Toure Says We're Still Racist, I Say Who Cares? New LRC Article, and Obama's New Christmas Tree Tax

Last July I wrote a well-received article for the American Thinker entitled "Defending Discrimination" which was a response to the tossing out of a class action lawsuit against Walmart for allegedly engaging in pay discriminating against women.  In regard to the whole concept of discrimination, I took the Blockian approach in describing its benefits:

Rather than let people freely choose where to work, how much they are willing to work for, and what working conditions they are willing to put up with, those on the left strive to engineer society to what they see as just.  What many of them seem unable to grasp is that human society is inherently unequal.  Discrimination has always been used to vet the abilities of individuals to perform certain tasks.  An overweight man is not hired as a server at Hooters and an eighteen-year-old girl is not hired to work in a coal mine.

Now Walmart has been accused of having a corporate culture of promoting and paying men more than woman.  Even if they do, is it truly that big of a deal?  If you disagree with Walmart's business practices, then don't shop there.  If female employees think their male counterparts are being treated better, than Target or Walgreen's are just down the road.  And if management at Walmart really does promote a male who may not be as competent as a female candidate, then it should suffer by productivity losses.  Each of these solutions is more efficient than creating an agency filled with bureaucrats hell bent on imposing equality.

The novelist/TV personality Toure recently made an appearance on the Dylan Ratigan in which he "ranted" about the sad state of racial discussion in America:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The main take away:

Because we still have a significant racial problem in this country. We still have much to work on. Racism nowadays is more subtle and nuanced than ever, and that means un-nuanced thinkers like Rush (Limbaugh) can play easily dumb. “What do you mean I’m racist? I don’t have slaves, I’m not in the klan! What do you mean you experienced racism? You don’t have segregated fountains, you have a black president. Why are you still complaining?”

Well, white privilege is something while people need do nothing to access. White people who aren’t racist still accrue the benefits of being white. This in a world with institutional racism and glass ceilings and white men with felony convictions being more likely to get jobs than black men with clean records — that makes it too much to accept quietly.

Today Toure kept the ball rolling in a New York Times blog piece titled "No Such Place as Post-Racial America" where he again declares that race still plays a part in one's ability to climb the ladder of social mobility:

We are not a nation devoid of racial discrimination nor are we a nation where race does not matter. Race and racism are still critical factors in determining what happens and who gets ahead in America. The election of Barack Obama ushered in this silly term and now that he’s begun running for re-election, I’m here to brusquely escort it out of the party called American English because it’s a con man of a term, selling you a concept that doesn’t exist.

“Post-racial” is a mythical idea that should be as painful to the mind’s ear as fingernails on the chalkboard are to the outer ear. It’s an intellectual Loch Ness monster. It is indeed a monster because it’s dangerous. What people seem to mean by “post-racial” is: nowadays race no longer matters and anyone can accomplish anything because racism is behind us. All of that is false. But widespread use of the term lends credence to the idea that all of that is true—I mean, why would we have a term for an idea that’s not real? In that way the lie becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and thus feeds the notion that it’s O.K. to be somnambulant about race or even aggressively dismissive of it.

Much to Toure's dismay, I am going to be aggressively dismissive of his claim, not that we aren't living in a post racial utopia, but that existence of racism is something to regard as a huge dilemma, or worse yet that it must be countered with social engineering via the state.

Race is a fact of life.  This isn't disputed.  And the term "post-racial" was indeed a media invented term of celebration to enhance the impact of President Barack Obama's electoral victory.  It is safe to say that no one truly believed that the election of one African American to the office of the presidency was going to somehow change the way millions of people viewed race.

But Toure brings up these points not only to assert that race still plays a role in society but to imply that it's problematic that others judge one another on such an arbitrary characteristic such as skin color.

This barrier to conversation is dangerous in a nation where race and racism still matter very much. A place where black unemployment is far higher than white unemployment, where profiling and institutional racism and white privilege and myriad other forms of racism still shape so much of life in America. If we don’t need to discuss race then it’s allowed to fester and grow unchecked like an untreated malignant tumor. Race is an issue every American must care about. It’s not a black issue, it’s everyone’s issue. It’s relevant and important for whites because we all live here together and because the issue hurts everyone. If your neighbor’s house is on fire, or gets foreclosed, you have a problem. If your neighbor’s soul is on fire you have a major problem.

Simple question: say my neighbor is the leader of a local Klu Klux Klan chapter, how does this affect me?  I wake up, go to work, come home, read, write, and enjoy leisurely activities just the same.  If my neighbor throws on some white bed sheets and joins with a bunch of like minded individuals to praise the superiority of the white race, it has no impact on me whatsoever.

Now of course one could respond that because I am a white male, I have nothing to worry about.  But say my neighbor was black and was part of a black supremacist group.  Everyday I see him, he gives me not-so-pleasant looks.  Though he never infringes on my property or commits any violence against me, it's obvious he hates my guts because of the color of my skin.

Again it needs to be asked: how is this a problem?

