SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
In a number of threads in ncap, there has been discussion about businesses discriminating against people for non-productive reasons i.e. racism, sexism etc
Often the claim is that if racist companies were left to their own devices, we would see segregation, with blacks (or whoever) missing out on access to vital services and becoming second class citizens etc
A stateless society, then, would see the ultimate manifestation of this problem, or so the statist would claim.
However, the following article explains why this is not the case.
(omg multiple paragraphs?! sorry my attention span isn't long enough tl;dr)
--------------------------------------------
From: Fringe Elements
The state is used by whoever commands the fantasy structure to impose law that would not have occurred on a free market.
Now let’s be clear: the state forces kids to go to school, does this mean that there would be no school on a free market? No, it means that school would not exist in the way it does today (and good riddance). Similarly, the state makes it illegal to murder and rape, does this mean there would be no murder and rape on a free market? No, it’s just that enforcement against murderers and rapists would be different.
In a democracy, the majority commands the fantasy structure of the state. On a free market, the majority would “hold sway” on the laws in the bulk of municipalities. For example, if 70% of the world population opposed polyamory and 30% supported it, laws against polyamory would apply in over 70% of the world’s townships, perhaps 80%.
If asked, the 80% would say they oppose polyamory. But if you ask them to pick up some guns and go stop the 20% from engaging in polyamorous marriages, they would be hesistant. You may find a hardcore group of religious fanatics who choose to invade the polyamorous areas, but the polyamorous population will be fighting with 100% force - since they’re being invaded, fighting is not an option. Because of this, it is very unlikely that the invading force will win.
But if the entire world (or whatever the population of analysis is) believed in a democratic state, then there could be a vote, and 70% would oppose polyamory, it would be outlawed over the entire population, not just say the 80% that would have occurred on a free market.
Lets say there is a society that supports not hiring black people for any job earning over $15/hour, supports keeping black people out of the schools their children go to, and want to send black people to the back of the bus. Lets say that 70% of the population supports these measures. Perhaps you can already see where I’m going with this.
Now it is more physically productive to use the entire labor force, and each firm would make more money by tapping into the black labor pool. Now a firm engaging in industrial work would have few qualms, as the product is made, and then shipped to stores, and nobody has to know it was partly made by black people.
And so an industrialist, even if he disliked employing black people, would have an incentive to do so. If he didn’t, then any competitor that did would destroy him. If his competitor, by employing blacks, could produce the same product for 5% less, could price just blow profit and destroy the racist firm.
At the point of the firm where there is direct interaction with the customer, the firm may actually find it more profitable to not hire black people… in the 70% areas. So in a stateless society if there were 70% Jim Crow racism (lets say 15% of the population is black and 15% are whites who oppose it), it would only apply to the direct customer interaction in ~80% of the townships. This leaves the blacks in my scenario with 20% of the townships as possible retail employment zones while only being 15% of the population, and would have access to virtually 100% of non-retail industry.
And without a state, law would be difficult to apply to areas outside of explicit community of that law because:
1. Enforcement of the Jim Crow laws outside of that community would require volunteers. While they may support Jim Crow laws when asked, that doesn’t mean they want to fight a war over it.
2. These volunteers would be going up against the financial interests of industry.
And because of this, large industries which were not necessarily localized to a given municipality would employ blacks.
So what does the state do? Well for industry the state can say “no blacks”, and each firm could hire just whites with no worry about another firm that hired blacks outcompeting them.
And of course the state can then impose the Jim Crow laws in areas that do not support them, so instead of 80% of the townships having Jim Crow laws that would occur in a free market, 100% ended up having them. The democratic state is mob absolutism.
Lastly, on a free market the blacks would not have been prevented from earning higher paying jobs, but more importantly blacks would have been integrated into some structure of production. The old stereotype of the lazy negro is just a reflection of the fact that they were legally barred from getting good jobs easily. And this stereotype caused by the behavior caused by the state imposing barriers to employment caused whites in the former confederate states to view the blacks poorly.
If they had been working more - as they would have been on a free market - the conception of black people certainly would have been better, and anti-black racism would have phased out sooner, and of course blacks (and whites) would all be better off.
Today racism is exacerbated because of voting wars. Poor people voting themselves “rich” people’s money. And “rich” means the working rich, not the politically connected super rich that don’t pay taxes. And poor people tend to be more black and brown than rich people who tend to be more white.
And so the population which doesn’t want to be extorted will hate the population that is extorting them - the population that is disproportionately brown and black.
At any point in history, any way you cut it up, the answer is always freedom. Forcing populations into voting wars and making simple majority preference absolute law never fosters anything but hate.
Lastly for the Montgomery Bus lines, most of their customers were black. The bus lines made blacks sit in the back not as company policy, but because it was the state law. Any line that didn’t force blacks to sit in the back would have cornered the market, but couldn’t.
