Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Washington Forced Segregation on the Nation

It's time to remedy the effects of that terrible policy.

In 1940, the federal government required a Detroit builder to construct a six-foot-high, half-mile-long, north-south concrete wall. The express purpose was to separate an all-white housing development he was constructing from an African-American neighborhood to its east. The builder would be approved for a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan guarantee he needed only if he complied with the government's demand.

Today, most African Americans in every metropolitan area remain residentially concentrated or entirely separate. That fact underlies or exacerbates many of the nation's most serious social and economic problems, from relatively low intergenerational mobility to the disproportionate prevalence of hostile encounters between police and disadvantaged black youths in neighborhoods without access to good jobs. The Detroit wall offers a striking illustration of an underappreciated truth about this shameful situation: Racial segregation in America was, to a large degree, engineered by policy makers in Washington.

Beginning in the 1930s, civil rights litigators won court victories that desegregated law and graduate schools, then colleges and, with 1954's Brown v. Board of Education ruling, elementary and secondary schools. These legal victories helped to spur a civil rights movement that, in the 1960s, forced an end to racial segregation in public transportation, in public accommodations, in employment, and in voting.

Yet despite those victories, America has left untouched the biggest segregation of all: Progress in the desegregation of neighborhoods has been minimal.

In low-income, racially segregated communities, children are in poorer health, are under greater stress from parents' economic insecurity, and have less access to high-quality early childhood, after-school, and summer programs. When children with these and other challenges are concentrated in a single school, their problems can overwhelm teachers, and educational outcomes suffer. The "black-white achievement gap," a focus of education reformers, is substantially attributable to residential segregation.

This form of segregation is more difficult to eradicate than many others. After the abolition of discrimination on buses and at lunch counters, African Americans could take any empty seat on a bus or sit at any lunch counter. But the Fair Housing Act's prohibition of future discrimination in housing left previously segregated neighborhoods intact.

Americans have rationalized our failure to achieve desegregated neighborhoods by adopting a national myth shared by the left and the right, by blacks and whites: that what we see around us is de facto, not legally enforced, segregation. It's the result not of a government design to keep the races separated but rather of private prejudice, the personal preferences of both blacks and whites to live with same-race neighbors, and income differences that make integrated communities unaffordable to many African Americans.

This is a small part of the truth. In reality, explicit government policy in the mid-20th century—imposed in the name of promoting safety and social harmony—was the most powerful force separating the races in every metropolitan area, and the effects of that policy endure. Because racial segregation results from the open, racially explicit, purposeful action of federal, state, and local governments, our residential racial boundaries are unconstitutional; because they are unconstitutional, we have an obligation to ensure that our government remedies them; because we have forgotten the history of how residential segregation was created by government, we are handicapped in our ability to address it.

The New Deal's Segregated Housing Projects

During the Depression, to provide lodging for lower-middle-class white families, the New Deal created America's first civilian public housing. Some projects were built for black families as well, but these were almost always separate from the white projects. At the time, many urban areas were sites of considerable diversity, with black and white workers living within walking distance of downtown factories and other workplaces. Communities near train stations were often integrated, for example, because railroads would hire only African Americans as baggage handlers or Pullman car porters.

When Franklin Roosevelt became president, the nation was facing a desperate housing shortage. Many black and white working families lived in neighborhoods that, while integrated, could rightly be described as slums. To improve the quality of housing, as well as to provide jobs for construction workers, one of the first New Deal agencies, the Public Works Administration (PWA), demolished housing in many such integrated neighborhoods and built explicitly segregated housing instead. The policy created racial boundaries where they had not previously existed or reinforced them where they had taken root, giving segregation new government sanction. In Atlanta's "Flats," the government demolished a neighborhood that was about half white and half black to build a public housing project for whites only, with a separate project for African Americans farther away. In St. Louis' DeSoto-Carr neighborhood, housing in a similarly mixed neighborhood was demolished to build a project for African Americans only, with a separate project for whites built in a different part of the city.

This, it should be emphasized, was not primarily a program for the South or border states. In Northern and Midwestern states, the federal government's New Deal programs and local housing agencies worked together to create segregated patterns that have persisted for generations. In his autobiography, The Big Sea, the African-American poet and novelist Langston Hughes described going to high school in an integrated Central Cleveland neighborhood where his best friend was Polish and he dated a Jewish girl. The PWA cleared housing in that area to build one project for whites and another for African Americans. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Central Square neighborhood between Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was about half white and half black at the beginning of the 1930s. The federal government demolished integrated housing there to create two racially separated projects.

In Boston, the federally financed Mission Hill project was for whites, while the Mission Hill Extension across the road was for African Americans. In Chicago, the Julia C. Lathrop and Trumbull Park Homes were built in white neighborhoods for whites only; the Ida B. Wells Homes were built in an African-American area for blacks only. This government housing program exacerbated existing racial patterns; had the projects been integrated, Chicago would not now be one of the most segregated cities in the nation.

During World War II, whites and African Americans flocked to jobs in war plants, sometimes in communities that had no tradition of segregated living. Yet the government built separate projects for blacks and whites, determining future residential boundaries. Richmond, California, a suburb of Berkeley, was one of the nation's largest shipbuilding centers. It had few African Americans before the war; by its end, thousands were living in public housing along the railroad tracks, while white workers were assigned to housing in more established residential areas. Along the Pacific coast, racial segregation in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles has its roots in federal war housing.

Postwar, veterans desperately needed lodging, so President Harry Truman proposed even more housing projects. Congressional conservatives, deeming public housing socialistic, resolved to defeat Truman's 1949 legislation. They introduced a "poison pill" amendment banning racial discrimination in public housing, which they expected Northern liberals to support, ensuring its passage. Then they planned to ally with Southern Democrats to defeat the amended legislation.

Instead, the liberals mobilized against the integration amendment. "I should like to point out to my Negro friends what a large amount of housing they will get under this act," Illinois Sen. Paul Douglas urged. "I am ready to appeal to history…that it is in the best interests of the Negro race that we carry through the housing program as planned rather than put in the bill an amendment that will inevitably defeat it." Douglas was persuasive: The amendment was defeated and the Housing Act passed, including permission to continue a policy of discrimination.

In the 1950s, a government program guaranteed loans to builders of working-class suburban subdivisions—with explicit requirements that black families be excluded and that house deeds prohibit resale to them.

I doubt that segregated housing was in anyone's best interest, but it's no easy call. The NAACP had the foresight to reject Douglas' plea. Many African Americans, however, welcomed the subsequent construction of all-black towers like Brownsville's Van Dyke Houses (now the poorest community in New York City) or Chicago's Cabrini-Green. Located in places where African-American poverty was already concentrated, these new high-rises replaced barely habitable slum dwellings, wood-frame firetraps frequently without plumbing, heat, or adequate sanitation. Yet the towers' racial isolation came at a price, solidifying ghettos where our most serious social problems—unemployment, violence, confrontations with police, inadequate student achievement, health disparities, multi-generational poverty—fester to this day.

Federal Subsidies and the 'White Noose'

By the mid-1950s, housing projects for whites had many unoccupied units, while those for African Americans had long waiting lists. Eventually, as whites continued to leave the inner cities, almost all public housing was opened to African Americans.

At about the same time, industry began to leave urban centers. Automakers, for example, closed many downtown assembly plants and relocated to rural and suburban areas to which African-American workers had less access. Good urban jobs became scarcer and public housing residents became poorer. A program that originally addressed a middle-class housing shortage became a way to warehouse the poor.

Why did white-designated projects develop vacancies while black-designated ones faced more demand than supply? The disparity largely resulted from an FHA program that guaranteed loans to builders of working-class suburban subdivisions—with explicit requirements that black families be excluded and that house deeds prohibit resale to them.

This was not an act of rogue bureaucrats. It was written policy, in blatant violation of the Fifth, 13th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Housing Administration published a manual used by real estate appraisers nationwide, specifying that loans for suburban development could not be federally subsidized if an "inharmonious racial group" would be present or was already nearby. Suburbs like Levittown (east of New York City), Lakewood (south of Los Angeles), San Lorenzo (across the Bay from San Francisco), and hundreds of others were created in this way, ensuring their racial homogeneity and isolation.

After World War II, the white novelist Wallace Stegner was recruited to teach writing at Stanford University. Given the housing shortage, he could find no place for his family to live, so he joined a cooperative of 150 families that bought a large ranch adjoining the university with a plan to build 400 homes. Banks, however, would not extend loans for such subdivisions without a federal guarantee—the construction of so many houses for which there were yet no buyers with approved mortgages was just too risky. And the federal government would not guarantee the Stegner project because three of the 150 families were African-American. The co-op refused to expel its black families, disbanding instead. A private developer purchased the land and, with FHA support, built an all-white subdivision in its place, complete with federally mandated deed restrictions prohibiting resale to black families.

Urban public housing combined with FHA-subsidized whites-only suburbs to create a "white noose" around urban black families that persists to this day. Every metropolitan area suburbanized in the mid-20th century, with all-white subdivisions surrounding an urban core where African Americans were concentrated. In 1968, the Fair Housing Act permitted African Americans to access previously white neighborhoods, but it prohibited only future discrimination, without undoing the previous 35 years of government-imposed segregation.

This had not just social but economic consequences as well. In suburbs such as Levittown, Lakewood, and San Lorenzo, houses in the 1940s and '50s sold for about $100,000 (in today's inflation-adjusted currency), twice the national median income. FHA and Veterans Administration amortized mortgages made such homes affordable for working-class families of either race, but only whites were allowed. Today, all are technically welcome, but homes in these places can sell for $400,000 (or more), seven times the national median income—unaffordable to working-class families of either race. Consequently, whites who suburbanized with federal protection in the mid-20th century gained $300,000 (or more) in equity that could be used to pay for a child's college education, care for their elderly parents, subsidize their own retirement income, cover medical expenses or other unforeseen economic emergencies, or bequeath wealth to children and grandchildren, who then had down payment funds for their own homes. Black families and their offspring, who largely remained in cities as renters, gained no such security.

Although average African-American family incomes today are about 60 percent of average white family incomes, average African-American household wealth is only about 10 percent of average white household wealth. This enormous disparity is almost entirely the result of unconstitutional federal housing policy in the last century, which explains a good part of the racial inequality that we see all around us.

Undoing 60 Years of Bad Policy

In 1935, Congress adopted a National Labor Relations Act that gave unions the exclusive right to bargain with employers, provided those unions gained government certification. When the act was first introduced, it prohibited the government from certifying unions that excluded African Americans from membership. That provision was deleted from the final bill, and the federal government proceeded to certify all-white unions, including the most powerful unions in the construction trades. Not until 1964 did the government deny certification to such a group.

Cabrini-Green Homes. Photo by Betty Hulett/Chicago History Museum.Cabrini-Green Homes. Photo by Betty Hulett/Chicago History Museum.Think about that for a moment: Not only did Washington prohibit African Americans from living in the suburbs, but it also sanctioned their exclusion from the construction of those same suburbs and from fully participating in the great postwar economic expansion that boosted so many white working-class families into the middle class. If too many African Americans today cannot afford to move to middle-class communities, the government's labor policy as well as its housing policy bears significant responsibility.

If we developed a new national consensus that rejected the myth that residential segregation has only ever been de facto, we could then begin to discuss ways to chip away at the problem. The largest federal housing program today is the mortgage interest deduction, a continued subsidy to many racially exclusive suburbs. One remedy might be to make the claim of this deduction by homeowners in a racially exclusive community contingent on that community's taking steps to desegregate.

The next largest federal housing program is a tax credit for developers of housing for low-income families. Most tax-credit projects are located in already low-income neighborhoods, because developers would rather build in places where they face no community opposition. The result is that the program reinforces segregation. Prioritizing integrated development could eliminate that distortion.

Addressing the sad status quo requires regulating the actions of private citizens, something that libertarians tend to resist. In this case, such resistance fails to consider the fact that segregation was created by the indefensible regulation of private citizens—regulation designed to create, reinforce, and sustain a dual and unequal housing market. Those who object to remediating such artificial racial segregation must make a case that what happened unnaturally can unhappen naturally. But that case is impossible to make: The government's control over housing markets to impose segregation was so powerful that its effects have already endured for more than half a century following the end of explicit racial housing policies.

What types of rules might the federal government consider to address that problem? On the deregulatory side, it could prohibit suburbs from maintaining zoning policies that discourage construction of less expensive housing options, such as townhouses, apartments, or even modest single-family homes on smaller lots. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson has stated that he wants to prohibit exclusionary zoning and withhold federal funds from suburbs that maintain such land use regulations. There is no evidence, however, that his department has taken this offhand comment seriously.

The federal government could go further and require that all new development be mixed-income. For lower-income families hoping to move from segregated to integrated neighborhoods, it could prohibit landlords from discriminating against holders of "Section 8" vouchers. It could even adjust how the vouchers are administered to make it affordable to use them in middle-class areas. In the context of our shameful history, these and many other policies are not only feasible. They are constitutionally required.

Carson has stated his opposition to aggressive policies aimed at residential desegregation. He calls such actions "social engineering" and warns that they always have unintended consequences. His reasoning is flawed on two counts. First, desegregation is an effort to undo previous bad social engineering, not to create utopia from a blank slate. Second, unintended consequences are inevitable. Policy makers have an obligation to develop programs carefully in order to eliminate the most serious harmful consequences to the extent possible. But there are unintended consequences to inaction as well. The mortgage interest deduction, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and Section 8 are all race-neutral programs. Their unintended consequence is to reinforce and perpetuate racial segregation. They continue to do so, every day.

Certainly, many whites in the early and mid-20th century were bigoted; government policies that resulted in residential segregation were not merely forced upon them. And certainly many whites and blacks sometimes prefer to live in same-race neighborhoods. But private prejudice and personal preferences do not negate the sin of government sponsorship. The U.S. Constitution prohibits government from violating civil rights by supporting popular—even majority—demands for discriminatory actions. The counterfactual is not whether we would have segregation if government did not exist. The counterfactual is what the nation would look like if government had fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities.

William Levitt, the builder of Levittown, was a bigot. He acknowledged that, left to his own devices, he would have refused to sell homes to African Americans. But he was not left to his own devices. No bank would lend him the capital to build 17,000 homes for which he yet had no buyers. He could proceed only if he obtained a government guarantee of his bank loans. The Federal Housing Administration was constitutionally obligated to issue such a guarantee only if he sold homes on a nondiscriminatory basis. It failed in this responsibility.

Likewise, the Public Works Administration and subsequent war and public housing agencies were constitutionally obligated to rent public housing on a nondiscriminatory basis. Instead, they built projects specifically designated for one racial group or another.

Had the PWA and FHA acted in a lawful manner, some bigoted white families might have refused to live in public projects or to purchase suburban homes. But the housing shortage was so severe that for any family that so refused, many were waiting to take its place. Had federal agencies performed in a nondiscriminatory fashion, the landscapes of our metropolitan areas today would be much more diverse than they now are.

Our belief in de facto segregation is paralyzing. If our racial separation stems from millions of individual decisions, it is hard to imagine the millions of private steps it would take to undo it. But if we learn and remember that residential segregation results primarily from forceful and unconstitutional government policy, we can begin to consider equally forceful public action to reverse it.

We must teach this history to our young people as well. Today, the most widely used American history high school textbooks fail to tell the truth about how segregation was created. They adopt our national myth by describing segregation in the North as de facto, pretending that government-sponsored segregation took place only in the South. They describe how the New Deal built housing for the homeless during the Depression but fail to mention that it segregated previously integrated communities. They praise the FHA's contribution to suburbanization but ignore that it benefited whites only. Parents and others should insist that public schools use alternative curricula that accurately convey how our nation became segregated. If we don't do a better job of instructing future generations, they will fail as miserably as we have in creating a fair and integrated society.

Parts of this article have been adapted from the author's previous work.

Photo Credit: Ralf-Finn Hestoft/Corbis/Getty Images

Richard Rothstein, a distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute, is the author of The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (Liveright) and many articles on residential segregation in the United States.

Media Contact Reprint Requests

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Well Reason, why does this spam continue?

  • centralmenus||

    Best Menu guide
    https://bit.ly/2FNOCUB

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Because more spam?

  • NolanLibertarian||

    The same lack of moderation that also allows thugs and bullies of the alt-right to dominate the commentariat here ... repulsing the same independents the editors celebrate(??) ... and contributing to the libertarian brand being rejected by 91% of libertarians (Cato survey on brand peference, conducted by a top independent pollster)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Democratic Party also known as the Party of slavery.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    the Party of slavery.

    Over a century ago. What about TODAY'S shame?
    Today, the GOP celebrates White Nationalism, Donald Trump welcomes the support of Davide Duke and defends the worst scum in America ... with sick lies.

    This is what your Fuhrer defends, while you create mindless diversions to long-dead history.

    Now Trump's totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazies. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof


    The initial assault, Charlottesville-- Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
    "Alt-Left" standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
    Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
    Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

    Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry.

    These are Racists and Jew-Haters.
    Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
    Trump threw his own daughter under a bus. SHAMEFUL.

    Left - Right = Zero
    Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
    As the "traditional" left and right shrink toward extinction, roaring like dinosaurs, chirping like dodo birds.

  • retiredfire||

    antifa launched the aggression in Charlottesville.
    National socialist are lefties, so, ironically, are antifa.
    Odd:
    One sock-puppet of Hihn, replying to another sock-puppet of Hihn.
    In both cases: Fuck off, Hihn!

  • epsilon given||

    If you want to see *real* racism, just ask a Democrat what they think of Clarence Thomas, or Candace Owens, or Condoleeza Rice, or any minority person who leaves the Democrat plantation.

    (For that matter, if you want to see misogyny, ask a Democrat what they think of Sarah Palin, or Candace Owens, or Condoleeza Rice.)

    You'll find that the racism is still there, in full force.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    The details are new to me, but not the general idea. I long ago came to the conclusion that government is incompetent at best and evil generally. Slavery, Jim Crow, all were created and enforced by government, and the reason Progressives get tagged with the blame is because they are statists.

    I don't think Progressives are racists at heart. But statism treats people like dirt because individuality reduces the need for the State. Statism requires everybody think and act in approved ways, which in practice forbids differences; and when some people look different from the majority, they must be treated as outsiders. Thus racism enforced by the State. Thus eugenics, forced sterilization, and the Holocaust. Every once in a while some will say FDR inspired Hitler, or vice-versa. I don't think so; statism is racist by its nature. They were both inspired by the power of the State.

  • tlapp||

    Progressives have no interest in ending discrimination only profiting from it. Using the people as political pawns. The constitution had the ideals of treating everyone equally as individuals. The failure in practice was corrected by the equal rights amendment.
    Living up to the ideals of the treating individuals (the ultimate minority) equally is the only long term answer that can work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +10

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I don't think Progressives are racists at heart.

    I believe most conservatives are not racists. Plenty of them are, though, and essentially all of them appease bigots in an effort to maintain an electoral coalition for their stale preferences.

    Carry on, clingers. You keep losing the culture war and America will continue to improve.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Is that why conservatives dominate Chicago politics?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And gang violence.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Cowardly diversion.
    Charlottesville.

  • khm001||

    Charlottesville

    I like how you, also, leave out the important details the ONLY reason violence occurred in Charlottesville is because evil leftists showed up with the intent to start violence. You're defending the party of violent racists, the democrats.

  • DenverJ||

    Yet another retarded lefty who can't wrap his tiny, tiny little brain around the fact that non-progtard does not equal conservatard.
    Of course, the Rev is nothing but a troll, but sometimes my patience runs thin. Carry on, retard.

  • Longtobefree||

    So the answer is more government; the federal level intruding all the way into local zoning. Perfect.

  • DaveSs||

    Statists never learn

    "This time will be different cause our motives are pure."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Different TOP MEN will fix it.

  • Rat on a train||

    If nothing else, it provides employment for Top Men.

  • Rich||

    AND for Top Men who identify as Top Women!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just wait for the day when TOP WOMEN have to be placed in government polsitions like the law that forces companies to put women on their boards.

  • Ed Grinberg||

  • Brandybuck||

    Big government intruding into small government is good if it serves as a check on the small government. Jim Crow as the result of small government, and it was good for big government to tell small government to stop that.

    I am generally in favor of small decentralized government over large centralized ones, but when it comes to stuff like "states rights" I say, "fuck it, states have no rights!". It's sad because way too many libertarians think libertarianism allows states to be tyrants. Bullshit. If it's wrong for the Federal government to do it then it's also wrong from a state or local government to do it. It it's legitimate then it's a matter of jurisdiction, if its' illegitimate then no government at any level should be doing it.

  • cc2||

    A little history lesson: Jim Crow was at all levels. The Davis-Bacon act was federal to keep minorities out of federal construction projects. Redlining was from the feds and applied nationally. The story that big gov smacked sense into local gov is a convenient cover for the role of the feds in the whole mess.

  • Rat on a train||

    One remedy might be to make the claim of this deduction by homeowners in a racially exclusive community contingent on that community's taking steps to desegregate.
    I thought those were already banned. Oh, you mean if the racial makeup doesn't conform to the desires of Top Men. Perhaps set quotas for home sales or even force people to move to make room.
    Can we do the same with marriage: you can only claim your spouse if you are in a mixed race marriage?

  • vek||

    Dude. This guy is out of fucking control. Reason has jumped the shark SO hard it is unbelievable.

  • wreckinball||

    Reason really needs to dump the "libertarian" label. This is a joke?

    Segregation was indeed forced long ago but now its not. So no government intervention is needed. You live where you want and where you can afford it.

  • Rat on a train||

    Reason really needs to dump the "libertarian" label.
    Liberal was co-opted for the cause. Now it's time for the libertarian label.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    There is nothing libertarian about the federal government deciding where people can live. This is total horseshit.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    There is nothing libertarian about the federal government deciding where people can live. This is total horseshit.

