Disgusting Discrimination at a Wedding! Don't Do This at Your Wedding!

A while back I posted an article that the PC crowd took offense to and that had to do with discrimination. Please refer to: Gaijin Gourmet: Need a Drink & Yakitori in Shibuya? I Got a Fantastic Place! I said that people are free to discriminate any way they please on their own private property - a restaurant, bar, store, etc... are all private property by the way. (If you don't believe me, consult the law - there's a big difference between "public property" like a government office and "private property" like your home and a place of business)... What I mean is that, if my mom and dad own a restaurant, they have the right to refuse service to anyone they please; after all it is their place!

Some people seem to have difficultly grasping this concept of public versus private property. They think that if a restaurant is open to the public, that means it is public property. No. It isn't. It is private property and the owners or management have a right to refuse service to anyone they choose...

The dimwitted ones who want to force the law to open up places where they are not welcomed are the ones who truly need to have their heads examined, why would they want to go into some place where they aren't wanted anyway? That's nuts!

Imagine if there were a militant motorcycle bondage gang club that was "No Females or Heterosexuals Allowed" and the dress code required black leather jackets and pink hot pants. Would I insist that they allow me entry? (I only own polka-dot hot pants) No, I wouldn't. Why would I even want to go in there? It's their private property. I should leave them alone to do as they wish ON THEIR PROPERTY and I'll go to another establishment where I am welcomed, thank you!

In the case in Japan, the restaurant had a sign that said, "No troublesome foreigners allowed." This is quite different than "No foreigners allowed!" I think it is obvious that what these English "challenged" folks (Gotta be PC, ya know!) wanted to write was, "Foreigners who come in here and fight will be kicked out!" (They don't need to write a sign like this in Japanese for the Japanese because for one, Japanese rarely fight in public and two; this is Japan so the staff will not have a problem saying in Japanese laguage to a Japanese person, "If you don't leave, we're calling the police!" The waiter and busboy and girl staff most probably don't have the grasp of English language - or any other language besides their own - to tell non-Japanese speaking people to leave; that's why they work at minimum wage in a restaurant; they are not highly educated! 

Even so, some very confused foreigners took offense to this nonsense and were insulted... 

Instead of being insulted, they should use their brains more and understand that their PC correct "anti-discrimination" (lack of) logic is so completely subjective as to make no sense whatsoever.

You can read more about it here in: I Discriminate: I help the handicapped, I am kind to old people and give my seat to them and to pregnant women. 

Today's short post is from my good friend Aaron Egon Moser. It is about a wedding he went to and how he was shocked at the discrimination shown (Aaron is Jewish) to some others.

Enjoy!

Disgusting Discrimination at a Wedding by Aaron Egon Moser

I was invited to a wedding a while back and was appalled at how discriminatory the bride was. If I knew then what I know now, I may not have attended. 

For instance, I had no idea that when she was searching for a mate with whom to procreate, the most basic of all human functions, she eliminated all women from contention. More than half the people in the world had no chance of marrying her. Outrageous. 

Then I heard that of the group that was eligible, she discriminated against homosexual men. 

And then, to my horror, she struck off every, single man who wasn't Jewish. 

And if that was not enough, men under 5'7" were summarily dismissed as well as guys who weren't gainfully employed. 

Males who lived outside of a 25-mile radius of her present home? Gone. 

Smokers? Fuggetaboudit. 

At the end of the day, only one person was left standing out of the billions that also needed a mate. How's that for discrimination, huh?

There ought to be a law against this sort of blatant discrimination

Incredible! I'm sorry that you had to suffer through such an experience, Aaron. Perhaps if you seek some counseling, you'll be able to overcome the trauma of this event.

Thanks for letting us know about this. I'll write to my congressman, er person, and let him/her/them/it know.

God bless. I will pray for you (in a secular fashion, of course).

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?

Why is it only Sexist when bad things happen to Women but not the other why around?

Aaron Egon Moser asks a great question regarding my blog post Sexism entitled, Incredible Japanese Sexism and Racism! Watch From 2:23! Shocking! (and in the comments section about Japanese women not flying first class): 

Aaron says, "Why is it only Sexist when bad things happen to women but not the other why around?"

And, he sends some food for thought.... From the ITV, no less....

I can answer though, Aaron, people who claim racism and sexism don't think deeply enough to realize that their claims conflict. They fail to see the difference between private property and public property.

One the one hand, like at privately owned property, i.e. restaurants, they complain that people aren't treated equally. Then, on the other hand, in another case of private property, they complain that women, not be judged by their merits, but that they be given "special consideration."

It's laughable.

Folks, there's an easy fix for this: Private property is private property; People can do and discriminate as they wish. Privately owned establishments like restaurants, businesses, homes, etc., are private property.

Public property is paid for by taxes and, therefore, discrimination is not allowed (never mind the fact that the government doesn't allow us free access to supposedly public places).

If you don't realize the crucial and fundamental difference between private and public property, your demanding "fair treatment" to people in one case, then turning right around and demanding unfair treatment in another are nothing short of ignorant hypocrisy. And will give you due criticism.

As always, thanks Aaron Egon Moser for some good common sense.

Incredible Japanese Racism and Sexism! Watch From 2:23!!!! Shocking!!!!

I'm getting really sick of PC bleeding heart Liberals who say stuff like, "I dream of a world where all people are treated equal..." Yeah? That's right. Me too. But the fact of the matter is that, SURPRISE!, all people are different. I am not you and you are not me.


Men and women are different! Whites are different from blacks (thank God) and both are different from Japanese!


Sexism? Really? Only a fool thinks men and women are equal. For myself, I think women are smarter than men, but that's just me. If you think they are the same, then let's abolish "Men's" and "Women's" restrooms.


Yeah! Power to the people! Equality!


How about black people versus white people?

Should discrimination be allowed? Is there are difference between men and women? Is there a difference between white people and black people? Of course there is. Look at any NBA team and witness the difference.... Should NBA teams be forced to represent the cultural makeup of their homeland area like businesses do?

Do the Los Angeles Lakers need to represent Asians by having a Japanese player with short legs who can't jump or dunk? Do they need to make their team 40% white, 40% Hispanic and 10% black?

Do you like to walk into a Japanese restaurant in the USA and see a black guy, or a white guy, or a Korean guy making your sushi? Do you want a Japanese cook making your Kim Chee?

No? I didn't think so.

If you go into a Soul Food restaurant, do you want to be served by a guy named Suzuki or a white guy named McDonald?

No! Of course not!

PC correctness and reverse discrimination are out of control. People are not processed cheese. Everyone is different and that is a good thing. It should be celebrated and not suppressed. 

The more power we give to the government to control our lives, the more f'ed up everything is.

If you don't understand that, you are one very confused person....

Here's some racist and sexist jokes on Japanese TV!!! The government should do something about it!!!

People who don't realize that we are all different and unique (and special) are color-blind and racist and sexist.

Nah... We're all the same, right? Even if we are 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8.....

Only fools would think so.

All Humans Practice Discrimination All The Time and So Do You!

The article with the humorous sign that said, "Trouble some foreigners not welcomed" sure brought a litany of confused and not-so-confused responses from people all over the world. Thanks!


The idea, though, that this sign was proof of racial discrimination is absurd. It is proof of nothing short of a poor command of English. If you want me to show you discrimination in Japan, I can do that with signs that do say explicitly, "No foreigners."


Those would be some gambling and prostitution establishments in some of the, how shall I say? "More interesting" parts of downtown Tokyo, where many Yakuza gangsters seem to be.  


Nevertheless, that the discrimination issue came up and people's faux enlightened posing about this issue causes me to comment.


You, dear reader, discriminate against people and groups of people all the time. Yes, you do. So do I. Everyone does. Discrimination is an integral feature of human activity.


When you pick a girlfriend or boyfriend, do you like a fat one, skinny one, or a shapely one?


Whichever you choose, that's a form of discrimination.


When you choose a company to work for, do you choose "Any company is fine!" Or would working for the government or mafia or a KKK organization matter to you?


Whichever you choose, that's a form of discrimination. It's also your right!


When hetero-sexual males choose a woman for partner or bed mate, they exercise discrimination: The act of choosing.


That goes for hetero-sexual women too. Gays and Lesbians too! Heavens! People choosing by use of discrimination.


The only ones that do not practice sex discrimination in the area of sexual relations are bi-sexuals, I suppose. So if you are not bi-sexual, I guess you are guilty of discrimination by sex and probably race, no?


The most obvious example of blatant discrimination is when we choose a mate for marriage. Anyone who claims that they do not exercise sex and race discrimination in this area are either fooling themselves or they haven't ever thought the ramifications of what this term means.


I was happily surprised today, though, that one of my favorite writers and fellow columnist at Lew Rockwell, Walter Williams (a black man! Heavens!) coincidentally wrote about this subject in Difficult Economic Lessons:

How about the statement that people should not engage in race or sex discrimination? Whatever the emotional worth of such a statement, it's a value judgment, with no facts or evidence to back it up, plus interpreted literally, it's nonsense. Think about it. Discrimination is simply the act of choice. Whenever we choose, we discriminate. When we choose one person for a mate, we discriminate most of the time by race and sex. Would we want a society in which there are penalties for such discrimination?

The utter notion that discrimination is ugly and should be rejected at all levels is merely nonsensical PC posturing. 

The fact of the matter is that all people discriminate all the time. To think otherwise is wrong.

The sign at the Japanese restaurant was not an example of discrimination at all. Like I said, it is merely an example of poor English.

Nevertheless, it is a tenant of Libertarian thought and principle that private property is private property and the owner of such is welcomed to discriminate as they see fit. If you ran an establishment and foreigners accounted for, say, $100 a month in sales, yet $1000 a month in damages, you'd probably restrict them from YOUR property after a few months like that... 


In that case, it is purely an act of private property rights and (survival) economics.  

People need to get an education and learn the difference between private and public property.


They also should get a basic education in cost and cost vs. effectiveness.

Read more in "The Case For Discrimination" by Walter Block