| | Steve wrote: Michael says race doesn't exist yet he writes... endlessly, it seems, on race. He talks about Black names, about racism, about asians. If race doesn't exist, then what are these adjectives refering to and how are we to make any sense of them?
Steve, as I said at first and repeated often, race is a social construct without objective reality. Like corporate greed and the need for government intervention in the economy or like astrological sun sign, these are things that people talk about, but are nonsense.
So, I can discuss the political agenda forwarded by "Hispanic business leaders" while at the same time pointing out that "Hispanic" for sure and "leader" perhaps are questionable on many grounds. It is a matter of self-identification, but it is totally subjective. Why are Romanians, Italians, and Romansh Swiss excluded?
To the point here, Steve, there is absolutely no genetic test to show whether or not someone is "Hispanic."
Steve wrote: Michael, "Lee" is a common asian name, but it is also a common name in English-speaking countries - like Robert E. Lee - and it goes back to an England long before our colonial days.
Yes, I know that. So, I wrote: "Growing up among newly arrived Appalachians, I knew people proud to carry the family name "Lee" none of whom was Asian. To be prejudiced is to be mentally out of focus." Her point, Ms. Lee's point, was that she is typified as being Asian by her name. My assertion is that this is racialist ignorance. Your repeating the obvious does nothing to address the question.
Steve claimed:
Ayn Rand's essay "Racism" was too little and too late. It was the political left, not the conservatives (or libertarians) who attacked structural racism in the 1950s and 1960s. Even today, conservatives, libertarians, and even Objectivists insist that a business has a "right" to discriminate on the basis of "race." That might be an appropriate claim for libertarians and conservatives. Once again you throw out vague and cheap attacks on Rand that are unwarranted.
Steve, now, as in the past, you perceive attacks on Ayn Rand where none were intended or delivered. You seem very protective of your investment in her writings. I am sorry to make you feel uncomfortable by increasing your cognitive dissonance, but it cannot be avoided easily. At some level, Steve, your sensibilities are your own to deal with. Ayn Rand's essay, "Racism" was excellent, but only too little and too late. Make of that as you must.
SW: "Libertarians, as a political party didn't exist till 1971, and as a recognized political movement in the America they certainly didn't exist in the 1950's - so it is hard to blame them... at least if you want to be rational."
Steve, perhaps you are unaware of the works of Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Rose Lane Wilder, Isabell Paterson, and perhaps also the lesser tracts of Ayn Rand such as "The Only Path to Tomorrow: The Moral Basis of Individualism" (Readers Digest, January 1944.) Ayn Rand, Rose Lane Wilder, and Isabell Paterson kept libertarianism alive through the New Deal years. The word "libertarian" long ante-dates the LP. It is also claimed by those who denounce the "Partyarchy" such as Erwin S. Strauss, author of The Case Against a Libertarian Political Party. Being rational is important, but only when rational is combined with and supported by empirical does it become objective.
SW: "... but the votes in the House and in the Senate for the 1964 Civil Rights Act shows that Republicans voted yes by over 80% while Democrats were closer to 63%. That vote was actually more North versus South (almost no one from the South voted 'Yea'). Unfortunately, that included Barry Goldwater, which speaks to the point.
SW: A business does have the right to discriminate on race, or on any other thing it wishes, rational or not, moral or not. ... people have a right to do things, even immoral things, so long as they don't involve the initiation of force, the use of fraud or theft, then what is your new philosophy? It doesn't appear to be Objectivism.
Steve, the essential difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism (note the capitals) is that Libertarians insist on irrational living as their political right. And we grant that, politically. Ethically, the irrational is immoral. Racism is irrational. Racism is immoral. As I said, and as you did not challenge, to engage in racism or racialism is as irrational as giving away your life savings to beggars. For the Libertarians, your "right" to do so ends the argument. Objectivism is deeper than that.
And, so, too, here. I point out only that prejudice against names like Roshanda and Antoine exists and continues and is irrational and immoral. All that counts is the objective facts of achievement, and the potential of a new hire to bring new profits.
|
|
