According to Glenn Reynolds: "Liberty Dog is a minarchist libertarian with Objectivist tendencies, but I can't even get my dog to crap outside."

Contact me: Email

MSN Messenger: libertydog05
Yahoo! Messenger: libertydog05
ICQ: 222456716
Skype: libertydog

Syndication feeds:

Wednesday, April 27, 2005


I've heard some pretty asinine arguments in my time, but this post is up there.

For years now, there have been those who have justified reverse discriminatory programs such as Affirmative Action. Their argument has almost inevitably been that AA was not discriminatory against white males, but rather that it was just retribution for past wrongs.

Apparently some are now ready to take it to the next level and state openly that racism is OK so long as it is directed towards the majority. Hell, he even goes so far as to call it a "liberating force." I wonder if this sentiment will remain in the future when America is no longer majority white. Will Whites then be justified in their racism because it is directed at whatever race is the majority?

What about other countries where Whites are already a minority? Is racism by the whites OK then? Hell, forget the macro level of countries. What about the micro level of cities? There are many large cities in the US where Whites are already the minority. Are they justified in racism just because the positions of power are held by another race?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, a resounding NO! Racism is wrong 100% of the time, without exception. It is time to stop justifying bad behavior just because it furthers your desired social engineering goals. Such a justification creates a very slippery slope and if attitudes such as this persist, then surely one day the slope will be sliding in a direction they did not intend.


Tom makes a good point in the comments:
The phrase "reverse discrimination" is nonsensical. It is a policy of coercion aimed at one group. In a free market, such discrimination is tampered by the fact that the discriminating party must bear the consequences of his actions. Discrimination in a free market is an expression of property rights, and with property rights comes the responsibility for one's idiotic actions.

In doing so, he brought to my attention a slip on my part that I often chide others for making, that is, the improper use of the language.

By simply using a derivation of the en vogue term "reverse discrimination" rather than the more precise and appropriate term "discriminatory," I think I conveyed something I did not intend. I am in full agreement with Tom's explanation of discrimination and the free market.

In addition, my use of the word "racism" was intended only to convey one interpretation of the word: "The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them." As a firm believer in judging everyone as an individual and by their chosen actions rather than by an accident of birth, I find racism (by this definition) to be irrational.

I did not intend to make assertions concerning any discrimination that might arise from such beliefs, for as stated above, I firmly believe in the individual right to discriminatory action based on whatever criteria that individual chooses. Others are then free to interact with him as they see fit.

I hope this clears things up some.

The Neolibertarian Network

Copyright © S Michael Moore 2005