  • vek||

    Yeah. This is out of control. How they can have an article like this in Reason is beyond comprehension. This guy is 100% against right of association. 100% thinks the government should make decrees to meet a completely arbitrary, and indeed impossible, goal of total racial integration... On the taxpayers dime.

    FUCK THIS GUY. FUCK HIM SO HARD.

  • perlchpr||

    The federal government could go further and require that all new development be mixed-income. For lower-income families hoping to move from segregated to integrated neighborhoods, it could prohibit landlords from discriminating against holders of "Section 8" vouchers.

    When did this site become so explicitly unlibertarian?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I sense it was when a bunch of disaffected, slack-jawed right-wingers arrived, looking for a safe space for their authoritarianism and bigotry, and their faux libertarianism caused most of the genuine libertarians to leave.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Your own nastiness is no better, Rev, and just as self-righteous.
    The core value of libertarianism is tolerance -- of both fiscal and personal differences.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No, he is much worse.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|1.21.19 @ 9:34AM|#
    "I sense it was when a bunch of disaffected, slack-jawed right-wingers arrived,..."

    And here I noticed the arrival of a half-educated, scumbag asshole, scumbag asshole.

  • Tul­pa||

    Nope, it was when you showed up after being banned from Volokh, and realizing you could shitpost on Volokh's articles here.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I was not banned by Prof. Volokh.

    Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland was banned, though.

    Do you purport to speak for all libertarians, Tulpa, or just for Libertarians For Authoritarian Immigration Policies, Libertarians For Statist Womb Management, Libertarians For Trump, Libertarians For Special Privilege For Superstition, and Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics?

  • Tul­pa||

    "I was not banned by Prof. Volokh."

    Right, you were banned by a different blogger at VC.

    I knew that already but thanks for confirming it for everyone here.

  • epsilon given||

    "I sense it was when a bunch of disaffected, slack-jawed right-wingers arrived, looking for a safe space for their authoritarianism and bigotry, and their faux libertarianism caused most of the genuine libertarians to leave."

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland, I see you're deeply annoyed that this article is wanting to use Federal government policy to undo the policies your Party put in place in the first place (through your beloved New Deal, at that!).

  • ||

    "I sense it was when a bunch of disaffected, slack-jawed right-wingers arrived, looking for a safe space for their authoritarianism and bigotry, and their faux libertarianism caused most of the genuine libertarians to leave."

    I'm commenting here, and I'm a classical-liberal style libertarian with many disagreements with ideological/social conservatives. Please stop painting with such a wide brush.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    When Mary Stack's ideological soul mates Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie got full control.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Versus your own total lack of power?

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Versus your own total lack of power?

  • Leo Marvin||

    Do you think these overwhelmingly philo-Trumpic comment threads are libertarian?

  • Robert||

    We're pushed into being philo-Trumpic by the anti-Trump bloggers. Just leaning back into an unwelcome push. Plus, a lot of us find Trump to be well above the cut of pols we're used to.

  • vek||

    All things considered, Trump is probably more libertarian than the average Reason writer is anymore... Stossel excluded of course!

    That is not to say Trump is very libertarian at all, but rather that the people at Reason are just that unlibertarian.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Anyone who believes government created racial segregation, must also believe government created racism. Cause and effect backwards.

    When I sold real estate in the 1980s, I held an open house a few suburbs away. A lengthy cul-de-sac of new homes, but building had stopped a few years earlier. The suburb adjoined Cleveland, and these were low-cost new homes. A few black families bought there, escaping the Cleveland ghetto. Whites stopped buying, because blacks were there and visible during multiple visits to purchase. Blacks stopped buying to avoid another black ghetto.

    Section 8 does not work the way you MAY assume. My landlord refuses to accept them. The manager of the complex is unusually welcoming to black tenants, the only new ones announced to us all. Now I know why.

    In 1957, ARK governor Faubus activated his state militia, armed force to bar black kids from registering at Little Rock's Central High, Eisenhower sent federal troops, ordered to use force if necessary to defend 9 black kids. Faubus collapsed, but later defended his action by saying he defended the voters of his states from an over-reaching SCOTUS.

    The exact same reason is used frequently by Ron Paul, to defend today's "trendy" bigotry, the same homosexuals that real libertarians (Reagan and Goldwater) had so strongly defended in the 1970s – three decades before Clinton shamelessly signed DOMA and DADT, and nearly four decades before Obama "evolved."

    cont'd

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Part 2/2

    Ron brags of sponsoring a bill to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any appeals to DOMA, the first denial of constitutional defense since slavery. That failed, so he claims "rogue judges" overturned DOMA, exactly repeating Faubus on States Rights, not Federalism … and rejecting three co-equal branches, thus paving the way for Trump doing likewise. The intellectual founder of the alt-right.

    Certainly, many whites in the early and mid-20th century were bigoted;

    They still are, but they now have a President who defends them, at Charlottesville and elsewhere. Ron Paul is still their enabler, now adding homosexuals to his decades ago racism, both once dog whistles in his south Texas..

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • perlchpr||

    It's like a nasty staph infection that the antibiotics only knock back, but can't completely eliminate. I have to admit (to tie in to another thread) that I kinda like FB's giving me the ability to block people so I don't have to listen to their unhihnged crackpottery.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Thank you for inviting proof of Ron Paul's shameless bigotry!

    Ron Paul's most shameful action.
    "I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, ... I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts"

    DENYING equal rights. In his own words.

    Full text of this bill … bringing total shame to all libertarians

    WHO would defend Ron Paul for so blatantly denying the defense of fundamental constitutional rights … for the first time since slavery? Only the alt-right, as spawned by Ron Paul himself.

    Sponsoring government aggression is not NAP.
    Stand for liberty .. against oppression, bigotry and hatred .. with real libertarians for 50 years.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Ron Paul's most shameful action.

    "I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, ... I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts"

    DENYING equal rights. In his own words.

    Full text of this bill … total shame to all libertarians

    WHO would defend Ron Paul for so blatantly denying the defense of fundamental constitutional rights … for the first time since slavery? Only the alt-right, as spawned by Ron Paul.
    .

  • Nardz||

    Fuck off, hihn

  • BigT||

    "Anyone who believes government created racial segregation, must also believe government created racism"

    Rothstein points out in great detail how government implemented racist policies, and no one believes government invented racism. Your reading comprehension skills are poor, although perhaps you just wanted to ride around on your usual hobbyhorse, Ron PAUL.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Your logical thinking skills are .... sorely lacking.
    But your denial of documented proof is typical of you people.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • epsilon given||

    Hihn, you can't second yourself. You need someone else to second you.

  • vek||

    As much as I hate to say it, Hihn is right here.

    People self segregate. This has always happened, and always will happen. There would have indeed been some overlap, as there always is, but mostly people prefer to be around their own. That's why you can look at major cities today, and see neighborhoods that cost comparable amounts to live there, but one will be where poor white people live, one will be where poor Hispanics live, and one will be where poor blacks live.

    Anybody who believes anything else is full of shit and clearly hasn't read up on all the countless studies that show in group preference.

  • cc2||

    Of course it was racism that motivated the Jim Crow laws, duh. But federal involvement in redlining etc started in the 1930s. The Feds were not always the good guys.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Jim Crow came first, still exists, and allowed the other to be acceptable.

    The Feds were not always the good guys.

    Were they ever?
    Relevance?