What Toure seems to be arguing for is that every individual in society should regard every race as equal in ability and merit.  In essence, he wants society engineered in the way he best sees fit.  Despite the faulty beliefs of ardent racists, race by and in itself plays no role in determining the inherent superior ability of one individual over another (much to the dismay of Abraham Lincoln).  As Mises wrote in Human Action:

"We do not know what causes the inborn differences in human abilities...but it is by all means an unsatisfactory answer to say that a genius owes his greatness to his ancestry or his race.  The question is precisely why such a man differs from his brothers and from the other members of his race."

"It is a little bit less faulty to attribute the great achievements of the white race to racial superiority.  Yet this is no more than a vague hypothesis which is at variance with the fact that the foundations of modern civilization were laid by peoples of other races.  We cannot know whether or not at a alter date other races will supplant Western civilization."

As for the difference in mental capacity between races, Mises writes:

If there had been races which had developed a different logical structure of the mind, they would have failed in the use of reason as an aid in the struggle for existence.  The only means for survival that could have protected them against extermination would have been their instinctive reactions.

Though attempts have been made to scientifically deduce the biological superiority of certain races, it is clear that individuals differ in physical and mental ability with those in their own race as well as those whom they differ in skin color from. 

The big question comes down to this: do such differences constitute policies of economic and social intervention by the state?

Toure, though not explicit in this assertion, subtly makes the case:

Only through being aware of racial disparities and talking about race can we have any chance of forward movement. Because nowadays there are many white people who are not racist, who are perhaps anti-racist, but who still benefit from white privilege without even meaning to. So you may not be racist but still receiving the spoils of racism. That still doesn’t make you racist. But it makes you part of the system and reveals why it’s also your responsibility to interrogate and examine how our society works and be aware of the biases that keep white supremacy functioning.

Certainly within the United States the white race benefited from and oppressed other races in the past.  Slavery, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment, and even overt discrimination against Muslims following 9/11.  Yet all these instances were a function of government being used to circumvent the rights of the few at the behalf of others.  If property rights were regarded as sacrosanct, instances such as business and hiring discrimination shouldn't be regarded as a problem.  Individuals have the right to engage in whatever commercial transaction they wish; hence the business owner refusing to hire a black worker or serve white customers.

In the end, this is why focusing on changing the racial prejudices of society is a fruitless endeavor.  Racism, whether overt or conniving, will continue to exist.  It's not a question of whether or not it should be dismissed but rather if such a mindset is truly damaging to society.  If a group of white men end up murdering a Latino, whether or not the act was committed on the basis of race is a non-factor.  A man lost his life and justice should find his murders.

Peace comes when respect is given for property and life; not from social engineering by guns and badges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That may turn into a Mises piece, I am not sure right now.  I gotta think a little more about it.

I got an article over at LewRockwell.com today entitled "Ron Paul is Right about Gold and Money."  It is a touched up draft of an earlier post, here is an excerpt:

As if Bernanke's painful admission that gold isn't money wasn't bad enough; he went on to timidly suggest that central banks hold gold because of "tradition."  Tradition of what you may ask? Confiscating the means by which the public protects itself from endless fiat printing? Or perhaps it's just a shrewd effort to exert the state's dominance in society through the forced use of paper bills containing pictures of past "leaders."  Whatever the case, Bernanke, grasping in the dark to defend the system which is losing credibility by the day, deflected with academic shrugging and asserting that people hold gold to protect themselves against "really bad outcomes."  From a Fed chairman's point of view, these "really bad outcomes" are never the threat of high inflation or the collapse of an unsustainable fractional reserve banking system.  Such admittance would be blasphemous.

While this exchange between Paul and Bernanke set the economic blogosphere on fire last July, it turns out not all central bankers agree with the Fed chairman's assessment of gold.  In lieu of the fiscal train wreck that is Europe, world leaders at the recent G20 meeting in Cannes, France were rumored to be considering a tapping of the gold reserves held by German's central bank, the Bundesbank, to fund the European Financial Stability Facility.  Like maggots to a dead carcass, never doubt the state's ability to find a new source of wealth to dig into.  A Bundesbank spokeswoman responded, "we know this plan and we reject;" essentially putting the brakes on such a blatant act of theft for the time being. 

So you remember when Obama promised to not raise taxes on the middle class?  Well it turns out that only rich people buy Christmas trees, via Heritage:

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board.  The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)).  And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).

Unbelievable, who the hell centrally plans how Christmas trees are sold?  We really are devolving into some incestous mix of soviet style planning and fascist corporatism.  Just look at the ingenious way Euro banks get to recapitalize themselves without raising any capital, via Bloomberg Businessweek:

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Banks in Europe are undercutting regulators' demands that they boost capital by declaring assets they hold less risky today than they were yesterday. 

It's amazing what one click of a mouse can do.

I will end by pointing out this great radio interview with Mitt Romney where the interviewer calls Romney an "A-hole" for dissing Ron Paul and announces he is changing his vote to the Texas Congressman.