Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

First I'd like to apologize for such a delayed response. I've been busy with holiday stuff, family events, and the like. I'd again like to give my opponent a final thank you for accepting my challenge and providing very thought provoking arguments. In this round I will be providing my closing remarks. 1. Economic effects: Businesses are in the market to make money, and discrimination is economically not beneficial for the business. Businesses are in a constant struggle to balance profits and losses. When a business practices discrimination, they are imposing a cost on themselves that would not exist if they would practice more tolerant policies in the workplace. If a business is turning down a worker that can provide a better service for a lower cost, they are imposing costs on themselves by having to find other employees, and possibly employees that either cost more, do not perform the required duties as well, or both. Nobel prize winning economist, Milton Friedman states, "A businessman or an entrepreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is in effect imposing higher costs on himself than are other individuals who do not have such preferences. Hence, in a free market, they will tend to drive him out" (1). Businesses actually prefer to conduct more tolerant policies. Historical evidence supports this, First, the Jim Crow laws of the states of the South specified that certain jobs in industry could be done only by white workers (1). But if the industrialists were intent upon discriminating, why did this preference have to be enacted into law? The answer is that to preserve the status of the white worker, there had to be a legal restraint upon employers. In the absence of the law, competition from non discriminating employers would have urged all to hire and promote blacks and whites on the basis of economic value, not race. The reason for the adoption of the policy of Apartheid in South Africa in the 1930s was that white workers were furious that so many blacks were being hired and were competing with them in pay and promotions. Therefore, they persuaded the government to restrict the better-paying jobs to whites only (2). Further evidence on the relationship between capitalism and discrimination is found in the considerable affluence many "free persons of color" in the antebellum South were able to achieve. These were free blacks who had no political power at all, but could own property and do business as they wished. For example, in pre-Civil War New Orleans, free Negroes owned one- fifth of the total taxable property in the city (4). 2. Freedom of contract and association: According to the first amendment of the constitution, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (5) Article 20 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states (6): -Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. -No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interest" (7) Here, unlike in the U.N. Declaration, there is no explicit recognition of the correlative right to refrain from association. However, the European Court of Human Rights read Article 11 as implying a negative freedom of association in Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom in 1981, a case that involved mandatory union membership imposed on employees of British Rail (8). As we can see, these rights of association applies to all individuals all around the world, as stated in these legal documents. The importance of freedom of association can be summed up with this quote, "The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow creatures and of acting in common with them. The right of association therefore appears to me almost as inalienable in its nature as the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it without impairing the foundations of society" (9). 3. How these rights relate to others: Let's say I am a fan of punk music, and my friends ask me to attend a pop concert with them. I decline, since I would much rather go to the punk concert that same night. Obviously, me being discriminatory toward the pop artist is hurting the pop musician, since they are technically missing out on an opportunity to receive more financial assistance and employment opportunity, but it would be crazy if we went door to door requiring punk fans to attend the pop concert, so that the pop musician is not denied financial assistance. Replace the punk fan with a business owner, and the pop musician with a hopeful employee. Once again, I'd like to give my opponent a final thank you, and good debating! 1. Capitalism and Freedom, pp. 109-110 2. http://www.nps.gov... 3.. http://www.sahistory.org.za... 4. Race and Economics by Thomas Sowell, p. 40 5. US Const. amend. I. Print. 6. http://www.un.org... 7. http://human-rights-convention.org... 8. http://www.hrcr.org... 9. Tocqueville, Alexis De. Democracy in America. 152. Print.