Ahhhh Ron Paul Ahhhhhh

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Ron Paul, presidential candidate, says he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, saying that it violated property rights and the free market alone would have brought about civil equality.

Here's the original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26sprb4V ... dded#at=11

And here's part of Brad DeLong's commentary, entitled "Ron Paul: Get the Government Out of My Government!" which I find pretty insightful. (I'd say follow the link but, let's face it, you don't have time for that):

...When you own a hotel and bar Black people what happens is that if Black people comes in and sleep in the beds you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass. When you own a bus and require Black people to sit in the back and Black people sits in the front you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass. When you own a lunch counter and make it whites-only if Black people sit down at the lunch counter you call the police--functionaries of the state--and they then take the Black people away and charge them with trespass.

Ron Paul's belief is that the state should assist in amplifying social and political crises and injustices whenever the propertied wish to provoke them.

Private fee-simple property is, after all, an institution established and enforced by the government. You can hardly get the government out of what is, fundamentally, the government's core business.

Now I'm used to seeing politicians say some fairly shocking things—I watch the Daily Show, after all—but this is just insane.

[UnluckyStuntman]

So... capitalism would have eventually ended racial discrimination? Really, Ron Paul? I'm kind of hoping that I am just misinterpreting what he said, because that sounds insane to me.

[wired]

The Brad DeLong commentary is oversimplifying the issue.

If I own a house, and I don't want Mormons to come to my party, I can call the police and have them take away Mormons who come into my backyard for a party. Similarly, if I want to have a guys-only party, I can call the police and have them take away women. If I want a whites-only party, then I call the police and have them take away non-whites. Do you think the state shouldn't interfere in any of these instances? Should a private individual be forced to let black people from his neighborhood come to a BBQ, even if he doesn't want them there? Really, where does that line of thinking end? What if I don't like short people? Republicans? Certain religions? Do I have to open myself up to each of those?

Now, all of DeLong's examples deal with commercial interactions. To be fair, that is a much more workable case than the BBQ party I've talked about.

But again, his conclusion about property rights is reaching way too far. In essence, he is saying that gov't ought to be able to interfere with ANYONE'S property rights in ANY way it desires. That's fine if you want to adopt that as a first-principles political theory. But (1) American common law and the 14th Amendment haven't adopted that view at all, so his attack on Paul is on shaky ground and (2) I personally detest it as a political theory. The idea that we should structure a gov't so that no man actually owns anything devalues freedom in an unprecedented way. You are free to do anything that the rest of the world says you can. Persecution by property appropriation is some of the most effective persecution - think the 1870s-80s Mormons in the West. Yes, there are PLENTY of instances where we should tell an individual what they can or can't do with property - think toxic pollution. But to say a private individual has to associate with someone else because we think they should.... is that really freedom at all?

Paul would have voted against all parts of the 1964 CRA would be those that required private individuals to associate with people who they didn't want to associate with. He would have upheld all parts of it that would have voted for all parts that require the gov't to treat individuals on equal footing. His assertion that economics would have ended racism is both founded and a little misguided. There is no question it would not eradicate racism; but the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't do that either. Would economics have decreased it as much as the 1964 Civil Rights Act did? This is what Paul is really referring to. He thinks the incentives in the market would have encouraged people to engage in cross-racial associations and move racism in the same direction. Economic theory (theory mind you) holds it probably would have. An individual who faces a higher demand (and lower infrastructure costs for desegregating facilities) would be able to capture higher profits than others. At some price point, the utility from discrimination would be outweighed by the utility for more money, and shop owners would desegregate. This of course, faces stipulations and assumptions that are contestable. But its not an unheard of argument or even a silly one (look to the Colonial North shortly after founding... no government enforced association, but it occurs.) Would it have decreased racism as quickly as the 1964 CRA did. I don't know. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't. But would the 1964 CRA ended racism as quickly as an Act that forced people to host home dinners with those of other races? Again, I'm inclined to think not, but I doubt we'd look at this last one as a permissible infringement on someone's freedom.

Final thing: do I personally think commercial entities should be allowed to discriminate? I think it definitely ought to be related to the necessity of the entity. Grocery stores shouldn't be able to boycott all black customers in an effort to get blacks to leave the area. But I don't think a golf course is necessary to anyone's modern survival and if that golf course doesn't want to engage in transactions with blacks, women, Mormons, white people, gays, Jehova's Witnesses, or goths, that's their business decision.

Edit: I should also mention, I have not voted for Ron Paul and I won't be voting for Ron Paul this go around. I am actually quite upset he is running because it will inevitably lead to less votes for Mitch Daniels, should he choose to run. Mitch Daniels is a GREAT choice for the Republican Party. He's more of a Reagan conservative than ANYONE who showed up in 2008 and he seems like a principled individual.

Also, I will almost certainly beat my head against a cement wall if Donald Trump chooses to run. There could be nothing worse for the Republican Party than Donald Trump running... and that includes Sarah Palin running, which wouldn't be as horrible for the Republican Party, but would personally annoy me.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

You're misreading DeLong, and actually proving his point.

DeLong is saying that since property rights are defined and enforced by the government, the terms of private property is in fact a government issue. Hence, you can't say that the government should not be involved in private property since by definition, government is always implicitly a factor in anything to do with private property. You can only say you "own" something because terms of ownership are written into the law, and enforced through government power.

Now, DeLong is not saying that the government should alter definitions and rules of private property in every single case. He's not saying that the government should make every decision about how private property is used. But any argument that the government has no business making any rules about private property is completely unfounded. Private property is not a morally neutral structure - it is a structure which favors the demands of property owners. And there are some times when the state shouldn't be a part of enforcing discrimination. Obviously, since this is a law-based society, there will always be instances when the state is legally obligated to do the wrong thing and unjustly persecute people. When that happens over and over again, maybe we ought to change some of those laws. I think we agree that this is reasonable.

[wired]

I suspect the difference between us might be reduced to a Locke v. Hobbes line of thinking. I think that property rights are a natural right which the state exists to protect, not define. When those property rights infringe with the property rights of others, then we can discuss gov't interference. The state's enforcement of my rights is totally disconnected from my motives - those rights exist and ought to be enforced. There are rights which can't be infringed and ex ante rules which must be followed.

From what I gather, you (and DeLong) view rights to be surrendered to the government who is supposed to act as a watchmen over all behavior. The state is an independent actor which should have its own will and judgment, acting only when it thinks prudent. There is no ex ante prediction about what a state must do, only an ex post application of its will.

Now, Paul goes much further than I do. Paul thinks that engaging in the free market is entirely an issue of property rights. I think the market (separate from private property) is something the state MUST regulate in order to help it achieve free market-like assumptions. (Paul seems to be more of a Milt Friedman, I seem to be more of a Hayek.) In my view, only regulation that is absolutely necessary to reach that is permissible. Discrimination that drives competitors from the market place (e.g. a broad ban on African Americans) would almost certainly go against that. Thus, I think it's perfectly permissible to enact laws that prohibit discrimination so long as the interest is one of necessity.

[Democritus]

Not really adding much to the discussion, but didn't Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son, say the same sort of thing last year? I recall people saying that these comments signaled the "end of [his] senatorial campaign."

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Wired:

You're right, I don't think I believe in natural rights. Rights are socially, institutionally, ideologically, AND legally defined. So (in a democracy) rights only exist legally AFTER representatives legislate socially-agreed-upon values. For instance, in Canada, health care for every one was not a right until the people and their representatives decided to make it a right, and then defined and enforced that right through laws and programs. On the other hand, while I personally believe that unborn fetuses in most cases ought to have a right to life (about as close to a natural right as I'm going to get), this is not reflected in our law, and thus I can't correctly say that fetuses have a right to live without making it clear that in our society, fetuses don't have a right to live. However, if there arose a broad consensus in opinion about the rights of fetuses, that could become enshrined in our laws and become a de facto right. That's how I see it anyway.