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Robert||

    You're right that gov't didn't cause racism. However, you don't have to be anti-homo to oppose same-sex "marriage". Also, the reason Clinton signed DADT shamelessly is that there's no shame in adopting a compromise you think is needed to advance; that's how it was anticipated to be, but it was implemented stupidly because of failure to take seriously the "do not pursue" part.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    However, you don't have to be anti-homo to oppose same-sex "marriage"

    Anti-homo is directly related to rejection of Equal, Unalienable and/or God-Given rights.

  • Tul­pa||

    Lolololo everyone knows both of those are you Hihn, stop talking to yourself and fuck off.

  • Nardz||

    Robert comes off as sane.
    Not sure if hihn can pull that off.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Which part of that has bewildered you?
    Again?

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Which part of that has bewildered you?
    Again?

  • vek||

    Not that I care about fags getting married, but marriage was a RELIGIOUS thing before legal. I always thought the reasonable compromise was to allow gay civil unions, as that gave the religious people what they wanted, which was to not change the meaning of an ancient term, and gave gays what they claimed they wanted, equal protection under the law.

  • Rich||

    "I should like to point out to my Negro friends what a large amount of housing they will get under this act," Illinois Sen. Paul Douglas urged. "I am ready to appeal to history…that it is in the best interests of the Negro race that we carry through the housing program as planned rather than put in the bill an amendment that will inevitably defeat it."

    There had jolly well better be no paintings or statues of Douglas *anywhere*.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I believe that the shutdown has now officially been long enough for the government to start implementing permanent Reductions in Force in the affected departments.

    Trump should tell Jokerface that if she doesn't start negotiating in good faith, he'll fucking do it too.

  • Rich||

    "Drain that swamp!"

  • vek||

    Beats Maoland...

  • perlchpr||

    "If we've survived this long without these 'unessential' employees, I guess they're probably not worth paying for in the future, either."

  • Rich||

    "However, I trust they will accept, as a good faith parting gift, these 'Section 8' vouchers."

  • NolanLibertarian||

    So ... you celebrate even MORE damage for what voters overwhelmingly blame on Trump and the Republicans. Hmmm.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Robert||

    What damage? It's the perfect opp'ty to get in some reorganiz'n.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Damage to the GOP and Trump, as I stated.

    You believe Border Patrol is keeping us just as safe with about half the employees, so the at-home employees can be eliminated. The IRS agents forced back in to process tax refunds will no be paid. And you believe that "essential" in gummint-speak means the same as "essential" in the English language. It does not. It means people who cannot miss even a day or two of work. If your workplace has 20 or more employees, there are likely some who cannot miss a day or two of work, and others would could miss a month with no damage to the mission, but cannot be eliminated forever. Many business managers are familiar with this. (Also see Border Patrol)

  • Tul­pa||

    Hahahah you're talking to yourself AGAIN instead of fucking off.

    Now fuck off Hihn.

  • Rich||

    The federal government ... could prohibit landlords from discriminating against holders of "Section 8" vouchers. It could even adjust how the vouchers are administered to make it affordable to use them in middle-class areas.

    It could even require Beverly Hills homeowners to take in "Section 8" holders.

    In the context of our shameful history, these and many other policies are not only feasible. They are constitutionally required.

    Citation needed.

  • vek||

    DO NOT QUESTION HIS VIRTUE! EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS WELL INTENDED, THEREFORE WE MUST DO IT, NO MATTER THE REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES!

  • Dan S.||

    It's time to remedy the effects of that terrible policy.

    Well, they've been trying to for over 50 years. No, this is one problem whose persistence you can't really blame Washington for.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Huh. I had no idea how severe the racial injustice was when it came to government housing policy.

    But yeah the answer isn't to use Section 8 vouchers for purposes of racial engineering. The answer is to get rid of Section 8 vouchers, and rely on voluntary actions to remedy the past injustices.

  • SIV||

    I look forward to reading The Libertarian Case For Reparations, or did I already miss it?

  • ||

    I'm sure we will see it in about 6 months.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I wouldn't be surprised if that's the next book Welch and Gillespie are writing.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Does guilt by association only apply to white males?

  • Robert||

    Justin Raimondo wrote it decades ago.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • vek||

    The truth is white people have already paid trillions in reparations. Look at all the free shit that disproportionately goes from white net positive taxpayers, to non white receivers. It is INSANE the amount of racial redistribution that goes on. Statistically pretty much only whites, Asians, and Jews are net positive tax payers as groups... All other ethnic groups are net receivers of government largess.

  • JFree||

    Reading the comments makes me realize why I am so pessimistic about Americans

  • Rich||

    Um, did you read the *article*?

  • JFree||

    Of course. It stated an actual problem and the author's ideas of possible solutions. Agree or not doesn't matter much. The commenters generally seem incapable of addressing anything that's IN the article beyond chanting creed or going into full-blown partisan DeRp. The article might as well have been written in Urdu for a bunch of chimps.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I know, right? Too many people just stop at "Democrats Are To Blame". Well sure they are. Along with Republicans, along with all of the instruments of the state.

    There are actual problems that exist in the world, and even if we are to argue (IMO correctly) that government should butt out of most of these problems, someone somewhere ought to have some sort of plan or idea on how the problem ought to be solved on some level. But no one seems interested in talking about that. I do give the author credit for documenting the origins and extent of the problems associated with segregated housing. I'll also give him some credit for coming up with some possible solutions, even if they aren't particularly libertarian ones.

    Truth of the matter is, if libertarians can't come up with plausible solutions to problems, then the statists with their statist solutions will be the ones who carry the day.

  • DaveSs||

    Statists reject as a solution 'do nothing' as well as 'stop doing the thing you are doing that is making a supposed problem worse'

    The State has hardly been idle in the lives of these people over the last 55 years. The State has actively perpetuated housing segregation through welfare programs that perpetuate poverty and create dependency.

    So, before employing the stick yet again, perhaps the State should back off and let freedom ring.

  • Rich||

    Well said.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Well said.

    If you can't sell it to a majority of voters, and get elected on it, then it just shits all over Jefferson and the Constitution. Government derives its JUST powers from the consent of the governed.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Truth confirmed

    shits all over Jefferson and the Constitution.
    Fuck off Hihn.
  • DenverJ||

    Is "it's none of my business, nor the government's" a solution?

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Only in a dictatorship, or its near equivalent .

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Truth confirmed

    Only in a dictatorship, or its near equivalent .
    Fuck off Hihn.
  • Jay Dubya||

    Well said jfree

  • vek||

    Jfree, your problem is that you think IT IS A PROBLEM that neighborhoods NEED to be perfectly aligned along demographic lines. Which is bullshit. People clearly DO prefer to live in neighborhoods that have mostly similar people. Why do you think Hispanic neighborhoods in LA exist ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT PART OF LATIN AMERICA THEY'RE FROM. Because they want to. And those are very similar peoples, and have zero government coercion involved. How about Asian neighborhoods? Asians make more than whites, and still form their own wealthy enclaves of mostly Asians. I live in Seattle, and there are numerous areas that are almost all Asians, despite the fact that they could easily have dispersed themselves evenly throughout the city.

  • Tul­pa||

    Sorry no one here wants to give you your pony.

  • Brian||

    WE NEED A STRONG FEDGOV TO STOP THE RACISM ENABLED BY FEDGOV!

  • Bearded Spock||

    "Racial segregation in America was, to a large degree, engineered by Democrat policy makers in Washington, writes Richard Rothstein."

