I want to look at two words that the State and its
hangers-on have employed with much success on behalf of increases in
government power. One is racism. The other is equality.
What exactly is racism? We almost never hear a
definition. I doubt anyone really knows what it is. If you’re inclined to
dispute this, ask yourself why, if racism truly is something clear and
determinate, there is such ceaseless disagreement over which thoughts and
behaviors are racist and which are not?
If put on the spot, the average person would probably
define racism along the lines of how Murray N. Rothbard defined
anti-Semitism, involving hatred and/or the intention to carry out violence,
whether State-directed or otherwise, against the despised group:
It seems to me that there are only two supportable and defensible definitions
of anti-Semitism: one, focusing on the subjective mental state of the person,
and the other “objectively,” on the actions he undertakes or the policies he
advocates. For the first, the best definition of anti-Semitism is simple
and conclusive: a person who hates all Jews….
How, unless we are someone’s close friend, or shrink, can
we know what lies in a person’s heart? Perhaps then the focus should be, not
on the subject’s state of heart or mind, but on a proposition that can be
checked by observers who don’t know the man personally. In that case, we
should focus on the objective rather than the subjective, that is the
person’s actions or advocacies. Well, in that case, the only rational
definition of an anti-Semite is one who advocates political, legal, economic,
or social disabilities to be levied against Jews (or, of course, has
participated in imposing them).
This, then, seems reasonable: (1) someone is a racist if
he hates a particular racial group, but (2) since we can’t read people’s
minds, and since accusing people of hating an entire group of people is a
fairly serious charge, instead of vainly trying to read the suspect’s mind we
ought instead to see if he favors special disabilities against the group in
question.
Back to Rothbard:
But am I not redefining anti-Semitism out of existence?
Certainly not. On the subjective definition, by the very nature of the
situation, I don’t know any such people, and I doubt whether the Smear Bund
does either. On the objective definition, where outsiders can have greater
knowledge, and setting aside clear-cut anti-Semites of the past, there are in
modern America authentic anti-Semites: groups such as the Christian Identity
movement, or the Aryan Resistance, or the author of the novel Turner’s
Diaries. But these are marginal groups, you say, of no account and not
worth worrying about? Yes, fella, and that is precisely the point.
On the other hand, maybe a racist is someone who believes
different groups tend to have common characteristics, even while
acknowledging the axiomatic point that each individual person is unique. But
whether it’s family structure, a penchant for alcoholism, a reputation for
hard work, or a great many other qualities, Thomas Sowell has assembled a
vast body of work showing that these traits are not even close to being
distributed equally across populations.
The Chinese, for example, gained reputations in countries
all over the world for working very hard, often under especially difficult
conditions. (As a matter of fact, this is one of the reasons American labor
unions despised Chinese workers in the nineteenth century.) By the mid-20th
century, the Chinese minority dominated major sectors of the Malaysian
economy even though they were officially discriminated against in the
Malaysian constitution, and earned twice the income of the average Malay.
They owned the vast majority of the rice mills in Thailand and the
Philippines. They conducted more than 70 percent of the retail trade in
Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Malaysia.
We could tell a similar story about Armenians in various parts of the world,
as well as Jews and East Indians. Japanese-Americans went from being so badly
discriminated against that they were confined to camps during World War II to
equaling whites in income by 1959 and exceeding whites in income a decade
later by one-third.
Likewise for Germans, whose reputations and
accomplishments in craftsmanship, science, and technology have been evident
not only in Germany but also among Germans in the U.S., Brazil, Australia,
Czechoslovakia, and Chile. They had more prosperous farms than Brazilian
farmers in Brazil, Russian farmers in Russia, and Chilean farmers in Chile.
Jews earn higher incomes than Hispanics in the US; this,
we are solemnly told, is the result of discrimination. Oh, really? As Sowell
points out, how then are we to explain why Jews earn higher incomes than
Hispanics in Hispanic countries?
According to the inane rules governing American society,
Sowell, being black himself, is permitted to discuss such phenomena, while
the rest of us face demonization, destroyed careers, and ruined reputations
should we make note of any of this forbidden testimony.
In order not to be suspected of racism, therefore, one
must play it as safe as possible by at least pretending to believe the
following propositions:
– income disparities among groups are explainable
entirely or in very large part by discrimination;
— if a minority group is “underrepresented” in a
particular profession, the cause must be racism;
— if minority students are disproportionately disciplined
in school, the cause must be racism, even when the teachers involved
themselves belong to the same minority group;
— if test scores – both in school and in the private
sector – differ by racial group, this is evidence that the tests are
culturally biased, even though the questions showing the greatest disparity
happen to have the least cultural content.
Not one of these statements is defensible, needless to say, but every one of
them must be believed. Skeptics are, of course, racist.
The following opinions or propositions have all been
declared racist at one point or another, by one source or another:
– affirmative action is undesirable;
— antidiscrimination law is a violation of private
property rights and freedom of contract;
— Brown v. Board of Education was based on faulty
reasoning;
— the extent of racism in American society is
exaggerated.
There are many grounds on which one could advance these
claims. But since according to popular left-wing sites like Daily Kos,
ThinkProgress, and Media Matters it is racist to believe in any of them, it
doesn’t matter what your arguments are. You are a racist. Protest all you
like, but the more you try, the more the commissars smear and ridicule you.
You may pretend that you have logically sound and morally unimpeachable
reasons for your views, but this is all a smokescreen for racism as far as
the commissars are concerned. The only way you can satisfy them now is by
abandoning your views (and even then they’ll still question your
sincerity), even though you do not hold them on disreputable grounds.
Thus charges of racism nearly always involve attempted
mind reading – e.g., that person claims to oppose antidiscrimination law
out of some kind of principle, but we know it’s because he’s a racist.
To see libertarians, who of course should know better,
jumping on the thought-control bandwagon, or pretending that the whole issue
is about the freedom to be a jerk, is extremely short-sighted and most
unfortunate. The State uses the racism racket as justification for its
further extension of power over education, employment, wealth redistribution,
and a good deal else. Meanwhile, it silences critics of State violence with
its magic, never-defined word racism, an accusation the critic has to spend
the rest of his life trying to disprove, only to discover that the race
hustlers will not lift the curse until he utterly abases himself and
repudiates his entire philosophy.
If he tries to defend himself by protesting that he has
close friends who belong to the group he is accused of hating, he’ll be
ridiculed more than ever. Here’s Rothbard again:
I also want to embellish a point: All my life, I have
heard anti-anti-Semites sneer at Gentiles who, defending themselves against
the charge of anti-Semitism, protest that “some of my best friends are Jews.”
This phrase is always sneered at, as if easy ridicule is a refutation of the
argument. But it seems to me that ridicule is habitually used here, precisely
because the argument is conclusive. If some of Mr. X’s best friends are
indeed Jews, it is absurd and self-contradictory to claim that he is
anti-Semitic. And that should be that.
It’s hard to argue with Rothbard here. If someone had
been accused of disliking ground beef, but it could be shown that he very
much enjoyed hamburgers and goulash, that would pretty much demolish the
accusation, wouldn’t it?
I know no one who hates entire groups, and those people
who do are in such a tiny minority that their organizations are equal parts
lunatic and FBI informant. Likewise, I know no one who favors the use of
official violence against particular groups.
We should want to treat people justly and with respect,
of course. Any decent person feels that way. But how and why does “equality”
enter the picture, except in the trivial and obvious libertarian sense that
we should all equally refrain from aggression against one another?
The State likes nothing more than to declare war on
drugs, or terrorism, or poverty, or “inequality.” The State loves “equality”
as an organizing principle, because it can never be achieved. In the course
of trying, the State acquires ever more power over ever more practices and
institutions. Anyone who questions the premise of equality is hectored out of
polite society. Quite a racket, this, and certainly no place for libertarians
to be.
If it’s material equality we want, it would vanish the
moment after we achieved it, as soon as people resumed their normal spending
patterns and the goods and services offered by some people were more highly
valued than those offered by others. If it’s “equality of opportunity,” then
we would have to abolish the family, as so many socialist schemes have
seriously contemplated, since conditions in the household play such an
important role in children’s success.
Yes, of course we oppose the inequality that results from
special State privilege enjoyed by certain people and groups. But the real
issue there isn’t inequality per se, but justice and private property.
Even the old saw about equality in the eyes of God isn’t
quite right. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, the Catholic classical liberal, noted
that Judas, who betrayed Christ, was in no way the “equal” of St. John, the
beloved disciple, and that the origins of “equality” lay in Lucifer’s urge to
be the equal of Christ. He added:
Egalitarianism under the best circumstances becomes
hypocrisy; if sincerely accepted and believed in, its menace is greater. Then
all actual inequalities appear without exception to be unjust, immoral,
intolerable. Hatred, unhappiness, tension, a general maladjustment is the
result. The situation is even worse when brutal efforts are made to establish
equality through a process of artificial leveling (‘social engineering’)
which can only be done by force, restrictions, or terror, and the outcome is
a complete loss of liberty.
If we want to be free, therefore, we must shun the State,
its methods, and its language.
This article was first published on July 2, 2014.
