Simply Blogical

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.

Today, many government regulations exist in order to help the needy. Some examples of these regulations include anti-discrimination laws, maternity leave, and the minimum wage. Something that is often overlooked is that many of these regulations are actually more harmful than beneficial to the people that these regulations seek to aid. In this post, we will observe the government regulations exemplified above, and see how they in fact do more harm than good.

Currently in the United States, federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in “employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex, or sexual orientation.” This actually causes business employers to avoid interviewing the people who this law is supposed to benefit most, as there is a potential cost of being sued if they do not get the job. As an example, according to a study from MIT, as a result of the Americans with Disabilities act, which prohibits discrimination under circumstances of people with disabilities, employment “dropped sharply”.

Today, a large percentage of discrimination against women in the workplace stems from their ability to take a “maternity leave”. A maternity leave is when an employer must grant the employee up to a total of 12 unpaid workweeks during any 12-month period: one of the reasons being for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee. Due to the potential costs of having an employee take a 12-week break and, as stated above, the legal costs in response to being sued for discriminating in the workplace, many employers choose to not take the risk, and stay away from even interviewing these potential costs.

Today, throughout the United States, there is a minimum wage law that prohibits any employers from paying any employee below a certain amount. It is illegal for an employee and an employer to consensually agree on an hourly rate below the minimum wage. Dr. Milton Friedman, Nobel Memorial Prize winner in economics, has stated that while this regulation aims to help poor people who need money, it in fact assures that people whose skills are not sufficient enough to justify the current minimum wage are unemployed.

The purpose of observing these few examples of government regulations that seek to aid those in need is to show that they are inefficient and are actually harmful. These examples of government regulations that infringe upon individual rights can serve as a microcosm of even larger regulations which currently exist and which have the potential of existing depending in the future.

I will be discussing why I believe that Capitalism is the best form of a social system in a three-part post. These three posts will demonstrate why Capitalism collectively holds the best ethics, foundation, and economy.

In this post, I will illustrate why Capitalism is the most ethical and just form of social systems. In order to best illustrate the beauty of the ethics of Capitalism, I will first point out the ethical flaws of Democracy, and will then compare both social systems.

Under democracy, the function of the government periodically changes, as the majority holds state-power. Democracy has one major flaw in its system: Just because the majority believes something does not make it right. Once rights become influence-able by the majority, the potential for unethical acts to occur increases infinitely, as the amount of rights that the majority has the power to strip become endless.

As founding father Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Franklin was not the only founding father to understand this concept. Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." and John Adams said, "That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world." Democracy opens the door for minorities to be stripped of their individual rights and to be made into involuntarily self-sacrificial slaves. Consider the following: If the majority of the people in a nation voted that African-Americans should not be able to have a complete set of rights, do you believe that they should have the power to make this so?

Some may say that the reason why such decisions should be left up to the majority is because there is no way that they could make such a preposterous decision – but this is not the case. Today, the majority in most states of the United States believes that homosexual couples should not have the right to marry; therefore, today, homosexual couples in these states do not have the freedom to marry. The case of homosexual marriage is just one case out of many where the rights of minorities are being unethically stripped because of the opinion of the majority. The rights of individuals, which do not infringe upon the rights of others, should not be influenced by the personal preference of the majority.

As stated above, under Democracy, the concept of inalienable rights is completely destroyed and the amount of individual rights that the majority has the power to strip becomes endless. Democracy is a subjective, unjust, and minorit-ist social system.

On the other hand, Capitalism is the fairest type of social system possible, where the boundaries of potential unethical acts to take place are extremely smaller then those of democracy. Under capitalism, the government’s only function is to protect a concrete set of objective individual rights; these allow all individuals to live as they please, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others (using force upon others or their property).

Acts such as homosexual marriage would be acceptable, regardless of the majority view, as they do not infringe upon anyone’s rights. Acts such as stealing would not be permissible (regardless of whether it is carried out by a human or by the government), as it would infringe upon an individual’s property rights. Capitalism recognizes that every individual deserves to have the freedom to use what he or she earns in whichever way he or she chooses. The boundary of “unethical” acts that can legally take place under Capitalism is the passive act of not giving, whereas with Democracy, the boundary is endless. Capitalism protects all individuals from becoming involuntarily self-sacrificial.

Capitalism makes sure that individual rights are inalienable and that the majority opinion cannot strip anyone of their freedoms. Capitalism ensures that all individuals are free 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.

P.S. To those who may find this important: Capitalism naturally rewards individuals based on the degree in which they benefit others.

How is the welfare state slavery?

Stephen Mack at The New Democratic Review wrote a post about the relation between religion and democratic politics. He states that the two are like “alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination”. He also draws connections on how each emits a feeling of empowerment in its followers from being able to make decisions based on the morals and ideas instilled in the individual and how both offer something bigger to be a part of. From observing Mack’s interesting point, I have pondered the similarities between religion and democratic politics.

English writer, journalist, Oxford graduate, and public intellectual, Christopher Hitchens, is widely recognized for his involvement in the modern expansion of atheism. Hitchens has recently released his newest book titled god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Not only has he captured the eyes of the public through his books, but also through his appearances on talk shows, lecture circuits, and his columns on many publications such as Vanity Fair and World Affairs. Hitchens’ stance on the topic of religion is evident after observing the name of his book.