Bruce Bartlett Owes Me An Apology

lolcatsdotcom52mp4k8ugsmcicyq … for stealing my thunder. I’ve gotten 12 hits today on my blog. TWELVE, Bruce. All thanks to you. That’s 3 views fewer than I got yesterday. Thanks buddy.

Why am I blaming Bartlett? Duh. In a piece I wrote earlier today on Rand Paul’s intellectual midgetry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I wrote:

Proof that the market wouldn’t have gotten rid of segregation regardless of the economic efficacy of getting rid of it is evident with places like Georgia and Louisiana, both states that had rampant segregation. They’re both states that have a huge black population that could have been clientele for the private establishments yet they still segregated. Why? Because WASP customers didn’t want blacks to shop, dine or ride buses with them. The free market took care of the problem: it maintained the status quo because the white majority, the biggest customer, didn’t want the status quo to change. If the blacks were the majority, it’d be different; the invisible hand would have moved faster as segregation wouldn’t have made economic sense at all. When an establishment’s main potential customer is a white person who doesn’t like black people dining with him, though, the establishment is going to accommodate him, isn’t it? That’s good for business. If, for example, every restaurant in a small town in segregationist Georgia decided to not practice segregation, who wins? The restaurant that opens up that serves only white people. All the white people who don’t feel comfortable dining with blacks will go to that restaurant. In order to compete, the other restaurants will start segregating again.

Here’s Bruce BARTLETT [heavy disdain] basically lifting what I said.

Untitled-1As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn’t have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

… Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn’t work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

But Rand’s position is that it was wrong in principle in 1964. There is no other way of interpreting this except as an endorsement of all the things the Civil Rights Act was designed to prohibit, as favoring the status quo throughout the South that would have led to a continuation of segregation and discrimination against African Americans at least for many more years. Undoubtedly, changing mores would have broken down some of this over time, but there is no reason to believe that it would have been quick or that vestiges wouldn’t still remain today. Indeed, vestiges remain despite the Civil Rights Act.

So, thanks BRUCE. Get your own bright ideas.

/emote Edwin storms the castle.

PS: I love ya, Bruce. Don’t worry, I won’t beat you up for this.

PPS: I don’t mean I love you. I mean I like you like you.

PPPS: For anyone reading this, no I’m not saying I “like you like you” as in I’m “into” him. I like girls. I…

Oh for God’s sake. Get your head out of the gutter and GTFO my Internets.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: