Ann Althouse
Radley Balko | December 29, 2006, 2:43pm
Ann Althouse responds to Ron Bailey here .
It is a bizarre response. Apparently what so offended Althouse is that anyone could possibly believe that a private business owner should be permitted to privately discriminate on the basis of race. This, to her, isn't a position that's compatible with civil discourse. Or, at the very least, if you hold this position, the burden is on you to prove to Althouse that you aren't ignorant, racist, or sociopathic.
What's funny is that Althouse accuses libertarians of being didactic, "true believers" on this issue, something she apparently finds "disturbing" and "repellent." But it's pretty clear that Althouse herself isn't all that interested in open debate. Tossing around accusations of racism in response to an opinion that can clearly be held by someone who harbors no racial animus whatsoever has a way of cutting off debate.
When, for example, someone in Althouse's comments section suggested that segregation in the south was largely the result of government policy, and that were it not for state-mandated segregation, the private sector would have integrated on its own (a position held by many economists, including Thomas Sowell), Althouse snapped back :
The notion that economic incentives alone would have desegregated the South is a ridiculous fantasy that I am amazed to hear expressed by anyone with a sound mind and a basic education.
Golly. Good thing Althouse isn't one of those "true believers" unwilling to entertain any idea that challenges her worldview!
I'll concede that I'm a bit biased in all of this. I happen to believe the very thing that sent Althouse reeling -- that businesses should be allowed to discriminate in any way they please. I'd go out of my way not to patronize a racist, as I think would enough of the country to make racism a surefire business killer. I also believe that the 14th Amendment compells the federal government to interfere when a state or local government -- or agents thereof -- is abusing a citizen's civil rights, for reasons related to race or otherwise.
But I happen to think that freedom of association also includes the freedom to be a bigot and to associate with bigots, as well as the freedom to, for example, serve someone who smokes. And I think the tremendous downside that stemmed from Heart of Atlanta and like cases that forced private businesses to desegregate is that we're now faced with an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that gives the federal government far too much power over local affairs, from telling cancer patients they can't smoke marijuana to ease the bite of chemo, to stopping hospitals from being built in order to protect some obscure, endangered, cave-dwelling insect. (I actually think the south could have been desegregated by way of the 13th Amendment -- but that's another discussion entirely).
And oddly enough, despite the fact that I hold these opinions, I don't feel I need to to prove a damned thing to Ann Althouse about whether I do or don't hate black people.
I understand that Althouse disagrees with me on these issues. That's fine. And I understand that "state's rights" and "federalism" are often code words for state-sanctioned racism and bigotry. In my writing, I've been quite vocal about the GOP's deplorable "southern strategy," and its detestable habit of pandering to racists . That doesn't mean federalism isn't still a good idea.
Discussing these types of issues is the very reason groups like Liberty Fund sponsor events like the one Althouse and Bailey attended in the first place. But it's supposed to be just that -- a discussion. Invitees are selected to provide for an interesting, provocative debate. It means you may possibly encounter ideas that are foreign to you, or that you disagree with. Dealing with those ideas without throwing a fit and unleashing accusations of racism every time your own beliefs are challenged is part of having a grown-up discussion with grown-up people about grown-up topics.
VM | December 29, 2006, 4:34pm | #
Perhaps a historian/legal type can explain this better. There have been examples where private institutions did not segregate and that the (state) government forced it, and the Supremes upheld the state laws.
Wasn't Plessy v Ferguson exactly the supreme court upholding Louisiana's laws that segregated the railroad (when the railroads didn't segregate)? Private business didn't segregate, but was forced to in this case.
From:
The Supreme Court and "Civil Rights," 1886-1908
by David Bernstein
The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3. (Dec., 1990), pp. 725-744.
"...it was only the state-enforced Jim Crow laws that led to a rigid system of segregation in the South" (p. 728).
Note 18 says, "Railroad companies often opposed segregation laws because of the expense in enforcing them", and refers to Epstein's "Race and the Police Power" (1989).
Furthermore, Berea College vs Kentucky was upheld by the Supremes. That was based on a 1904 Ky law (Kentucky Day Law), that "prohibited the instruction of Black and white students in the same school, whether public or private" (ibid, p. 731). Berea College was a "small, private, racially integrated school [and] was the only institution of higher learning that accepted Blacks apart from the Kentucky State Industrial College" (ibid)
Kentucky's defense? (taken from note 42 (Berea at 51) "The welfare of the State and community is paramount to any right or privilege of the individual citizen. The rights of the citizen are guaranteed, subject to the welfare of the State" (citation, see above).
BTW, Justice Harlan was the only dissenter.
(This has taken a long time to write, so I apologize if others above have made these arguments)
One thing about libertarianism, for me, is that it is an idealized (oftentimes stylized) framework for wanting freedom from coercion and gaining/having/ being able to earn the economic power to be able to battle it on a private front, and the freedom from it on the public front.
VM | December 29, 2006, 5:05pm | #
Citizen:
Timeline
March 1960: "Fourteen students marched to the first sit-in west of the Mississippi River at the Weingarten's lunch counter near the TSU campus. After the students sat down, the store manager closed the lunch counter. Mading's Drug Store lunch counter was the second target in a series of peaceful sit-ins."
April 25, 1960: bus station lunch counter serves blacks
May 1960: "On the Saturday before Mother's Day, Eldrewey Stearns led a boycott of four downtown Houston stores, including Foley's Department Store."
June 1960: "Three Houston businessmen - John T. Jones, Hobart Taylor and Bob Dundas joined together to create a plan for the desegregation of Houston's downtown stores. Dundas met with local major media owners and arranged for the first of three media blackouts. The desire for peaceful desegregation and Foley's Department Store's advertising dollars were used as tactics to get the media owners to agree to the blackouts."
August 24, 1960: 70 Houston lunch counters quietly integrated
And:
http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/1999/kellar.htm
"Make Haste Slowly Moderates, Conservatives, and School Desegregation in Houston"
by William Henry Kellar
ISBN 0-89096-818-7
and:
Lulu B. White: Reckoning with Gender and Fighting Jim Crow
There were some ups and downs, reflecting a painful era.
From Houston Timeline:
Houston Timeline
1933 - State legislature passes a law prohibiting "Caucasians" and "Africans" from boxing and wrestling against each other.
1933 - City authorities reject plans for a Southern Pacific Station because blacks and whites would use the same ramps to reach trains.
1947 - Legislature establishes Texas State University for Negroes (now Texas Southern University).
1948 - Voters reject zoning. Houston continues as the only unzoned major city in the U.S.
1954 - Segregation on city buses ends.
1958 - Houston is dubbed "Murder town, USA" by Time Magazine for maintaining the highest murder rate in the nation, 15 per 100,000.
1958 - Mrs. C.E. White becomes the first black person to be elected to the School Board. Shortly after her election, a cross is burned at her home.
1964 - The city of Houston drops the item of race designation on job applications.
1969 - "Houston" is the first word spoken from the lunar surface.
1970 - In August, the Justice Department files suit against the Houston School District, charging that they were continuing to operate segregated facilities. The suit contended that segregation involved Mexican-Americans as well as blacks.
1994 - Voters reject a zoning ordinance in low voter turnout.
(hopefully there were some interesting things on this list.)
