Skip to main content

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

How the Market Incentivizes Us To Be Better People

Many people might be familiar with Milton Friedman's argument on the market's ability to help marginalized people. A quick rephrasing of it follows as such, a grocery store owner might discriminate against hiring a black person in a neighborhood of racist, but who can know the race of the man who grows the wheat for the bread on the shelves? Essentially, he argues that even in a racist society, oppressed people will have incomes through specialization and integration.

But does the market do more to help oppressed peoples? Can it change a racist society into a less racist one? I will argue that the market incentivizes us to be less xenophobic, less sexist, less transphobic, among many other things.

First, and most obvious, racism will affect firms. If a firm refuses business to a particular group, they will almost immediately lose the money of the individuals in this group. This can be a motivator to be more inclusive but will have a relatively small effect since oppressed groups are generally a minority and economically worse off. A firm's discriminatory practices might also trigger a boycott. While this would be effective, it essentially requires social charity on the part of others; people have to be willing to give up goods they previously preferred in order to help others. This might work in some cases, such as Chick-fil-A abandoning allegedly anti-gay charities after boycott from the LGBTQ+ community and allies, but will likely also have a small effect

The market does much more to incentivize us to be better people, though. Let’s look at a hypothetical. Suppose an employer went out to search for labor, but he refused to hire any blonde people. He approaches two equally qualified people, one blonde and the other brunette, seeking labor. If the employer had no bias, these two would have to compete because their labor would be perfect substitutes. But in our scenario, the employer’s preference gives one group an advantage and the other a disadvantage. Most obviously, the blonde person will be worse off. But the employer will be worse off as well since he now has to pay the brunette a higher wage due to a lack of competition in the labor market. This is clearly a simplified scenario though. In the real world, this effect is much more implied and indirect, meaning its remedy--a less discriminatory society--will likely be achieved in the long run.

Not only will this make the blonde worker and the employer worse off, it will also make consumers of the goods worse off. Higher wages mean higher prices of goods. Suppose you have two firms, one that discriminates (and thus has higher wages and consumer prices) and one that does not. The latter will seek workers from many groups and thus can make goods cheaper. Even if this is not passed onto the consumer, the firm will likely re-invest for better technology, also lowering the price of consumer goods. Consumers will begin choosing the lower-priced goods, causing the discriminatory firm to lose profit or change their hiring methods.

Consumers will have more direct incentive though. Say you want to go buy a widget, but you will only buy them from people with blue eyes. First, this preference limits the competition in the supply of widgets, raising your price. Secondly, though, this raises the transaction cost of buying widgets. You have to meticulously check ever seller of widgets to see if they are blue-eyed, wasting time with every purchase. This might seem minimal, but with an ever more digital age, this checking will become harder and harder to do. The internet will not just make consumers unaware of the race of the person growing their bread, but the seller of it too. Amazon, eBay, Uber, and Lyft do not tell you the race, sex, gender, sexuality or eye color of the seller. If a xenophobe really wanted to be sure that they were not contributing to the wealth of someone they hate, they would have to either waste much time seeking this information or not buy from anyone they could not see in front of them. This, however, will be a major disadvantage to them in the digital age of business.

Being discriminatory requires sellers and consumers to give up money in order to pursue their bad preferences. In this way, it is charity, even if it is charity that I and many others disagree with. Racists have to give up savings in order to pursue something they see as moral. Of course, it is not moral, but they see it as such and thus call for others to give up money in pursuit of their preferences. Even still, the market forces are much stronger.

I am not claiming that we will wake up tomorrow, or even a decade from now, with all xenophobia being picked away by the invisible hand. However, these market forces of prices will have the strongest effect in the long term. People may seek to legislate away discrimination, but racist and sexist will always find a way to get around these statutes. The State’s laws can be evaded, but the Laws of Supply and Demand are unavoidable.

Derrell McIver @BenjaminDMyles1


Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About Global Warming

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools. Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary. Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compound

The Counter-Economics of COVID

In March 2020 - some say earlier, but by March 2020 at latest - the banking had sector collapsed. In response, coronavirus was manufactured as a scapegoat to justify the liquidity injection necessary to keep the Federal Reserve’s ponzi scheme alive. The State’s narrative would henceforth be: ‘Since all businesses were shut down, an unprecedented amount of money must be printed and distributed to the public.’ Milton Friedman’s helicopter money had come to fruition. But like a junkie chasing his initial high, the Fed had become immune to the effects of monetary stimulus. Each injection requiring a stronger, more potent dose of cheap & easy money. Less than two years later, and the effects of that stimulus have now waned & the banksters are poised to pull off another heist. As the business cycle continues to ebb and flow until the day of final reckoning, the State can be expected to behave in an increasingly erratic fashion. Like a cornered cat, or a fish out of water, the State

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom