Discrimination is the “unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability”. Discrimination takes on many forms, whether it is discrimination in speech, employment, educational opportunity, and the list goes on. Due to the large amount of areas that discrimination can take place, in this post I will mainly focus my attention on discrimination in the workplace. Currently, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission has established federal laws, which “seek to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age by employers.” In this post I will argue why discrimination in the workplace should be legal, and will afterwards discuss the flaws of probable common opposing views.
The proper function of the government is to protect individual rights. Equal Opportunity is not an individual right. Therefore the proper function of the government does not include the establishment of equal opportunity laws.
The proper function of the government is to protect individual rights. By doing so, it is made sure that individual rights are inalienable and that the majority opinion (or opinion from any party) cannot strip anyone of their freedoms. Capitalism ensures that all individuals are free to stay true to their innate instinct to pursue their own self-interests (without infringing upon the rights of another) and are treated equally under the law: Capitalism’s ruling principle is justice.
Equal Opportunity is not an individual right, because in order for individual rights to work, they must not contradict with each other; Equal Opportunity contradicts the individual right to control one’s own property. Just as everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish with their possessions (as long as it does not infringe upon the individual rights of others), this same principle should remain true with their privately owned businesses. Consider a woman who owns her own home and privately owned business (both are owned entirely by her). She had spent $100 thousand of her hard earned pay on each of these. Should it be legal for her to not allow a neo-Nazi to enter her own home? If so, then it is no different then to not allow a Jewish person into her home. Also, it would be no different then to deny the person access into her own home then into her own business. Equal Opportunity laws force individuals to do something with their property against their will, thus violating their right to control their own property; therefore Equal Opportunity is not an individual right. An employer should always have their right to control their own property, and the principle of Equal Opportunity completely contradicts this. It is a right to be able to discriminate on one’s own property.
Once the principle of an individual’s right to property is destroyed, the foundation of all individual rights is destroyed. Now there is no uniform standard or rational basis for judging legality. Rights are now determined by something other than the objective standard of individual rights, and are subject to be determined by an biased party (whether it’s the majority, a dictator, etc), and will inevitably be exploited, causing the quality of life for all to plummet. For this reason, individual rights cannot be sacrificed.
A common belief about discrimination is, “It seems only fair that we do not discriminate against people because of inherent traits. Everyone has the right to pursue a career based on their hard work and merit and should not be prevented from doing so because of characteristics they can not control and did not choose.” (TA Sattler).
What is unfair is to deny anyone his or her property rights and give certain individuals more rights than others. Regardless if one is white, black, purple, pregnant, handicapped, etc., violating someone else’s property should be illegal. Sure, everyone has the right to pursue a career, but that does not mean that they have the right to forcefully violate the property rights of the employer. It is discriminatory to not allow employers to have their right to discriminate, but to allow potential employees to have the right to discriminate against the potential employer. Also, on a side note, this statement argues that it should be illegal to hire a black actor even if he is a worse actor for the role of Martin Luther King.
Another common view about why discrimination should be illegal is because “Businesses understand the importance of obtaining a diverse labor force, and part of that diversity comes from a healthy balance of employees of each gender. Diversity stimulates higher efficiencies and a stronger company moral, both of which result in a better bottom line.”
While I completely agree that it usually the case that diversity is in the best interest businesses, it is not the governments proper function to interfere with one’s business (no pun intended), even if it is to help the business. This is the reason for America’s current Corporatism system, where the government chooses the businesses that it wants to be winners. A beauty of capitalism is that it naturally discredits discrimination, as it is in the best interest of businesses to make additional profits; Money is money, regardless of the physical characteristics of the person that it comes from. Because it is in the best interest of a business to make money, the current anti-discrimination regulations make hiring more diverse employees potentially costly, and therefore decrease the amount of diverse employees in the workplace.
A common view about maternity discrimination is, “…before any sort of regulation, many companies would simply lay off or require the resignation of women who were pregnant, leaving them without pay and without a job. Is that really better than the current unethical and illegal discrimination?”
It is unethical to deny a business owner the right to his or her property. The employer should not be punished just because an employee chooses to have (or accidentally has) a baby. Let’s run through a thought experiment: You run your own business. You have no siblings or a living father. Your mother is deathly sick, immobile outside of the country. The only way that she can survive is if you pay for her treatment with the money that you are currently making from your business – but you must also stay with your mother outside of the country to support her while she recovers. In order for your mother to survive, you must make enough money to pay for the treatments, but the problem is that you wont be able to run your company from china, so you have to promote someone while you are gone. You have two top candidates: a 30-year-old single male college graduate and a 34-year-old newly wed female with an even higher level of education (you have also noticed baby magazines on her desk lately). Remember: your mother’s life depends upon the profits of the company. Do you think you should have the right to “discriminate”?
Another common view is, “it is essential to remember that these regulations have been put into place because these classes have already been discriminated against, and for a country that is rooted up the principles of equality and the opportunity to work hard and earn an honest living, it is unjust to allow for businesses to discriminate.”
Firstly, the United States of America was not “rooted up in the principles of equality”, but rather the principles of freedom. The only equality that the founding fathers approved of was equal individual rights for all. Congressman Ron Paul stated, "It was not the founding fathers' job to manage the economy, or make American businesses competitive. That was up to the free market and American businesses." Justice is equality under the law. It is unjust to not allow business owners their right to property. It is also unjust to only allow non-business owners their right to discriminate, and revoke this right for business owners.
Legalize Discrimination
Saturday, February 20, 2010 by TG
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...and you want to legalize discrimination in the workforce...please re-take your American History class.
