4 ms·

This quote is taken totally out of context from the chapter of the book it's from and is clipped to make it appear in the worst light. Earlier in the chapter h

by ch4s3 1y ago

This quote is taken totally out of context from the chapter of the book it's from and is clipped to make it appear in the worst light. Earlier in the chapter he says: > On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it The chapter is discussing the appropriateness of government regulating negative versus positive harms and he makes the case that regulating negative harms is a short-sighted and ineffective means of achieving the policy aim of protecting minorities and that "fair employment" as imposed by the majority is not "free employment". In the same chapter he argues that "right to work" laws interfere with the freedom to engage in contracts. The arguments are far more subtle than Edward Zitron is making them out to be. Importantly Friedman here and elsewhere refers to people who discriminate on the basis of skin as ignorant racists. Throughout the book he makes the argument that if you remove the legal frameworks that enforced segregation, that people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage in doing so. Reasonable people can disagree with this assessment. He finishes the chapter with this quote: > On the other side of the picture, we should not be so naive as to suppose that deep-seated values and beliefs can be uprooted in short measure by law. If anyone thinks that Friedman was a racist, they haven't honestly engaged with his writing.

triceratops 1y ago
I haven't read much Friedman but his logic behind > regulating negative harms is a short-sighted and ineffective means of achieving the policy aim of protecting minorities still makes no goddamn sense. I take back the racism accusation until I've read more of his work but > people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage is still some dumb shit. If letting minorities shop or work in your store drives away the majority there's no "mutual advantage". There never will be. You're counting on, or rather praying, for hearts and minds at large to change in order to get voluntary integration. That could take generations, or it may never happen. If people can't be nice on their own, maybe they need the stick (government regulation) until they learn.
- ch4s3 1y ago
  He makes the argument that if your freedom depends on the largess of the majority then it is loosely held and precarious. > is some dumb shit. If letting minorities shop or work in your store drives away the majority there's no "mutual advantage" That's not the argument he's making. He argues that it is always more expensive to be a racist, and that absent the legal framework of segregation then people will by financial necessity begin to do business across the color line which will change their preferences over time. He points out that historically there was a time when people would refuse to do business with Quakers, but that over time the free market won out and that discrimination or affect of taste no longer exists. Again, I think you can reasonably disagree but it isn't obviously stupid to observed that racism incurs an extra cost and markets reward you for not being irrational in that way.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > people will by financial necessity begin to do business across the color line If the majority remains anti-integration then people will, by financial necessity, be forced to keep businesses segregated. A hotel owner who wants to let black guests stay will lose most of their white clientele. It's basic logic. Friedman says so himself in his example of the shop owner who would like to hire black clerks. > He argues that it is always more expensive to be a racist But then in the passage I originally quoted he says it also harms the business owner to not be a racist. Isn't that contradictory? In the Quaker thing, did the free market win out? Or did communities become larger and more anonymous, and fashions changed so that telling Quakers and non-Quakers apart merely by appearance became impossible? That can't happen with minorities of a different skin color.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      He's arguing that an integrated hotel absent government force will be cheaper to stay in than the non-integrated one and price conscious potential guests will choose it. > But then in the passage I originally quoted he says it also harms the business owner to not be a racist. Isn't that contradictory? It isn't contradictory if you read the whole chapter, its a single thought experiment and not his whole argument. > In the Quaker thing, did the free market win out? Or did communities become larger and more anonymous, and fashions changed that telling Quakers and non-Quakers apart by appearance became impossible? That can't happen with minorities of a different skin color. He's arguing that all of these prejudices are simply irrational preferences and will necessarily change over time. In fact today you find that preference have indeed largely changed in society.
alexisread 1y ago
>>>Throughout the book he makes the argument that if you remove the legal frameworks that enforced segregation, that people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage in doing so. Reasonable people can disagree with this assessment. Not to weigh in on the quote, but as to this opinion statistics might disagree, and is kinda the basis for positive discrimination: https://ncase.me/polygons/ https://ncase.me/polygons/
- ch4s3 1y ago
  This is a rather thin and 1 dimensional take on economic preferences, particularly something as complicate as housing. What we actually know from history is that poorer neighborhoods integrated rather freely at the turn of the last centruy because they were cheap and that segregating them required active and ongoing government intervention at all levels of government.
mvdtnz 1y ago
> This quote is taken totally out of context from the chapter of the book it's from and is clipped to make it appear in the worst light. It's also important to understand that this is a huge amount of what Zitron does. He is a rage-baiter who does not engage in argument in good faith.
CalChris 1y ago
Friedman was in no way a racist. He was just ok with racism as expressed by a free and unfettered (fettered?) market. If a market expresses racism it can only be for the good.

by ch4s3 1y ago

triceratops 1y ago

I haven't read much Friedman but his logic behind > regulating negative harms is a short-sighted and ineffective means of achieving the policy aim of protecting minorities still makes no goddamn sense. I take back the racism accusation until I've read more of his work but > people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage is still some dumb shit. If letting minorities shop or work in your store drives away the majority there's no "mutual advantage". There never will be. You're counting on, or rather praying, for hearts and minds at large to change in order to get voluntary integration. That could take generations, or it may never happen. If people can't be nice on their own, maybe they need the stick (government regulation) until they learn.

ch4s3 1y ago
He makes the argument that if your freedom depends on the largess of the majority then it is loosely held and precarious. > is some dumb shit. If letting minorities shop or work in your store drives away the majority there's no "mutual advantage" That's not the argument he's making. He argues that it is always more expensive to be a racist, and that absent the legal framework of segregation then people will by financial necessity begin to do business across the color line which will change their preferences over time. He points out that historically there was a time when people would refuse to do business with Quakers, but that over time the free market won out and that discrimination or affect of taste no longer exists. Again, I think you can reasonably disagree but it isn't obviously stupid to observed that racism incurs an extra cost and markets reward you for not being irrational in that way.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > people will by financial necessity begin to do business across the color line If the majority remains anti-integration then people will, by financial necessity, be forced to keep businesses segregated. A hotel owner who wants to let black guests stay will lose most of their white clientele. It's basic logic. Friedman says so himself in his example of the shop owner who would like to hire black clerks. > He argues that it is always more expensive to be a racist But then in the passage I originally quoted he says it also harms the business owner to not be a racist. Isn't that contradictory? In the Quaker thing, did the free market win out? Or did communities become larger and more anonymous, and fashions changed so that telling Quakers and non-Quakers apart merely by appearance became impossible? That can't happen with minorities of a different skin color.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    He's arguing that an integrated hotel absent government force will be cheaper to stay in than the non-integrated one and price conscious potential guests will choose it. > But then in the passage I originally quoted he says it also harms the business owner to not be a racist. Isn't that contradictory? It isn't contradictory if you read the whole chapter, its a single thought experiment and not his whole argument. > In the Quaker thing, did the free market win out? Or did communities become larger and more anonymous, and fashions changed that telling Quakers and non-Quakers apart by appearance became impossible? That can't happen with minorities of a different skin color. He's arguing that all of these prejudices are simply irrational preferences and will necessarily change over time. In fact today you find that preference have indeed largely changed in society.

alexisread 1y ago

>>>Throughout the book he makes the argument that if you remove the legal frameworks that enforced segregation, that people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage in doing so. Reasonable people can disagree with this assessment. Not to weigh in on the quote, but as to this opinion statistics might disagree, and is kinda the basis for positive discrimination: https://ncase.me/polygons/ https://ncase.me/polygons/

ch4s3 1y ago
This is a rather thin and 1 dimensional take on economic preferences, particularly something as complicate as housing. What we actually know from history is that poorer neighborhoods integrated rather freely at the turn of the last centruy because they were cheap and that segregating them required active and ongoing government intervention at all levels of government.

mvdtnz 1y ago

> This quote is taken totally out of context from the chapter of the book it's from and is clipped to make it appear in the worst light. It's also important to understand that this is a huge amount of what Zitron does. He is a rage-baiter who does not engage in argument in good faith.

CalChris 1y ago

Friedman was in no way a racist. He was just ok with racism as expressed by a free and unfettered (fettered?) market. If a market expresses racism it can only be for the good.