The Case For Discrimination
Terrific blog item by Walter E. Block at Psychology Today, who shoves the truth onto the page, balls-out:
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.Nowadays, in our politically correct times, discrimination implies racial and/or sexual hatred. It evokes lynching the innocent, hanging black people who had committed no crime, and, yes, perhaps, even, in the extreme, a return to slavery. This at least was virtually the reaction that greeted candidate for U.S. Senate Rand Paul, when he averred that there were parts of the so-called "Civil Rights" Act of 1964 that were objectionable. But all Senator Paul was saying is that while it would be illicit for government to discriminate on the basis of race or sex or any other such criterion, it is a basic element of private property rights that individuals be free to engage in exactly such preferences. If they were not, an important element of liberty would be lost.
The howls of outrage that greeted this reasonable distinction were so great that Dr. Rand Paul felt compelled to backtrack on his statement. However, we are now discussing a book, not an election. Here, the truth and justice is our only guide, not the hurt feelings of journalists working for the mainstream media and other sob sisters. As such, it is clear that discrimination on the part of individuals, but of course not the state, is part of our birthright of liberty.
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 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 bisexuality. Since we do not, the logical implication is that we should be forced to do so. For, to hang back from this conclusion is to give not only tacit but active approval to discriminatory practices, surely one of the worst things in the politically correct panoply.
It might well be objected that the laws against private parties discriminating should apply only to business, not personal interactions. But why just in commerce and not, also, in human relations? Surely, if there is any such thing as the right not to be discriminated against, it applies in all realms of human existence, not merely in the marketplace. If we have a right not to be murdered, or stolen from, and we do, we do, then this right pervades all realms of human existence. It is equally improper to be killed or robbed in the bedroom as it is in the store.
For 50 years, one pillar of the Liberal justification for a big government and control of business is the supposed need to control pervasive racism, as Liberals see it. They say "You are a racist if you have one negative thought related to the race, gender, clothing, or language of anyone you meet. You are racist if you ever think of such a person as different from anyone else."
Deliberate misinterpretations of "pure" and "white", even as applied to products, laundry, and sugar, are relentlessly pushed as part of this agenda. The claim is that the use of such terms may be factually correct, but that this use is insensitive to the feelings of the oppressed, and this use is enough to demonstrate racism or (even better) unconscious racism.
The aim is to convince every person that he is a racist (even if only subconsciously), and that his employer is a racist, to justify detailed and pervasive government control. The irony is that no one is innocent by that standard, including the Liberals selling this message. The racism that almost everyone deplores has been effective only when implemented by government power such as in the southern US. Private racism is a problem only when expressed through violent crime.
A truly racist country would not have supported the government to punish racism.
When the very prominent, moderate, liberal Juan Williams said that he had some mild, rational fears, Liberal groups reacted strongly and quickly. If William's reactions were tolerated, then all of our similar thoughts would be acceptable. People might look at each other and conclude that we aren't all racists after all. Liberal doctrine would lose a lever of power.
- -
Thomas Sowell wrote that southern streetcar companies before 1900 did not discriminate against blacks, but did separate smokers and non-smokers. Separation by smoking met a market need. Separation by color would have angered customers with no increase in profit.
Further, streetcar companies resisted state and city laws requiring discrimination and separate seating.
So, if companies have to pay for their discriminatory intent, they would rather have the money than be discriminatory. Competition opposes discrimination, other than for rational economic reasons.
Discrimination in the South on streetcars and buses only took hold after the government bought and monopolized those services. Those governments then imposed separate seating regardless of the cost.
This is always the case. Government imposes monopoly rules and regulations, then enforces these regardless of the cost. People forget that oppressive, effective discrimination was only possible through government power.
A free market promotes only rational discrimination. A governement always discriminates against its opponents. A black man in 1960 was oppressed by his government to a degree that a free market could never have done.
Thomas Sowell (search for "When streetcars")
Andrew_M_Garland at April 19, 2012 6:25 PM
It might well be objected that the laws against private parties discriminating should apply only to business, not personal interactions. But why just in commerce and not, also, in human relations?
Because women would become apoplectic if they were required to date short guys.
JD at April 19, 2012 6:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/19/the_case_for_di_1.html#comment-3149527">comment from JDBecause women would become apoplectic if they were required to date short guys.
Like you'd be first in line to date the warty girl with the beautiful personality.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2012 7:53 PM
I go to my local <chain restaurant> on a regular basis. There is usually a "hot blond" waitress and a more "severe" waitress.
I'd rather date the "severe" waitress. At least it seems she thinks.
Jim P. at April 19, 2012 11:44 PM
I'm amazed that Psychology Today published this - they have been a leading factor in the Politically Correct deconstruction of psychiatry/psychology.
Weren't they the ones who published the "conservatism is mental illness" article a while back?
Ben David at April 19, 2012 11:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/19/the_case_for_di_1.html#comment-3149836">comment from Ben DavidPsychology Today posts a host of different researchers and points of view. If the science in one of them is flawed, feel free to correct it in detail.
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2012 12:34 AM
Jim P, that's awesome marketing! Having someone for everyone's "type"
NicoleK at April 20, 2012 5:10 AM
Leave a comment