Discrimination is alive and well in modern society. Ironically, the worst discrimination nowadays is made in the name of fighting against discrimination.
For example, take the use of “politically correct” expressions. How ridiculous it is. When somebody tells me he is an “African-American”, I usually reply “ah, what part of Africa are you from ?”. But seriously, most politically correct expressions are even more racist than the prior ones.
Take for example the notion of “black culture” or “black rights”. Such expressions imply that every single black person is the same and is confronted with the same problems – related to his race. However if we also said “white culture”, we would quickly see the silliness in that concept. There is no such thing as “white culture” or “black culture”. The idea that the characteristics of a person are determined by his skin colour is racist.
So are “anti-discrimination” laws, or more appropriately, anti-justice laws. Why do I say anti-justice ? To understand this, we must first understand what “discrimination” means. Nowadays the word “discrimination” has a bad connotation and is usually associated with bigotry. But at its root the word “discrimination” means one thing : to make distinctions between things and identify them. Therefore discrimination is a particular type of identification.
How is discrimination a pre-requisite of justice ? For example, the discrimination between the guilty and the innocent is at the basis of our judiciary system. Justice in itself is : the giving of the earned. How can you give respect to concepts, ideas or people who earn it, if you cannot discriminate between good and bad people ?
Same thing for “anti-discrimination laws”. The almighty government tells us that you can refuse to do something for someone, but not because he is part of a minority or is in special circumstances (in short, everyone but the successful). “Anti-discrimination laws” should be properly called “pro-discrimination laws” – discrimination against anyone who dares refuse something to someone. After all, we all live for others right ? And after that, some people still try to convince me that socialism has nothing to do with altruism or religion.
How does this translate in practice ? We see a constant attack against people, groups or businesses which attempt to use their faculties of discrimination in order to further their interests. Two months ago, something happened which prompted me to write this article : the Department of Justice (injustice ?) forced Domino’s Pizza to deliver to any neighbourhood, disregarding any potential threats. The complaint was particularily potent since it was made by two black people. Forget about freedom of trade ! We have to deliver an all-dressed in the ‘hood, or else ! It would be funny if it wasn’t so stupid.
The body of laws is full of regulations meant to enforce this discrimination. It seems to be a constant that these laws have three points in common : they are themselves highly offending, they discriminate against well-meaning citizens, and they actually are detrimental to the group that they are supposed to help.
One of the most well-known is the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was meant to help handicapped people. However not only does it force businesses to be accomodating to handicapped people by imposing draconian restrictions to building, but handicapped people are now seen as significant liability risks because they can sue anyone they want for discrimination at the workplace. “Normal” people now have a reason to hate handicapped people as much as minorities. “Under the ADA the employer is more likely to see a handicapped applicant as a lawsuit waiting to happen” (E. Hudgins, in Regulation). Furthermore, like racial laws, it paints the handicapped people as an incapable, sub-standard kind of human who needs the force of the gun on his side in order to get a good job.
Another law popular for its idiocy is liability law. Who has not heard of the McDonalds lawsuit for the cup of coffee spilled on the crotch ? The purpose of liability laws are to hold people accountable for their actions. That is a noble and just goal : however negligeance is not taken into account. Therefore we observe that liability is a tool to give money to stupid people. Not only is it insulting for stupid (and intelligent) people to have to see inscriptions like “contents hot” on coffee cups, but it only confuses them anyway. It also forces people to discriminate against stupid people.
You may think that these problems do not apply to you. You’re not racist or sexist, and you like everyone. But this pro-discrimination is everywhere, even ingrained in our way of thinking. Everyone is affected by these regulations – the Domino’s Pizza guy was not racist (not that we know of, anyway). It’s your economic freedom that is threatened.
In reality there is no such thing as a “right to be considered equal”. Should an alcoholic be considered equal to a sober person when hiring for a job ? The government says yes. How sensible is that ? How would you like it if everyone could sue you for not being able to enter your house, or because it is not adapted for handicapped people ? True, your house does not offer a public service. But neither is a business obligated to do so. They both partake of the same right to trade and associate with whoever you want.
Anyone who asks us to fight against discrimination (in the philosophical or common sense) is asking us to close our eyes forever, and that is unacceptable. Stop thinking about the person who is facing you, because after all, and cue the socialist maxim, we are all equal, right ? Wrong.