Stop Acting Like A Victim: PaleoLibertarianism Over Equality
In the past decade, growing in size at extreme rates earlier this year with the Black Lives Matter protests and riots, the idea of discrimination-caused racial inequality as the sole cause of all inequality in wealth and income has become mainstream. This idea has been parroted by politicians[1], journalists, and college students[2], hoping to please the 'woke' mob[3], but is there any truth to this idea? Could racially motivated discrimination actually be the cause of income and wealth inequalities?
The answer? No. Income and wealth inequalities cannot be chalked up to simply 'discrimination' or 'systemic racism'. The issue is not that simple and is made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of different factors making up every individual of each different race, sex, or any other group. What is the goal of the lie of discrimination of this ‘woke’ agenda then? Socialism. The advocates of the 'woke' ideology admit as much. Let us first go over the idea of 'discrimination' in wealth inequalities
If discrimination played the role in inequalities of wealth, then it would be logical to believe that the discriminators, be they employers, landlords, or shopkeepers, do not care about external circumstance apart from race. But would a racist discriminate differently if a black person was married or not? Would a racist discriminate based on if you had two parents in your home? Of course not. They would not care at all. But then why is it that blacks with two parents in their home as a child and those who are married perform significantly better than the average black population? Simply, your actions are the key decider for success. As Thomas Sowell[4] points out, black married couples have had poverty rates in the single digits since 1994. "Behaviour matters" says Sowell, contrasting with the typical mainstream opinions. When looking at incomes by educational level it is shown for all races to be fairly similar in income.[5]
Following the 'discrimination' logic, wouldn't asians be discriminating against whites, since asians make more money income than whites? But then admitting this would go against the whole progressive push against white heterosexual males, so they hardly will concede to this point.
We have to see this for what it is: a family issue. Over all poor families with children only 29% of them had married parents, while non-poor families had a 73.5% married rate.[6] There is a clear correlation between family structure and poverty, and this correlation is seen in all races. Poverty and family structure are most definitely connected, and as Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams have pointed out it is the welfare state that is aiding in the destruction of the black family[7] given levels of black single motherhood are higher than that of right after slavery. The welfare state did what slavery couldn't: destroy the black family. [8]
Clearly then, it is not a issue of discrimination. But what have the 'woke' progressives said about family? If they wanted to help wouldn't they encourage strong families and good work ethics?
To the contrary, the 'woke' progressives have advocated for the demolition of the nuclear family. On the official Black Lives Matter website they claim "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure"[9]. One of the co-founders of the Black Lives Matter organisation and movement Patrisse Cullors has described the organisation and its members as "Trained Marxists"[10] and is a self-professed "prison abolitionist" (the jokes write themselves). When describing Donald Trump she claimed he was "Literally the epitome of evil, all the evils of this country - be it racism, capitalism, sexism, homophobia"[11]. And the mask slips off[12]. They consider capitalism, and private property, to be one of the greatest evils of western civilisation. This is not a one off however. Socialism and its variants are drenched in the 'woke' agenda. Sasha Johnson, a Black Lives Matter protest organiser, has called for "'Holocaust style' reparations for black people on the basis that capitalism racially discriminates against them", and has claimed that there should be a 'race offenders register' similar to that of a sex offenders register, working off of mere allegations and barring those on the list from living near minority neighbourhoods[13].
Are these the solutions to the problems of black impoverishment? Even if the diagnoses were right, which they are clearly not, the medicine is infinitely worse! It is common place, in every 'woke' headquarters - universities, unions, and public schools - , to see ideas of rampant socialism through redistributive measures and affirmative action regulations (not to mention the abolition of private property some are advocating!). Not to mention, it is contradictory to be 'anti-racist' and claim capitalism is racist. Capitalism is simply the recognition of property rights and free trade[14], implying that capitalism is racist is inofitself racist. To claim that free trade, private property, and self-ownership will prevent minority success you are implying that they are intellectually incapable of free trade. Sure sounds racist to me!
So then, what is it that the 'woke' crowd really want? Well, if you have read this article so far, it is clear. They advocate a form of progressive socialism, combining the moral and cultural theory of the progressives with the economic theory of the socialists. The worst part is this ideological combination of two of the most corrupt, intellectually bankrupt ideas - progressivism and socialism - is becoming increasingly mainstream. Every time you hear a politician go on about economic 'inequalities' or 'inequities' know what they are actually advocating, that is the 'woke' - unabashedly socialist - agenda.
Every libertarian with a spine then must face the 'woke' agenda with utter contempt. There is no room for alliance with these people; they oppose private property, freedom of speech, association, and every other deeply held libertarian pillar of belief. As libertarians we must realise that the appropriate strategy must be a paleo - that is, culturally conservative - strategy[15].
Twitter: @PaleoLiberty
[1] In fact sitting United States president Joe Biden has endorsed this idea on his own website here: https://joebiden.com/racial-economic-equity/ .
[2] A survey conducted found that out of US Republican and Democrat voters 61.2% believed Blacks faced "a great deal" or "a lot" of discrimination, 57.5% believed muslims faced "a great deal" of discrimination, and 37% believed that women face "a great deal" of discrimination. Only 18% believed whites face discrimination.
[3] The 'woke' progressives have had control over the culture for decades now. Because of the current 'cancel culture' people are more afraid to express their opinions than ever before, almost quadrupling the rates of the supposedly 'oppressive' McCarthy era. In 1954 the percentage of people who believed that they were not free to express their opinions was 13%, comparatively in 2015 it was 48%. Source: https://www.persuasion.community/p/americans-are-self-censoring-at-record. Another study found:
Although strong liberals are the only group who feel they can say what they believe, the share who feel pressured to self‐censor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020. The share of moderates who self‐censor increased 7 points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a 7‐point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).
This is an uniquely 'woke' left wing push for censorship and 'cancel culture'. From the same study as listed above, they found that among those whom would describe themselves "strong liberals" (meaning the American sense of the word, not the old free market definition) 50% support firing Trump donors. Overall, 31% believed Trump donors should be fired, while 22% believed Biden donors should be fired. Source above.
[4] See Thomas Sowell's Discrimination and Disparities, also see Part III, chapters 10-12, of Basic Economics
[5] Source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_RFD.asp
[7] Source: https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty; See https://mises.org/library/intellectual-incoherence-conservatism, The intellectual incoherence of conservatism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe featured in chapter 10 of Democracy: The God That Failed; Race and Economics by Walter E. Williams; Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell.
[8] For more see: https://mises.org/wire/welfare-state-did-what-slavery-couldnt-do
[10] Source: https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
[11] Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/black-lives-matter-patrisse-cullors-trump-hitler-2017-8?r=US&IR=T
[12] For those familiar with left wing politics this should come as no surprise. Ideological alliance with egalitarianism will, inevitably, lead to the destruction of private property, and with that any reminiscence of liberty. For more see Hoppeanism Is A Right Wing Ideology at https://hoppean.org/article/12 . This is, yet another, reason why libertarians should not alliance with leftists. It will not end well, as Rothbard and many others found out in the past.
[13] I don't feel it necessary for me to explain why such an idea is just simply terrible. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9085623/Leader-Black-Lives-Matter-inspired-political-party-calls-race-offenders-register.html
[14] I'm using Hans-Hermann Hoppe's definition he gives in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Chapter 1. See it here, courtesy of the Mises Institute,: https://mises.org/library/theory-socialism-and-capitalism-0
[15] See https://www.rothbard.it/articles/right-wing-populism.pdf for more on the paleo strategy for libertarianism. Rothbard understood, as does Hoppe, that egalitarianism is incompatible with private property ideologies like libertarianism. Therefore, an appropriate libertarian strategy should not pander to these peo