’t changed. The only question is: Have we? Author:

Caleb Fuller

Dr. Caleb Fuller is assistant professor of economics at Grove City College. He has published papers in Public Choice, the International Review of Law and Economics, the European Journal of Law and Economics, the Review of Austrian Economics, and others.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Discrimination Is Freedom – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2020

This doesn’t mean that refusing to admit or serve someone would be practical or prudent, and having prejudice can exact a heavy price. But in a free society, no one has the right to be admitted to or served in any restaurant or business establishment.

If a business owner discriminated against anyone for any other reason than for the lack of a face mask, he would face a federal civil rights lawsuit and picketing, boycotts, and violence by leftists. It is only government-approved discrimination that is lawful—like discriminating against Asians in college admissions.

The hypocrisy of the left on discrimination is appalling.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/laurence-m-vance/so-do-we-now-have-the-right-to-refuse-service/

By

To comply with the letter of the non-law issued by the fascist mayor of Orange County, Florida, Jerry Demings, most restaurants in the county want their patrons to (1) Wear a mask upon entering the restaurant, (2) Wear a mask while waiting for a table, (3) Wear a mask while walking to your table, (4) Wear a mask when going to the restroom, and (5) Wear a mask upon leaving the restaurant. At least we don’t have to wear a mask while eating (although I have seen at least one person at a restaurant pull their mask down to insert a bite of food in their mouth and then put their mask right back over their mouth to chew their food).

Most of the restaurants I have been to in Orange County aren’t enforcing the mayor’s dictate. They don’t have to. Because compliance is nearly 100 percent, the restaurants either don’t notice or don’t care to make an issue of the 1 percent or so who enter their establishments without a mask. Never thought I would be a member of the 1 percent.

Yet, I was refused service twice last week at fast-food restaurants: Five Guys and Smashburger. Why? Although I wore a shirt and shoes, I had no face mask. Instead of complying with the mask requirement, I went and got a hamburger elsewhere (not McDonalds: it is total mask nazi).

I was discriminated against and refused service. And I fully support the right of businesses to do both.

I have made it clear in my many articles on discrimination that all businesses should have the right to discriminate against anyone on basis and for any reason: race, religion, color, creed, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, facial hair, hair style, political preference, clothing style, age, height, weight, head covering, disability, familial status, martial status, odor, socioeconomic status, religious piety.

Any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone with or without a red shirt, black pants, a bald head, a mustache, a Rolex on the wrist, a gold chain around the neck, leather shoes, or a face mask.

Discrimination means freedom. It is a crime in search of victim. Anti-discrimination laws are an attack on property rights, freedom of association, and freedom of thought.

This doesn’t mean that refusing to admit or serve someone would be practical or prudent, and having prejudice can exact a heavy price. But in a free society, no one has the right to be admitted to or served in any restaurant or business establishment.

So, in regard to my being discriminated against and refused service, here is the $64,000 question: Do we now have the right to refuse service?

Of course we don’t.

If a business owner discriminated against anyone for any other reason than for the lack of a face mask, he would face a federal civil rights lawsuit and picketing, boycotts, and violence by leftists. It is only government-approved discrimination that is lawful—like discriminating against Asians in college admissions.

The hypocrisy of the left on discrimination is appalling.

Since discrimination is not aggression, force, coercion, threat, or violence, the government should never prohibit it, seek to prevent it, or prosecute anyone for doing it.

So, to those restaurants in Orange County that want me to wear a mask when inside your establishment when I am entering, waiting, and walking (even though many who are finished eating and drinking are still sitting at tables and booths talking without wearing masks), I will take my appetite and my money elsewhere.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Project Veritas Catches Facebook Employees, Contractors Admitting to Political Censorship

Posted by M. C. on June 25, 2020

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/06/25/project-veritas-catches-facebook-employees-contractors-admitting-to-political-censorship/

by Allum Bokhari

James O’Keefe’s team of undercover journalists Project Veritas have released hidden camera footage of Facebook employees admitting to deliberate political bias, censorship of Trump supporters, as well as discrimination against conservative and white male employees.

A Facebook insider, Ryan Hartwig, has also come forward to Project Veritas to give his account of bias and discrimination at the company.

The hidden camera footage reveals a host of Facebook employees and contractors admitting to political bias.

Steve Grimmett, team lead for content review at Facebook can be heard admitting that he lumps the MAGA movement in with “Nazis” and “Hitler.” Grimmett can be heard telling an undercover reporter that he monitors “hate organizations” including “Hitler, Nazis, MAGA, you know, proud boys, all that stuff all day long.”

“We rig the game so it can work on the left side” admits another Facebook employee, who agrees that the company “100%” favors the left.

A content moderator at Cognizant, a firm that handles content moderation for Facebook, can also be heard saying she would accept a $81 million bounty placed on President Trump’s head by the government of Iran.

“It’s inhumane, but if it’s going to save the country why not do it?” asks Kassi Cimo, the content moderator. “We should just hand him over to them. Take the money, as a country, that’s what I’m saying. If we hand him over, our country would be saved, I’m just saying.”

