That’s the subtitle, the title is Bound for Freedom and it is by Douglas Flamming. This book is a good antidote to libertarians who assign too much blame to state governments, and not enough blame to voluntary norms, when it comes to Southern segregation and Jim Crow. Early in the twentieth century, Los Angeles was devoid of the oppressive Jim Crow laws that were so common in the South. In fact California had some (unenforced) laws prohibiting discrimination according to race. Yet according to one survey only three of two hundred saloons would serve blacks. Most hotels did not accept blacks either and that was in direct contradiction to state law. Both Hollywood and the petroleum industry for the most part refused to hire blacks, even for jobs of unskilled labor. On the positive side, many of the businesses along Central Avenue were fully integrated, serving Latino and Japanese customers as well. Blacks did have, overall, a much better existence in LA than in the South but this volume shows that Jim Crow cannot simply be blamed on oppressive government regulations.
Here is my earlier post on Jim Crow in sports.
In a semi-democratic system, obviously Jim Crow laws cannot come into existence without popular support. I don’t think its helpful to comparing state vs. voluntary forms of discrimination; that presupposes the prejudice already exists, which is the source of the problem (though surely voluntary forms of discrimination are always going to be less severe, given the same level of prejudice). It seems like what we should look at is government vs. voluntary means of decreasing prejudice.
I’m very skeptical that government can do anything to reduce prejudice, aside from get out of the way. I just can’t think of where else incentives to integrate would come from, except for comparative advantage? Sure this can manifest itself through democracy, but I don’t think that means democracy itself somehow ‘solved’ the problem of irrational prejudice.
How about government solving the problem of prejudices through education or strict enforcement of non-discrimination rules? True, it won’t solve the problem, but it seems to me that the net effect is better in this case than when government does nothing…
“I just can’t think of where else incentives to integrate would come from, except for comparative advantage?”
Is it always the case that we act in line with incentives? I am taking now class in economic sociology and it seems to me that people often act according to norms, conventions, or in line with rules created by social facts…
********************
Remy Piwowarski
Executive Director
Economics International
http://economicsinternational.blogspot.com/
Place for young Econ wolves!
“voluntary norms”?
It’s OK, Tyler – you can call it “racism” – we’ll still respect you.
It was only once “public norms” had changed and become pervasive enough that laws and enforcement could have any effect.
This seems to be Tyler’s point. Nowhere do I see a “an indictment of libertarianism” on Tyler’s part. Sounds like you’re being a bit hypersensitive.
Remy,
I admit to never having read in-depth studies on the effects of direct anti-discrimination laws. However, I have never heard anyone exclaim that forceful integration with any group dissolved their prejudices. I have, however, heard the opposite, and off-hand remarks that certain people have only gotten ahead because of their race or gender (even when integration is not forced by government). Maybe the laws do help, but I’m skeptical.
This of course ignores legitimate and rational reasons to discriminate, which are in my experience mostly cultural. People socialize with their fellow employees, and its the employers job to make sure her employees are going to get along and work well together.
This is somewhat off-topic, but I have talked to managers who have flatly refused to hire women, the handicapped and certain minorities for technical jobs. Their motives weren’t malicious at all, they were simply afraid of being sued for sexual harassment or the like (the workplace in question was, shall we say, “less than politically-correct”). It seems to me that there are plenty of instances where you’d want to let prejudice people be prejudice, if only to keep them away from everyone else.
but I don’t see how pointing to Los Angeles laws against discrimination that were ignored and ineffective is an indictment of libertarianism. It is an indictment of government! Nor do I see how government rules enforcing discrimination can possibly be construed as an indictment of libertarianism.
This misses the point entirely. The indictment is of a certain libertarian argument. That argument is that market forces will eliminate discrimination, which exists only because of laws mandating it.
Both these points are simply wrong. Discrimination exists because of racism, and market forces in a racist society do not eliminate racism, they encourage it, even without Jim Crow laws.
The fact is that government was the problem, not the solution. It was only once “public norms” had changed and become pervasive enough that laws and enforcement could have any effect.
No. Government was not the problem. Racist attitudes were the problem. Jim Crow laws did not appear from nowhere. They reflected the widespread, nearly universal, racism in the South. The Federal government was in fact a major part of the solution. Civil rights legislation was necessary. One could argue that by requiring non-discrimination in public accommodations, for example, this legislation removed the economic pressures on businesses to dsicriminate, since they could not legally do so.
One could even argue, as libertarians are inclined to do, that government rules retarded progress against discrimination via transforming what was a powerful moral movement into a goverment responsibility.
