2010 Mid-term Election season starts in the U.S.

[Cybrweez]

I am not wrong that no one is advocating IN THIS THREAD the failed policies you mentioned. Which is what I said.

Wait a minute, that's slipping out of a good point. Your argument, or part of it, was that since free market failed in past, no reason to believe it will work now. Z countered by saying it's likely you don't hold to that reasoning for other issues, a valid counter to your argument. Either you can say no, anything that's failed thru out history shows it's not valid, or you can let us know why in this particular instance it's a valid argument.

[Zarathustra]

I am not wrong that no one is advocating IN THIS THREAD the failed policies you mentioned. Which is what I said.

Wait a minute, that's slipping out of a good point. Your argument, or part of it, was that since free market failed in past, no reason to believe it will work now. Z countered by saying it's likely you don't hold to that reasoning for other issues, a valid counter to your argument. Either you can say no, anything that's failed thru out history shows it's not valid, or you can let us know why in this particular instance it's a valid argument.

Ah, a much better, more concise way to address this point. That's what I meant about the "logical form" of WF's response. Either this requirement that we only try things that haven't failed in the past is a general principle, or the case of free markets controlling racism is a special case--which necessitates an explanation of why it's special and distinct from these other examples of failure.

[aliantha]

Question for you, btw: Are any of your neighbors of the minority persuasion?

I have no idea what their persuasions are, but we have at least 11 minority families on our cul de sac alone. What are you getting at?

Nothing. I was just curious.

[Avatar]

Man, I'm a bit confused.

Is Z suggesting that the free market forces would prevent people from discriminating against race in their business practices?

I mean, I can see the argument that, for example, people might choose not to support an openly racist business, either through their own principles, or through fear of being ostracised.

Whether that is a free market solution to racism though, I'm not sure it follows.

Is the free market ever an effective solution? I'm not sure...we've never really had free markets, have we? (And of course, even that aside, I'm not convinced that it is in many cases...free markets, (really free ones), encourage monopoly just as much as "unfree" ones.

In fact monopoly is the free market capitalist dream, isn't it? (And if not, it should be...)

--A

[Zarathustra]

Av, I'm not saying it could stop racism. Not even the CRA does that. The only thing that can ever change people's hearts is social pressure (education, condemnation, parenting, etc.).

I do think that it could manage racism, just as the "market place of ideas" manages racist speech. It's certainly not popular to voice racist opinions. It would be just as unpopular (if not moreso) to conduct business in this manner. The same pressure that keeps racist speech to a minimum would work even better if your livelihood depended on it.

And no, monopolies aren't the free market dream. Competition is the force of progress.

[Vraith]

Is Z suggesting that the free market forces would prevent people from discriminating against race in their business practices?

I mean, I can see the argument that, for example, people might choose not to support an openly racist business, either through their own principles, or through fear of being ostracised.

I don't think he's suggesting it would under all conditions...I think he's suggesting that we may have a more sophisticated, mature, reasonable society on racial issues now than earlier [and certainly more integration and equality], so it might go that way now...and he might be right, too. [this is one of those cases where I want Z to be absolutely correct: I want racist jerks to go out of business or change their ways just because we, as a people, won't support them].
I don't think it would stop racist attitudes, of course...but it would put pretty serious limits on racist behaviors...possibly. I'm not as optimistic about either free-markets or our social maturity at this moment in time: I believe the result would be more partisanship/fragmentation/division in our society as a whole [and I want to be wrong about that].

[Avatar]

But the ideal of each competitor is to "win" by ending up with a monopoly. Maybe it's not the markets dream, but it's the dream of participants in the market. Not sure how different that really is.

As for the rest, OK, I see what you're saying. Of course, it wouldn't manage racism. What it could manage would be the practice of racism controlling who could buy what where. Maybe.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Av, sure companies would love to become monopolies. Sure they would love for the market to not be free. That's why they spend so much on lobbying and seek the government as their partner and thus create crony capitalism.

One final point on the power of the free market regarding racism ... right now it's perfectly legal for people to voice whatever political or social opinion they want, even racist opinions. No law is stopping stores or companies from making their racist opinions known now (if they have them). So in order to believe that companies would start discriminating if it were suddenly legal, you'd have to believe that there are vast numbers of companies right now who would love to do it if they could--while simultaneously refraining from voicing hate speech even though they can.

