Are antidiscrimination laws libertarian?
I live in the South, so discrimination is a constant worry of government and media in the area. I'm also a heterosexual white male, so if anybody is expected to be a bigot, it's me - I recognized this when I was called racist for not liking fried chicken. (I'm not making that up.)
Regardless, I despise discrimination, like everyone should, and thus my gut instinct is to support antidiscrimination laws. But before I launch into an analysis of those and their relation to libertarianism, a division needs to be made between two categories of civil rights laws:
But, that's a long-term view. Humans live in the short term, and governments are unquestionably uniquely human enterprises (since divine right is gone except in Swaziland, and it's obvious how well that's turning out for them), and the free-market solution to discrimination by businesses might take too long.
Since the point of government is essentially the prevention of the initiation of force by people against others, and discrimination based on aspects of a person that cannot be changed is undoubtedly a form of force, antidiscrimination laws seem perfectly legitimate in a libertarian government.
Regardless, I despise discrimination, like everyone should, and thus my gut instinct is to support antidiscrimination laws. But before I launch into an analysis of those and their relation to libertarianism, a division needs to be made between two categories of civil rights laws:
- Affirmative action laws, which I believe create more racism/sexism/whateverism by focusing on categorizing people into divisions which have and have not been discriminated against. Race/gender/etc. aren't supposed to matter, and focusing on them to supposedly "even the playing field" (but in reality tilting the playing field the other way) just creates more discrimination - an alternate definition of which is essentially synonymous with "categorizing".
- Antidiscrimination laws, which try to prevent anybody from being discriminated against. That's what I'm lost on.
But, that's a long-term view. Humans live in the short term, and governments are unquestionably uniquely human enterprises (since divine right is gone except in Swaziland, and it's obvious how well that's turning out for them), and the free-market solution to discrimination by businesses might take too long.
Since the point of government is essentially the prevention of the initiation of force by people against others, and discrimination based on aspects of a person that cannot be changed is undoubtedly a form of force, antidiscrimination laws seem perfectly legitimate in a libertarian government.
5 Comments:
> Since the point of government is essentially the prevention of
> the initiation of force by people against others, and
> discrimination based on aspects of a person that cannot be
> changed is undoubtedly a form of force, antidiscrimination laws
> seem perfectly legitimate in a libertarian government.
That's absurd.
Barring fraud or violence, what I do with my own property --
including my business -- can no in no way be interpreted as
"initiation of force" except by the wildest stretch of unreason.
If I choose to hire no one except family members, that is not
initiation of force. Being a family member or not is an "aspect of a
person that cannot be changed."
If I choose to hire only persons with an IQ over 100, that is not
initiation of force. One's IQ is an "aspect of a person that cannot
be changed."
If I choose to hire only persons who are female and between 18 and
25 years of age, that is not initiation of force. One's sex and age
are "aspects of a person that cannot be changed."
Likewise, if I choose to hire only Blacks or only Whites or only
Mexicans or only Jews, that also is not initiation of force. One's
race is, as you acknowledge, an "aspect of a person that cannot be
changed." But there is nothing especially "holy" or "magical" about
race that makes me obliged to either pay attention to it or ignore
when I decide with whom I choose to associate in my business or
elsewhere.
All laws which take away my freedom to do so are therefore illegitimate.
Firing is legitimate force in most cases, but it is force. And since hiring is the negative of firing, not hiring is pretty much the same thing as firing.
If you punch somebody in the face because they're black on your property, is that not wrong?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, that extension of the analysis was certainly refreshing - I'm still rather unsure on the issue; the argument I presented was more of a devil's-advocate argument to be challenged rather than an endorsement of that view, so keep the challenges coming so that we can all reach a more thorough conclusion.
Post a Comment
<< Home