From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:13:15 GMT

In article <nlknne0@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

> However, once society reaches the size
> that we have, individuals are no longer significant.  

To libertarians, individuals are _always_ significant.   It is the
statists and collectivists who believe in oppressing the individual in
the name of "the common good" ("common" and "good" as defined by the
collectivist based on his own biases.)

> One person's patronage
> does not significantly effect even the smallest business.  Therefore, they
> can be biased without significantly hurting their business.

The key point you're missing is that when society reaches that size, there
will be many more businesses, each one trying to make a profit.  The more
businesses that decline to do business with group-X (gay, black, disabled,
whatever), the greater the profit opportunity for someone to open a place
with a sign that says "Group-X people welcome here!"   And the more _that_
business prospers, thet greater the incentive for the bigots to swallow
their predjudice in order to improve revenues.  There may still be those
stubborn curs who persist in their discrimination, but they must pay the
price of turning away some percentage of customers they could otherwise 
profit from.

I'd like to incinerate one straw-man I've seen getting pummelled around
here lately.   Just because libertarians don't believe in forcing people
to interact with (fill in the group) doesn't mean they approve of such
discrimination, or that they would practice it, or that they would do
anything besides spit on a person who practices it.

I'm _not_ saying that anti-discrimination laws haven't helped _some_
people who otherwise would have been the target of discrimination.  My
claim is that they have done more harm than good.  An example:

When a particular group is given special status through preferential 
policies, they become potential sources of trouble for employers.   For 
instance, take a company which employs several disabled folks.  Like all 
people, some of them are good workers and some aren't.  As with any 
employees, the employer will naturally want to hold on to (as well as 
promote) good workers and not bad workers.  _Really_ bad workers would 
probably be eventually dismissed, whether disabled or not.  But when you pass 
laws (with the most admirable of intentions, I admit) giving the disabled
extensive powers to claim that their dismissal or lack of advancement
was motivated by discrimination, and then place the burden of proof on
the employer to prove his innocence, you make each disabled person a
potential liability for the employer.  Nobody would want to hire someone
who could potentially weild a weapon like that.   But the laws says they
_have_to_ hire some.  So the employer winds up employing the bare minimum
number of disabled people that will keep him out of court, and is _very_
careful to cover his ass with the few he does employ.

I'm not presenting this argument based on libertarian theory (although it
_does_ illustrate what libs have been saying) but rather from first-hand
experience.   I volunteer my time at a computer training program for the
disabled.  Besides the occasional lecture, I also act as a "mentor" trying
to help these folks get into the job market.   I can't TELL you the
frustration of trying to arrange a job placement or an interview and
being told something along the lines of "nah, we already have all the
handicapped we need...".  When I try to point out that they DO need to fill 
the position, and that  my applicant is quite well qualified, I'm told 
"wellllll, we've had trouble with 'them' before".   Upon some investigation
I found out that one of their current employees (a fellow in a wheelchair) 
arrives at work late every day, demands to have someone wheel him around at 
his whim, sleeps at his desk, doesn't bathe particularly often and threatens 
lawsuits when they try to adjust his attitude.  They are petrified of him and 
the hassles he can cause them.  Even though they feel they would prevail in 
court (they religiously document _all_ dealings with this jerk), they can't 
risk the expense of defending themselves.   Is it any wonder that the bright,
capable, industrious guy I'm mentoring can't get a wheel in the door?

Were it not for these stupid laws, this company could fire the smelly jerk
and learn that the disabled CAN be good employees, and CAN compete without
special advantages.  And that most of them are nice people, besides.  The 
laws that force employers to calculate a de facto minimum number of workers 
required from a particular preferred group (effectively a quota, despite the 
fact that the laws claim to forbid quotas) actually serve as a MAXIMUM number 
of workers from that group who will be employed.   Any hired beyond that 
number represent an unacceptable legal risk.

So these laws do help _some_ people -- often the incompetent.  But they
hurt many more by closing the doors after the quota is met.  They cause
resentment among employees who are not members of preferred groups as well.
How would you like to get a job because you know you are _good_, but
always live under the cloud of suspicion that maybe you only got the job
because of the disability (or the color of your skin or whatever)?

If my experiences don't persuade, try reading some Thomas Sowell.  He
manages to explain in theory what I've seen in practice.

   ---   Rick

    *** I'm from the government and I'm here to help you ***