That's nonsensical, in my opinion. In the end, we're all talking about our expectations of hypothetical behavior. In making that determination, we can look at how businesses behaved half a century ago, or we can look how they behave now. Given the fact that they don't take advantage of perfectly legal forms of racism now, I think a pent-up desire to expand this racism into actual behavior is highly unlikely. The same exact market force which keeps Walmart or Mom&Pop from voicing racist opinions would also keep them from acting on those opinions.

[wayfriend]

I am not wrong that no one is advocating IN THIS THREAD the failed policies you mentioned. Which is what I said.

Wait a minute, that's slipping out of a good point. Your argument, or part of it, was that since free market failed in past, no reason to believe it will work now. Z countered by saying it's likely you don't hold to that reasoning for other issues,

Z is wrong about my reasoning on other issues. Need I say it? He makes all arguments about who he's debating, and not about the issue.

What's that definition of insane? Do the same thing and expect different results?

And are you suggesting that there's no reason not to give the welfare state another try? or the War on Drugs? Et al? I mean, they might work this time, right?

I think you guys are running out of argument if your resorting to this level of inane rebuttal.

[Lord Mhoram]

Whew, I know this is a bit late given the popularity of this discussion, but when I point out that I don't care if the moral right of the government to end discrimination is subjective or not, I'm not being complacent or lazy or quietist about the way things are. I'm expressing my approval of the way things are. I think the expansion of federal power since Lincoln has been a net positive. I think a robust government has provided us with public services, benefits, and opportunities that we wouldn't want to do without. Minority rights wouldn't exist without federal initiatives (nor would they have been denied without federal obstruction and complacency before, of course). We should always be wary of insidiousness in the government and of authoritarianism. But that's what democracy and pluralism are for. That's what makes our system of government the greatest the world has ever seen. When SCOTUS handed down Brown, they were circumventing up-or-down democracy in the short run, and improving it in the name of pluralism in the long run. Worries about threats to democracy in the form of civil rights law are all well and good. I just don't think they're compelling for any evidentiary reasons (as I covered in my last post) nor for any philosophical ones for the reasons I've mentioned here, while I think the benefits of such law have been overwhelming.

[Zarathustra]

Z is wrong about my reasoning on other issues. Need I say it? He makes all arguments about who he's debating, and not about the issue.

You're the only one making this personal. I'm just addressing your points.

What's that definition of insane? Do the same thing and expect different results?

Well, obviously, that's not really the definition of "insane." It's a popular expression used to appeal to common sense, and thus vulnerable to over-simplification in order to pretend that two things are actually "the same" when they're not--all in order to make a snide comment (cheap shot) against the person you're talking about.

A better definition of "insane" is probably: a refusal or inability to recognize factual reality. Clearly, times have changed, people have changed, and proposing that market forces can manage racism in 2010 is not AT ALL "the same" as suggesting it 100 years ago.

And are you suggesting that there's no reason not to give the welfare state another try? or the War on Drugs? Et al? I mean, they might work this time, right?

I think you guys are running out of argument if your resorting to this level of inane rebuttal.

Good thing we're not!

[Avatar]

Av, sure companies would love to become monopolies. Sure they would love for the market to not be free. That's why they spend so much on lobbying and seek the government as their partner and thus create crony capitalism.

But a free market wouldn't stop the creation of monopolies. In fact, all it would do is remove any legal (artificial) barriers to it. I mean, we already have price fixing and other types of corporate collusion, and they're not allowed. Without regulation, there'd be no checks on it at all.

So in order to believe that companies would start discriminating if it were suddenly legal, you'd have to believe that there are vast numbers of companies right now who would love to do it if they could--while simultaneously refraining from voicing hate speech even though they can.

I don't believe all companies would do it. Or even most companies. That's not really what it's about. It's about legitimising active discrimination. Passive discrimination, (which is protected by freedom of speech/expression), is a different thing entirely.

We can't control what people think. We can however prevent them from acting on it. (Well, not prevent, but discourage and act against.)

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

But the ideal of each competitor is to "win" by ending up with a monopoly. Maybe it's not the markets dream, but it's the dream of participants in the market. Not sure how different that really is.

On the micro scale, perhaps. But what you have to factor it is when businesses get larger inefficencies build up over time. Eventually, without government to prop up businesses that are "too big to fail", big businesses will start failing as smaller business with better innovations and better efficiency outcompete larger ones. Additionally, without government invervetion, when those large business collapse, in an inevitable downturn, their capital and assets will be sold to other businesses that will be able to use that capital and those assets more efficently.

To address the question at hand. If a business refuses to serve Minority Group X they are reducing their cashflow and increasing their costs. Another business that comes into the community willing to serve everyone will have a wider customer base and can charge less than the racist business. Unless the entire community wants to support the racist business the lower prices will draw them away from the racist business and the non-racist business.