kevrob | December 30, 2006, 2:22pm | #
The libertarian position is simple: freedom of association. - Paul
There's also an economic way of looking at the problem. After the Civil War, but before the Feds ended reconstruction, there was consternation among much of the white populace of the states who had attempted to secede precisely because some black folks were rising economically, and that some white folks were cooperating with that advance. The Jim Crow laws didn't kick in until after the Compromise of 1877, and the withdrawal of Federal troops. Besides any racist desire to put the Freedmen back "in their place," the JC laws were barriers to entry for competitors. Racist laws proscribing or limiting the economic activity of certain groups is a worldwide phenomena. It sometimes doesn't work the way those enacting them would hope. Consider the prominence in banking and trade of both the Jews in Europe and the overseas Chinese in Asia, two groups who had their rights to own and farm land restricted, while the groups with the majority of political power disdained certain types of commercial activity as beneath them. (see Sowell's
Markets and Minorities)
Absent Jim Crow laws, it wouldn't have surprised me if African Americans might not have gravitated to entrepreneurship or employment in various industries that white folks considered beneath them, and prospered in them. Of course, agitation among "white trash" angry that a black man was doing better than they were might also have resulted in race riots that would have been essentially pogroms based on color. Even with Jim Crow we had such horrible incidents as the
Tulsa Race Riot of 1921, while as late as 1943 we had the
Detroit Race Riot, in an evironment where the Federal government's military contractors were directed to practice non-discrimination. I think it would be foolish to expect that the mere absence of Jim Crow would have inevitably led to comity between the races. It could only allow those who wished to associate with each other freely to do so, and there still would have had to have been honest enforcement of the law against private actors who intimidated or retaliated against those who did, by violence or its threat. Even as a libertarian, I could agree to federal intrusion if the states and localities refused to uphold the rights and privileges of citizens, (14th and 15th Amendments) or to guarantee republican government. (Article IV, section IV)
As for the idea that any accommodation located along a federal highway ought to serve all comers, I have no problem with that being made a requirement for a business that wants to be located on a rest area or at an exit. The Feds could even jawbone the local town fathers when planning when and how to site the road. "We could put the on and off ramps for this stretch of the road in Shelbyville, or here in Springfield. Of course, we'd rather do business with folks who are friendly to everybody, you know what I mean?"
Kevin
MainstreamMan | December 30, 2006, 2:41pm | #
If I remember correctly the original Althouse post that sparked this made a poorly framed attempt to point out that libertarians were "believers." Implying, I think, a contrast between having faith in your position and being open to the possibility that your position is wrong.
For many people of all political stripes having faith that you position is the correct one is a virtue. For others it would be considered hubris.
The issue of government's role in dealing with racial discrimination in the market seems to do a good job of identifying which libertarians are faith-based and which are open to the possibility that the axioms that form the basis for a libertarian philosophy are merely flawed approximations used for ordering an imperfect system. It is the difference between believing libertarianism is a perfect solution vs. believing it is the best from among a set of flawed solutions (and being willing to adjust and compromise for better outcomes).
" Since the two principles, Authority and Liberty, which underlie all forms organized society, are on the one hand contrary to each other, in a perpetual state of conflict, and on the other can neither eliminate each other nor be resolved, some kind of compromise between the two is necessary. Whatever the system favored, whether it be monarchical, democratic, communist or anarchist, its length of life will depend to the extent to which it has taken the contrary principle into account."
"...that monarchy and democracy, communism and anarchy, all of them unable to realize themselves in the purity of their concepts, are obliged to complement one another by mutual borrowings. There is surely something here to dampen the intolerance of fanatics who cannot listen to a contrary opinion... They should learn, then, poor wretches, that they are themselves necessarily disloyal to their principles, that their political creeds are tissues of inconsistencies... contradiction lies at the root of all programs."
Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865).
And, much to the sadness of the Hit & Run crowd, with that, MainstreamMan retires.
Adieu
John C. Randolph | December 30, 2006, 6:58pm | #
I think that what Althouse is ignoring here, is that there are many ways to bring social pressure to bear against people who practice morally repugnant behavior, that stop short of employing the power of the state.
I'm a hard-line Libertarian, and I often defend the right of people to do things that they Should Not Do. The reason I do so, is that I consider liberty to be a very important value, and when anyone proposes to mandate a limitation on one's liberty, I say that the burden of proof lies with the side calling for force.
Looking at segregation in particular, it may interest some people to know that the railroads in the United States didn't choose to segregate their carriages, they were required to do so by laws passed in southern state legislatures. Implementing that legally-required discrimination imposed a considerable financial burden on the railroads: maintaining separate facilities, rail cars, etc.
If any person opens a restaurant and decides to refuse to serve members of some particular race or religion, I see that as a business opportunity. In the absence of state regulation mandating discrimination, a business that chooses to serve all comers is likely to prosper, whereas one that excludes is leaving money behind that it could otherwise earn.
