Antidiscrimination Law

“We need to make it illegal for companies to discriminate.” This applies to employees, and even customers.

Well, either such discrimination—really bigotry—is good for the company, or it isn’t. Either companies benefit from racial or gender preferences in employees, or they don’t. Either bakers benefit from turning away paying customers who want cakes, or not (without discussing those rare cases where someone wants to force the baker to bake a cake with a hateful message on it).

If you believe that corporate decisions made by bigotry are good for companies, then that would seem to justify laws to ban it. Well, it would justify it if you believe that the proper purpose of law is to force people to act against their own interest for the sake of someone else’s good…

…Wait, why is it in the interest of employers to fire the blacks (to name one legally protected group)? If you want go there, then realize that there is no way to make this case without promoting overt racism. Think about it. Take as long as you need.

Perhaps you believe that corporate decisions made by bigotry are not good for companies. Then why the need for a law at all? Do you seriously argue that people need to be forced to use cars rather than horses, to use computers rather than do their books using paper ledgers, and to live in houses rather than be exposed to the elements? Self-interest is its own motivator.

And if the purpose of this law is to help companies, how do you justify fining them, punishing them, and or even bankrupting them?

Antidiscrimination law is entirely uncontroversial. It’s universally supported by the Left, nearly universally on the Right, and even some Libertarians promote it. Yet it’s based on logic so flawed that in a rational culture that actually taught logic in school, middle school students would all be able to write essays explaining why such law is contradictory.

Everyone supports it, yet it’s simple to show it’s bad. Hmm, think about that for a while.

4 thoughts on “Antidiscrimination Law

  1. Patrick Black

    I completely agree. Individuals and businesses should be permitted to discriminate in any way they please and be allowed to reap the benefits and/or suffer the consequences those decisions bring about. It is only when discussing government action that discrimination is properly banned. (Discrimination here meaning discrimination by non-essentials such as race, religion and etc.)

  2. Ted Harlson

    Well said. I am with a small group of individuals still fighting in court my province, Ontario for its ‘two-tiered policing.” Different laws for collectives. However one of our co-plaintiffs has just had a win for equality before the law. Take heed Americans. The following anarchy is where government discrimination leads.

  3. Pierre Chapuis

    In theory I would agree with you. “Self-interest is it’s own motivator” I maybe would add “Self-interest is it’s own motivator within the parameters of the law”. Anti-discrimination laws did not just appear overnight for no apparent reason. The pendulum swings both ways, In this society the educated have a role to play, in order for all truth to come forth, so we may find a middle.

    1. Keith Weiner Post author

      That “middle” is in between freedom and controls, between food and poison.

      And you have not addressed my point. Is it in the self-interest of employers to hire based on race? If you think so, how far down this path will you go? Why is it good for employers (i.e. profitable) to exclude certain races?

      If not, then what is the reason why antidiscrimination laws just appeared?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s