Segregation or Integration? — A False Dichotomy.

Segregation, defined as: “the separation of different groups” and integration, defined as: “the intermixing of groups previously separated” are both immoral actions when pursued by an individual not engaged in protecting a contractual agreement or enforcing local (subjective) rules on private property.  This rule could be restated to say integration or segregation can only be a valid action when one has made a contract to either pursue segregation or integration locally or has specific wishes that only certain people be allowed to use (or not use) a personal business or property.  First, this rule assumes that in a given situation there exists another state of neither segregation or integration; I will call this state of society ‘non-preferential’, as in non-preferential towards either the segregation or integration of peoples.  A non-preferential state would be the default state before the use of contract, i.e. before the claiming of property.  For example, if a person was to settle a piece of land but his neighbor was to settle an adjacent piece of property, the first settler would have no right to prevent his neighbor from settling nearby because this unsettled land is non-preferential and not tied to any man through contract.  If the first settler had prevented his neighbor from settling the adjacent property he would be forcefully segregating his prospective neighbor, however (if not) his neighbor would be precedent over the adjacent land (integration).  If the default state of a piece of property is non-preferential and someone chooses to settle the property the only moral action is to allow the individual to integrate.  However, now that the neighbor has successfully integrated into the community he may choose to establish a covenant with the first settler.  A simple covenant may state that “no individual (engaged in the covenant) may sell his property to another person (or family) of a different race”.  If both men agree to the terms of the given contract then neither man can sell the property to another person of a different race unless the contract is dissolved.  If either of the neighbors attempts to sell the property to ‘another of a different race’ then violence can be used to protect the mutuality of the covenant.  So after the property is settled and privatization has occurred then all covenants guiding members of the township must be followed. In other words, it would be immoral to not segregate under the covenant.
As integration and segregation are not either immoral or moral in themselves this issue must be reduced to something more fundamental.  Discrimination is defined as: “the effect of opportunity cost on all things upon which an acting person has not placed in precedence”.  For example, if an individual was to choose any action over any set of other possible choices, all choices that were not acted upon (opportunity cost) would be placed in a state of discrimination. Both integration (mostly) and segregation (always) can be forms of discrimination if they entail the precedence of one group over another.  If one makes a choice the chosen action would have precedence over the unchosen (the discriminated).  Thus it could be stated that discrimination is the result of finite resources and free choice: the necessary result of a hierarchy of ends with according means.  The ends that are given precedence subject the other ends to discrimination, while the means of the precedent end are materialized — the visible result of a discriminatory act.  Integration (when codified in a covenant) is to preference the out-group above the in-group, while segregation is to preference the in-group above the out-group. Non-preferentiality is to place neither the out-group nor the in-group in a state of preference but instead to choose (or have no choice) based on a set of criteria excluding group altogether; universal non-preferentiality is the state of unclaimed property.  Under these definitions discrimination (integration or segregation) is always moral when done to protect a covenant or to exercise private choice over who has precedent or who is discriminated against on private property.  Discrimination (segregation) is always immoral and integration the only moral option when there is non-preferential territory on which a person can reside.