First off, thank you for not only reposting an obvious typo, but emphasizing it by doing it twice. As Ms. J.M.P. already has shown, the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence shows that our country was rooted in the principle of equality. Additionally, no one ever said that freedom was not foundational to our nation, and it is that concept of freedom to pursue happiness which is the "American Dream."
Here is my thought experiment for you. You are a bright and hardworking individual and even considered an expert by your peers in your field. You were laid off your last job because your name is Taylor. You have no way to support your family, even though you are incredibly qualified, no one in the city our live in will even interview you because your name is Taylor. With your last bit of money, you go to the local market to buy some food, but they won't sell you anything because your name is Taylor. You can't get clean drinking water because your name is Taylor. When in public, you have to use the restrooms for "Taylor" people, which are smaller and wreak of shit since the non-Taylor people who run the establishment refuse to clean up that restroom. Walking down the street feeling like a dejected outcast, Joe walks up to you spits in your face, pushes you and says, "Watch where you're going, fucking Taylor." You hear Officer Jim laugh from across the street. Knowing that if you do retaliate that you will probably be tortured, humiliated and hung, you allow Joe to punch you in the face and throw you into the gutter.
The freedom to discriminate sure sounds swell, doesn't it Taylor?
And before one of my pulsating veins on my head busts, I'll answer your little thought experiment. Your dying mother is probably in a country where she is receiving socialized medicine, but regardless of that, yes you have to hire someone to replace you while your visiting her to make sure your company stays afloat. And doesn't it make since to promote the individual best suited to fulfill the job description? No where in your post do you talk about the merit of the individuals. Equal opportunity laws require companies to hire the best person to fill a job description. They don't mandate that a less qualified black homosexual woman receive a job that a white male could do better, but they allow them both to interview for the job.
I would continue, but I fear that arguing with someone who wants the right to be racist is fruitless. I just don't want to live in a nation with strange fruit.
P.S., do you disregard the Declaration of Independence because it said that these rights are endowed from a Creator?
You make a rational, and therefore persuasive, argument. But rational thought processes do not necessarily lead to the best outcomes: look at the Tragedy of Commons, or Nash's Game Theory... the rational action that is best for each party is not rationally best for both of them in their outcome.
I agree, however, with your prioritization of Freedom over Equality, in that Equality only goes so far as it does not impede any citizen's personal Freedom. Hence, while I see many problems with affirmative action (and generally oppose it, even as someone with "disabilities"), I do not feel that discrimination should EVER be tolerated.
If you need a rational argument to see why, think of it like this: Discrimination is a violation of/impedes the provision of Freedom.
Many cases that you reference, for example the replacement while your mother is deathly ill, have rational roots, but fail in their conclusions due to (sorry, but) what seems to be subconscious prejudice. The newly-wed female may be less focussed and less productive in comparison to the single male, and this would be grounds to promote the male. But that makes the ASSUMPTION (and a prejudiced one) that being newly-wed makes the woman less focussed and productive. This is exactly the kind of bias that women have struggled against for centuries. Yes, women have hormones. But that does not make women less suited for historically male careers.
It is worth noting that MEN have hormones too, but there is no social penalization for male promiscuity, which tends to result from male hormonal peaks. Can you imagine if a potential employer assumed that because a man was single, that he would be constantly preoccupied by sex, making you less focussed and less productive?
How about because a person has dark, curly hair, that they are Jewish and are therefore greedy?
(If either of those examples help, the point is you're taking one too many steps.)
NOW how do you feel about discrimination?
Dear Tiffany,
There is a large difference between being "created" equal, and being TREATED equal. Being "created" equal means that everyone is born with the same set of rights. And you do realize that by having a right to be TREATED equal (which the founding fathers did not intend), they would have been contradicting the right to liberty. Just to prove my point, here are a few quotes from our founding fathers which will prove to you that our nation was not founded upon the principles of equality, but rather freedom (property rights).
“Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”–John Adams, 1787.
“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–’the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.’” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy’s “Political Economy,” 1816.
I know Abe isnt a founding father, but ill throw this in as well-
“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”–Abraham Lincoln, March 21, 1864.
Im not too sure if i'm the one who needs to retake my history class...
In regards to previous comments,
Any argument made around the idea of what is compatible with "American" ideals is fallacious because you are making a biased assumption that what is "American" is infallible. This obvious flaw in logic is especially evident when applied to our founding fathers. Need we forget that more or less the same men that penned "all men are created equal" also specified that blacks were to count as three-fifths of a person in determining legislative apportionment.
I think that there also needs to be a distinction between discrimination in private and public property. Discrimination in public entities must be illegal, at least as far as I can see logic realistically dictating. However, private enterprises should not be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws. If for instance, someone chooses to not hire someone on the basis of race even if they are the best candidate, they are making a personal decision to forfeit a valuable resource that someone else will utilize in a free market. I don't think that the author is saying that he personally wishes to discriminate based on gender, race, etc only that logic dictates that it should be legal in a free market economy or any state that values individual property rights. The law should not really be all that concerned about hurt feelings, and a real free market would dictate that someone who is indeed the best candidate for a position would surely find work elsewhere. For instance, law does not mandate that you like those who are different from you or let them into say, your home, because it works under the assumption that if you are discriminating against them for no real reason, you are forgoing some sort of benefit.
The same principle should also apply to private businesses. Again, public places and utilities are not allowed to work under this principle because they are concerned only with maximum efficient distribution of services where they are the sole public provider. On the basis of a private business serving certain customers unequally or not at all, they run the risk of alienating a lot of potential revenue that will likely wind up in the hands of someone with a bit more business tact. Whether or not discrimination in the private is nice or not is really irrelevant to its applicability and necessity in a true free market.
Post a Comment