I don't view the government as the watchman over all behavior. Rights (and behaviors surrounding those rights) are taught and reinforced in a number of ways outside of government, and the government is bound to act according to law, which is written by representatives of the public conscious. If there are natural rights, private property (as we understand it) isn't one of them.

Democritus: Yeah, and that's why I find it so surprising that Ron went there.

[Marduk]

I really, really don't understand these libertarians that claim "ah! The market will solve everything! Just let the market take care of it!"

Do they really think that no other impulse in the world can possibly overcome the juggernaut of human greed?

(in other words, do they really think a racist will stop being a racist just because there's not as much profit in it?)

[thebigcheese]

(in other words, do they really think a racist will stop being a racist just because there's not as much profit in it?)

Depends how badly the racist needs the money. And if that racist owns a business, and his business has to compete against more progressive businesses who adopt non-racist policies, his business may not survive in the end because his competition can afford to do things that he simply cannot afford. So it may not be about greed and profit after all, it's more about the survival of your business amongst a sea of competitors. It's like survival of the fittest.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

But what if your highest-paying customers are racists?

[Marduk]

TBC, no business operates on that thin of margins. Unless a market were overwhelmingly opposed to anything that seemed like it was racist, the "market forces" simply would not be capable of forcing the issue. And as an economy grows increasingly global, you don't need to appeal to everyone. There exists a niche market for just about every product and business model that exists. If I opened a store that exclusively sold racist paraphanelia (I'm not even sure what that would be....Hitler posters?) and I only sold to white supremacists, I'm sure I could find enough of a market to make money.

[thebigcheese]

TBC, no business operates on that thin of margins.

I don't really agree with that...I guess it depends on the competitiveness of the industry. The more competitive the industry, the thinner your margins will be. I'm thinking in terms of fierce competition.

And you guys both brought up racist niche markets, which do exist. Ever seen a place that sells confederate flags? But I don't think most businesses couldn't survive with that business model. If the profit didn't kill them, the PR would.

(By the way, I should probably divulge that I'm partly arguing for the sake of playing devil's advocate here. I'm not totally sure where I fall on this issue. But my husband and I were discussing economics for a good two hours yesterday, so I've got a fresh taste for it right now. And I want to find a platform that I can support. I find this stuff incredibly interesting.)

[wired]

Do they really think that no other impulse in the world can possibly overcome the juggernaut of human greed?

For most, this is just an economics question. There's a price point for an individuals greed. If racism overcomes greed, then that price point should just be set infinitely high (or, if we wanted a model that could actually be solved, one that is substantially higher than an individuals' lifetime income.)

Removing it a little, I am a Lakers fan and I deplore the Celtics. Absolutely hate them. I would never choose to go to a sports bar in Boston during a Boston-L.A. game because I really wouldn't want to take the jabs or watch Celtics fans get excited about winning. I have a preference for not interacting with Boston fans during a game. Really, if you told me, "We'll pay for your meal and the ride to the sports bar," I wouldn't take it. If you told me, "We'll give you $50," I still wouldn't take it. But, there's definitely a price point at which I'll go - probably around $100.

Different racists have different price points. Some just don't know black people, so they're not found of hanging out with them because of what they've heard. I'm guessing their price point is low. A KKK Grand Imperial Wizard on the other hand, has a lot more riding on his racism. He hates black people and there's social status involved; his price point is VERY high. But this all leads to my next comment....

TBC, no business operates on that thin of margins. Unless a market were overwhelmingly opposed to anything that seemed like it was racist, the "market forces" simply would not be capable of forcing the issue. And as an economy grows increasingly global, you don't need to appeal to everyone. There exists a niche market for just about every product and business model that exists. If I opened a store that exclusively sold racist paraphanelia (I'm not even sure what that would be....Hitler posters?) and I only sold to white supremacists, I'm sure I could find enough of a market to make money.

This is true, but those are, as you say, niche markets. If I wanted to buy 100% racist-grown food (food grown only by racists and then transported by racist groups) I would face a serious mark up. Such an industry might survive in the market, appealing to those with racist concerns.

