7 thoughts on “Anti-Discrimination Laws”

  1. I recently ran in to the same thing with people who want to ban “lobbyism”. Which sounds great until you try to get a definition of it. Then you discover “what I do is activism, what you do is lobbyism”. Allrighty then…

  2. Interestingly, the Cato Institute is located at the corner of 10th Street NW and Mount Vernon Avenue NW in Washington, DC. It’s right near the building where a friend and co-worker of mine lives, and I’ve tried to go in there several times. I say “tried” because all visitors to the Cato Institute are suddenly attacked out of nowhere by a Chinese butler practicing martial arts….

  3. Oh goody. I’ve been wanting to make this comment for the last couple of days. I saw an opportunity the other night but I was too drunk or tired to bother.

    I take the hardcore libertarian position on this issue: There is nothing wrong with private discrimination.

    Back in the 1960s, the civil rights and anti-discrimination laws were passed to eliminate the Jim Crow laws, which mandated segregation of the races. That was right and proper. Governments should treat all of their citizens equally.

    But the anti-discrimination laws went too far when they outlawed private discrimination. That was an affront to individual liberty. Ever since, government has used those laws as a precedent to dictate how business owners must run their businesses. A perfect example is anti-smoking laws. Where in the hell does the government get off dictating smoking policies on private property? But there is a direct line from the racial anti-discrimination laws of the 1960s to here, and likewise with laws that punish business owners who do not want to cater gay weddings.

    Anti-discrimination laws also prevented the airlines from refusing service to groups of young Muslim men who may have seemed suspicious on 9/11.

    These laws need to be severely scaled back, if not repealed outright.

    Let’s try a simple example:

    We all know that there is a difference between “white” hair and “black” hair. Suppose a black man decides to open a barber shop and wishes to cater to an exclusively black clientele.

    As a white man, should I be offended? Why?

    Does it harm me in any way? No, it does not.

    Should I use the power of government to force him to serve me?

    There are two quotes from Ayn Rand that I can recite from memory. The first is “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” The second is “Freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate.” They may have both been from the same essay.

    1. While I agree with just about everything you’ve said here, I think you still miss the point. The fundamental question is: should we use the law to curtail racism and other forms of discrimination in society? Yes, this deliberately leaves aside the question of if that is achievable or not – that’s the point. Even if it is possible, should we? A lot of people think the answer is yes. The law at the federal level mostly says the answer is yes. Libertarians (and others) say the answer is no. The law should not be a weapon in your war for social equality.

      1. Maybe I don’t get Trent’s point. I’m sure his paragraph structure is confusing, since he poses a Yes/No question, immediately places a Yes after it, and then goes on to explain why it is a No. For all his additional words, rickl was very clear that we don’t need laws curtailing private discrimination, which might not be exactly “don’t use laws to force conformance against racism”, but the Ayn Rand quote makes it pretty clear what rickl thinks about arguements about racism.

Comments are closed.