Posted 2 years ago on July 30, 2012, 12:55 a.m. EST by Freebird
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"It's easy to be conspicuously compassionate if others are being forced to pay the cost"
~ Murray Rothbard
I admit it. I discriminate. I am kind and respectful to the elderly; I am helpful to the handicapped and I open doors for women.
When I go into a Japanese restaurant, I am a racist. I don’t want to see a white guy or a black guy or a Latino guy, or even a Korean guy making my sushi. Funny that. When I go into a Korean restaurant I certainly don’t want to see a Japanese making the food either (ask any Koreans you know if they agree with me).
And speaking of Seoul food, ditto goes for, say a German or Italian, or down-south real Soul food restaurant; and nope, I don’t want to see a guy named Yamazaki making the pork chops and gravy with collard greens.
I guess that makes me a sexist and a racist and all sorts of naughty things and, in some people’s eyes, an all-around scum of the earth.
I am proud to say I discriminate.
People who claim that sexism or racism should be outlawed by the nation will say, "I dream of a world where people can be judged not by their skin color or sex, but by their merits." They claim that want everyone treated equally.
Then they go on, in the next breath, and say, "But special considerations for some people!"
That’s very subjective and hypocritical.
One great example we often hear in Japan is how women are treated like "Second-class citizens." This seems a curious notion in a country where women hold the pursestrings in over 80% of all Japanese households.
So many will say, "Women in Japan are discriminated against and should have equal rights and equal pay at the workplace!" Yet we have "Women's Only" cars on trains and subways that operate during morning rush hours to work... Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with "Women's Only" cars... But I practice discrimination so it doesn't bother me. I don't claim that "everyone is the same and we are all equal."
The ones who claim to want everyone treated equally are far too often subjective about what that means. They claim to want to use morality as a guide, but fail to see how that, too, is totally subjective.
I have a handicapped daughter and don't want people to be treated equal. I want special considerations for some. I love how Disneyland allows handicapped people to go directly to the front of the line and ride the rides. Is this discrimination? Yes! And I thank Disneyland for it.
My daughter is handicapped. I call her "perfect!"
Also, I want to decide, for myself, how and to who those "special" considerations should be applied. For example, I like having elevators and facilities for the handicapped; I think it is good there are men's and women's restrooms; I think pregnant women, old people and the handicapped should be treated with deference, kindness and respect and be given seats on the trains and buses, (I'm old fashioned) etc.
Even though we should give up our seats to handicapped, old or pregnant (and others) do we need laws to force kindness or morality? No. And, by the way, just how does a law that forces us to, say, give up our seats to old people promote equality? I think that is forced age discrimination, isn't it?
I also think forced equality is bad for business...
Let's be ridiculous for a moment and look at what anti-discrimination laws that force equality in employment would do to professional sports! Take the NBA (please!) Can you imagine having your favorite basketball team staffed with people that represent the cultural make-up of their "home" market? Imagine the new and improved Los Angeles Lakers; two white guys, one black guy, and one each of a Hispanic, short-legged Japanese who can’t jump, a great Jewish athlete (good luck finding one of those), two women, one gay and one lesbian, a transexual, a transvestite, a Democrat, and a hairdresser (I can't specify sex of hair dresser as that would be discriminatory!).
It would be wonderful. Probably would draw in as large the crowds the freak shows do at Ringling Brothers Circus!
Nope. I guess that won't do.
The only way to handle this discrimination "problem" is the private property vs. public property philosophy of Libertarianism. Libertarianism stands up for the free rights of all people.
Michael S. Rozeff once wrote:
"...Libertarianism champions equal rights. It champions the person and the potential of every person to use liberty to the fullest. Libertarians would NEVER have authored Jim Crow laws or denied the vote on the grounds of race or denied equal access to public facilities depending on one's race. Libertarians have for decades preached against the drug war, which severely discriminates against blacks and browns. The prisons are filled disproportionately with people of color. Libertarians have stood staunchly against wars initiated by the U.S. against people of color and fought to a large extent by American soldiers of color..."
In this Libertarian philosophy, private property is respected. You can do what you want with your private property as long as you do not commit aggression against me. Not allowing people in your private business, for whatever reason, is your choice. That you do not allow some people onto your premises is not, in any sense of the word, aggression against anyone.
In fact, if you stop and think about it, people who want to use government power to force their morality onto others are the ones committing aggression.
I don't have any right to order you to associate with people you don't want to on your private property. Nor do you have the right to tell me how to run my business or who I should allow as my customers.
We don’t need laws against stupidity or bad business decisions. You can't outlaw stupidity. It won't work.
A public property (paid for by taxes) is a different story. Those places must be open to everyone regardless of race, creed or color.(But we all know the public government discriminates all the time).
If a restaurant policy of, say, "No dark skinned people," was so odious that it scared away (or pissed off) all their customers (even ones without dark skin) what would happen to that restaurant? It would probably go bankrupt very quickly, right? The free market would handle the issue.
I don't have dark skin and if I saw a sign that said, "No dark skinned people," I wouldn't patronize the place at all (I've been discriminated against many times in my life and I have friends who are gay, lesbians, women, men, whites, transvestites, transexuals, Indians (from India), Indians (from America), Bangladeshis, Germans, Kiwis, Aussies, blacks, etc. etc....) and I don’t particularly care for it, but I will not ask that government force people to do something they don’t want to do.
If I saw a sign that said, "No darkies!" I certainly wouldn't want my friends to go in there and would seriously wonder if they weren’t nuts if they insisted upon doing so.... But! I don't think that the government can pass laws on who you associate with or laws against stupidity....
The more laws we have, the worse things are getting (current situation should be proof enough of that fact!)
Read the rest at....