In most western societies all land residing in a town or community is generally either private or public.  Private property is necessarily discriminatory because it is under the control of a legal owner.  Under the conditions of private property all discrimination done at a business, home, or property is necessary to sustain a state of morality and hierarchy.  All private interests must discriminate, as not discriminating is necessarily forceful.  The person who does not discriminate towards actions occurring on his property will necessarily lose his property, the subjective nature of property necessitates that might makes right.  Those that do not have the might to control their property do not have the right to their property, hence it is no longer their property.  This has a self-stabilizing effect on ownership, as those with the might to control have the right to control — thus the system of private property ownership becomes sustainable over many generations when the natural aristocratic elite (those with most might) accumulate the most property and resources.  The longer moral equilibrium (aligning might with right) is prevented from occurring, the more vicious and reactionary the necessary correction will be.  For this reason a society that discriminates early in its existence will generally discriminate less as it grows, as the majority of the natural selection for the according precedent of the discrimination will be most abundant.  That is, if a society voluntarily places an in-group above an out-group the out-group will have incentive to relocate to an area where they are placed in a position of precedent.  When a discrimination (segregation or integration) is forced upon a community an artificial selection has occurred and the general public must adjust their according discriminatory preferences to account for the force.  Eventually, if the democratic state or any other coercive group continues to initiate force and disrupt moral equilibrium the host community or population will do away with the coercion and parasitical populations through violence — usually against the group that the state attempted to artificially place in precedence or equality.  This action is not moral in isolation, but carries society as a whole closer towards its equilibrium morality: it is self defense.  In general, any action that moves society farther away from moral equilibrium is wrong, while any action that moves society closer to moral equilibrium is moral.  Thus in all circumstances private discrimination is good for society because it prevents the destruction of society itself.  Only when discrimination occurs in a state of non-preferentiality is discrimination wrong; a monopoly of might exists when there is only one person attempting to homestead or claim a section of property. 

As discrimination is necessarily moral when pursued by a private interest, discrimination is also moral when pursued by a just government, but immoral when pursued by an unjust government (unaccountable to its citizenry or in-group).  When a government has might it has right; this includes the right to discriminate against certain subsets of its citizenry that may not be beneficial towards the overall success of the nation and controlling in-group.  A government possesses might by providing a good service to its citizenry (in-group), as a government with an unhappy populace could be easily displaced by a military coup or a foreign nation.  Thus governmental competition causes localized nation states to be highly efficient and provide good service towards its citizenry, while also allowing its citizens to produce enough wealth to create new goods and services.  An unhappy citizenry will be less likely to fight in wars to preserve the rule of the current structure of governance or family.  A government that has the support of its citizens is not necessarily the mightiest government; a more efficient shadow state could theoretically provide better services to the public and thus become mightier than the established government usually leading to a coup.  If a shadow state is stronger, the established government is no longer entitled to the monopoly of arbitration. And until the monopolistic dispute is resolved (a contest of might settled), the established state can no longer rightfully claim to hold absolute legal or discriminatory precedence over its citizens.  Thus the conclusion can be reached that an efficient competitive government also has the right to discriminate, while an inefficient and uncompetitive government does not have the right to discriminate; leading to opportunity for a coup or reaction against the inefficient state.
Since both the state and private companies can discriminate if they are most efficient and powerful (mighty) organizations, both forms of discrimination (integration or segregation) can be proper as long as they increase the efficiency of society (maximize social utility).  A state that integrates or segregates populations whereby national efficiency is decreased becomes an overall less efficient nation and hence weaker or more prone to competition or reaction.  A state that integrates or segregates populations whereby national efficiency is increased becomes an overall more efficient nation and hence stronger or more prone to an efficient monopoly.  For example, if some cultural or ethnic subset of the population engages in actions that promote more violence, criminality, or wastefulness it may be in the best interest of the nation to segregate such a population from a different subset that partakes in more peaceful, law-abiding, or efficient actions.  Similarly, if a population generally partakes in actions that would increase national efficiency it would be in the interest of society to integrate that population into the culture and nation.  An efficient state would act based on what would increase national efficiency or social utility.  A nation that fears discriminating in its own interest is a weak nation (not mighty) and shouldn’t last for much longer.  Anti-discriminatory practices, whereby an action that discriminates socially is deemed universally wrong, is a sure sign of a declining government and/or a national in-group soon to be replaced or fragmented.  Thus, it is necessary, that when a government becomes too intolerable and inefficient for the national in-group that they react to replace the failing government with a more tolerable, efficient, centralized, and formal power structure: discrimination is what must be done to create a thriving nation.


Popular posts from this blog

Social Guilt as Social Parasitism

The Philosophy of Human Flourishing [pt. 1]: The Tautological Nature of Reality