    FIFY.

  • BigT||

    Exactly as Rothstein reported in The Color of Law, BTW.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So the solution to past heavy-handed, misguided, and downright evil government interference is more heavy-handed, misguided and downright evil government interference. Got it.

    Fuck off, Rothstein.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Today, most African Americans in every metropolitan area remain residentially concentrated or entirely separate.

    yeah, by choice. the tell in your sentence is the word "Americans" - these people have the freedom to move anywhere they want because America - and if they do not want to they do not have to because America

  • perlchpr||

    It's bad when black folks live in their own neighborhoods, 'cause that's segregation, and it's bad when white folks move into black neighborhoods, 'cause that's gentrification... what's the answer supposed to be?

  • Dillinger||

    i try to just see people.

  • mtrueman||

    "what's the answer supposed to be?"

    Not sure myself. It's either Canada or Mexico.

  • vek||

    I believe the answer they're looking for is for blacks to move into white neighborhoods... Any other option is EVIL and RACIST!

    Never mind that immigrant groups that came after the end of legal segregation have SOMEHOW self segregated themselves into the EXACT same type of ethnic enclaves as blacks have...

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    And apparently people have already forgotten that for many years starting in the Clinton administration, it was specific federal government policy to force banks to give reasonable rate mortgage loans to poor people who weren't really qualified to get them on an income earning basis.

    Not too surprisingly, that policy also turned out to be a complete and total disaster.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    The ex wife and I bought a house in 1998 in a mixed neighborhood. We got the hell out when it became obvious that it wasn't if our home would be robbed but when. Saw a lot of HUD signs in foreclosed homes. Three homes near mine were robbed, one next door. I went home for lunch one day to see two of Obama's sons carrying my neighbor's property to their car. To this day when a house there sells, it's for close to the original purchase price. Twenty years later.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    two of Obama's sons

    Says all we need to know.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Umm, the Community Reinvestment Act began under Carter.

    What Clinton did was force Fannie and Freddie to reduce the loan standards that had protected taxpayers since the 1930s. First, he pressured lenders to make more such loans. Lenders said they could not make more loans under Fannie's and Freddie's loan standards. So the pressure shifted.

    This was well-reported, in detail, at the time, along with a prediction that Clinton's actions could lead to a massive taxpayer bailout of lenders, like the 1980s ... reported and correctly predicted by ... the New York Times!

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    UPDATE: the two teams whose owners each gave $1 million to Donald Trump's inauguration will play each other in the Super Bowl.

    This is terrible. Anybody who cares about racial justice needs to boycott the Super Bowl. Of course, we anti-racists were already unhappy with the NFL anyway because one of their teams is named after a racial slur.

  • Dillinger||

    figured you'd be happy the KC Cultural Appropriators were vanquished.

  • Rat on a train||

    Don't forget the Browns.

  • Tony||

    Send in the Browns. There ought to be Browns. Well, maybe next year.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    KC C****s is certainly offensive, but not as bad as Washington R******s.

  • Rich||

    we anti-racists were already unhappy with the NFL anyway because one of their teams is named after a racial slur.

    "And don't even get me started about the 'Patriots'!"

  • BigT||

    Browns? Chiefs? Redskins? Stealers? Cowboys? Packers? Patronizes?49ers? Cardinals? Buccaneers? Bears? Panthers?

  • Tony||

    Libertarians, in their special way, simply miss the point.

    Yes, of course, governments enforce bad, even evil policy. But there is no option not to have a government, despite the masturbatory fantasies of idiots who may frequents websites such as this. The only option is to make government do good rather than evil. Take it away, and all sorts of nonsense flourishes, not that you can take it away. There will always be a government. Pray that it's not some douchefuck tyrant.

  • perlchpr||

    only option is to make government do good

    How's that working out so far?

  • Rat on a train||

    We just need more government to oversee the rest of government.

  • Tony||

    You're not wrong at all.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Don't lump all libertarians together, Tony. I'm a libertarian who voted for Clinton in 2016 just like you. And like you, I favor comprehensive policies to dismantle the legacy of white supremacy. I support affirmative action, busing, you name it. Basically if the alt-right opposes it, I'm for it.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    So you're anti-something, not pro-liberty.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "The only option is to make government force others to do what I think they should rather than letting them decide for themselves."

    FIFY

  • Tul­pa||

    "The only option is to make government do good rather than evil."

    Now do guns.

  • Tony||

    No fetish is worth constitutional protection if it results in tens of thousands of yearly deaths.

    Rational, sober-minded policy thinking right there.

  • Brian||

    OK, well, then, you just ruled out a ton of shit government has done and still does for thousands of years.

    Not that that says anything about government it doesn't say about guns...

  • Don't look at me!||

    Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 persons), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 persons).

    Also Automobiles:

    In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. About 2,000 children under 16 die every year in traffic collisions. Records indicate that there were 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.

    Ban cars!

  • Rat on a train||

    They're trying.

  • Tony||

    As well they should, or at least encourage self-driving ones. We've made the painful trade-off of human lives for convenience long enough.

    Luckily guns serve no useful purpose so we can just ban those.

  • Brian||

  • Tony||

    You want me to defend law enforcement and the over-arming of such?

  • Brian||

    I want you to define "over-arming."

    Nothing worse than pointy sticks?

  • Rat on a train||

    A bunch of raspberries?

  • Tony||

    There's a reason the term "arms race" exists. Give people bigger guns, cops want bigger guns. It's peacock feathers except they can explode your head.

  • Brian||

    I thought you cared about answering questions.

    I guess it was too hard.

    Ah, well. Cool story, bro.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony is against abortions, everyone!

    that constitutional protection results in tens of thousands of yearly deaths.

  • Tony||

    Did your handler just slide you a memo reminding you that abortion is a thing in the US?

  • Tul­pa||

    Did you not realize what you were doing and get rhetorically outmaneuvered by LC?

    Yes. Yes you did. Then you gave a lame little bitchy dodge of an answer.

  • vek||

    On the plus side Tony, white and Asian Americans have basically identical murder rates to disarmed people in Europe and Asia... And African Americans and Hispanics have... Basically identical murder rates to Africa and Latin America.

    Funny that. It seems ALMOST as if the guns themselves aren't doing the killing... It's almost like the people doing most of the killing (~85% are blacks and Hispanics most years) are doing it at the same rates whether they have guns or not... What a strange concept.

  • Brian||

    Summary: Government should be good, not bad.

    Thank God you're here to share your secrets.

  • Tony||

    Well you people make everything more complicated than it needs to be.

  • Brian||

    When you think about it, everything is really just simplistic.

    And you're not dull.

  • Tony||

    My comment was meant in the high tradition of irony. You people are obviously laughably simplistic. ("Government bad!")

    However, once you realize that the thing your entire worldview depends on despising is actually a fact of nature that can't be done away with, your thoughts might land on some actual relevance for once.

  • Brian||

    I'm sorry, but your comments are in the low tradition of puerility.

    I'll let you know when you're accidentally ironic.

  • Tony||

    I was reading Evelyn Waugh when your grandparents were in diapers. Besides, I think the universe owes me one.

    Sorry, I appear to have slipped into Star Trek Generations.

  • Brian||

    Keep trying. You'll eventually be amusing on purpose.

  • Tony||

    Which of your close relatives don't think you're a douche?

  • Brian||

    Gee, let me think about it, Mr. Rogers Pleasantly from Niceville, Oklahoma...

