Not being a libertarian, it’s quite possible that there’s a nuance here that eludes me. But it sure seems as if this is a contradiction in terms.
It is not enough to be passively “not racist.” We must be actively anti-racism.
A call to arms, certainly, but what does it mean? Cato’s Jonathan Blanks offers a beautifully written post:
Many of the oppressions America has foisted upon its citizens, particularly its black citizens, indeed came from government actors and agents. But a large number of offenses, from petty indignities to incidents of unspeakable violence, have been perpetrated by private individuals, or by government with full approval of its white citizens. I would venture that many, if not most libertarians—like the general American public—haven’t come to terms with the widespread, systemic subversion of markets and democracy American racism wreaked on its most marginalized citizens. Consequently, libertarians have concentrated rather myopically on government reform as the sole function of libertarian social critique without taking full reckoning of what markets have failed to correct throughout American history.
For those of us who’ve spent our adult lives toiling in the trenches of criminal law, this isn’t a particularly controversial sentiment. But what does this have to do with libertarianism? That markets haven’t fixed the problem of racism because we still have racism? Was there a time when free markets ruled America and was proven inadequate to the task?
Take, for example, the common libertarian/conservative trope: “We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.” Most people, outside of the few and most ardent socialists, should believe that is a fair statement. But to say such a thing as a general defense of the status quo assumes that the current American system offers roughly equal opportunity just because Jim Crow is dead. Yet, that cannot possibly be true.
Granted, it’s a platitude, but calling it a trope is deliberately denigrating. So that’s not a sound libertarian belief? Is it libertarian to believe that there must be equal outcomes? Perhaps some might offer this as a defense of the status quo, but that strikes me as a strawman. It’s an argument of principle, even though the status quo remains unacceptable. Is the question whether libertarians are good with racism, or whether libertarianism is the better political path in the long term, even if the status quo has yet to achieve racially Utopian outcomes?
Jonathan uses the example of “bad neighborhoods” to bolster his point, though he doesn’t tie it to anything libertarian-ish. But it’s not as good an example as he might think. The root of bad neighborhoods may well be grounded in racism and poverty, but that doesn’t mean gangbangers don’t live there and crime doesn’t happen.
Take a nice walk on 168th Street at 3 in the morning and tell your friends about it, if you survive. It may reflect a history of racism, but that gun at your head still fires bullets. If you’re good with handing over your money and wrist watch smartphone, because of racism, that’s fine. You may not be nearly as sanguine about the kicks to your head.
Much as we defend people accused of crime, it’s not because they’re necessarily innocent. No, not everyone. But not no one either. That’s reality, no matter how passionate you are about racism.
So what is a libertarian to do about all this?
As I mentioned in my previous essay, libertarians must recognize that racism still plays a practical and tangible role in the lives of American blacks. So long as libertarians brush racism aside as incidental or irrelevant to public policy, people who see and feel its effects in their neighborhoods, in their schools, and in their interactions with police, are unlikely to take what libertarians say seriously.
As I read this, the argument is that for libertarians to be taken seriously, they need to be progressives. So is this a confession that libertarianism is a failure and only by government micromanagement of all things racist can we overcome this blight? Is there something I’m missing? There doesn’t appear to be any libertarian principle involved in the “racism is terrible so it must be stopped” position. It’s not that racism isn’t terrible, but what’s the cure and why is that libertarian?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My (limited) understanding of this branch of libertarian philosophy is that people render power to the government for the betterment of all. As Locke put it: “The great purpose for which men enter into society is
to be safe and at peace in their use of their property.”
When racism leads to actions such as Jim Crow and economic injury, the libertarian worldview sees these badges and incidents of slavery as violative of that purpose and use of section 2 of the 13th as an appropriate remedy.
So something, something, good outcomes because reasons? Can you nail this down with something a tad more substantive, as that pretty much justifies anything for anyone.
Cato?
Didn’t they ___+___- ___ = and then attempt to divide without decentralization?
Pop music!
JB and SHG,
Thanks for the video. It is brilliant.
