I Discriminate: I help the handicapped, I am kind to old people and give my seat to them and to pregnant women.

This is a response to a letter from a dear friend who is an unmistakable  minority where he lives (like me)...

....Yes, I've dealt with discrimination all my life. Once I decided to seriously study the use, and not just spout off platitudes, it took me over ten years of study to finally realize that the only answer to this question is the one that a understanding of private property offers. Other solutions cause us to be subjective and then hypocritical. 

I think if you consider this deeply, you will see why....

People who think they are not sexist or racist will say, "I dream of a world where people can be judged not by their skin color or sex, but by their merits.” They claim that want everyone treated equally. Then they go on, in the next breath, and say, “But special considerations for some people!” 


That’s incredibly subjective and hypocritical. One great example is "Women's Only" cars on trains and subways... Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with "Women's Only" cars... But I practice discrimination so it doesn't bother me. I don't claim that "everyone is the same and we are all equal." 


We're not.

The ones who claim to want everyone treated equally but are often subjective about what that means. They claim to want to use morality as a guide, but fail to see how that, too, is totally subjective. 


I raise a handicapped daughter and don't want people to be treated equal. I want special considerations for some. I love how Disneyland allows handicapped people to go directly to the front of the line and ride the rides. Is this discrimination? Yes! And I thank Disneyland for it. 


Also, I want to decide, for myself, how and to who those considerations should be applied. For example, I like having elevators and facilities for the handicapped; I think it is good there are men's and women's restrooms; I think pregnant women, old people and the handicapped should be treated with deference, kindness and respect and be given seats on the trains and buses, (I'm old fashioned) etc. 


Even though we should give up our seats to handicapped, old or pregnant (and others) do we need laws to force kindness or morality? No. And, by the way, just how does a law that forces us to, say, give up our seats to old people promote equality? I think that is forced age discrimination, isn't it?


I also think forced equality is bad for business... 

Let's be ridiculous for a moment and look at what anti-discrimination laws that force equality in employment would do to professional sports! Take the NBA (please!) Can you imagine having your favorite basketball team staffed with people that represent the cultural make-up of their "home" market? Imagine the new and improved Los Angeles Lakers; two white guys, one black guy, and one each of an Hispanic, short-legged Japanese who can’t jump, a great Jewish athlete (good luck finding one of those), two women, one gay and one lesbian, a transexual, a transvestite, a Democrat, and a hair-dresser (I can't specify sex of hair dresser as that would be discriminatory!). 


It would be wonderful. Probably would draw in as large the crowds the freak shows do at Ringling Brothers Circus!


Nope. I guess that won't do.

The only way to handle this discrimination "problem" is the private property vs. public property philosophy of Libertarianism. Libertarianism (or Anarcho-Capitalism like me) stands up for the free rights of all people.

Michael S. Rozeff once wrote: 

"...Libertarianism champions equal rights. It champions the person and the potential of every person to use liberty to the fullest. Libertarians would NEVER have authored Jim Crow laws or denied the vote on the grounds of race or denied equal access to public facilities depending on one's race. Libertarians have for decades preached against the drug war, which severely discriminates against blacks and browns. The prisons are filled disproportionately with people of color. Libertarians have stood staunchly against wars initiated by the U.S. against people of color and fought to a large extent by American soldiers of color..."

In this Libertarian philosophy, private property is respected. You can do what you want with your private property as long as you do not commit aggression against me. Not allowing people in your private business, for whatever reason, is your choice. That you do not allow some people onto your premises is not, in any sense of the word, aggression against anyone. 


In fact, if you stop and think about it, people who want to use government power to force their way onto you are the ones committing aggression.

I don't have any right to order you to associate with people you don't want to on your private property. Nor do you have the right to tell me how to run my business or who I should allow as my customers. 

We don’t need laws against stupidity or bad business decisions. You can't outlaw stupidity. It won't work.

A public property (paid for by taxes) is a different story. Those places must be open to everyone regardless of race, creed or color.(But we all know the public government discriminates all the time). 