But, I think that confuses the point. It shouldn't be the gov't's business to morally impose on everyone its view of the world - liberals tend to be okay with this when discussing gay rights, but shun away from it on private racism. (I suspect because they view gay rights as morally laudable and racism as morally deplorable. That distinction seems like a very subjective one that is very variable. It also brings to whole issues of bigamy and consensual, adult incest.) If someone wants to be racist, they should be able to. The problem is (1) institutionalized racism (which Ron Paul and libertarians are wholeheartedly against) and (2) private racism that forces individuals out of property, e.g my example of boycotting blacks so they have to move out of a town. (which libertarians are split on). In the case you've given Marduk, no one is being forced out of property by the existence of a racist store. As TBC mentioned, in very competitive markets, profit margins are thin. (Not an independent source, but the Food Marketing Institute lists it at less than 1.46% - http://www.fmi.org/docs/facts_figs/Comp ... Profit.pdf) If you were to open a store - even in the heart of the South - and tried to exclude a high number of customers based on race, that profit margin would be tough to sustain. (You'd have to increase prices in order to compensate for your lost economies of scale, driving away many of the individuals who have a low price point.) I agree with you that it might be able to stay in business, but I definitely don't think it would become the norm.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

So I decided to do a little research (I'm not very far) on why the heck, if economic incentives are there, segregation would have lasted a hundred years after the slaves were freed. I found this article on the economics of civil rights. I'm literally only one article in, but here's an interesting quote:

In Alabama, with one of the longest industrial histories in the South, a survey of firms in all major branches of the economy found not a single case before the 1960s where management "drawing on cost calculations, business norms, or some abstract concept of justice, chose to desegregate the work place or break down job discrimination...Even in retrospect, off the record, within the confines of their own offices, businessmen did not recall that the racial order created any “impediments” or “difficulties” for their enterprises." African-American workers struggled against these barriers for years with little success. (2)

Another relevant quote:

Even in the early 1960s, surveys showed that southern community leaders overwhelmingly preferred segregation, balking only at extreme measures that jeopardized their primary goal of promoting economic growth. In a sense they had to be coerced to act in their own economic interest! (9)

[wired]

So I decided to do a little research (I'm not very far) on why the heck, if economic incentives are there, segregation would have lasted a hundred years after the slaves were freed. I found this article on the economics of civil rights. I'm literally only one article in, but here's an interesting quote:

In Alabama, with one of the longest industrial histories in the South, a survey of firms in all major branches of the economy found not a single case before the 1960s where management "drawing on cost calculations, business norms, or some abstract concept of justice, chose to desegregate the work place or break down job discrimination...Even in retrospect, off the record, within the confines of their own offices, businessmen did not recall that the racial order created any “impediments” or “difficulties” for their enterprises." African-American workers struggled against these barriers for years with little success. (2)

Another relevant quote:

Even in the early 1960s, surveys showed that southern community leaders overwhelmingly preferred segregation, balking only at extreme measures that jeopardized their primary goal of promoting economic growth. In a sense they had to be coerced to act in their own economic interest! (9)

Interesting paper. Thanks for the pointer. I do think he sweeps aside one authority in favor of another without really indicating why. (The Jacoway quote immediately preceding your second quote indicates a survey that white businessman were motivated by their own economic interest to desegregate.)

Again, I don't doubt that it would have taken longer to integrate absent the commerce regulations. Nor do I doubt an amount of racism would persist. But let make an argument on behalf of the economics eradicating racism side (which I don't know if I find myself believing, but I feel like I understand why they make it).

I think they would argue that the institutionalized racism (Jim Crow laws) denied individuals access to the resources necessary to be put on par with others. Thus, with the institutionalized bars gone, the economic impact would become more significant. As more blacks become more educated and more powerful business forces in other parts of the nation, it would open the door to more integration in the Southern region.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I'm gonna try to track down the Jacoway book at my library. I thought he was summarizing her.

[wired]

I'm gonna try to track down the Jacoway book at my library. I thought he was summarizing her.

I'm not more familiar with the Jacoway source; I could just be reading his summary of it differently than you.