For the past several months I have gone head to head with a political rival of mine on the matter of civil rights. I feel I'm presenting a principled enough argument and usually keep her on the defensive, but to date I have yet to strike a decisive point against her. I've been hoping that I might share the arguments made with a third party, as to gain an outsider's insight on what I may do to finally overcome her position. The argument breaks down as follows.
It's my belief that in a free society, it is permissible for the owner of any given private establishment to provide or deny service to anyone for any reasons, however arbitrary. I believe this because if the business owner were to be required by law to not discriminate, this represents an act of aggression against his right to associate with others as he sees fit. Furthermore, the decision of the business owner to discriminate in such a way is almost always at their loss, because ultimately the largest demographic one can attempt to appeal to is the whole of the population, and so this isn't likely to create a scenario where say, a racist inner circle will choose to shut out their minority of choice and at the same time be in such a position where their actions can affect a large number of people, especially if this minority is equally able to open businesses of their own to cater to whatever group of clientele they see fit.
My rival on the other hand, insists that there is too much capacity to harm another person by enabling others to exclude in this fashion. She imagines a scenario where an entire community would decide to shut out someone they didn't like for whatever reason, thus isolating him or her from participation in greater economic activity. This particular potential harm, in her opinion, rates very highly on her priority list of powers that must be denied to individuals. Furthermore, she sees no problem with legal aggression against those people likely to discriminate (racists, sexists, etc.,) as they represent a net drain on society.
There are a few points of attack I can think of with her case. The decision to emphasize harm over aggression is a flaw from how I see it, as harm cannot be objectively defined and universally shut out while it is trivial to define the boundaries of aggression. I could also consider her worst case scenario incredibly unlikely given how the discriminated against has many potential options at their disposal if one collected group of people despise him, but this and the previous counterpoint have so far been ineffective. She is also similarly unmoved by the counterpoint that choosing to deny rights to anyone, even if they're racists, would put her in a camp no better than the very people she wishes to marginalize.
We are both in agreement however, that affirmative action is ineffectual, doing more harm than good for the very people it's trying to help.
What opinions or insights do you have on this dispute?
She imagines a scenario where an entire community would decide to shut out someone they didn't like for whatever reason, thus isolating him or her from participation in greater economic activity.
Ask her if she thinks that a community is more likely to take such action against minorities or against racists. Some things worth getting require a leap of faith. I don't think it is such a great leap to expect racists much more commonly "run out of town" than the opposite.
Furthermore, she sees no problem with legal aggression against those people likely to discriminate (racists, sexists, etc.,) as they represent a net drain on society.
Studies have shown a net productivity gain in the workplace when women dress provocatively. Thus, in order for her to support her doctrine consistently, she must start showing more cleavage in the office.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
If far more than 50% of the United States population wants there to be no discrimination, then why must this be violently enforced? Why won't consensual means suffice? Even if somehow a community did block out minorities so what? There are other large areas the minorities could move to or I'm sure there would by sympathy charity/job openings somewhere in the region. If not, then this is still a vastly preferable situation to a coercive entity sitting around as a cancer to society.
Andrew Ryan nailed it.
If such a vast majority of people decide to exclude a small minority, nothing can stop them. Certainly not a democratic (i.e. majority-ruled) government.*
If, instead, the democratic majority opposes discrimination, then the majority of people are non-discriminators.
Hence, government coercion is entirely superfluous in the issue of discrimination.
I should add: She may be confused because the race issue in the United States is of course clouded by vote-buying on the one hand and the Orwell-a-morphosis of that vote buying in government education and politically connected media on the other hand.
* But as Mises pointed out, even a monarchy can't last long without popular support.
If a discriminator is forced to associate with or hire a discriminatee, is that not likely to foment even more negative feelings in both? Further, any otherwise non-grounded argument the discriminator may have against the discriminatee now gains actual traction: "see, they need force to get ahead."
Finally, if the discrimination faced by a discriminatee is truly superficial, there are major incentives for hiring that person, i.e. same productivity for lower wages, with the lower wages eventually getting arbitraged into equal wages.
I wouldn't hire fat folks because they are obviously indolent. I should be able to hire or not hire at any wage whomever for whatever reasons, it is a voluntary exchange. I believe that when folks try to protect groups they hurt all groups. It is better to let exchanges be voluntary than to make sure jerks like me hire fat folks so everyone can pay taxes so I employ fat folks. If the law didn't make me I surely would not hire fat folks. Would I end up with a bad reputation for my hiring practices, perhaps, but I would feel that I am serving my consumers better by lowering my production costs in not hiring what I believe to be lazy workers. I am wrong to believe that it is generally the case that girth equals indolence, however I find healthy folks can work better and longer than fat folks. For instance, who would win a foot race a healthy person or one of girth?
Egalitarianism ends up to be very anti-utilitarian.
Individualism Rocks
The most satisfying answer (at least for me) to this question comes from Walter Williams (the genius on everything noneconomic), here.
Let me throw in a quote just to get you to read it.
More generally, and inclusive of legal attempts to define the term, discrimination might be operationally defined as, the act of choice or selection. All selection necessarily and simultaneously requires non-selection. Choice requires discrimination. When one chooses to attend the University of Chicago, he non-selects Harvards University as well as every other university. ... ... Similarly, when the term discrimination is modified with the nouns race and sex, we merely specify the criterion upon which the choice is made... ...Indifference and random choice is hardly ever the case. Our lives are largely spent discriminating for or against selected activities, objects and people. Some of us discriminate against those who have criminal recordes, who bathe infrequently, who use vulgar speech and have improper social graces. Most of us choose mates within our own racial, ethnic group, or religion, hence discriminating against mates who, save for their race, ethnicity, or religion, might be just as suitable.
More generally, and inclusive of legal attempts to define the term, discrimination might be operationally defined as, the act of choice or selection. All selection necessarily and simultaneously requires non-selection. Choice requires discrimination. When one chooses to attend the University of Chicago, he non-selects Harvards University as well as every other university. ...
... Similarly, when the term discrimination is modified with the nouns race and sex, we merely specify the criterion upon which the choice is made...
...Indifference and random choice is hardly ever the case. Our lives are largely spent discriminating for or against selected activities, objects and people. Some of us discriminate against those who have criminal recordes, who bathe infrequently, who use vulgar speech and have improper social graces. Most of us choose mates within our own racial, ethnic group, or religion, hence discriminating against mates who, save for their race, ethnicity, or religion, might be just as suitable.
I'd like to thank everyone for their help on the matter. Since changing up the strategy to argue that the state is incapable of impacting the issue of discrimination as opposed to how the state shouldn't impact the issue, I've definitely gained the upper hand in this situation. There is however, one loose end to her defense that I'll have to put down if I'm to really change her mind on the issue once and for all.
As The Late Andrew Ryan pointed out, if a majority of people in a given area/under a given government lean one way or another, there's little to stop them, especially not a government by the majority. Her counterpoint however, is that it is ultimately beneficial to society as a whole to have a majority of non-discriminatory people use the government to marginalize the influence that the discriminatory minority has on the issue. This is because in a condition of no governance, the influence of each side of the argument is free to extend precisely over those areas where each is most present, thus meaning that there is potential for less discrimination through government mandate.
I argued that this draws parallels to any form of suppression of the minority by the majority (and tyranny of the majority is one of her biggest fears, to be certain), but she is ultimately unimpressed by the potential suffering of racists or sexists and sees it as being perfectly appropriate to curtail their freedom of choice in this fashion. What I need is an argument that make the flaws of this thinking apparent without alluding to how it impacts people she otherwise doesn't care about. If it can be figured out, I'll win for sure.
Goddard Elliott Lewko:This is because in a condition of no governance, the influence of each side of the argument is free to extend precisely over those areas where each is most present, thus meaning that there is potential for less discrimination through government mandate.
It is also usually assumed that a racist society makes the discriminated class worse off. Well, only 3% of all couples are interracial. There is obviously discrimination here, but I doubt that society would be made "better off" if we enacted legislation to try to increase the number of interracial couples out there...
*Quick lesson on slavery in America. You recall from high school about the fugitive slave act, in which the north had to turn in escaped slaves back to the south. The importance of this act is understated. If slaves can escape to a safe-zone, they tend to do it. For example, in Brazil, Ceara was the first province to outlaw slavery, so slaves started escaping en masse to Ceara. A fugitive slave law was passed but it was largely ignored. Because of Ceara, slavery collapsed COMPLETELY over the next 4 years. No bloodshed. No problem. If the United States had just ignored the fugitive slave act, there would have been no (good) reason for the civil war.
Goddard Elliott Lewko: but she is ultimately unimpressed by the potential suffering of racists or sexists
but she is ultimately unimpressed by the potential suffering of racists or sexists
This could lead to a crucial value difference. Value differences, when not uncovered, tend to make debates drag on pointlessly, and when uncovered, cause them to come to a screeching halt.
You might ask her to define the terms "racist" and "sexist". Force her to be as specific as possible, and dig deeper into her notions of these wherever you can. If you can figure out a way to make her apply her own definition of one of those words to herself (this is usually easier than most people think) you can then ask her if she still doesn't care about the "potential suffering of racists and sexists."
Ultimately, a "these people are bad and I don't give a damn about them" mentality is a recipe for disaster, at times horrific disaster on a massive scale. Mass dehumanization is a quite pernicious collectivist trick.
I think the question itself is flawed. Liberty is a result of you protecting it, not the other way around.
If she finds racists and sexists repugnant tell her she'd have to opportunity to serve out her own justice, if she was stronger than they.