If a restaurants policy of, say, "No dark skinned people," was so odious that it scared away (or pissed off) all their customers (even ones without dark skin) what would happen to that restaurant? It would probably go bankrupt very quickly, right? The free market would handle the issue. 


I don't have dark skin and if I saw a sign that said, "No dark skinned people," I wouldn't patronize the place at all (I've been discriminated against many times in my life and I have friends who are gay, lesbians, women, men, white, transvestites, transexual, Indians (from India), Bangladesh, Germans, Kiwis, Aussies, blacks, etc. etc....) and I don’t particularly care for it, but I will not ask that government force people to do something they don’t want to do.

If I saw a sign that said, "No darkies!" I certainly wouldn't want my friends to go in there and would wonder if they weren’t nuts if they insisted upon doing so.... BUT! I don't think that the government can pass laws on who you associate with or laws against stupidity.... 


The more laws we have, the worse things are getting (current situation should be proof enough of that fact!)

Now, in Japan, some people who scream "Discrimination" are in a huff because the Japanese women's team (Australia women’s basketball team too) had to fly to the Olympics by economy class while the men’s teams flew business... Well, that is terrible sexism! BY THE FOLKS SCREAMING DISCRIMINATION! I thought they wanted people treated by their merits? What is this contradiction whereby suddenly now they think the women should be treated differently because they are women? Uh, don't look now, but they are now contradicting themselves!

Why did the women fly economy class while the men flew business class?

Simple: they were treated equally and on their merits. 


Let me explain: The Olympics are a for profit organization (in spite of the nationalist brainwashing you receive about this event every few years). In just about every country, there is a privately run organization, that runs their own "Olympics" (kind of like a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise). The owners of the Olympic games know from advice given by their Madison Avenue Marketing agencies that to make money, they need to promote statism and nationalism. It's an old, tried and true formula. 


In Japanese case, the men's soccer team has a professional soccer league, the Japan Soccer Association (JSA) involved in the money making. That men's league get's 20,000 ~ 40,000 people paying to come and see their games. The games are televised. Some players play in European leagues. They have big name sponsors, money and all players are professionals. 


The women's league? Well, now, they lose money every year. They almost went bankrupt in 2000 and are now subsidized by the JSA. The women's games have a hard time with attendance. They might have a few hundred fans in attendance (non-paying mostly), no TV, no sponsors and no professionals...

Now, in a privately run for profit organization, why should the women be treated differently from the men? If we treat them differently then that is acknowledgement of their differences... Hence sexism (polite booing here, please!) 

If the Olympic committee were run by taxes, then I could see people complaining, but it is not (thank God for that!)

See what I mean?

Team A makes lots of money. They fly 1st class. Team B loses lots of money and is subsidized by an organization that lives off the profits of Team A. Team B flies economy class. What's the problem with that?

To claim, in this case, that Team B should fly business class, the same as Team A is not fair and is discrimination.

I can't see how these people complain about a sign that shows "discrimination" but then, a second later, say that women should be treated differently. That's fantastically hypocritical.

If this were a government run organization, paid for by our taxes, they can't do that. They are a private organization paid for by private investments and sponsors: they can do what they want with their money and their property and their employees.... The same as a privately run restaurant can. No?

After all, exercising freedom of choice is exercising discrimination.

I exercise discrimination: I help the handicapped, I am kind to old people and give my seat to them and to pregnant women, I like to go to Sushi restaurants and see a Japanese sushi chef. I like to go to Italian restaurants and see, not a Japanese, but an Italian cooking (trust I will ask where the chef is from or will have checked before I arrived).... on and on... I don't mind it if people want to enjoy their space and I don't think we should force people to associate with those they do not wish to.

I certainly don't care if someone is gay, lesbian, transsexual, Indian, black, Hispanic (though I am quite partial to Japanese women!) Oops! There I go discriminating again....

These people who claim discrimination are not consistent in their thoughts because they are confused on private property. How your mom and dad run their place of business is up to them and no one has the right to tell you or them how to act or what you can and cannot do inside of your own house or in your place of business.

See what I mean?