Gonzo Times

The Anti-Authoritarian Website

http://www.gonzotimes.com

Discrimination and Distinction: Objections to Block

So far in my writing here at Gonzo times, I have tended to not

discuss more controversial issues, not out of fear of censor or criticism but so far that’s
where my inspiration has led me. This piece represents a break with that ,and a desire to
address what I feel to be pressing controversial issues , highlighting the left libertarian
break from traditional libertarian thought. I would like to discuss Professor Walter Block
,since his arguments make the rounds among Austro-libertarians, since they remain a
frustration in opening up new paradigms of thought to the issues of discrimination and
linking it to ‘thick libertarianism’. My objections here are aimed at two works of his
namely The Case for Discrimination and his book likewise titled ,which contains the same kind
of erroneous logic. My issues with Block’s arguments are not rights based ones. He is correct,
in that there is a right to discriminate. Make no mistake, I’m not advocating aggression to
correct this. My contention with his points, is that the lines in some instances become blurry
whether he is defending discrimination as a right or as a moral concept and this to me seems
like hypocrisy in light of Block’s arguments for ‘plumbline libertarianism’. While he may not
intend to, Block has here accepted ‘Thick libertarianism’ of a decidedly strong culturally
conservative bent. First he begins with a vague definition of the concept , “In the days of
yore, to say that a man was discriminating was to pay him a compliment. It meant that he
had taste; he could distinguish between the poor, the mediocre, the good and the excellent.
His ability to make fine distinctions enabled him to live a better life than
otherwise.” While Block clearly is using a definition of discrimination(“the ability to make
fine distinctions”) ,he is clearly not using the term in the way most people conceive of it
today i.e. racism, or classism. With this wrong footed definition, Block continues. With
“Nowadays, in our politically correct times,” Block marginalizes legitimate concerns by
conflating them with Political correctness, a term which only can be intended to close down
dialogue and prevent critical thinking. As can be seen from articles at Lew Rockwell.com
,the general culture is opposed to it - propagating falsely given media driven hysterical
examples along the lines of the supposed casting of ‘blackboard’ to the outer limits of
acceptability. Block’s troublesome treatment of this important issue does not end there. He
writes “ If not, coercive bisexuality would be the logical implication of the anti-discrimination
movement. Why? Well, male heterosexuals despicably discriminate against half the human
race as bed/sex/marriage partners: all other men. Nor can female heterosexuals plead
innocence against this dread charge; they, too, abjure half of their fellow creatures in this
regard. Can male homosexuals deflect this deadly indictment? No, they, too, refuse to have
anything to do with all females in such a context. Similarly, female homosexuals, lesbians,
rotten creatures that they are, also avoid entangling alliances of this sort with all men, again,
half the human race. No, it is the bisexuals, and only the bisexuals, who are entirely
innocent of discrimination of this sort. They are the only decent people in the entire sexual
spectrum to refrain from this evil practice. (We now disregard the fact that bisexuals also

page 1 / 2
 Gonzo Times
The Anti-Authoritarian Website
http://www.gonzotimes.com

make invidious comparisons based on beauty, age, sense of humor, etc.) Therefore, if we
really opposed discrimination in matters of the heart, we would all embrace bi-sexuality.”
This argument would be valid IF discrimination as commonly used meant what Block here
claimed it to .But it does not. As I’ve argued, discrimination (as commonly used) is very
specific. It refers to a relationship (systematic or spontaneous ) involving the treatment of
one person or group as inferior, while another is viewed as superior, based on false or
arbitrary claims.It involves the dehumanization of that ‘inferior’ group, depicting them as
less than or non human.They become objects, viewed as lacking in free will, bound by
forces such as ‘race’ or ‘gender’ to act in pre-determined stereotypical ways. Block’s
treatment of such a emotional and thoughtful topic, with such whimsical and absurd
commentary is insulting at very least. He reduces it to the blame the victim,
scaremongering mentality that we’ve come to expect among the staunchest of right wing
figures. Apparently discrimination is one of these bizarre liberal concepts. Now lets turn to
Block’s relation of this argument to economics. He argues “Similarly, in the labor field. If
whites refuse to hire blacks, their wages will fall below the levels that would otherwise
prevail. This will set up large profit opportunities for someone, be he white or black it matters
not, to hire these people, and thus be able to outcompete those with great tastes for
discrimination.” Here as Roderick Long has argued, Block has treated the existing order as if it
were a free market, since his assumption of competition relies on there being no barriers to
entry or limits on competition. Block has fallen into the error of ‘Vulgar Libertarianism’. Yet
strangely Block admits the existence of such occurances in a later paragraph but fails to make
the connection, conceding, “ But, this phenomenon did not work with the plight of black
people who were forced to sit in the back of the bus during the Jim Crow era in the south. Why
not? Because entry into the bus industry was strictly limited by the political forces responsible
for this reprehensible legal code in the first place. If all there were standing in the way of black
people sitting in all reaches of the bus was private discrimination, this would have been an
impotent force, as other, competing firms would have supplied bus service.” As discussed in
the above referenced Roderick Long article, Block also argues that the Wage gap is due to
cultural factors unrelated to sexism. But Block ignores the fact that these cultural
factors(Block’s claim that married women earn less) can be influenced by sexist gender roles
or by barriers to entry or by oppression from inflexible uncaring bosses.If someone unfamiliar
to libertarian circles, were to read the article(and I’m sure someone has) they would see it as
whitewash dismissal of the issues, a typical rightwing response. Thankfully there exists left
libertarianism, as a check on the absurdity and logical faux pas of traditional libertarian thought
and as a beacon of hope offering a superior alternative.

page 2 / 2