Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
MisterSwig

How To Solve Racial Problems

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In 1961 Ayn Rand gave her view on how to solve the racial problems in the South, which at that time was still segregated.

"As for the South, freedom and rational education will solve their problems, not violence, which they're now engaging in. The real evil in the South are the state laws enforcing segregation; but the solution is not enforced integration by federal law, which is immoral as well, and will only create more mutual hatred and underground hypocrisy. What should be done? I'd advocate the repeal of any law that attempts to legislate morality or that discriminates against men on any ground whatsoever. If you want to solve the problem, set men free. In a free country, prejudice vanishes, and such prejudice as might remain does so only among the lunatic fringe or the kind of people who'd be afraid to admit it openly--and who cares to associate with them? Leave them to their bigotry. But when government power supports prejudice--when it enforces segregation or integration--then all you get is more racial prejudice, with each racial group growing closer together and further apart from every other (not only white against black)." (Ayn Rand Answers, pp. 37-38)

Throughout history we have seen what happens when government enforces segregation. And now we are witnessing what happens when government enforces integration. There is only one solution to this mess. It begins with restoring man's right to be a bigot. As long as we, as a nation, are violating the bigot's rights, why should he listen to our rational arguments? We are the unreasonable ones who compel him to integrate. We are the unreasonable ones who prosecute him for bigoted business practices and sue him for bigoted housing practices. We are his enemy. Why wouldn't he join forces with other bigots against us? Why wouldn't he desperately lash out at his enemy? He just wants to be a bigot, and we won't let him. Why can't he have Bigot Town, USA? If a bunch of bigots want to voluntarily segregate, why not let them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Throughout history we have seen what happens when government enforces segregation. And now we are witnessing what happens when government enforces integration. There is only one solution to this mess. It begins with restoring man's right to be a bigot. As long as we, as a nation, are violating the bigot's rights, why should he listen to our rational arguments? We are the unreasonable ones who compel him to integrate. We are the unreasonable ones who prosecute him for bigoted business practices and sue him for bigoted housing practices. We are his enemy. Why wouldn't he join forces with other bigots against us? Why wouldn't he desperately lash out at his enemy? He just wants to be a bigot, and we won't let him. Why can't he have Bigot Town, USA? If a bunch of bigots want to voluntarily segregate, why not let them?

Crackpots, irrationals, villainous, stupid, backwater people lacking in virtue and rationality and indeed every other kind of person would be free to associate with each other (it's called freedom of association) in a free country. 

Of course it is illegal for ANY group of people to conspire to commit any sort of crime, but that is obvious. 

 

As for Bigot Town, USA, THAT implies at least local government and possibly local enforcement of state and fed. law, including various branches of it under a local property taxing regime, administering and delivering services both proper and improper (mayor's office, police, enforced garbage collection, local schools, fire department, etc.).  Since the only proper role of government is to protect rights, and since they are the only ones with a monopoly on the legal use of force, having anyone in government who is a crackpot, irrational, villainous, stupid, or a backwater person lacking in virtue and rationality, let alone having the entire local government being made up of people like that, represents a grave risk to the violation of individual rights and very likely would constitute an improper government which constantly violates individual rights.

A proper and free society does not condone improper government or the violation of individual rights.

 

Objectivism does not accept a system of anarchy, or competing governments, (Anarcho-capitalism is right out), and also rejects Libertarianism as a foundation for politics.  Government must act properly and individual rights are absolute. 

To the extent any person or persons pretends to act as government but exceed its proper role and violate individual rights, by purported law and/or action, those people are acting outside of their proper government role, and it would be moral for others (State or Fed of a free country), acting properly as THE government  to step in and ensure protection of individual rights by removing those guilty of violating rights and setting up a proper government.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

As for Bigot Town, USA, THAT implies at least local government and possibly local enforcement of state and fed. law, including various branches of it under a local property taxing regime, administering and delivering services both proper and improper (mayor's office, police, enforced garbage collection, local schools, fire department, etc.). 

Nah, it would have to be a bigoted version of Mulligan's Valley, but without the secrecy. It would be a private town. Bigots in the town, or visitors, would still have all their rights, and if there was a problem, law enforcement would have emergency access, or warranted access as needed.

The other option is to recognize a white tribal nation, like we do with Native Americans. Then they would police themselves, unless there was a federal concern.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

having anyone in government who is a crackpot, irrational, villainous, stupid, or a backwater person lacking in virtue and rationality, let alone having the entire local government being made up of people like that, represents a grave risk to the violation of individual rights and very likely would constitute an improper government which constantly violates individual rights.

You mean like the government institutions we have now? You talk like our government doesn't violate rights on a routine basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

You mean like the government institutions we have now? You talk like our government doesn't violate rights on a routine basis.

Where have I said anything about "our government"?  Please be specific.

As for facts indisputable to any Objectivist... there is no need to bother debating those.

 

4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Then they would police themselves, unless there was a federal concern.

This is likely a contradiction in terms at worst redundant at best... if they exercise improper use of so-called police power... they are not properly speaking "policing" themselves or anyone... if they are employing some of themselves to exercise proper policing powers to protect rights... then some among their number would simply BE the police (proper).

Assuming they do not properly police themselves or anyone, as soon as a third generation descendant of the white tribal nation tried to open up a Café catering to persons other than "white" persons, or tried to rent his property (assuming he has the right to own it) to people other than so called "white" persons, then his rights would be violated if he were prevented from doing so by the so-called police and any so-called laws enforcing such things as, say, State enforced segregation.

The issue, as Rand clearly saw, is very simple.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Assuming they do not properly police themselves or anyone, as soon as a third generation descendant of the white tribal nation tried to open up a Café catering to persons other than "white" persons, or tried to rent his property (assuming he has the right to own it) to people other than so called "white" persons, then his rights would be violated if he were prevented from doing so by the so-called police and any so-called laws enforcing such things as, say, State enforced segregation.

You're arguing against a system that America already has with the existing tribal nations. The tribes can kick you off their land if they want. They are a nation within a nation, and they have limited self-government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

You're arguing against a system that America already has with the existing tribal nations. The tribes can kick you off their land if they want. They are a nation within a nation, and they have limited self-government.

Now you're just trolling ...my answers are based on general Objectivist principles and specifically with respect to your OP.  We have not thus far, discussed anything with respect to current frameworks put in place by the American government with respect to Native Americans, nor have I any desire to, sufficed to say, if the frameworks violate individual rights they are improper.

It's really very simple, Objectivism is very specific about politics and the proper role of government. 

 

Are you arguing that well known Objectivist political principles are incorrect?  If so I'd be happy to engage in a discussion, although I would not likely agree with you.  If not, we're all fine and dandy.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Where have I said anything about "our government"?  Please be specific.

You say Bigot Town would have irrational, immoral people in local government, which would be a threat to individual rights. I'm saying, okay, now apply that logic to real cities and states which have irrational, immoral people in government. By your logic, isn't America already a "system of anarchy"? Bigot Town would still be subject to State and Federal laws. So obviously we would first need to repeal all anti-discrimination laws for Bigot Town to work as an actual US city. And I doubt that will happen any time soon.

I also doubt we'll see a bigoted version of Mulligan's Valley, because the bigots will want to govern themselves to some significant extent.

More likely we would see a tribal nation, once the white nationalists cluster together in a specific region of the country and negotiate a peace with the federal government. That, of course, assumes that they don't win.

I would prefer that we repeal the anti-discrimination laws, because I think it's the most obviously moral course, and by restoring the rights of bigots in general, we will undercut some of the anti-government rhetoric of the more militant bigots.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Now you're just trolling...

You were replying to my comment about a Native American-like tribal nation for whites. I suggest you review the thread before calling me ridiculous names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

You were replying to my comment about a Native American-like tribal nation for whites. I suggest you review the thread before calling me ridiculous names.

Trolling... is the technique of trying to get a rise out of someone by not having an open and intellectually honest discourse.