  • cc2||

    If we accept that gov can be evil and is always clumsy and stupid, then the automatic response to every problem is NOT "more gov". Occupy Wall Street was actually calling for "more gov". AOC is calling for more gov. Lots more.

  • Tony||

    The entire premise that government's share of the GDP (which is the only thing I can presume you're referring to when you talk about its size) has something to do with individual freedom is a hypothesis that to be tested.

    Turns out some of the least free and most free have very large governments relative to GDP, so it appears there's no correlation.

  • Nardz||

    How many laws are there, tony?

    Try googling it.
    See if you can come back with the right answer

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Evasion + Fail
    ALL criminal law pisses you off!
    ALL laws against theft!
    ALL laws against murder!

    You think Google knows an answer that NOBODY knows!

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Tony confuses all libertarians with the small minority of libertarians who are anarcho-libertarian.
    That's easier for him than dealing with actual issues, policies and proposals.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • NolanLibertarian||

    MAGA = Morons Are Governing America
    MAGA = My Attorney Got Arrested!
    MAGA = My Advisors Going Away!
    MAGA = My Associates Getting Allocutions!
    MAGA = Make America (debt) Great Again.!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Which one of you pipe-hitting niggers is going out today to tear down some MLK statutes?

    Robby loves him some statute tear downs. History is evil after all.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Which one of you pipe-hitting niggers is going out today to tear down some MLK statutes?

    The same thugs our President and you defended in Charlottesville. Your language says it all.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • vek||

    LC, I loled good at that one!

  • esteve7||

    It's almost as if that's the progressive's end goal, and that it was started by the progressives. But no, a 15yo smiling is the real villain here. (As opposed to the lying activist agitator and lying activist media)

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • Rat on a train||

    They were convicted of trespassing and leaving property in a wilderness refuge.


    Hoffman was found guilty of operating a vehicle inside Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, entering the federally protected area without a permit, and leaving water jugs and cans of beans there in August 2017.

    The others were found guilty of entering without a permit and leaving behind personal property.

    Velasco wrote in his three-page order that the defendants 'did not get an access permit, they did not remain on the designated roads, and they left water, food, and crates in the Refuge'.


    Where are the environmentalist on this one?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There is a difference between the position of "government shouldn't solve this problem", and the position of "this isn't even a problem in the first place".

    Although average African-American family incomes today are about 60 percent of average white family incomes, average African-American household wealth is only about 10 percent of average white household wealth.

    Is this a problem?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Of course it is. Whenever there are differences between African American and white achievement (wealth, SAT scores, etc.), it's due to white supremacy and systemic racism. Clearly that makes it a problem that needs to be solved. And it won't get solved as long as there are Republicans winning elections anywhere in this country. Only the anti-racist policies of Democrats will fix things.

  • SIV||

    due to white supremacy and systemic racism

    You left out Rent-A-Wheel

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You're not helping OBL

  • Tul­pa||

    Neither are you clownshoes.

  • Rat on a train||

    SAT scores
    I blame grape flavored pencils.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Informed Americans know that black disparity traces to inner-city schools.
    Where the teachers union has far more power than blacks, in the Democrat coalition.
    In the Republican coalition, the KKK has more power than the now-gone libertarian wing.

    It's not race. It's power, which corrupts.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn

  • vek||

    Jeff, if that is as good as they can do... It isn't a problem.

    As I've said before, the IQ gap explains ALL the disparities between ethnicities. IQ correlates better with life results than race, gender, parental marital status, formal education... Better than ANYTHING.

    Jews, Asians, Whites score the highest, in that order. And their incomes are in that same order. Somehow Hispanics that don't speak English make more than black Americans from the moment they get here... They also have higher IQs on average.

    It all pans out EXACTLY as one would expect from the stats on IQ and life outcomes.

    If you really believe there is no genetic component to IQ, Progs should be spending billions a year to figure out what environmental effects cause the massive IQ gap, BECAUSE IT IS THE CAUSE OF RACIAL DISPARITIES. Period.

    And if it is genetic as much evidence points to... Then nothing anybody ever does, other than genetic engineering, will ever close the gap.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    This is a great article insofar as it records the racist history of government intervention in housing. It is a horrible and fundamentally anti-liberty article when it shifts to policy prescriptions.

    Americans would do well to learn about how the US government screws up every single thing it touches even when everybody's intentions are good (which is seldom the case) and to understand that there was no "golden age" when the US government was trustworthy and wonderful and run by wise and benevolent statesmen. It would be even better if they were to understand that more government isn't a reasonable solution to problems that government created.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    True. Sadly, today's (movement) libertarians have no clue how to spread that understanding, no interest in doing so, and no policy solutions.

    Luckily, Nolan libertarians are now over 60% of Americans, with 75,000 - 100,000 in local elected office and active in their community, and as many as a million active supporters. (both numbers assume averages of participation). THAT influence is changing America, but has no voice, no identity, and doesn't even know where the others are.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • vek||

    Hey! You forgot about when Thomas Jefferson was president! That was when America was damn near perfect. Slavery was a little touch and go... But other than that we had shit pretty much right!

  • Agammamon||

    But the Fair Housing Act's prohibition of future discrimination in housing left previously segregated neighborhoods intact.
    Because racial segregation results from the open, racially explicit, purposeful action of federal, state, and local governments, our residential racial boundaries are unconstitutional; because they are unconstitutional, we have an obligation to ensure that our government remedies them;

    So, let me get this straight. Because the government fucked something up, its morally imperative we give it more power to 'fix' the fuckup? The least coercive 'fix' to this is to subsidize people in minority neighborhoods to move out of them. Which means giving the government power to take money from people by force to give to other people - all to fix the fuckup that occured the last time government took money from people to give to other people?

    The next step is to forceably pack people up and move them in order to alter the ethnic makeup of neighborhoods. Forceable relocation. If you like your neighborhood you can keep your neighborhood.

    Addressing the sad status quo requires regulating the actions of private citizens, something that libertarians tend to resist.

    Yeah. You think? Because, as your own article points out, it didn't work out the last time the government tried regulating the actions of private citizens.
  • Agammamon||

    In this case, such resistance fails to consider the fact that segregation was created by the indefensible regulation of private citizens

    Mangu-Ward - is this one of those 'this is what our ideological opponents think' pieces? Because this guy has never met any libertarians.

    "'What shall we do with the Negro?' I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with
    us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!"

  • Agammamon||

    In this case, such resistance fails to consider the fact that segregation was created by the indefensible regulation of private citizens

    Squirrels are at it again.

    Mangu-Ward - is this one of those 'this is what our ideological opponents think' pieces? Because this guy has never met any libertarians.

    "'What shall we do with the Negro?' I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with
    us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!"

  • Marcus13||

    The average American will move 11 times during their lifetime. This article is based on policies that have been ended for at least 60 years. The economic disparity between racial groups is the only thing "preventing" full integration. A healthy economy with full employment will go farther toward correcting this housing inequity than any new government edict.

  • vek||

    While this is true, it is also unlikely that the gaps will ever close fully. Even if it did magically, people DO prefer to be around their own. See ethnic neighborhoods that sprung into existence AFTER segregation was ended, like Hispanic neighborhoods, Asian neighborhoods, etc. This IS self imposed, because people prefer it.

  • Echospinner||

    If you want to see what racist segregation is and was in America look up the history of progessive Portland Oregon.

