4 ms·

> people will by financial necessity begin to do business across the color line If the majority remains anti-integration then people will, by financial necessi

> 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.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > price conscious potential guests will choose And we all know that everyone chooses the cheapest option for everything to the exclusion of all other factors. He also ignores that prices for minority consumers go up because there are fewer businesses that cater to them. > He's arguing that all of these prejudices are simply irrational preferences and will necessarily change over time And there honestly isn't much evidence for this. > In fact today you find that preference have indeed largely changed in society. I'm arguing that preferences have changed because people were forced to interact across race barriers and found that, actually, it was fine. Absent that forcing factor, there's zero guarantee that anything would have changed. He also ignores the harms done to the minority as a result of discrimination. All this talk about "freedom" - what about the freedoms of the minority?
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    > He also ignores that prices for minority consumers go up because there are fewer businesses that cater to them. That's not what was observed in real life. There were form many decades black owned businesses serving clients at competitive price points and integrated businesses where allowed by law serving customers at price points lower than segregated businesses. Integrated Jazz clubs in the 50s served cheap drinks and had good music so white kids patronized them in droves. These interactions changed their preferences. > And there honestly isn't much evidence for this. Do you really believe that white Americans only interact economically with black Americans because the law forces them to? Because it looks to me like people's preferences changed. No one forced white kids in the suburbs to buy NWA albums, they were just good albums and no one stopped them. > He also ignores the harms done to the minority as a result of discrimination. All this talk about "freedom" - what about the freedoms of the minority? He literally does address this in the chapter. It isn't long, just go read it. You've said yourself that you haven't read much Friedman, you may find yourself surprised.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      > Do you really believe that white Americans only interact economically with black Americans because the law forces them to? In 2025? Of course not. In 1965, in the American South, yes. Where "interact economically" is defined as selling or renting houses to, educating, employing, or offering services at all businesses to black Americans on an equal basis. And I believe the law greatly accelerated this change.
      - ch4s3 1y ago
        Plenty of people happily did business with black Americans in 1965 in the American South. Segregation was enforced by law by the state. Regular people often had a broad range of views. My own grandfather regularly did business with black neighbors in North Carolina in the 1950s and 60s as did most members of his farming community.
        triceratops 1y ago

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.

triceratops 1y ago
> price conscious potential guests will choose And we all know that everyone chooses the cheapest option for everything to the exclusion of all other factors. He also ignores that prices for minority consumers go up because there are fewer businesses that cater to them. > He's arguing that all of these prejudices are simply irrational preferences and will necessarily change over time And there honestly isn't much evidence for this. > In fact today you find that preference have indeed largely changed in society. I'm arguing that preferences have changed because people were forced to interact across race barriers and found that, actually, it was fine. Absent that forcing factor, there's zero guarantee that anything would have changed. He also ignores the harms done to the minority as a result of discrimination. All this talk about "freedom" - what about the freedoms of the minority?
- ch4s3 1y ago
  > He also ignores that prices for minority consumers go up because there are fewer businesses that cater to them. That's not what was observed in real life. There were form many decades black owned businesses serving clients at competitive price points and integrated businesses where allowed by law serving customers at price points lower than segregated businesses. Integrated Jazz clubs in the 50s served cheap drinks and had good music so white kids patronized them in droves. These interactions changed their preferences. > And there honestly isn't much evidence for this. Do you really believe that white Americans only interact economically with black Americans because the law forces them to? Because it looks to me like people's preferences changed. No one forced white kids in the suburbs to buy NWA albums, they were just good albums and no one stopped them. > He also ignores the harms done to the minority as a result of discrimination. All this talk about "freedom" - what about the freedoms of the minority? He literally does address this in the chapter. It isn't long, just go read it. You've said yourself that you haven't read much Friedman, you may find yourself surprised.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > Do you really believe that white Americans only interact economically with black Americans because the law forces them to? In 2025? Of course not. In 1965, in the American South, yes. Where "interact economically" is defined as selling or renting houses to, educating, employing, or offering services at all businesses to black Americans on an equal basis. And I believe the law greatly accelerated this change.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      Plenty of people happily did business with black Americans in 1965 in the American South. Segregation was enforced by law by the state. Regular people often had a broad range of views. My own grandfather regularly did business with black neighbors in North Carolina in the 1950s and 60s as did most members of his farming community.
      - triceratops 1y ago