identification with the Democratic Party tends to decline, and identification with the Republican party tends to increase, as attitudes toward black become less favorable—at least when attitudes are measured with two different racial stereotypes. However, the relationship is far from deterministic: substantial minorities of those with unfavorable attitudes toward blacks identify as Democrats.
—
The politics and philosophy of racism: Grand Racist Party? | The Economist
[F]or many of the people “in my world”—that is, professionals who attended selective colleges and universities in the English-speaking world—the notion that racist Americans are almost entirely in one coalition (the center-right coalition) is an article of faith that is really central to center-left political identity. Those of us who do not share this view thus find ourselves arguing from a position that is seen as intrinsically morally suspect.
- When I was a Rand-toting libertarian lad, I believed, as I believe now, that racism of any stripe is a disgusting form of collectivism. Where my opinion has changed is that I used to think that if negative rights to non-interference were strictly observed, liberty was guaranteed, but I don’t now.
- Eventually I realised that actions that are individually non-coercive can add up to stable patterns of behaviour that are systematically or structurally coercive, depriving some individuals of their rightful liberty.
Posted August 24, 2012 at 9:23am in racism collectivism affirmative action ayn rand prejudice usa republicans
![bbthity:
While he was in Chile Friedman gave a speech titled “The Fragility of Freedom” where he described the “role in the destruction of a free society that was played by the emergence of the welfare state.” Chile’s present difficulties, he argued, “were due almost entirely to the forty-year trend toward collectivism, socialism and the welfare state … a course that would lead to coercion rather than freedom.”
Friedman politely neglected to mention the lack of political and civil liberty under the Pinochet regime. Many of its victims were drugged and taken in military airplanes to be dropped over the South Atlantic, with their bellies slit open while they were still alive so that their bodies would not float and be discovered.
[source]
Viva la liberté!
The Salon article is not about the Chilean miracle, but rather about the supposed contradiction between libertarian principles and democracy. That requires reading more than the first few lines and it’s a different discussion altogether.
As for Friedman, his point is that economic liberalization is followed sooner or later by democratization and general prosperity. But how can we measure the success of Friedman’s recipe?
I would go with UN’s HDI or “Human Development Index”. In 2011, Chile scores highest in South America (44), followed closely by Argentina (45), another recipient of similar shock-liberalization. In terms of Democracy, Chile does not score as high as its peers (Uruguay, Costa Rica score higher) but it’s showing is still not too shabby.
In contrast, countries that take the “Marxist” route (or whatever is close to that idiosyncratic set of gaseous, ivory tower emanations) tend to perform poorly by any measure.
Then again, who would want to take seriously a measure devised and reported by the United Nations, that Conservative, right leaning institution universally loved by libertarians? They’re clearly in bed with Friedman and those who think alike. Case closed.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0re72nSzc1rr2hcfo1_400.jpg)