All the best.
RGK
Although affirmative action, in the college admissions arena, is a matter of “critical masses of diversity,” on the government procurement side, it has been (since Croson, in 1989) a matter of Libertarian economic theory. Croson (for state and local governments) and later, Adarand Constructors (for federal programs), borrowed a form of economic analysis from antitrust law to determine whether remediable “discrimination” is present in a relevant market. To overgeneralize a bit, if you analyze contracts let by governments in a “geographically relevant market,” and the analysis shows that “minority” contractors with capacity to perform are nevertheless “underutilized,” remediable racial discrimination must be present (even if you can’t find anyone doing it), thereby potentially justifying a (narrowly-tailored) race-based preference program to redress the statistical discrimination.
The underlying premise is that because racism is not economically rational, indulging it in purchasing/hiring decisions is (like price-fixing) a form of anticompetitive conduct, which will leave a statistically visible footprint. I believe it is in this sense Libertarians speak of racism as a subversion of markets. In Libertarian theory (and Supreme Court precedent), you fix the racism by using a statistical “disparity study” to find it, followed by a narrowly tailored remedial program to redress it (until such time as periodic follow-up studies will surely show that the job has been done). All very neat and tidy and scientific. In theory.
In actual practice, a local government spends $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a carefully-prepared statistical study, often followed by a decade of federal litigation over the resulting program (which will typically be redesigned several times during the litigation to meet alleged defects, and ends up completely watered down and ineffective).
So, yes, Libertarian theory is anti-racist, but, it hasn’t been particularly useful in terms of real world solutions.
But this wasn’t the anti-racism free market theory. Quite the opposite.
Yes. Like everyone, Libertarians have their factions, and some of them recognize that free market theory will not solve issues that (like racism) are not economically rational. Race-based discrimination belies the philosophical free market model, because according to that model, such discrimination cannot exist. If one concludes (or a “disparity study” shows) that it does exist, something is wrong, and the model requires a repair.
So it’s libertarian, but libertarian as in progressive. Got it.
Still less onerous to businesses than if you had to actually find the one doing the discriminating and enforce the law prohibiting the discrimination, right? (Although it pretty much spreads the burden created by the lawbreaker to everybody else).
“issues that (like racism) are not economically rational”
Don’t be ridiculous. This claim merely demonstrates that those folks don’t understand economics.
Economics is all about preferences. If you would pay $100 for brown shoes and $200 for equally-long-lasting red shoes, that’s a preference; if you get sufficient happiness from the color red shoes then it is perfectly rational.
If you would rather pay an extra $100 to hire a lawyer who is (or isn’t) a white Jewish male like me, that’s a preference–a socially unpleasant and undesirable one, but still a preference. And if you get sufficient happiness from fulfilling your prejudices then it is perfectly rational even though it is unpleasant and undesirable.
Race-based discrimination belies the philosophical free market model, because according to that model, such discrimination cannot exist.
That is simply not true: the market acceptsall sorts of things as rational.
This sort of response is what happens when people try to represent complex issues on a bumper sticker and claim “Gotcha!” It doesn’t work.
And off the post and down the economics rabbit hole because reasons. Is it really impossible to not go off on a tangent?
“Race-based discrimination belies the philosophical free market model, because according to that model, such discrimination cannot exist.”
Nonsense. A libertarian position might be that freedom of association necessarily includes the freedom not to associate and it is not the place of the government to use violence in opposition to it. Indeed, given that such discrimination eventually hurts the discriminator more than the discriminatees, there’s no need for government intervention.
You refuse to hire black people? Great! I’ll hire that brilliant black engineer that you wouldn’t give the time of day to, make better and cheaper products than yours and take all of your customers, leaving you destitute.
You won’t serve my Asian buddy in your bar? We’ll go elsewhere and, while we won’t make a big deal of it, it will come up in conversation and spread to our other friends’ conversations, until somebody who’s not an idiot buys your bar in the bankruptcy sale.
This is all libertarianism 101. Like SHG, I can’t see what the article has to do with it, other than bearing the CATO imprimatur.
Step one: steal underpants
Step 2: ?
Step 3: profit!
It is not enough for libertarians to end the government policies that promote and extend racism. Somehow, the lingering effects of those policies must be addressed.
Step 1: acknowledge those effects
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Equality!
This post is wrongthink, especially the last paragraph. You must be destroyed.
Dear Papa,
The free markets are fickle and fragile and have to be tended constantly. That’s the author’s hook to libertarianism. There’s one appropriate function of government and that’s paying it’s dues to the all powerful market, or so it seems. The markets are perfect except when they aren’t.
Go ahead and quote Churchill and say they’re the worst except for all the others. It doesn’t make anything better.
Probably just Cato posturing or trying to distance it’s principled conservatism from the Trump madhouse. Fun fact. The Cato Institute’s name doesn’t refer to either Roman by the name, but to some English letters. They aren’t as cool as I thought either.
Best Wishes,
PK
Oops. It’s or its. It happens.
[Ed. Note: This was very important.]
So you have no clue. Thanks for sharing.
Libertarians don’t have a framework for a market to self-correct that doesn’t involve some sort of government-like control mechanism even if you agree that racism is anti-competitive or not economically rational. They would say that the government should act in certain situations like with racism here, but there would be a lot of factional in-fighting on what and how much to do.
The article is libertarian enough. You’re overreacting. Libertarians aren’t anarchists, and Cato doesn’t need to justify the existence of its political philosophy in every article it publishes even if it is a failure.
Please tell me you realize that you’re not actually saying anything so that your mother and I don’t have to wonder where we failed you so miserably.
You are just not hearing PK. It’s libertarian because . . . because . . . well, uh, just BECAUSE!!! Is that so hard to understand, old man?
You clueless oaf. The argument is obvious.
1. Libertarianism is good.
2. Being actively anti-racists is good.
3. Libertarians should be actively anti-racist.
Then:
1. Libertarians should be actively anti-racists.
2. Naxos are racists.
3. Libertarians should silence Naxos (better yet, hit them in the heads with baseball bats, which are very libertarian).
Must I explain everything to you idiots?
Sgt. Schultz,
SHG told me you might be a good tutor. Could you please help me? You are apparently woke to something.
Libertarianism can’t be boiled down to “the government not doing stuff.” Can it? It’s like saying socialism exists when the government does stuff. That’s not right either.
So why would a libertarian have to sell out on any sense of ideological purity in order to support some government action against racism? Is supporting government action against murder anti-libertarian too?
This is sincere. Please help.
Truly,
PK
Ah, my feckless boy, you’re like the fourth child at the seder as you persist in trying to ask the question backwards to avoid understanding why pharoah wouldn’t let the Jews leave Egypt. Since SS has yet to agree to mentor you, and it would require your mother and I to pay him, and your question is so childish yet foolish, I will help you.
Should a libertarian support the progressive regulatory state, from affirmative action to Titles VII and IX, to minority business preferences to reparations for slavery, all of which are intended to end racism, because ending racism is good, even though much of this is fundamentally contrary to every tenet of libertarianism? Being in favor of laws criminalizing murder isn’t the same as supporting the criminalization of unlicensed hair-braiding. Is all or nothing or apples and Chevys?
So the question is what can and should a libertarian do, consistent with his political and economic beliefs, to be actively anti-racist? If the answer is be progressive and not be libertarian, then calling it libertarian purity isn’t very helpful. So rather than ask “why not” like a drooling fool, ask real questions that reflect the level of intelligence worthy of the money your mother and I spent on therapists to overcome your penis issues.
Oh cool, a whole new thread because libertarians don’t use the reply button!
Nope. Not this time. You see a contradiction that doesn’t exist and can’t exist and then demand ideological purity based on your misunderstanding.
Since words have no meaning and I’m not communicating effectively with them anyway, we might as well just grunt from here on out.
A contradiction? I see no connection. The negative doesn’t show how two completely unconnected things connect. I asked why and your answer is why not. It’s cute, but not an answer.
Racism in their view is irrational. Racism runs afoul of the idea that markets are comprised of rational actors doing everything they can to maximize profit. If actors in the economy are focusing on race more than profit, the economy isn’t operating at maximum efficiency. A libertarian government, then, could justify taking action to fix the ills of racism when its damaging effects outweigh the desire to keep markets free from interference by governments.
It’s a controlled burn of a field to restore nutrients to the soil.
So Cato publishes an article that says racism is bad enough for a lot of people that it needs some correction. You failing to see the connection is like saying that society and the economy aren’t connected. It’s strange.
Did the third try do the trick or am I still just drooling?
This is stupider than before. It’s the unmitigated absence of thought that reflects a complete lack of reasoning. I mean, seriously dumb. Go to your room and stop embarrassing the family.
Ok. Back to grunting. I just don’t get it.
Maybe we’ll get you a tutor? I wonder if Sgt. Schultz is available?
The article is formatted and punctuated reasonably well. The spelling appears to be generally strong, and most of the sentences appear to have both subjects and verbs. Descriptive words are used throughout, although the author does seem to have adopted the adjective “libertarian” as a sort of a placeholder noun without defining it. The essay is quite long relative to the ideas presented, and would benefit from quite a bit of editing. But as a high school English paper or a standardized writing test sample, I think it would score acceptably well.
As a statement of actual libertarian political philosophy or even a coherent call to whatever is meant by “actively anti-racist” action, of course, it approaches Bulwyr-Lytton levels of “irredeemably awful”. But the font is nice.
I credit Jon with being very well intended and possessed of beautiful penmanship. I just can’t see any logical argument here.
“So long as libertarians brush racism aside as incidental or irrelevant to public policy, people who see and feel its effects in their neighborhoods, in their schools, and in their interactions with police, are unlikely to take what libertarians say seriously.”
A good start? I rejected American Libertarianism as a rational form of government in my politically formative years because I believe it fails to deal with our history. Specifically, slavery and the fact all the land and resources we stand upon was stolen or swindled from its original inhabitants and handed to European ‘individualists’ who enjoyed ample protection from the angry disinherited indigenous population by the federal government.
These and a thousand other minor ways inequality has been caused or protected by the government over time. (redlining, Jim Crow, etc.)
To even begin a conversation about the moral standing of Libertarianism in this country we’d first need to stop the harms the US Federal Government continues to make and then tackle the subject of reparations for the damage it caused through action or inaction since the formation of the Republic.
Under those circumstances, we would all be starting on the equal footing necessary for Libertarianism to have the moral authority to be a governing ideology.
Until then, for me it’s “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen”.
Have you no appreciation for how many flaming nutjob comments I’ve deleted already this morning, and then I’m constrained to give you special dispensation, which means I’ll get another hundred angry flaming nutjob comments about why I posted yours for not theirs? Do you ever think of anybody but yourself?
“Do you ever think of anybody but yourself?”
Compared to a Libertarian? All. damn. day.
A libertarian sent me barbecue. Burnt ends. They were delicious.
I think that what Banks is arguing for are changes in libertarian culture moreso than for changes in libertarian recommendations of government policy. Going back at least to Cold War anticommunism there’s been sympathy between the paleoconservative right-wing of american conservatism and libertarianism, resulting in an uncomfortably tolerant environment for the pathological elements of that right-wing like neo-Confederate apologists, racists, and related loons as long as they were against government intervention into economic activity and in favor of returning to the gold standard.
One argument often employed within libertarian circles in defense of this status quo is to appeal to an interpretation of libertarian moral theory in which the only wrongful conduct are direct violations of property rights. So what I understood Banks to be aiming at with the distinction of non-racist and anti-racist is for libertarians to move away from that kind of understanding of the libertarian project and recognize racism as anathema to the ideals of a free society, and so something to be opposed through civil society, as members of the community, etc., rather than excused so long as it does not violate the non-aggression axiom, or imagined out of existence, a vice which comes in both all-oppression-is-done-by-the-state and market-incentives-will-cure-this-Panglossianism within libertarianism. So working towards the achievement of progressive aims, but through libertarian methods.