Often the claim is that if racist companies were left to their own devices, we would see segregation, with blacks (or whoever) missing out on access to vital services and becoming second class citizens etc
A stateless society, then, would see the ultimate manifestation of this problem, or so the statist would claim.
However, the following article explains why this is not the case.
(omg multiple paragraphs?! sorry my attention span isn't long enough tl;dr)
--------------------------------------------
From: Fringe Elements
The state is used by whoever commands the fantasy structure to impose law that would not have occurred on a free market.
Now let’s be clear: the state forces kids to go to school, does this mean that there would be no school on a free market? No, it means that school would not exist in the way it does today (and good riddance). Similarly, the state makes it illegal to murder and rape, does this mean there would be no murder and rape on a free market? No, it’s just that enforcement against murderers and rapists would be different.
In a democracy, the majority commands the fantasy structure of the state. On a free market, the majority would “hold sway” on the laws in the bulk of municipalities. For example, if 70% of the world population opposed polyamory and 30% supported it, laws against polyamory would apply in over 70% of the world’s townships, perhaps 80%.
If asked, the 80% would say they oppose polyamory. But if you ask them to pick up some guns and go stop the 20% from engaging in polyamorous marriages, they would be hesistant. You may find a hardcore group of religious fanatics who choose to invade the polyamorous areas, but the polyamorous population will be fighting with 100% force - since they’re being invaded, fighting is not an option. Because of this, it is very unlikely that the invading force will win.
But if the entire world (or whatever the population of analysis is) believed in a democratic state, then there could be a vote, and 70% would oppose polyamory, it would be outlawed over the entire population, not just say the 80% that would have occurred on a free market.
Lets say there is a society that supports not hiring black people for any job earning over $15/hour, supports keeping black people out of the schools their children go to, and want to send black people to the back of the bus. Lets say that 70% of the population supports these measures. Perhaps you can already see where I’m going with this.
Now it is more physically productive to use the entire labor force, and each firm would make more money by tapping into the black labor pool. Now a firm engaging in industrial work would have few qualms, as the product is made, and then shipped to stores, and nobody has to know it was partly made by black people.
And so an industrialist, even if he disliked employing black people, would have an incentive to do so. If he didn’t, then any competitor that did would destroy him. If his competitor, by employing blacks, could produce the same product for 5% less, could price just blow profit and destroy the racist firm.
At the point of the firm where there is direct interaction with the customer, the firm may actually find it more profitable to not hire black people… in the 70% areas. So in a stateless society if there were 70% Jim Crow racism (lets say 15% of the population is black and 15% are whites who oppose it), it would only apply to the direct customer interaction in ~80% of the townships. This leaves the blacks in my scenario with 20% of the townships as possible retail employment zones while only being 15% of the population, and would have access to virtually 100% of non-retail industry.
And without a state, law would be difficult to apply to areas outside of explicit community of that law because:
1. Enforcement of the Jim Crow laws outside of that community would require volunteers. While they may support Jim Crow laws when asked, that doesn’t mean they want to fight a war over it.
2. These volunteers would be going up against the financial interests of industry.
And because of this, large industries which were not necessarily localized to a given municipality would employ blacks.
So what does the state do? Well for industry the state can say “no blacks”, and each firm could hire just whites with no worry about another firm that hired blacks outcompeting them.
And of course the state can then impose the Jim Crow laws in areas that do not support them, so instead of 80% of the townships having Jim Crow laws that would occur in a free market, 100% ended up having them. The democratic state is mob absolutism.
Lastly, on a free market the blacks would not have been prevented from earning higher paying jobs, but more importantly blacks would have been integrated into some structure of production. The old stereotype of the lazy negro is just a reflection of the fact that they were legally barred from getting good jobs easily. And this stereotype caused by the behavior caused by the state imposing barriers to employment caused whites in the former confederate states to view the blacks poorly.
If they had been working more - as they would have been on a free market - the conception of black people certainly would have been better, and anti-black racism would have phased out sooner, and of course blacks (and whites) would all be better off.
Today racism is exacerbated because of voting wars. Poor people voting themselves “rich” people’s money. And “rich” means the working rich, not the politically connected super rich that don’t pay taxes. And poor people tend to be more black and brown than rich people who tend to be more white.
And so the population which doesn’t want to be extorted will hate the population that is extorting them - the population that is disproportionately brown and black.
At any point in history, any way you cut it up, the answer is always freedom. Forcing populations into voting wars and making simple majority preference absolute law never fosters anything but hate.
Lastly for the Montgomery Bus lines, most of their customers were black. The bus lines made blacks sit in the back not as company policy, but because it was the state law. Any line that didn’t force blacks to sit in the back would have cornered the market, but couldn’t.
Last edited:
