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.
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.
They also should get a basic education in cost and cost vs. effectiveness.
Read more in "The Case For Discrimination" by Walter Block