“If I were to go in with a MAGA shirt or a MAGA hat I’d get my ass beat,” says another employee, apparently admitting to an atmosphere of political discrimination and intimidation at the company.

In further undercover footage, Facebook Senior HR manager Leslie Brown can be heard admitting that it’s easier for the company to fire white males because they aren’t able to sue the company for discrimination.

“They were able to fire him without having to worry about discrimination…” says an undercover reporter.

“Right, right. Because he’s a white man. Yeah, white man. So no problem.” – Leslie Brown, Senior HR manager, Facebook.

“Oh, it’s easier when they’re..” continues the reporter.

“..White men,” says Brown, completing the reporter’s sentence. “No one has the white man’s back anymore [laughs].”

Are you an insider at Google, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Privatize the Government Police Monopoly – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/thomas-clark/privatize-the-government-police-monopoly/

By

Many Americans think that public demonstrations and protests are the solution to ending police brutality and the murder of non-convicted civilians.

I maintain that private municipal security guards, operated for profit, would be a far more effective way to protect lives and property, and a far more effective way to deter police originated racial discrimination.

With that in mind, I propose a more radical approach:  Privatize the government police monopoly.

How would privatization work?

Each local municipality would solicit proposals from private, for profit security firms to patrol neighborhoods and to apprehend criminals as needed.  The current system of criminal and civil courts could be maintained. Private residences and privately-owned businesses would supplement with their own security measures, both in person and surveillance.

Would the current policemen and women be out of work?  Not at all.  The experienced service of the vast majority good ones would remain much in demand. Instead of working for the government, they would instead work for the citizens.  Each local municipality would contract with a private security firm.

Competition is superior to monopoly

The force of competition would increase and ensure the quality of law enforcement and decrease cost, as with all products and services now provided by the free market.

Any private constable who abuses his or her authority, or who is negligent, to the detriment of citizen satisfaction, would face swift disciplinary action and termination.  This would be a much stronger incentive for performance than the current system, where it is often very cumbersome to remove a wayward government police officer.

Would you like a satisfaction guarantee?

As with most free market services, it would soon become the norm for private security firms to offer a satisfaction guarantee.  If they fail to protect a home or a business location from damage, they would be obligated to cover all costs.

The private sector has a built-in motivation to avoid racial discrimination.  Discrimination costs money.  I will go out on a limb here and say…beating up and killing customers of any race is not good business.  Customer satisfaction will prevail and negate bigotry any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Privatize the government police monopoly and we will all be safer and happier.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Important Is Today’s Racial Discrimination? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 14, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/walter-e-williams/how-important-is-todays-racial-discrimination/

By

There is discrimination of all sorts, and that includes racial discrimination. Thus, it’s somewhat foolhardy to debate the existence of racial discrimination yesteryear or today. From a policy point of view, a far more useful question to ask is: How much of the plight of many blacks can be explained by current racial discrimination? Let’s examine some of today’s most devastating problems of many black people with an eye toward addressing discrimination of the past and present.

At the root of most of the problems black people face is the breakdown of the family structure. Slightly over 70% of black children are raised in female-headed households. According to statistics about fatherless homes, 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes; 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father figure; 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes; 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes; and 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions have no father. Furthermore, fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to end up in jail…

In the late 1800s, depending on the city, 70% to 80% of black households were two-parent. Dr. Thomas Sowell has argued, “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

As late as 1950, only 18% of black households were single parent. From 1890 to 1940, a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. In 1938, black illegitimacy was about 11% instead of today’s 75%. In 1925, 85% of black households in New York City were two-parent. Today, the black family is a mere shadow of its past.

Let’s ask a couple of questions about crime and education and racial discrimination. It turns out that each year more than 7,000 blacks are victims of homicide. That’s slightly over 50% of U.S. homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of the time, the perpetrator is another black person. Along with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes such as assault and robbery. At many predominantly black schools, chaos is the order of the day. There is a high rate of assaults on students and teachers. Youngsters who are hostile to the educational process are permitted to make education impossible for those who are prepared to learn. As a result, overall black educational achievement is a disaster.

Here are my questions to those who blame racial discrimination for the problems of black people: Is it necessary for us to await some kind of moral rejuvenation among white people before measures can be taken to end or at least reduce the kind of behavior that spells socioeconomic disaster in so many black communities? Is it a requirement that we await moral rejuvenation among white people before we stop permitting some black youngsters from making education impossible for other black youngsters? Blacks were not the only people discriminated against in America. While Jews and Asians were not enslaved, they encountered gross discrimination. Nonetheless, neither Jews nor Asians felt that they had to await the end of discrimination before they took measures to gain upward mobility.

Intellectuals and political hustlers who blame the plight of so many blacks on poverty, racial discrimination and the “legacy of slavery” are complicit in the socioeconomic and moral decay. Black people must ignore the liberal agenda that suggests that we must await government money before measures can be taken to improve the tragic living conditions in so many of our urban communities. Black and white intellectuals and politicians suggesting that black people await government solutions wouldn’t begin to live in the same high-crime, dangerous communities and send their children to the dangerous schools that so many black children attend.

