tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post4920967883465227020..comments2024-03-22T06:05:36.544-04:00Comments on Kids Prefer Cheese: Letter to the EditorMungowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-25545954497006511442010-07-09T11:15:22.962-04:002010-07-09T11:15:22.962-04:00Mungo--Rand Paul, not Ron. Rand seems much more of...Mungo--Rand Paul, not Ron. Rand seems much more of a politician (in the bad way)Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-15877080340397312452010-07-09T11:07:56.887-04:002010-07-09T11:07:56.887-04:00Anon is quite correct -- Mr. Coates's simple s...Anon is quite correct -- Mr. Coates's simple statement, taken out of context, is patently false: "Private firms if left alone do not discriminate." I say "patently," not "empirically," because no first has ever been left alone (not interfered with by a government). But, OF COURSE, the directors of businesses make mistakes. The point needing to be made is more complex. Here's an improved, but still not quite fully correct version: "In any society sufficiently ethically aware to make and enforce anti-discrimination laws, it is a costly business error to engage in discrimination, even in the absence of the anti-discrimination laws."<br /><br />The "not quite right" part here involves the definition of "discrimination." Law makers tend to be rigid, where they're not impossibly vague and much is left to prosecutors (sometimes to juries) about what is and is not discrimination. As Sean pointed out, some discrimination is good. And some is good enough for the society it is in, even though some more enlightened society might find it invidious.<br /><br />The unfortunate effect of Mr. Coates's poorly worded statement is that it has focused us on the wrong question. The question seems to be "what social mechanisms produce perfectly ethical businesses?" When that question is explicitly stated, it's obviously stupid. Government can't do it and the market can't do it. Ever. The question should be "what social mechanisms can best push businesses toward our society's ethical standards while minimizing harmful side effects?" There is a near universal tendency to compare the Market with Perfection, while giving Government a pass.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08574355302581451838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-16499345973362642882010-07-09T10:59:37.060-04:002010-07-09T10:59:37.060-04:00I was going to say what BR already said. Jim Crow...I was going to say what BR already said. Jim Crow was government sponsored apartheid.<br /><br />And, I think that Ron Paul is WRONG, at least about this. I'm just claiming that the worst thing to do was to make a point, and then run away squealing. If he believes this view, he should defend it.Mungowitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-69947296575098240232010-07-08T22:57:50.406-04:002010-07-08T22:57:50.406-04:00How are Jim Crow *LAWS* an example of *FIRMS* disc...How are Jim Crow *LAWS* an example of *FIRMS* discriminating?<br /><br />The key is that in the long-run firms do not discriminate. The firms that innovate by hiring [initially] cheap minority labor will drive out the firms that don't. Also notable is the potential reduction in white resentment which might have occurred had the firms chosen to hire minorities on their own as opposed to being forced into it.<br /><br />Of course you could argue that in the long-run we (er the former slaves) are all dead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-29771960473618092022010-07-08T22:22:51.744-04:002010-07-08T22:22:51.744-04:00I think that's more than a different angle... ...I think that's more than a different angle... it's a different issue. My claim is not about what people have a right to do. It is about the truth value of the statement, "Private firms if left alone do not discriminate." I think it is low. About rights and remedies, I make no claim.<br /><br />Is discrimination less prevalent today than in the past? I'll buy that. But to convince me market forces are sufficient to prevent it AT ALL will be a bit more difficult. Is there a "price" a la Becker? Sure, but it's a price that some will pay. And to claim that it does not occur will damage one's credibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-55059228003340893692010-07-08T22:12:00.279-04:002010-07-08T22:12:00.279-04:00Anon--times were a bit different during Jim Crow, ...Anon--times were a bit different during Jim Crow, no? How would you expect the public to react if wall-mart came out with such a sign today? <br />On the other hand, the Dodgers management could have been extreme racists but would have still benefited from hiring Jackie Robinson. <br />I've heard a good question that comes at this issue from another angle: <br />Does a black business-owner have the right to refuse business to a white supremacist?; or does a Holocaust survivor have the right to refuse business to a neo-Nazi wearing a "Heil Hitler" T-shirt?Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-68923359053382760002010-07-08T21:40:11.837-04:002010-07-08T21:40:11.837-04:00"Private firms if left alone do not discrimin..."Private firms if left alone do not discriminate"<br /><br />Sympathetic though I am to liberalism, I have to chuckle when I read sentences like this. It's the sort of claim that makes people not take liberals seriously. (Rand Paul a case in point.) The reason is that it is a manifest empirical falsehood. Consider decades of Jim Crow laws and "Blacks need not apply" advertisements in the South. Say what you want about the distortionary effects of government efforts to FIX the problem, but to deny the existence of a problem is really bizarre.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com