DEBATE 500: Business Discrimination

IntroductionUnless we accept that people have the right to other people's services, discrimination is not problematic. Since we do not have the inherent right to other people's labor or trade, there is no breach of rights when a service or trade is denied -- regardless of why that service or trade was denied. *** As a consumer, I am free to discriminate on the basis of anything I see fit. I can choose whichever restaurant or ice cream parlor I'd like to frequent for any reason -- or I can choose to avoid them for any reason. If I am a bigot, racist or otherwise, my ignorance and hatred is not legally held against me. I do not have to engage with everyone, and I can avoid businesses and people that I do not wish to trade with. Yet as a business owner, I do not have that luxury. I would not be free to discriminate and I would not have the same right to freedom of association. This does not seem righteous, practical, or fair. The Role of Government"You and I disapprove of bigotry. But the private virtue of tolerance and the public virtue of pluralism require us to countenance things we do not approve. Tolerance means accepting the fact that other people's values might be very different than your own. Pluralism means eschewing the use of political power as a means for 'correcting' those values. The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas -- like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally. Tolerance is ennobling, which is why we should teach it to our children. Pluralism is insurance against tyranny, which is why we should demand it of our government. To speak up for even the most despised minorities is both morally right and politically prudent" [1]. But calling on government to purify others' minds and hearts is not not admirable; instead it is a gross injustice that oversteps the responsibilities of government. The government exists to protect people's rights, and people do not have the right to other people's services or labor. People do have the right to decide whom they want to trade with. There are many things that people do in society which I do not agree with, i.e., smoking cigarettes or having unprotected sex. Yet no matter how repugnant or unsatisfactory I might find other people's choices, I should not use the government as an oppressive tool to forcefully dictate their behavior. Only aggressive behavior that directly harms another's life, health or property should be restricted by government force. Discrimination is not overtly aggressive, and it is not always harmful. Anti-Discrimination LawsTo combat discrimination, the government has imposed unnecessary measures of aggression through anti-discrimination laws. This violates people's rights and forces them to ignore or disregard information that is pertinent to their decisions -- even if it is rational or justified. The establishment of anti-discrimination laws suggests a push toward no discrimination at all. Yet that would not be moral or pragmatic in our society. While the beginning of these measures were narrowly defined, the demographics have expanded to include age, disability, sexuality, the potential for pregnancy and other things. There seems to be no end in sight to what can be included; social status and even attractiveness have been mentioned [2]. Why Discriminate?In most cases, discrimination is not economically practical. It usually results in the loss of profit, so most people do not engage in such practices. This means even if people were legally allowed to discriminate, many would choose not to. Yet there are a few reasons some people choose not to trade with others. A. Ideological DifferencesIt is reasonable to understand why a Jewish baker would not want to bake a Nazi's wedding cake, or why a black mechanic would not want to service a Klansman's car. The USFG imposes economic sanctions, which are financial restrictions against a targeted group, product or country of which it does not approve. Why then couldn't an individual or business group do the same? In some cases, trading with another individual or firm qualifies as condoning or not standing up for one's most important values. This raises significant concerns for a multiple civil liberties violations - including freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience to name a few [3]. B. Rational DiscriminationRational discrimination describes discrimination on the basis of characteristics which may be correlated with preservation of rational self-interest. In other words, it describes when discrimination is justified with reasonable cause. For example, if one notices that black communities are associated with high crime rates, one might discriminate and not venture into black communities to sell door-to-door. This decision would certainly be discriminatory; however, it would also be justified. All that matters in this context is that race and crime are somehow correlated -- they tend to occur together for some reason, and that reason may or may not be known. If I am not writing an academic paper or researching the deeper issues, it doesn't matter. Regardless of the underlying reason or sociological root cause, I might choose to avoid selling door-to-door in black communities to protect myself based on what I do know -- and to do so would not necessarily be an injustice. I would merely be implementing the science of statistical inference and probability. Moreover, my discrimination would not have the intent to cause any harm, but only to protect myself. In choosing to not trade with Person A within the inner city, I will lose out on the potential profit of that deal -- but I will also not expose myself to any potential risk of that deal. If we do not consider our rational self-interest in making deals, we are not weighing the cost-benefit analysis correctly. So to reiterate, many standards for discrimination make perfect sense. Consider businesses that have signs saying, "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" and discriminate based on clothing. In this case, violations of dress code could pose health or safety concerns. However some places of business look to service or not service particular demographics for less practical reasons. For instance, some social clubs, spas or sporting clubs and facilities prefer to be exclusive to one particular sex. Yet anti-discrimination laws prohibit these types of groups from existing. If men want to golf vs. other men exclusively, it would make sense to allow an all-male country club. But women could sue these businesses for not allowing their equal participation, despite the demand for an all-male facility. It would make sense for a business owner to satiate their customer's demands for profit, yet the law prohibits them from doing so in many cases. Federal FundingTo be clear, private businesses should be allowed to discriminate; businesses that are related to government or funded by the public should not be allowed to discriminate for obvious reasons (they are not privately owned, and they are funded by all tax payers). But businesses that expect to receive government funding of any kind can be required to NOT discriminate. This would discourage discrimination, but still allow for it. CapitalismCapitalism discourages discrimination. The philosopher Voltaire once quipped, "Go into the London Stock Exchange. . . and you will see representatives of all nations gathered there for the service of mankind. There the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the Christian deal with each other as if they were of the same religion, and give the name of infidel only to those who go bankrupt" [4]. He was describing how people preferred maximizing profits over petty intolerance. Furthermore, petty intolerance hurts the businessman. "In his book The Economics of Discrimination, Becker pointed out that free markets make discriminators pay for discriminating because they give up opportunities to work with productive people. That doesn’t mean, he noted, that people in a free market will never discriminate; the most extreme racists and bigots will often be willing to pay the price for discriminating. But pay they will" [5]. ConclusionEmployees and consumers are all free to discriminate against businesses for any reason they wish; thus employers should have the same freedom. People do not have an inherent right to the labor and service of other people. Some individuals have legitimate reasons for discriminating. Protecting our civil liberties matters, and many of them are directly correlated with our right (and in some cases our responsibility) to decide whom we trade with. Clearly the public and USFG do not have a problem discriminating in business; consider the trade restrictions (including tariffs) we impose on goods, services and countries we don't like. Since discrimination inhibits profits, capitalism discourages discrimination and promotes finding the common ground. It should be reserved as a legally permissible option though, even if it can cause harm. Society and even the government can take measures to discourage discrimination while still allowing for it to exist legally, much like we discourage but defend things like unprotected sex, flag burning or hate speech. Thank you. [1] Economist Steven Landsburg on page 42 in his book "Fair Play" [2] "Facial Discrimination: Extending Handicap Law to Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Physical Appearance," Harvard Law Review 100(8), pp. 2035–2052. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] https://fee.org...