    "The whitest city in America"

  • BigT||

    Rothstein correctly describes the problem and it's genesis in his book The Color of Law. However, when he says:

    "But if we learn and remember that residential segregation results primarily from forceful and unconstitutional government policy, we can begin to consider equally forceful public action to reverse it."

    He is proposing to attempt to correct one injustice with another. Two wrongs don't make a right.

  • Echospinner||

    There is still bigotry and prejudice and nothing the government can do anything about. I have seen it in my own community. We have a top suburban school system. Certain projects to build apartments, zoning requirements, get cancelled or changed and you know it is to keep "them" out. Nobody says it out loud but it is there.

    I like telling stories. We live in an HOA. When we bought our house the owners met us to see if we wanted to keep certain things they had.

    So as we were were talking the wife leans over in a conspiratorial whisper. She says "I have to tell you. The people next door. They are Jews. But don't worry they are nice"

    Could barely suppress breaking out in laughter. Good thing we had not unpacked the menorah and mezuzah yet. They must have flipped when they found out.

  • vek||

    Why shouldn't people fight against forced, government funded, relocation plans?

    The fact is that poor people commit more crimes. An entire city that was run together with my home town went to shit when projects were built there back in the day. The whole damn thing, a nice, gorgeous little town, went down hill never to return... Why wouldn't somebody fight against that kind of bullshit social engineering? And the truth is janky ass white people can and do move into those places too, not just poor blacks/Hispanics/etc.

    It's not the governments place to decide we need to force different people to live with each other. It's especially not cool since it has negative effects on the people that lived in a previously nice area.

  • cc2||

    Current progressives have a mania to use power (ie the gov) to force people to be good, but this history demonstrates that it can just as easily go the other way. To treat government as if it was an angel is naive. Gov is just power. It can do good or terrible things. It is not the universal cure for human failings.

  • Robert||

    Why did the US gov't adopt those policies? Seriously, I'd like to know.

    Meanwhile, though, I think housing segregation continues as a de facto process, as shown by the towns Hispanics have been moving into in NW NJ. They tend to go for certain places, & to some degree where they move in, non-Hispanics tend to move out. What current gov't policy is causing this process?

  • Echospinner||

    Freedom is what is causing it.

    People living and associating by choice.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It is not limited to Hispanics.

    In what would become Poletown in19th century Detroit, middle-class blacks moved out as Polish immigrants moved in.

    The thing is, there is no possible remedy for this long-ago misconduct, except possibly monetary compensation to those individuals who were prevented from purchasing a home or getting a mortgage because of their race. There have been too many demographic shifts.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Freedom is what is causing it.

    People living and associating by choice.

    Well yes and no.

    People are nonetheless constrained in their choices by past choices made by others, perhaps on their behalf. So yes we are all free to choose where to live among a range of choices. But that set of possible choices may be smaller, or larger, than what it could have been had it not been for some of the negative, or positive, choices in the past.

    For example, if I am a convicted felon, then the range of possible housing choices available to me is lower than if I hadn't been. That range of freedom that I experience in the present day is limited by the poor choices I made in the past.

    Furthermore, if I am living in a regime of discrimination, and treated as if I were a convicted felon, then the same dynamic applies, yet it's not due to my own poor choices, just due to the environment around me.

  • vek||

    Blargh.

    Dude, his point is 100% correct. There's a reason that ethnic enclaves have formed AFTER all this stuff ended. It's because those people chose to live with mostly their own kind. Look at LA. There are neighborhoods there that are comparably priced, some where blacks live, some where Hispanics live... But they tend to be almost completely segregated ethnically. The Hispanics SUB SORT based on country of origin to a large degree even!

    That ain't got nothing to do with nothing except that people PREFER it that way. And understandably so. I'd flip my shit if I lived in a neighborhood where nobody spoke English and everybody was mean mugging me as if I didn't belong there.

  • Tul­pa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Newsflash: It's not 1963 anymore. Segregation is long gone, and we have spent billions remedying the effects.

    Ironically, the Black family was in better shape in 1963.

  • MSimon||

    The Democrats have it all figured out.

    Racism is bad and so are white people - The New Democrats.

  • MSimon||

    The Democrats have it all figured out.

    Racism is bad and so are white people - The New Democrats.

  • Ed Grinberg||

    "Addressing the sad status quo requires regulating the actions of private citizens, something that libertarians tend to resist. In this case, such resistance fails to consider the fact that..."
    liberal / progressive / leftist template (generally applicable):
    1. The status quo is sad (unfair, inequitable, disparate, etc.).
    2. The government should (must!) address the status quo. (And, of course, all resisters will be shot.)
    Compassion!

  • vek||

    This article is SO out of line for being published in Reason I don't even know what to say... It is outright promoting massive government programs to engineer neighborhoods based along demographic lines... WTF.

    First off, these choices ARE self imposed. It's already been said above, but explain to me how all the NEW ethnic enclaves formed LONG after this stuff stopped existing? Why are there Honduran neighborhoods in LA, when they CLEARLY should have seeded themselves mathematically throughout the whole LA area instead of in certain neighborhoods?

    Also, why is it that Asians, who make MORE money than whites and can live wherever they want, have chosen to take over entire suburbs of Seattle where I live? Didn't they know Progs think they should have seeded themselves throughout the mostly white metro area in perfect proportions?

    That isn't anything but the natural human preference to be around your own people. Period. You see this in friend groups too. Look at groups of people out on Friday night. Asians together, blacks together, whites together... Often times with a token or two, because people aren't explicitly racist anymore... But still most people hang mostly with their own people. It's not "evil" it's just human nature.

  • vek||

    As far as whining about income gaps... It's all about average IQ.

    IQ correlates perfectly with the average income from all ethnic groups. There's a reason Hispanics come here not even speaking the language, and STILL have higher incomes than blacks who were frankly given far more opportunity as native born Americans. It's because Hispanics have higher IQs. There are geniuses and idiots of all races, but the differences in mean average are considerable.

    This need not be a "racist" position either, for those of your scared of such things. SOME people think IQ gaps, which are well established, are caused by environmental factors. Mind you, they've never been able to come up with any factors that close the gaps fully... But it is an article of faith among prog scientists that study intelligence that there must be SOMETHING other than genetics that causes the gap.

    So feel free to believe in that. But IQ gaps 100% explain ALL the disparities between ethnicities we observe in the world today. Blacks make the same income as whites of the same IQ, it's only the difference in distribution that creates the different aggregate outcomes.

  • TryonIsDoomed||

    Fascinating article! I am linking to it for a lesson as part of my International Baccalaureate Diploma Program's History of the Americas class. We are studying the Great Depression, and this information on the "holy" New Deal is a perfect antidote to all the glorifying rubbish that is normally available.
    Thanks!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Rothstein throws around the word "unconstitutional" with regard to specific racially discriminatory aspects of FDR's "New Deal" programs and legislation. In fact the entirety of the "New Deal" was (and is ) unconstitutional to begin with.

    What was unconstitutional about the WPA building housing projects was that the federal government was building housing projects period - not that it was doing so in a racially discriminatory manner. That is not pursuant to any enumerated power delegated to the federal government as required by the 10th Amendment.

    Ditto for the National Labor Relations Act. Mandating that companies negotiate with labor unions is a violation of the 14th Amendment right to freedom of contract and a violation of the 10th Amendment that confines the federal government to enumerated powers. It was unconstitutional in it's entirety - not just the racially discriminatory portion of it.