The Native American system ... of which I am not an expert, likely has a great many contextual issues which are significantly distinct from those that would be raised by any supposed "white tribe" nation... historical contexts, prior government and social organization, various treaties agreed to and sometimes broken, the issue of war and conquest, reparations etc. etc.

I specifically did not want to call you out on those specific differences because it was unnecessary and seemed mean spirited...

In any case we can discuss Objectivist principles of government anytime you wish.

23 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

More likely we would see a tribal nation, once the white nationalists cluster together in a specific region of the country and negotiate a peace with the federal government. That, of course, assumes that they don't win.

I seriously wouldn't worry about that happening any time soon.  The Regressives on the Left are still a greater threat than white nationalism of the Degenerates of the Alt-Right.  

I do agree with you that anti-discrimination laws should be repealed as all laws which violate individual rights should be repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Trolling... is the technique of trying to get a rise out of someone by not having an open and intellectually honest discourse.

I'm not interested in talking to people who think I'm trolling them. Thanks for critiquing my post, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

You're arguing against a system that America already has with the existing tribal nations

Comments like this make it sound like you are trolling. First you were talking about a town of bigots. Sure, you can talk about what that would mean theoretically. But then out of nowhere you talk about tribes? It makes no sense.

Are you talking about a group of people trying to secede? 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

First you were talking about a town of bigots. Sure, you can talk about what that would mean theoretically. But then out of nowhere you talk about tribes?

Not out of nowhere.

On 3/20/2019 at 7:06 AM, MisterSwig said:

The other option is to recognize a white tribal nation, like we do with Native Americans. Then they would police themselves, unless there was a federal concern.

SL pulled the second sentence out of context and tried to apply it to a non-tribal nation situation. I pointed this out and he accused me of trolling.

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Are you talking about a group of people trying to secede? 

No, a tribal nation is still under the protection of the United States, and Congress has authority over them. I am not in favor of letting bigots, in this case white nationalists, secede from the United States.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We ought to repeal all anti-discrimination laws (those which affect the "private sector," at least) -- and sure, we could have a "Bigot Town" insofar as most of the people who live in a particular community are bigots. But there could be nothing particular about that Bigot Town instituted in law; anyone living there who wished to deal in a non-discriminatory fashion could do so, including selling their property to (for instance) non-whites, or marrying non-whites, or hiring/serving non-whites, etc. Without those sorts of legal barriers to action, I don't know how long a Bigot Town could exist as such, especially given the modern economy, ease of transportation and communication and so forth.

Could such a system be more effectively arranged through a complex series of contractual or licensing/leasing agreements? Perhaps. But if it could, to the extent that it could, I expect it would be an utter disaster. And the people who would participate in such a thing would not long be able to sustain themselves or a community (let alone exercise political power in any rational fashion). Such a community would also be ruthlessly ostracized by the rest of society -- and rightly so.

Tribal nations within the US are a very particular historical artifact and not something to be emulated for the sake of supporting white nationalist fantasy (or black nationalist fantasy, for that matter, or any other). We aren't giving neo-nazis special permission to run casinos, either. The current creep of fascism/tribalism into even the Objectivist community is... well, probably to be expected, given everything, but still disheartening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

The current creep of fascism/tribalism into even the Objectivist community is... well, probably to be expected, given everything, but still disheartening.

WE know that your statement is not true because it is an explicit contradiction.  

However, those purporting to BE Objectivists and who accept fascist/tribal ideas, might not understand how that statement is in fact self-contradictory.

Do not be disheartened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pamunkey Indian Tribe was federally acknowledged in 2016, so this tribal nation process is an ongoing concern for Native Americans. I doubt Congress would pass similar laws for tribal Europeans who settled in America and now want their own nation, but maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 10:06 AM, MisterSwig said:

The other option is to recognize a white tribal nation, like we do with Native Americans. Then they would police themselves, unless there was a federal concern.

 

4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I am not in favor of letting bigots, in this case white nationalists, secede from the United States.

You said it's an option... I mean, you didn't say that, but the only way we can get a tribe of white people, an actual legitimate tribe, is to grant them some right to form their own separate country or nation within our country. Since there is no historic "white nation", the only way you can get a tribe is through secession. Talking about secession is a completely separate discussion. And you know, that basically happened. That was the Civil War. The bigots lost. 

I think the important point in this discussion is that a Bigot Town doesn't make sense. If it were so bigoted that the local government passed laws like forced segregation (they certainly would believe that this is legitimate), it would be operating illegally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

We ought to repeal all anti-discrimination laws (those which affect the "private sector," at least) -- and sure, we could have a "Bigot Town" insofar as most of the people who live in a particular community are bigots. But there could be nothing particular about that Bigot Town instituted in law; anyone living there who wished to deal in a non-discriminatory fashion could do so, including selling their property to (for instance) non-whites, or marrying non-whites, or hiring/serving non-whites, etc. Without those sorts of legal barriers to action, I don't know how long a Bigot Town could exist as such, especially given the modern economy, ease of transportation and communication and so forth.

Could such a system be more effectively arranged through a complex series of contractual or licensing/leasing agreements? Perhaps. But if it could, to the extent that it could, I expect it would be an utter disaster. And the people who would participate in such a thing would not long be able to sustain themselves or a community (let alone exercise political power in any rational fashion). Such a community would also be ruthlessly ostracized by the rest of society -- and rightly so.

Tribal nations within the US are a very particular historical artifact and not something to be emulated for the sake of supporting white nationalist fantasy (or black nationalist fantasy, for that matter, or any other). We aren't giving neo-nazis special permission to run casinos, either. The current creep of fascism/tribalism into even the Objectivist community is... well, probably to be expected, given everything, but still disheartening.

I mean have you been on Yaron's Facebook group for his podcast? Just try it out for a day. The amount of anti-immigration, race realism, and ethnostate stuff on there is an example of what you're talking about. Same with the broader libertarian community from what I've seen online. Mises Institute has self-identified white nationalists writing for them, Hans Hoppe off the deep end now talking about creating feudal societies for white people. The fact that it so easily mutated points to a certain existing pathology that was there all along on the right wing. Guess I'll have to stop posting here if this Mr Swig stuff is just going to clog up the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2046 said:

Guess I'll have to stop posting here if this Mr Swig stuff is just going to clog up the board.

I didn't realize that I was preventing people from seeing all the interesting topics that you've created recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 2046 said:

Guess I'll have to stop posting here if this Mr Swig stuff is just going to clog up the board.

I don't think he's making an argument like that. I just don't know what his point is. But maybe the more important point overall is that the bigots don't just want a right to discriminate. They want far more than that. Bigot Town would either have no growth (and would die out), growth but all the bigots are outnumbered by the non-racists (so the name wouldn't work anymore), or growth but the number of bigots continues to grow (in which case they will begin to enact racist policies that violate rights).

 Giving a safe space to racists might isolate the disease. But if you do nothing else to fight the ideas, it might just crop up again, and the isolated racists would gain political support. 

What would your solution be to solve racial problems being created by people like race realists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 11:41 AM, Eiuol said:

Since there is no historic "white nation", the only way you can get a tribe is through secession.

Historic white nations exist in Europe, and many subsets of those people have migrated to America, starting with the English in 1620. Later, in the 19th century, Norwegians settled in the Midwest, and the French in Maine. Millions of descendents of those who left Europe have retained their various ancestral identities, and to this day many of them live together in tight-knit neighborhoods or towns. The Amish are a prime example, having remained segregated the most out of all the white migrant groups, and being given special exemptions from certain laws. So that is one way white tribes might be recognized in the United States without seceding. But like I said, it would require a new act of Congress to acknowledge them as a non-native tribal nation, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think I had to specify that there is no historic "white nation" within the United States (particularly since the idea of a white race only exists in modern times). 

But I don't think you are making any serious argument. It sounds like you're being ironic, because you are now trying to demonstrate the validity of a "white nation". I mean, it looks like trolling because you begin with an idea that is meant to appeal to people here (let the bigots be bigots, and property rights for everyone even them), exaggerating that to suggest tolerance of bigots (let them have their own town with their own rules!), and then finishing off by saying that these bigots have a legitimate claim to autonomy as a nation. You're talking about particular cultural identities though, not tribes. 

And if you made an effort to recognize white tribes with the purpose of isolating them, it would backfire. You would actually be creating racial problems. Do you really think racists only care about being left alone?

If you honestly want to deal with racial problems and racists, you need a better idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

and then finishing off by saying that these bigots have a legitimate claim to autonomy as a nation.

I never said that and don't believe it. I clearly stated that new laws would need to be created for them. They therefore do not have a legitimate claim. Furthermore, I don't even know whether they have a moral claim. I'm only trying to figure out if they can be considered a tribe, like other groups are considered tribes.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

You're talking about particular cultural identities though, not tribes.

What do you consider to be a tribe? Are the Sioux a tribe or cultural identity?

Some of the things that bind a tribe together are a common culture and language. I'm talking about familial groups who have lived and breed together in a community for many generations and have formed a common culture, language, and typically a common religion or set of beliefs. If this applies to the Sioux, why not the Amish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you guys just provide the definition of "tribe" as it applies to the context of Federally recognized Native American tribes? That specific definition has to exist out there somewhere. I'd find and provide one for you but I don't really care much about this subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I never said that and don't believe it. I clearly stated that new laws would need to be created for them. They therefore do not have a legitimate claim. Furthermore, I don't even know whether they have a moral claim. I'm only trying to figure out if they can be considered a tribe, like other groups are considered tribes.

Let's try to stay on topic here. We are talking about people who are already part of the US government and our citizens. We aren't talking about immigrants, we aren't talking about who was here first. We aren't talking about stateless people living within US borders. Native American tribes all existed before the US government, so of course those would be handled differently. What you're trying to grapple with is something like secession, or separatism (claiming that your state or region ought to be a distinct nation instead of part of the existing country). 

I thought you were suggesting that these people had a legitimate moral claim. I see that you aren't. It's a tangent, no problem.

But let's suppose that, by whatever mechanism, we ended up with a region of people who are all bigots, simply through freedom of association. And let's suppose that at least at the beginning they really do take on the philosophy that they simply want to be left alone. They're happy that brown people are no longer corrupting their country. Fine, that's their problem. The racism is contained.

We have to keep in mind that these people would have a philosophy of racism. They believe that fundamentally, by nature, something is wrong with brown people that would make the world worse off. You might have one group of people that would rather fortify their borders, keep all the Mexicans out, and that's that. Purity in their eyes. They are happy with isolation.

But then other people within the region, although they are happy with the purity, they want to disseminate their ideas beyond the borders. They want others to know the wonders and glories of a world where everyone is a race realist. This is a natural thing. So imagine that: you have a region with a racist philosophy, a true home base. Other people on the outside see this. They want to become part of it. They begin their own movements. 

What ends up happening is that the separate estate becomes a police state. Even the bigots are monitored for connecting to the outside world (or even for bringing the wrong ideas in). North Korea did that, Nazi Germany did that. Even the South during the Civil War began to do that, but it didn't really grow (you really need a big bureaucracy to maintain it). Or becomes a rogue region, sending out terrorists where possible, something like Palestine. Maybe it would stay exactly the same the entire time, but I think this is highly unlikely.

The important thing I'm emphasizing here is that racism is more than erroneous belief. Any serious racist, one who pushes for racism in the political realm (race-based policies), would try to spread their beliefs. Almost every time, it manifests as violence. Although we allow racists to state their beliefs, we do not grant these racists autonomy. Of course, a group of racists might start a small town as you suggest, but if it did crop up, I think we would be best off viciously fighting their ideas. In other words, the town should be fought against with ideas before the violence manifests. I don't think encouraging the racists create their own town is a good solution at all.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...