If a KKK member opened a restaurant in my neighborhood and excluded Jews, Blacks, Asians, etc, I would in turn refuse to patronise that restaurant myself. I would shun its owner and staff, and I might even picket the establishment. I would probably be hostile to people who patronized the business in question. I could do all manner of things to make my displeasure known, short of calling for the state to forcibly require them to serve the entire community.
By supporting the racist's right to do or not do business with anyone they choose, I maintain my own right to throw any asshole wearing a swastika or a "god hates fags" T-shirt out of my OWN establishment.
-jcr
Paul | December 30, 2006, 9:09pm | #
certainly not on an acceptable timeline.
Beth,
To this, we can at least have a debate. Few libertarians (Barry Goldwater included) deny that had the government not forced a restaurant owner to serve blacks at the lunch counter, it wouldn't have happened as quickly on its own. But as one previous poster noted, and I'll add to, I'm not sure if I would want to eat food prepared by people who were forced at gunpoint to serve me. See where I'm going with this?
You argue that a segregated hotel would have failed. That's silly. They didn't. And competing, non-segregated businesses didn't take up the slack. What happened to anyone trying to change that market by opening a non-segregated cafe, or hotel, or general store? They were firebombed and driven out of business.
And with these comments, you're jabbing in several different directions. Allow me to address each point.
First, you're correct, segregated businesses were doing fine during segregation. No argument. The point I'm making is that cultures (especially western cultures) change over time. The country was headed toward better race relations regardless of the feds wagging a finger at us. Do you really believe that a racist hillbilly was no longer as such when a federal law was passed?
Second, manu of the problems with market's failure to correct race issues in this country was due to government (state level, usually) interference with the free movement of transaction amongst its people. So what you're suggesting is that it required government to unravel the racist policies of... government. There was institutional discrimination in the ability for blacks to own business, get licensed etc. Often times, the business license requirements and regulations were merely byzantine processes designed to minimize or hinder the participation of blacks in the mainstream economy. In fact, you may recall that some of the first gun control laws passed in this country were specifically designed to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks. County or state rules which made it difficult or impossible for blacks to vote, or register to vote. So in some way, I suppose I could say that I do agree with federal involvement. If that purpose was for one more powerful government agency to limit the discriminatory policies of a lower one, then yes, federal intrusion into race issues was a good thing.
As for your point about firebombing business-- we're back to where we started. Racist hillbilly with violent tendencies doesn't want any blacks owning a business. Federal laws are passed which allows or greases wheels for blacks to own businesses. What, racist hillbilly loses all violent tendencies to firebomb black businesses (or churches)?
As I stated, much of the federal intrustion made race relations worse in the short term because if there's one thing a racist hillbilly can't stand more than sitting next to darkie: it's being FORCED to sit next to darkie.
VikingMoose | December 31, 2006, 1:54pm | #
Sigh. Yet another argument where "the free market will solve everything." "No it won't. If it will, what's the solution?"
First - anybody here who's using this to justify their own racism: FUCK YOU. Bigots can go to hell. And I don't wanna hear "the market will take care of it". Yeah - who changed your fucking light bulb, asshole? "The Market?" Is that how it works?
Now.
Explaining economic discrimination in terms of wage rates, instead of trying to guess intent or suchlike, the lit defines this type of discrimination as different wage rates for the same productivity:
wb (rate for black workers) and ww (for white), wb < ww including wb=0 where MPLb (marginal product of black labor) equals MPLw, you have discrimination.
Becker modeled this in his 1957, 1971 work "The Economics of Discrimination".
Bigoted employers gain utility that is discounted at rate d when they have to hire minority workers. Their utility is discounted d(Lb) (d -> prejudice variable times the Labor supply for black labor. d=0 in nonprejudiced situations)
The basic idea is that, under perfect competition, where firms do not have (product) market power, non-prejudiced firms enter the market and take advantage of the wage arbitrage between black and white labor. (Recalling from above that wb < MPLb = MPLw = ww)
The increase of demand for Black labor will equilibrate this, thus eventually causing discrimination to disappear. (Discrimination on the margin < Discrimination on the average).
Furthermore, this assumes that black workers have the opportunity to work at non-discriminatory firms. That has some very strong limits to employment opportunities in the Jim Crow era, which should underscore that we had all but perfect competition, etc. back then.