One could, if one knew nothing about segregation as it actually existed. Do you think the State of Alabama was on the verge of doing away with segregation in 1964 because of a “powerful moral movement?” That’s ridiculous.
I think we tend to forget that most internal immigration went fairly close to due west: on foot or horseback, people didn’t go from Florida to Washington or Maine to Arizona as often.
Combine this fact with the Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon, and Capital Reef – all lying across the east-to-west path one would follow from somewhere like Richmond – and you have a funnel steering people from the old South to southern California.
Bottom line – this is an emmigration of a social norm.
Good, we’re in agreement then.
Unfortunately, when taking a stand on any political issue, its inevitable that most of the arguments out there which support your side (whatever it is) will be nonsensical.
Whats a shame is that so few people bother to look at how peoples are discriminated against internationally, where the marketplace has a clear record of easing prejudice over time. Jim Crow laws are nothing compared to wars, sanctions and restricted immigration policies.
Bernard Yomtov,
Regarding my claim that government was, and remains, the problem, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, although liberty managed to grasp it.
First, I admit to being careless, I should have said government was part of the problem (still is). How so? As liberty nicely summarized my less than concise argument, government action crowds out private action.
Imagine we lived in a country where government didn’t try to legislate morality. How then does one overturn something like discrimination? Shaming, shunning, and boycotting would be much, much more pervasive. Do you see that because the people think that it is the job of government to fix social problems, that social agents are far less active in combatting social ills privately than they would have otherwise done so?
Thus the problem in LA that I was referring to (again, sorry for being unclear originally, but it was my intent to point out that both the governments of the Jim Crow South and LA were both seperately causing harm, albeit in very different ways) was government crowding out of would-be do-gooders.
Grant’s post from 12:37:05 PM, last paragraph, should give pause to anyone who thinks that government action isn’t crowding out private action. People think that doing something about such discrimination is government’s job, but in reality it is fear of lawsuits from firing or not promoting minorities/women,handicapped/(insert legally “protected” class here) that is actually the driving factor today.
Finally, anyone who thinks that markets weren’t working things out back in the early 60′s all on their own clearly is unaware of the Boston Celtics pure domination of the NBA in the 60′s and early 70′s, virtually entirely due to their willingness to hire and use talent from a group that was radically discriminated against. Eventually the rest of the league’s owners also followed suit and hired blacks, albeit reluctantly, but effectively, and the Celtics domination ended.
The Boston Celtics example shows that the love of green (so to speak) dominates the hatred or aversion to black. The Boston Red Sox on the other hand practiced open discrimination, and the NY Yankees famously took advantage of that, clobbering the Red Sox in the market.
Eventually business owners simply have to give in to the profit motive, or eventually go out of business. Markets work when government doesn’t get in the way with bad incentives (a la the example from Grant above, which alas is all too pervasive).
“Imagine we lived in a country where government didn’t try to legislate morality. How then does one overturn something like discrimination? Shaming, shunning, and boycotting would be much, much more pervasive.”
I sit stunned at your naivete and utter disregard for history. You speak as if racism and discrimination were well on their way to self-repair in the deep South if only markets in shame would have been allowed to play out. There is absolutely no evidence supporting your assumptions. Absolutely none.
Bernard Yomtov,
Sigh. I should have specified that I had in mind Jackie Robinson particularly in mind, as well as highly skilled black players in general. The highly racist Tom Yawkey (Red Sox owner) passed up the chance to not only get Jackie Robinson, but also passed on Willie Mays. The only reason I mentioned the hated Yankees is that they signed Jackie Robinson after the Sox infamously held a “tryout” and passed on him. Yes, the Yankees dominated before the 50′s, and during the 50′s, and afterwards too thanks to large market share which helped tremndously in the ability to offer superior wages. My point is that the Red Sox could’ve made substantial progress vs the damn Yankees in much the same way that the Celtics did. Even after Tom Yawkey died his wife maintained a dsicriminatory attitude for decades afterward, albeit more subtle than the jackie Robinson fiasco. It is precisely because of this that the Red Sox never had enough chances to win the World Series, you simply can’t pass up chances to sign superstars for discriminatory reasons and expect to win against the teams that do sign them.
I grew up in the Boston area, although I no longer live there, and hence I am quite familiar with the changing face of discrimination in what was one of the most racist cities in the US, and which many still think of in those terms.
In particular I thought, and still think, that contrasting the attitude towards discrmination by the Celtics and the Red Sox would be highly illuminating. The Celtics won in 1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, and 1986. If you think that the deliberately nondiscriminatory action of the Celtics wasn’t the primary reason for the Celtics domination during the 60′s, then you have one hell of a coincidence to explain.
