Tuesday, May 13, 2014

A Few More Thoughts on Race, Racism, the Government and the Racsim Police

By Victor J. Ward

I have read what Cathy Reisenwitz said, and then I read that Roderick Long agreed with her. Long included a link that purportedly backed up her (and his) claim of racism.

The link was to a speech given by Hoppe. In the speech, Hoppe talks about the Welfare State and those that live off of and profit from the Welfare State. Hoppe also makes some positive mention of eugenics.

Hoppe never specifically addresses race or Blacks or minorities, but to the Racism Police, any mention of

eugenics and the Welfare State is just a sneaky way of smearing minorities especially the most helpless minority: Black people.

The Racism Police also like to reference statements mentioned in the Ron Paul newsletter. Here are some of those statements:

1. “The criminals who terrorized our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day — are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.”

2. "Mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.” 

3. “Blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.”

4. “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

As I read each of these statements, I was reminded of how the Racism Police and the public view the topic of race: If you say something about a race that puts the race in a positive light, then that's fine. If you say something about any member of the race and you call attention to the person's race, that is racism. The truth of the statement does not matter.

When the Racism Cops read the above-mentioned statements, they are shocked and horrified. What they should do is to ask themselves whether what the person is saying is true or not. If it's false, then we can move to the next step in determining whether or not the statement is racist. If it's true, however, that's the end of the story. A person cannot say that a true statement is also a racist statement.

In court, truth is an absolute defense to the torts of Libel and Slander. In the court of public opinion, truth must be an absolute defense to being labeled a racist.

For instance, in 2007, Don Imus was fired for saying that the players on the Rutger's Women Basketball team were "nappy headed hos." (He had some complimentary things to say about the Black players on the Tennessee Women's Team, but that never got mentioned because it would have interfered in the Racism Cops' investigation.)

Before we can call Imus' statement racist, we have to test to see whether it is true or not: Do the players, in fact, have nappy heads and are they women of ill-repute? If they are, then truth is an absolute defense and a person cannot claim Imus was being racist; he was simply reporting the facts. If the women are not as he described them, then we can move on to the next step. I never bothered to check his facts, because I really didn't care. I mention it now only to show how we need to check people's statements.

When we look at some of the things mentioned in the newsletter, we have to look at the facts. The facts are: When the Rodney King Trial verdict happened, Blacks stormed the streets and rioted. When the Lakers won their championships, Blacks stormed the streets and rioted. These are factual statements; they are not racist statements.

I am reminded of the words of the Digital Underground:

"I'm in a rage
Oh yeah? Yo, why is that g?
Other races, they say we act like rats in a cage
I tried to argue, but check it, every night in the news
We prove them suckers right and I got the blues"

The facts about welfare are that some Black welfare recipients do feel justified in stealing from the White "haves." The recipients also feel justified in stealing from the Black "haves." (Black "haves" are called "sell-outs," "oreos," and "wanna-bes.") We all know that by "stealing," the writer is not saying that those receiving welfare would be willing to hold a literal gun to someone's head. But, the recipients feel fine in getting something back from "The Man." After all, why do those Crackers and those Sell-Outs need all that money?

The welfare recipients who don't feel fine about taking a hand-out work hard so that they are no longer in a position to need said hand-out. They may not always succeed, but they try.

I find it interesting that both racist and entitlement attitudes begin in the womb of the government. For example, in the government public schools that I've been a part of (East Palo Alto, Compton, and Oakland), part of the principal's evaluation is how many students of color got suspended during a school year. So, if White student A does action Z, and Black student B does the exact same action Z, and action Z is an offense punishable by suspension, White student A will get suspended, but Black student B may not.

Thus, students are not judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin, and the drum beat of racism begins in young, fertile minds.

Government also produces entitlement thinking. The government outlaws jobs that pay below minimum wage. Thus, young Black men cannot get a legal job. And, why work when someone will pay you for doing nothing?

The government says that drugs are illegal. If the government got out of the way, the gangs that traffic and sell drugs would develop an operation that would rival publicly traded companies, for some of these gangs are great at negotiation, pricing, supply chain management, marketing, distribution, and leadership.

Finally, not only does the government require that all children go to school, it also sets the requirements for what is taught in these schools. There are some children who don't want to learn about Biology or Algebra or Shakespeare. The public schools don't bother to teach them about entrepreneurship because so few of those involved in public education are entrepreneurs. The public schools don't bother to teach them a trade because the public schools are elitist and they look down on the trades. The public schools don't bother to teach family values because they don't really value the family.

When people exit the public school, they don't have any way of entering the free market and finding their way. So, they feel justified in taking a handout from other people.

I close with two anecdotal stories. One day, I got on the N Muni line in San Francisco to go from my house to my law school class. At the train stop, there were three Black teenage males who were loud and obnoxious. All four of us boarded the train without showing the driver our ticket. I sat down and started reading; the other three continued their behavior.

The driver stopped the train and approached the three. He asked them for their tickets. They didn't have tickets, so he kicked them off. He never said one word to me. (The driver was also Black.)

If I describe that scene by saying, "Muni driver kicks off three Black teenage males because they were being loud, disrespectful, and obnoxious," that is not a racist statement. It's factual. But the Racism Police would have a field day.

The second story actually occurred on the same day as the train story. After my classes ended, I went to a nearby drugstore to get a snack. As I was trying to decide between the salty chip or the sweet candy bar, I noticed an Asian lady watching me. If I moved from aisle 1 to aisle 2, she moved with me. If I faked left and went right, she matched my every move.

I realized that I was being watched and that the Asian proprietor thought that I was going to steal something.

I got angry, told the lady that I wasn't planning on stealing, and then left.

Looking back on it, I did not handle the situation in the right way. The lady had either had one or several bad experiences with Black customers, and she was prejudging me; or, she had never had any bad experiences with Black customers, and she was prejudging me.

In either case, how did I help her impression of Black customers by walking out of the store? I am sure that she assumed that she had just prevented a robbery. There was nothing that I did to disabuse her of her belief that Black customers were going to steal from her. 

What I should have done was to pay for a bag of chips and/or candy bar, smile at her, and say "Thank you." This would have helped her to see that not all Black customers are bad and that they can be quite enjoyable.

But, it doesn't do anyone any good to tell the lady that she is being a racist. If she has seen 10 Black men come into her store, and she has seen nine of them stealing something from her, she is going to carefully watch the next Black guy. That's just life. If I were to get angry at anyone, it should be at the nine people who stole, not the lady who got stolen from.

I'll close with another bit from the song, "We're all in the same gang." (Young MC)

Brothers killin other brothers
I thought the idea was to love one another?
Open up the paper to one more death
If y'all keep this up then there'll be no one left
I try my best to set an example
Sayin hype lyrics over hip-hop samples
Not just a bragger to boast but to inform
Cause we're livin in the calm before the storm
You see, I believe that the children are the future
But what's it all about if in the future they shoot ya?
We're all human beings, if we're cut we'll bleed
And I want to see all young people succeed
Do 9 to 5, not 5 to 10
Just go to work and not the state pen
Cause you live better when you're out there free
And that's comin straight to ya from the Young MC

Victor J. Ward is a long-time EPJ reader, who first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable. He holds a law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law and an MBA from Santa Clara University.


  1. RW,

    Thank you for posting what Victor has had to say the last couple of weeks.

  2. "If you say something about a race that puts the race in a positive light, then that's fine." Nope, that's positive racism.

    1. If that's the case, then we shouldn't be allowed to mention race at all. That's awfully draconian, Mr. libertarian.

    2. Is there a book on sarcasm and how to identify it?

    3. "Nope, that's positive racism."

      No it isn't. Racism properly defined is the advocacy or implementation of a legal/political system that eschews the values of individual justice and replaces it with a system based on racial group identity (i.e. "social justice"). Making broad generalizations about racial groups can be bigoted or not, depending on the factual accuracy of the claim, but to be racist such generalizations must advocate for a political system that treats people as members of a racial group rather than on an individual basis.

      Isn't it interesting how those most inclined to throw around charges of racism are the ones least likely to even understand what it is?

    4. Shorter version:

      Law predicated upon race.

      However, as a practical matter, at the gloaming, after we have taken the time to inform others of the real meaning of a radioactive word, should we divorce ourselves from the reality that the meaning of a word changes?

    5. I totally caught it JuWu

  3. Cathy and her Cultural Marxist ilk would say it is "racist" to point out the crime stats from our own DOJ showing that the black homicide rate is 14.6 per 100k blacks, while the white/Hispanic/Arab rate is 1.9 - the white rate is prob below 1 given the high levels of gang violence from Mexicans involved in the drug war.

    I am sure Cathy would blame it on racism to notice this or point it out, but those stats are the reason that progressive hero Bloomberg stopped and frisked all browns and blacks in NYC just for walking down the sidewalk - and it worked. Cathy wants to talk about reality and racism among libertarians, but she would never, ever want to talk about the gigantic difference in crime and murder among blacks compared to whites.

    And yes, besides the obvious it does affect the rest of our liberties - the gun banners use murder stats in America to make the case for banning all guns when white murder is lower than it is in most of Europe in the US.