This completely changes the complexion of Jonathan’s post for me. While I might complain that he could have made this clear, I also appreciate that it wasn’t written for the likes of me, a non-libertarian, and so my failure to appreciate the subtext of values precluded me from seeing his underlying purpose.
I remain unclear as to how this connects together, and what it is he would have libertarians do to be “actively anti-racist,” but I realize that probably is too far down the road at this point to matter. First, shift the values toward the left and work out the details later. Thank you for a very cogent explanation.
It’s true that libertarians are mostly focused on opposing government regulation, but that’s because we have so much regulation. From a libertarian viewpoint there’s a long way to go before we even approach the margins of stopping; thus there is not as much point in arguing about the precise location of those margins.
But nonetheless libertarians (and especially left-libertarians) are not anarchists. They all agree that some government involvement is necessary, albeit in a limited number of arenas. I view this article as an attempt to argue for the inclusion of racism in the “acceptable” interventions, though I don’t think it’s a very good attempt.
What may have thrown me for a loop was calling “We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes” a trope. If this is a false statement of libertarian values, then how does one accomplish equal outcomes consistent with libertarian principles? It’s true that they’re not anarchists, and agree that limited government involvement is necessary, but does this call for limited involvement? If so, what? I still can’t figure that part out.
Calling “We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes” a trope is denigrating, but the logical flaw is the straw man that follows.
“But to say such a thing as a general defense of the status quo assumes that the current American system offers roughly equal opportunity just because Jim Crow is dead.”
No one is defending the status quo on that basis, and few claim that the current system offers roughly equal opportunity. Libertarians are spread across a spectrum from apologists for government a la Cato to fiercely anti-state, pro-market followers of Mises and Rothbard. The latter have written volumes documenting the racist roots zoning, gun control, minimum wage, and many other laws.
“(T)he argument is that for libertarians to be taken seriously, they need to be progressives. ”
Exactly. This is the classic Cato argument, that libertarian principles must be bent and compromised so that the “serious people” in Washington or the state capital will let libertarians into their club. It’s a foolish fantasy. Like the ACLU’s announcement that it will not support people who dare to exercise two constitutional rights, Cato’s grovelling and lack of principles serves only to discredit them. They purged Rothbard from their ranks decades ago because of his adherence to principle. Nothing has changed.
For a logically consistent, closely argued treatment of racism in libertarian theory that will make Cato fellows cry, read Walter Block’s 2010 book “The Case for Discrimination.” No links because rules, but available for free at Mises.org
What Banks did here looks like Motte and Bailey.
And it’s clever. We don’t see it daily.
From broad premises bland,
Just apply sleight of hand.
Reach conclusions more like a shillelagh!
Great video. Even better when you realize that these women actually did prison time for their opposition to people like Putin and our ridiculous president.
Sigh. Pretty sure they didn’t go to prison for their opposition to either Trump or Obama.
The sigh was for your not using the reply button. But it’s really hard to do.
Hi Scott.
Thanks for reading and sharing my post. I wrote it a few years ago, but I’m happy to discuss it.
I don’t think libertarians need to be Progressive, that would be pointless. Nor did I argue that libertarians should ensure equal outcomes. I argued that, for those who believe in or are working toward expanding the libertarian brand or “movement,” there needs to be a change in language and approach because the platitudes they so often rely upon fall on deaf ears because they ignore context.
This is not an argument for changing fundamental beliefs–expanding access to markets and curbing state abuse of individuals are core libertarian ideas. But many libertarians–particularly ‘professional’ libertarians who make their living at preaching the free market and individual liberty gospel–need to pay more attention to the realities that their desired audiences face and understand. At some point, the ‘it’s not me, it’s them’ belief as to why certain groups–particularly American racial minorities–make up such a small number of an already small group of people (libertarians) should be reexamined. It’s not that libertarianism can or should strive to create equal outcomes, but if the idea is to get more people from different walks of life to take you seriously, you need to present a cogent worldview that takes their experiences into account and, when applicable, propose solutions to deal with their problems. This doesn’t necessarily require a change in policy, but it does require a change in messaging. That’s not “Progressive,” that’s just Marketing 101.
Thanks again for sharing.
-Jon
The NY Times recently had a bleg for new slogans for the Democratic Party for the purpose of marketing it beyond progressives. What was interesting about it was that it, too, was a Marketing 101 exercise, claiming it was “new and improved” to get more voters while really being as progressive, if not more so, than ever.
There is much to commend in libertarianism’s call for fewer crimes, due process, ending police misconduct, violence and mass incarceration, that serves the valuable goal of ending systemic racism. I appreciate S.Stein’s discussion of right/left libertarians, and moving the conservative culture toward anti-racism as well.
I’m just not clear what one does when you believe in libertarianism (beyond the smart on crime policies that are already happening) to be actively anti-racist. Saying be good guys is nice, but unilluminating. Is it just a marketing ploy, or are there actual, concrete policy positions that are actively anti-racist and consistent with libertarian ideology? If so, what?
For the most part, the policies are fundamentally the same as they have been. But when you have prominent libertarians saying in semi-public forums that (paraphrasing) “I think we might make some inroads with the Hispanics, but I think the blacks are lost” the failure lies as much on the salesman and the pitch, not the product. Similarly, when supposedly libertarian-friendly Republicans go into places like Howard University to argue, essentially, “you all used to be Republicans but you were deceived by the Democrats, we want you back” while also demonstrating a laughably deficient understanding of the history of black people and the GOP, any positive message is lost by incompetent messengers.
Thus, a remedy can be selling school choice as educational opportunity for all and particularly kids trapped in terrible inner-city schools. (This has been rather effective here in DC as one of the first protests against the Obama administration was overwhelmingly black and about his attempt to appease the teachers’ unions by prematurely ending a school choice program authorized by Congress.) The issue can be not just the war on drugs–which critics use to say libertarians are just Republicans who like to get high–but challenging its implementation in different neighborhoods. It can also be exposing separate and unequal policing tactics and demonstrating how asset forfeiture not only affects the white middle class that makes headlines for IJ, but also hit the poorest, segregated communities of Chicago the hardest. (see CJ Ciaramella’s FOIA work at Reason.com). It’s not that no libertarians are doing this work or taking this approach, but certain organizations and outfits avoid talking about race at every opportunity and, when they do talk about it, intentionally downplay any role of racism despite statistical evidence that shows certain policies are overwhelmingly used against poor minorities. Policies that are unfair should be called that regardless of who is affected, but when they are unfair and used in ways that are particularly egregious in minority communities, libertarians should recognize that and use the opportunity for cooperation and outreach. Too often, libertarians have passed up those opportunities.
I’ll be honest, I’m not deeply invested in making libertarianism or the ‘movement’ more diverse. I’d like it to be, but I have my hands full dealing with policy and leave that to others. But I have many colleagues and others whose goal is to grow the ‘movement’ and they know they have difficulties when dealing with American minority groups hostility to libertarianism. (As I explained in another essay, this is also about some libertarians’ sordid history and associations with racists or that their ideas have been used as intellectual window dressing for racist policies.) These essays include things to keep in mind when talking to audiences that don’t already share their beliefs or personal experiences. When words like “liberty” and “freedom” have been used so duplicitously by libertarian-ish or associated people to support racism, sticking to the old scripts is just preaching to the choir. If libertarians want to expand their audience, they’re going to have to learn to talk to people outside of the congregation.
If they don’t want to–and that’s fine–then they can keep doing what they’re doing, but I don’t understand the purpose of screaming into an echo chamber.
Thanks, Jon. I’m beginning to realize how little I know of libertarian political history, as the libertarians I seem to read and follow are very much against racism. I really didn’t appreciate the sordid undercurrent of racism of the libertarian right.