As for the rest, OK, I see what you're saying. Of course, it wouldn't manage racism. What it could manage would be the practice of racism controlling who could buy what where. Maybe.

--A

I've always wanted to change people's hearts in addition to their behavior. That's a more lasting solution to racism. I think the market solution is more likely to provide the former.

[SerScot]

LM,

We should always be wary of insidiousness in the government and of authoritarianism. But that's what democracy and pluralism are for.

If we are going to accept the increasingly centralized government in the U.S. (as the Federal Government gets more and more and more power) do you think we should expand the size of the House of Representatives? Right now each representative, on average, 689,255 people. That's before accounting for the increase in population after the 2010 census. If all the power is going to be concentrated in the Federal government I believe the size of the more representative body in that governmen must increase. The bullshit about "Well we can't fit any more people in the house chamber" needs to go the way of the dodo.

Additionally, in the age of teleconferencing, videoconferencing, internet meetings, and secure online communications I'm not sure having all our representatives in the Capital makes sense. Perhaps the Congress should be turned into a museum and the individual representatives stay home and meet online to debate legislation. That way they aren't thousands of miles away from the people they are representing most of the year. It also cuts down on the need for two teams of staffers, one in DC and one in their home district.

What do you think?

[Zarathustra]

I've always wanted to change people's hearts in addition to their behavior. That's a more lasting solution to racism. I think the market solution is more likely to provide the former.

Yes. Persuasion, not force, is the only way to change people's hearts.

It's about legitimising active discrimination.

I don't believe it legitimizes discrimination to get the government out of private businesses, no more than the 1st amendment legitimizes hate speech.

[Vraith]

LM,

We should always be wary of insidiousness in the government and of authoritarianism. But that's what democracy and pluralism are for.

If we are going to accept the increasingly centralized government in the U.S. (as the Federal Government gets more and more and more power) do you think we should expand the size of the House of Representatives? Right now each representative, on average, 689,255 people. That's before accounting for the increase in population after the 2010 census. If all the power is going to be concentrated in the Federal government I believe the size of the more representative body in that governmen must increase. The bullshit about "Well we can't fit any more people in the house chamber" needs to go the way of the dodo.

Additionally, in the age of teleconferencing, videoconferencing, internet meetings, and secure online communications I'm not sure having all our representatives in the Capital makes sense. Perhaps the Congress should be turned into a museum and the individual representatives stay home and meet online to debate legislation. That way they aren't thousands of miles away from the people they are representing most of the year. It also cuts down on the need for two teams of staffers, one in DC and one in their home district.

What do you think?

I don't know what LM thinks, but yea, there should be more Representatives...any number is going to be arbitrary...the early 1800's it was @ 1 per 50,000 the first fixed session @ 1 per 210,000.
1 per 250k or so sounds good to me, one office too. Maybe increase terms to 4 years so they have a chance to do something before they start campaigning again, and rotate like the senate [say, 1/2 up for election every 2 years]
This, along with getting the outlandish cash out of our elections, might get more of people power into gov't. [something has to be done about the district line-drawing process, too...'Pubs and 'Crats abuse this power outrageously]

[Zarathustra]

Yes, please! More government! We don't have nearly enough! We need more people being supported by tax-funded salaries. We need more opportunity for lobbyists to curry favor. We need bigger government buildings. More laws. More regulation. More fund raisers. More elections.

You guys are entirely too conservative (ahem) in your recommendations. I think the representative-to-citizen ratio should be 1:1!!

Fire them all and let each of us vote on every damn bill. I promise I'll read them first.

[Vraith]

You guys are entirely too conservative (ahem) in your recommendations. I think the representative-to-citizen ratio should be 1:1!!

Fire them all and let each of us vote on every damn bill. I promise I'll read them first.

Nice, thanks for the chuckle...though not fully laughing, cuz in theory, I'm not really opposed to this...in practice perhaps a bit, umm...unwieldy?

[Lord Mhoram]

Scot,

I definitely support representational reform. I do not support, however, direct democracy. I like the republican system.

[SerScot]

LM,

Scot,

I definitely support representational reform. I do not support, however, direct democracy. I like the republican system.

What about keeping the Representatives at home?

Zarathustra,

You missed my qualifier. I'm this is a good idea only if we accept the Federal Government is going to continue centralizing power. Additionally, you didn't comment on my idea of keeping the Representatives at home and out of Washington.