Business should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish in the private sector

Intro: Most self-appointed spokesmen for "oppressed" groups love to blame the free market for the "inequities" of modern society. Were it not for benevolent government intervention, these people claim, lacks would still use separate water fountains and women would serve only as nurses and teachers. Yet, as with most anti-capitalist myths one will see that the true situation is precisely the opposite: the market contains powerful incentives for employers to make objective decisions based on merit, while government agencies face no such constraints. 1: The free market has a "racist fee". Example, an employer who refuses to hire, sell to, or deal with blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, Catholics, or any other group would be harming himself, limiting his market and shrinking his own pool of available talent and hence of productive managers and workers. Example: If an employer has an opening that pays $50,000 in salary, and the Christian applicant will bring in $51,000 in extra revenue to the firm while the Muslim applicant will bring $55,000, then to discriminate against the latter will cost the employer $4,000 in potential profits. (The employer will make $1,000 by hiring the Christian but $5,000 by hiring the Muslim). No government inspector or watchdog agency is required: by definition, discrimination is automatically "fined" in the free market. 2: The scenario that a businessman could make profit by catering to prejudices held by his costumers is untrue. If a restaurateur knows that many of his costumer would object to being served by a black waitress, and that they would act on this prejudice by taking their business elsewhere. Then it would seem that it would be ore profitable (assuming he had no fear of lawsuits or government fins) for him to hire a less-qualified white women for the job. But in cases like this the free market (even absent government fines) still punishes discrimination. Only this time the costumer pays the "racist fee". The costumer pays extra (in the form of inferior service) to be served by a white waitress who is worse at her job than a better-qualified black candidate. 3: "Affirmative Action" is not a remedy for racial and sexual discrimination. [Affirmative Action is when employers must strive to ensure that qualified minorities and women are considered for hiring or promotions] Most proponents of affirmative action are quick to distinguish it from quotas. The law doesn't require that choose a less-qualified black applicant for a job, only that a firm make every effort to make sure there isn't an equally qualified black applicant before hiring the white guy. Despite this, however, experience has shown that the easiest way for a company to demonstrate ts commitment to affirmative action (and defend itself from lawsuits) is to hire in proportion to the racial mix of the surrounding community. Thus the zealous effort to alleviate past injustices has led to the institutionalization of genuine racial and sexual discrimination. Ironically, affirmative action hurts the very groups it is supposed to help. Every time a black or other protected minority is hired or promoted, the surly white males who were passed over can blame it on affirmative action, even if the decision was purely on merit. Minorities can be turned into failures by being mismatched with a position. Just like a student can be mismatched with their college. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the problem isn't with the arguments above. Unfortunately the US nor any other country has an entirely market, and so we can't count on market forces to eradicate the unjust problem that offends most people. It is a mystery to me why leftist trust government to reform an unjust society. After all, any prejudices harbored by the people at large will be reflected in the government officials they elect. The only difference is that bureaucrats don't face the same free market penalties that employers (or costumers) do for following their prejudices. By the same token, kickbacks and other forms of corruption are far more dangerous in government than in the private sector, because shareholders have far more incentives than do congressmen to detect waste, fraud, and abuse.