There are instances where Becker's conclusion (discrimination will, in perfect competition, eventually disappear - ugly paraphrase, and I hope it suffices. Apologies if it doesn't) may not hold. Employer prejudice, however, can still persist, with the employer bearing the extra costs. (willing to pay more for the same MPL)
If the employer is willing to pay, it is possible for discrimination to exist and persist.
Labor supply is also an issue. Take unionized industries and assume a prejudiced union. While that isn't a free market scenario, it is one that isn't too hard to imagine. The barrier to the free market solution is simply too high, so our friends who like that cop out will have to think a bit.
Customer prejudice is harder to overcome. Consumers are also have this power. And this power is exercised daily.
David H. Autor (2003) notes:
"Assume ...that customers discriminate against B workers and so get lower utility from purchasing services from a firm if they have to interact with B worker. This will lower the labor market return to B workers to working in jobs with customer contact." (notes page 6)
Consumers can also make these decisions based on clientele. (Think: patronize restaurants that are non-smoking or no-cell phone zones or organic or what have you). Or, given two substitute firms, choosing one that caters to the gay or evangelical markets)
Here consumer discrimination might not be competed away - there is "not an obvious way for one consumer to arbitrage the prejudice of another" (ibid). Even though these consumers for whom the coefficient of discrimination, d>0 probably will have to pay higher prices for their goods or services, we have ample evidence that consumers will be willing to bear these costs (for example, organic Whole Paycheck… errrr Whole Foods - where consumer pay higher prices. Or Starbuck's. Consumers demonstrate a willingness to pay a premium to satisfy certain tastes)
Consumer prejudice presents an example where the market might not cause discrimination to disappear.
What does that mean? It doesn't really give any ammo to either side here. Here's why:
Then the question is: what is the marginal deterrence for discrimination? What are the costs of achieving d=0 throughout the economic society? Are those costs worth bearing?
Think of it this way: what are the costs of achieving a crime-free society? Are they worth it? Costs of achieving a terror threat of zero? We have people that certainly advocate those positions here. Now we have this group to add to the mix.
What about when costs of shopping at a "correct" establishment are too high? You don't want to travel across town for a loaf of bread from Whole Foods. Or something like that? Consumers make such decisions daily.
Some suggested titles:
Markets Forces and Sex Discrimination by Hellerstein, Neumark, and Troske (2000 J. of Human Resources XXXVII)
Arrow (1973) and Phelps (1972) are two famous economists who examine statistical discrimination and model it in those works.
Charles and Guryan (2006) have "Prejudice and the Economics of Discrimination" (available online)
In the meantime, please challenge bigotry to the max allowable in the given situation.
cheers,
VM
John Rhoads | January 1, 2007, 11:01am | #
Fair enough, Paul. Lynching and "no niggers" signs aren't the same.
But my point is in response to the libertarian argument that
segregation was state-supported, and that removing Jim Crow laws was
enough. You seem to believe, counter to all evidence from our
history.
Actually, it seems to me that all the evidence from our history
suggests that markets were far less interested in segregation than
were state and federal governments. Railroads seemed to not want to
be segregated in 1896, far ahead of when state and federal governments
wanted to care about this issue. It is reasonable, and most likely
true, to argue that federal intervention in 1964 solved the problems
created by Jim Crow laws faster than the market would have if they
were removed, but I am not at all convinced that the market,
completely absent Jim Crow laws would have been slower to resolve the
issue of racism than the governments that passed said laws. If racism
is the majority position, then governments will be able to stop the
minority that is interested in integration. (which it did in the 20th
century south). If racism is the minority position, (as it clearly is
now) then an openly racist business is making a very poor business
decision, and a covertly racist business is already able to elude the civil rights act.
I have never understood the civil rights act as an argument against
federalism. Certainly this is a case in which the federal government
was doing the right thing and the state governments were not, but it
is not as if this is a universal trait. Remember the fugitive slave
act? When state governments wanted to keep runaway slaves from being
sent back into slavery and the federal government prevented them from
doing so? Is this not just as valid an argument for states rights as
the civil rights act is against them?
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