If you imagine there are ten players who are 10′s on a scale of one to ten, and hypothetically five are black and five are white, and only one team is willing to hire the black 10′s, then guess what? Domination is the logical result. The Lakers came to a similar decision, as did the rest of the league eventually, but the Celtics had already locked up a huge amount of the best talent, and they (the Celtics) employed them on the court I might add.
“The only reason I mentioned the hated Yankees is that they signed Jackie Robinson after the Sox infamously held a “tryout” and passed on him.”
Huh???
I’ve googled Jackie Robinson and Yankees and as far as I can tell he never ever played for the Yankees.
Happy,
Might things have goten better over time without federal govt involvement? Yes, over a long period.
Did govt involvement via various civil rights laws vastly accelerate change? Absolutely and undeniably yes.
Did that involvement do more harm than good, by “crowding out private action,” as you claim? No. It’s an absurd argument. How long exactly do you think it would have taken “shunning and shaming” to have an effect?
My point is that the Red Sox could’ve made substantial progress vs the damn Yankees in the same way that the Celtics did
So for the Red Sox, the prospect of success was not enough to overcome racist ownership. My point exactly.
And no. Jackie Robinson never played for the Yankees.
“meter, last I checked, there is very little in the way of forced integration in America, especially of the sort that isn’t easy to circumvent, and especially compared to the scale of segregation. Since discrimination has declined hugely since forced segregation was repealed, isn’t that the result of voluntary action? Wouldn’t you say that the elimination of forced segregation was hugely successful? What effective, significant action has the government taken to force integration and punish discrimination?”
EOE, outlawing redlining, affirmative action for starters…
“I am under no illusion that it would take decades for the South to change (it has still taken decades with government antidiscrimination laws), but long before the federal government belatedly decided to enforce the Constitution and enforce voting rights and enforce the right to free assembly, things were already changing. You may have heard of Selma, yes? That wasn’t government laws that were changing things, it was private outrage.”
It was people like MLK, Rosa Parks, etc. who spurred the idea of change but (government) men like LBJ who gave it teeth.
I honestly fail to see how discrimination abates in the 60s, 70s, even 80s without government mandates. I guess if you’re rich and white it’s easy to say “Let the market take care of it (eventually/maybe).”
Being relatively rich and white myself I guess I shouldn’t care so much. It’s this damned empathy of mine that makes me wonder what my view might be if I were poor and black in the late 50s. I’m guessing probably not “let’s just wait and see if this grassroots social change continues.”
By the way, I am not saying we should be happy there are those who practice discrimination at work. On the contrary, my whole point is that antidiscrimination laws are retarding progress.
you have not even come close to showing this. all you have shown is that market forces will eventually work to reduce discrimination. it does not follow from there that the government will slow down or reverse the market forces. simply asserting it is so doesn’t get you very far.
“How pervasive is affirmative action outside of education? Isn’t EOE still limited to the federal government and contractors?
I hadn’t actually heard of redlining before. Interestingly, it was a scheme sponsored by the federal government to rate the riskiness of mortgages.
Honestly, I think its very easy for an average private individual to discriminate as he pleases. I think you’d have a real hard time arguing that federal anti-discrimination programs have had more effects than natural voluntary integration. It seems like its nigh-impossible for the law to prove a case of discrimination based on race or sex.”
a) EOE is not limited to the federal govt and contractors. My firm abides by the same principles as do many corporations.
b) True, redlining was a govt-enabled practice (as were Jim Crow laws, let’s be honest). But they were overturned in the late 60s.
c) I agree that discrimination will always exist and it’s impossible to stop on an individual level. Though, you’re woefully out of touch with reality if you think that it’s “nigh-impossible for the law to prove a case of discrimination based on race or sex.”
bk,
First off, I want to point out that I am completely in favor of government enforcing the constituions right to vote and the constitutions right to free association that were violated during the Jim Crow South. Using government to violate liberty is a problem I still fight against. Enforcing such laws that created massive government failure and no more would in itself made a huge amount of progress.
It is precisely because people were agitating for change fervently enough to pass laws that putatively had this effect that makes me think change would’ve happened anyway in the absence of government antidiscriminatory laws.
In the absence of a foreseeable government regulatory regime aimed at enforcing morality, then do you honestly think people would have said, “oh well, we may as well do nothing”?
I don’t think people would’ve rolled over like that after agitating so much for the change in laws that happened just because those laws didn’t come to pass. They took matters into their own hands before government came around to their point of view, and you are the one who is going to have to convince me that people, especially younger people, especially over time, wouldn’t have boycotted racist establishments.
Not everyone would be convinced, especially at first, But over time the nonracist stores would get more and more business, and the racist ones less and less as people would get shamed and ostracized for daring to patronize them.
Again, the key point is that it takes widespread private change to pass laws, and assuming that that private change reverts back to discrimination in the absence of government coercion seems quite silly to me.
happy,
you have erected a giant strawman. i never said market forces wouldn’t reduce discrimination, and i don’t think anyone else above has. market forces would eventually, in the long term, work to reduce (but most probably not eliminate) discrimination. effective government regulation can, and has, speed to process up.
you made a positive claim: “my whole point is that antidiscrimination laws are retarding progress”. it is your responsibility to prove your own claims.
i would also like to note, the much of the opposition to racist policies in the south came from the north and that that had much to do with the federal government getting involved. back then the north was sufficiently separated from the south that they wouldn’t have been able to exert significant economic pressure in most areas of business to overcome racism.
you made a positive claim: “my whole point is that antidiscrimination laws are retarding progress”. it is your responsibility to prove your own claims
See Grant at Apr 9, 2008 12:37:05 PM, last paragraph. This is happeneing all over the place as one is much more likely to face a lawsuit or goverment action if one fires someone or fails to promote someone than if on emerely doesn’t hire that person in the first place. I read somewhere recently (perhaps at MR, but perhaps elsewhere) that handicapped hiring went way down after the American Disabilities Act was passed by Bush circa 1989-1990. If true, this is why, bad incentives.
One can’t prove what will happen “if”. I still maintain, but can hardly prove, that there would be more boycotts of the sort that happened to Imus in the absence of government antidiscrimination legislation, but private agents aren’t really hunting them down because they believe that the government is on the job, “and anyway, it is the governments job, isn’t it?”.
Even if one thinks that that legislation was once a good idea, I strongly believe that it does cause more harm now. We are at the point where businesses would indeed respond if word was that they were discriminating. They would either have to demonstrate to the court of public opinion that they weren’t violators of all that is good and moral, or they would have to reform. The onus would be on them to demonstrate their good faith, unlike what we have today, where they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Don’t get me wrong, I very much like the idea of innocent until proven guilty, at least when government is using coercion.
Who knows, Friends might have even showed the occasional black person in background shots in the coffee shop, or in minor plotlines, if white people of good conscience didn’t assume that the government was taking care of things.
happy,
from grant: This is somewhat off-topic, but I have talked to managers who have flatly refused to hire women, the handicapped and certain minorities for technical jobs. Their motives weren’t malicious at all, they were simply afraid of being sued for sexual harassment or the like (the workplace in question was, shall we say, “less than politically-correct”). It seems to me that there are plenty of instances where you’d want to let prejudice people be prejudice, if only to keep them away from everyone else.
unless he has talked to every manager in the US, this doesn’t prove your point. all this shows is that government regulation isn’t a perfect solution…but no one claimed it was. he also qualified what type of workplace it is…it is a workplace that is already prejudiced. the presence of government regulation doesn’t result in harm because this place would, in all likelihood, still be discriminating in the absence of regulation also (i don’t see who the absence of regulation would suddenly make them ignore their prejudices). this also indirectly proves my point…where is the market solving this problem? there have been a significant number of lawsuits brought to force companies such as this to stop discriminating…those lawsuits would be impossible without laws against discrimination.
One can’t prove what will happen “if”. I still maintain, but can hardly prove, that there would be more boycotts of the sort that happened to Imus in the absence of government antidiscrimination legislation, but private agents aren’t really hunting them down because they believe that the government is on the job, “and anyway, it is the governments job, isn’t it?”.
this seems like an internal contradiction. despite government laws there was a non-government forced boycott of imus, correct? but how did people find out about imus if “private agents aren’t really hunting them down”? IIRC, it was private actors that first brought the imus thing to the public attention. and to my knowledge (and after a google search) no charges were brought against imus. you can’t bring any evidence to back up your claims and all the evidence you do bring proves the opposite.
We are at the point where businesses would indeed respond if word was that they were discriminating. They would either have to demonstrate to the court of public opinion that they weren’t violators of all that is good and moral, or they would have to reform. The onus would be on them to demonstrate their good faith, unlike what we have today, where they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
this is in direct contradiction to your previous statement. moral outrage to discrimination has not decreased despite the presence of government regulation…it is still present. i again note an internal contradiction in your statements. if they are presumed innocent until proven guilty then why do they have to demonstrate anything to the court of public opinion merely “word was that they were discriminating”? i think you have seriously misread reality with that last statement.
Who knows, Friends might have even showed the occasional black person in background shots in the coffee shop, or in minor plotlines, if white people of good conscience didn’t assume that the government was taking care of things.
huh? what government law mandates that everyone show must have major cast members of every race/ethnicity/creed etc.? you seem to be grasping at straws here. you’re also completely wrong. aisha tyler was in 9 episodes as david schwimmer’s love interest (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0878768/).
bk, you are of course correct that any single example of discrimination is statistically useless, the manager I was referring to was not racist or sexist. He simply worked in an environment full of young white and Asian males who were not at all politically correct. His organization had been sued for sexual harassment in the past, I think twice.
Also, I don’t mean to nitpick, but someone earlier mentioned that its cheaper for capitalists to discriminate against poorer minorities than rich ones. I think this is rarely the case, because the poorer the minority, the cheaper their labor, and the higher the opportunity cost of not employing them when compared to another, equally-skilled worker. Naturally this pushes wages, wealth, etc, up.
Honestly, given the huge information asymmetries and principal-agent problems involved in government, I think the burden of proof should lay with those who believe a government program actually achieves the goals it sets out to do (especially one as long-term as cultural change). Frankly, I’ll give other political views more respect when they acknowledge that discrimination based on little black lines some politician drew on a piece of paper 150 years ago is just as immoral as racism or sexism.
By the way, black residential neighborhoods in even the more notorious slums in LA, such as the Florence and Normandie district where the 1992 riot started, generally don’t look at all like what Easterners expect. The side streets typically consist of small but reasonably well-maintained and landscaped single family homes. LA has very few high rise housing projects.
What’s striking in the poorer black neighborhoods of South Central is the contrast between the tidy residential streets and slummish commercial streets, where typical businesses are store-front churches, liquor stores, Korean-run nail salons, and party supply stores.
Los Angeles also raises questions about the libertarian assumption that entrepreneurialism is the solution for African American economic woes. In the 1990s, basketball legend Magic Johnson made a lot of money badgering national chains like Starbucks into going into business with him in mostly black area around the west end of Martin Luther King Blvd. in LA. This proved a big success.
My observation is that African-Americans (unlike, say, Jamaican-Americans) are not very good at all at starting and managing their own small businesses, but do reasonably well working for large national chains.
bk, the manager was in IT, so not hiring women isn’t much of a loss of productivity, and isn’t that conspicuous. There just aren’t very many women applying for IT jobs.
On the later issue, that should have read “little black lines some politician drew on a map”. I was referring to discriminatory practices against foreigners (sanctions, anti-immigration laws, wars, etc).
Anyways, is this conversation still relevant? In the (few) studies I’ve seen, income is more or less equally distributed when you correct for things like IQ. Of course, some groups tend to have lower IQs than others, and there aren’t as many women in the higher IQ ranges as men. But those sorts of facts don’t have much to do with irrational prejudices, IMO.
My observation is that African-Americans (unlike, say, Jamaican-Americans) are not very good at all at starting and managing their own small businesses, but do reasonably well working for large national chains.
And playing the banjo and dancing, I suppose, according to your observations.
What kind of crap is this?
Left out of the Celtics discussion is the fact that in spite of their success, the old Boston Garden was seldom sold out for Celtics games. The courage of the ownwership and Red Auerbach in signing the first black basketball player, starting the first all-black lineup, and hiring the first black coach in professional sports is never given the due it deserves.
You could say that their success on the court was not reflected in what is the straw that stirs the drink-revenue. Without old-school ownership with deep pockets, the Celtics couldn’t have survived.
The Red Sox had Jackie Robinson and Sam Jethro (IMHO, a better player) in for a tryout under pressure from a Boston ciry councilor to integrate. While they were at the empty Fenway Park, a voice shouted “Get those niggers off the field!” Local legend maintains that it was the owner, drunkard and native Southerner Tom Yawkey, doing the shouting. Karma rewarded Yawkey with 20 years of futility.
Could we start this discussion again, only with you THINKING this time?
How about if you READ my clarification on April 9, 1:35:49. I said market forces can encourage discrimination.
Has anybody ever said that market forces eliminate racism? I think the argument is that when government forces everyone to be racist, it’s cheaper to be a racist, and when not, not.
Many people have argued that market forces eliminate discrimination. Of course if govt, by which I assume you mean state govts with segregation laws, forces people to discriminate they will discriminate. Is that an example of your awesome reasoning ability? However, even if the govt does not require discrimination it will sometimes be profitable to discriminate.
Try hard to understand that. Never mind getting your brain in gear. First let’s work on starting the engine.
Comments on this entry are closed.