Be seeing you

'Welcome to 'All Sides of the Issues.' Here's our panel of commentators -- a communist, a socialist, a liberal, and a progressive....'

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Discrimination and Disparities II – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 8, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/walter-e-williams/discrimination-and-disparities-ii/

By

Last week’s column discussed Dr. Thomas Sowell’s newest book “Discrimination and Disparities,” which is an enlarged and revised edition of an earlier version. In this review, I am going to focus on one of his richest chapters titled “Social Visions and Human Consequences.” Sowell challenges the seemingly invincible fallacy “that group outcomes in human endeavors would tend to be equal, or at least comparable or random, if there were no biased interventions, on the one hand, nor genetic deficiencies, on the other.” But disparate impact statistics carries the day among academicians, lawyers and courts as evidence of discrimination.

Sowell gives the example of blacks, who make up close to 70 percent of NFL and AFL players in professional football. Blacks are greatly overrepresented among star players but almost nonexistent among field goal kickers and punters. Probably the only reason why lawsuits are not brought against team owners is that the same people hire running backs and field goal kickers. One wonders whether anyone has considered the possibility that professional black players do not want to be punters and field goal kickers?…

The ratio of affirmative words to negative words was six to one with parents who had professional occupation.” By contrast, families on welfare used discouraging words more than two to one: words such as “Don’t,” “Stop,” “Quit,” and “Shut up.” Sowell sarcastically asks are we to believe that children raised in such different ways, many years before they reach an employer, a college admissions office or crime scene are the same in capabilities, orientation and limitations?

Social justice warriors ignore many differences that have little or nothing to do with discrimination but have an enormous impact on outcomes. Age is one of those factors. Median age differences between groups, sometimes of a decade or two will have an enormous impact on observed group outcomes. The median age for American Jews is slightly over 50 years old and that of Latinos is 28. Just on median age alone, would one be surprised at significant group income disparity and other differences related to age?

Sowell says that a single inconspicuous difference in circumstance can make a huge historical difference in human outcomes. During the 1840s, Ireland experienced a potato famine. Potatoes were the principle food of the Irish. That famine led to the deaths of a million people and caused 2 million to flee. The same variety of potato that was grown in Ireland was also grown in the U.S. with no crop failure. The source of Ireland’s crop failure has been traced to a fertilizer used on both sides of the Atlantic. The difference was that fertilizer contained a fungus that thrived in the mild and moist climate of Ireland but did not in the hot, dry climate of Idaho and other potato growing areas of the U.S. That one small difference caused massive human tragedy…

Morally neutral factors such as crop failures, birth order, geographic setting, and demographic or cultural differences are among the reasons why economic and social outcomes fail to fit the preconceived notions of “experts.”

The bottom line about Sowell’s new book, “Discrimination and Disparities,” is that it contains a wealth of data and analysis that turns much of the thinking of politicians, academicians, legal experts and judges into pure, unadulterated mush.

Be seeing you

mlk

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Discrimination Lesson – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 17, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/02/laurence-m-vance/a-discrimination-lesson/

By

If discriminating against someone is always bad—which is what we are constantly told—then how can someone be celebrated for vowing to discriminate against people on the basis of sex while someone else is condemned for allegedly discriminating against someone on the basis of religion?

At the Golden Globes award ceremony last month, actress Regina King accepted her award for best supporting actress and then gave a customary short speech in which she vowed:

Time’s Up, times two … In the next two years, everything that I produce, I am making a vow, and it’s going to be tough, to make sure that everything that I produce, that it’s 50 percent women, and I just challenge anyone out there who is in a position of power … I challenge you to challenge yourselves and … do the same.

King’s vow to discriminate against men “brought women in the room to their feet clapping and was also getting enthusiastic responses on Twitter.”

A family was recently removed from an American Airlines flight before takeoff from Miami International Airport because they allegedly had offensive body odor. According to a statement from the airline:

The Adler family were asked to deplane last night after several passengers, along with our crew members, complained about their body odor. The family were provided hotel accommodations and meals, and re-booked on a flight to Detroit today.

But Yossi Adler accused the airline of singling out his family because they’re Jewish. He taped his argument with the ground crew on his cell phone. He can be heard saying: “There’s a religious reason for some reason that they’re kicking me off the plane. We don’t have odor, OK? Nobody here has odor.” A ground crew member can then be heard asking: “Now you told me for religious reasons you don’t shower, is that what you said?” To which Mr. Adler responded: “No I didn’t! I shower every day. I said you kicked me off because of religious reasons.”

Time for a discrimination lesson.

But first, two comments.

Regarding the discrimination based on sex, if the actor who received the Golden Globe award was male and said that he was making a vow to have 50 percent men in everything he produces he would be denounced as a discriminator and a sexist.

Regarding the discrimination based on religion, I think it is ludicrous to believe that American Airlines kicked a family off a plane because they were Jewish. How many employees of American Airlines are Jewish? How many Jews have flown on American Airlines over the years? How many Jews fly out of New York on American Airlines every day?

Now for the lesson.

Confusion about discrimination abounds. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »