Just a bit ago, Walter Block and I exchanged views on something he had written. The e-mail exchange follows, as it occurred, first to last.

Dear Walter:

Some recent flamboyant comments of yours may require clarification. They’ll affect your libel case unless you clarify, I believe. I also believe that they convey a mistaken idea of libertarian to those who draw mistaken inferences from your statements about racism and sexism.

I think we have to clarify definitions. We have perhaps to say what we mean and not what sloppy or mixed up common uses may be saying. What is racism?

Here’s a mixed up common definition from the internet: “a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.”

The first problem with this is that it conflates discrimination and prejudice. These are two different things. Prejudice is “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.” Are you admitting to that with respect to race and sex, or do you have reasons and experience that gird your opinions? That’s one clarification that will help us understand your comment: “I’m a racist and a sexist (as a libertarian, I believe we have a right to discriminate against blacks and females)”.

One has a right to prejudice and one cannot avoid prejudice because our reason and experiences are limited. This does not mean that we lack all reason and all experience when it comes to race and sex, and thus base our opinions on our animal spirits. We do not have to wallow in prejudice and exercise that right, rejecting reason and experience as alternative foundations of our opinions. You seem to be saying this, if we adopt the prejudice arm of the definition.

Discrimination has a different meaning than prejudice. It has 2 very different meanings! #2 is one I’ve supported in the past in my writing: recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. This accords with reason and experience. If that is what you mean, it’s a very different thing than prejudice. You need to clarify.

You especially need to clarify because there is also meaning #1, which is: “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”

It brings in prejudice again. Prejudice is actually closer to being the opposite or antagonist to reason and experience. We might try to fudge by saying a prejudice is “well-founded” but then we are contradicting the definition of prejudice given above.

I’d say this. The libertarian view is that you have a right to your actions, including speech and uses of your property, as long as these actions do not infringe the rights of others. This general right includes an indefinitely long list of rights to act in particular circumstances that exclude initiating physical violence against others. Included therein are rights to discriminate and act prejudicially, which two are to be distinguished one from another, being opposites. Racists and sexists are commonly viewed as exercising prejudice, not rational discrimination based upon reason and experience. Are you placing yourself in that category? We need clarification. You’ve provided some when you wrote that a libertarian has a right to discriminate, but this is not enough for readers accustomed to the alternative meanings.

Sincerely,

Mike

Dear Mike:

Which “recent flamboyant comments of” mine?

Where’d you get this from?

Prejudice is “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.”

Best regards,

Walter

To:

Walter Block ;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/dispute-over-libertarianism-sexism-racism/

https://www.google.com/search?q=prejudice&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Mike

Dear Mike:

Do you want this to be a private discussion between the two of us, or, is it ok if we go public with this? I’ll put lots more effort into my reply to your comments if it is the latter.

Best regards,

Walter

Dear Walter:

Private reply, if at all.

Sincerely,

Mike

Dear Mike:

Ok. I’ll respect that.

We have different views of prejudice. I reject your definition. In my view, the prefix, “pre” means before. So pre – judice means judging someone on the basis of previous experience. For example, I know that young people committ more assault and batteries than the elderly, 80 years old and above. So, I’m more scared of this here particular young person, than that there old person. I’m pre – judiced against the young, in this respect. That seems pretty rational to me. It’s just good old induction.

Best regards,

Walter

Dear Walter:

I understand your view of the term “prejudice” better now.

Do other readers? I doubt that, which is why I suggest that clarification is in order. I doubt it because they are likely to use the concept differently.

However, such clarification is an uphill struggle because your etymological view of this word is out of step with a number of etymology sources, and they are more consistent with the idea that prejudice is a hostile, damaging judgment reached before careful thought and before consideration of experience:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/prejudice

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prejudice

http://mvcds-glossarypreject-prejudice.blogspot.com/p/etymology.html

https://www.wordreference.com/definition/prejudice

Unless you clarify, your statement may come back to haunt you. It may be used against libertarians in general because you are a foremost exponent of the libertarian ideas.

Best regards,

Mike

Dear Mike:

I appreciate your constructive criticism, and shall indeed be more careful to explain my views on this in future. Are you sure you don’t want this blogged on LRC? I think it does both of us credit.

Best regards,

Walter

Dear Walter:

All right. I think that’s now helpful to understanding.

Cordially,

Mike

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff