A leftist NGO offered a prize for the best essay titled "What Can I do to Stop Discrimination?" Shockingly, they passed on my proposal and went with a more tyrannical, big government approach.
What Can I do to Stop Discrimination?
Discrimination, particularly when practiced by the state, undermines individual liberty and by extension the overall common good. Government exists to provide order while permitting the greatest deference possible to individual liberty. Public discrimination though is an insidious attack against liberty and the inherent progressive nature of that freedom.
The conventional view of modern discrimination often ignores this broader view of the objectionable phenomena. Since the middle of the 19th century, governments have sought to end discrimination by legislatively proscribing the practice. Mandating that all persons deserve equal protection though has been abandoned in recent years for a more assertive, affirmative attack against discrimination. Modern anti-discrimination efforts seek not just to promote a color-blind, classless citizenry, but to designate particular groups as protected classes. This departure from "everyone is equal" to "everyone is equal but some are more equal than others" is a significant change and jeopardizes, indirectly, the liberty of all persons.
Imagine a state where there are blue, orange, and green people. The blues have traditionally run the country, while the orange people and green people have historically worked in menial labor and been excluded by blue people from more desirable jobs. A well intentioned legislature drafts and passes a law stating that all persons, regardless of color, must be considered for employment based only on the merits of their resume. Such a provision would drastically improve the condition of orange and green applicants by removing the bias which may have prevented them from acceding to higher employment. This is the "everyone is equal" approach.
The legislature might, however, adopt a measure which states that orange people and green deserve equal consideration but also that they are traditional victims of discrimination. This is the "everyone is equal but some are more equal than others" approach. Under this methodology, it is conceded that discrimination is unacceptable, but special note is made that two classes are victims of discrimination, while one group is not.
There is a psychological cost to this approach. It devalues the importance of the individual. Instead of ascribing guilt for discrimination to the persons who practice it amongst all people (very likely mostly blue, but indeed present in some degree throughout society), it characterizes an entire group as at fault. This is discriminatory.
In reality such legislation is only the first step. After characterizing a group and all of its members as collectively at fault for discrimination, such new laws are accompanied by other provisions which provide specialized training to historically maligned groups, targeted tax benefits to encourage their hiring, educational programs to encourage their acceptance, and other such measures, all of which not just promote equality, but seek to affirmatively move certain people forward and other people backwards- as groups, not as individuals.
Most damaging though is that such initiatives, although often well-intentioned, are not free of cost. The creation of social welfare and action programs to promote the standing of certain groups over others are funded by revenues which might otherwise be used by individuals for the collective good. Such programs draw away resources from the productive areas of an economy to be spent on unproductive endeavors, which ultimately costs society at large. Discriminating against one group over another never cured a disease or invented a better light bulb. State sponsored discrimination is not only morally wrong, it is economically inefficient.
The ultimate culprit in discrimination is the individuals who practice it, not certain groups as a whole. Seeking to limit the liberty of individuals by taking their resources and having a government program redistribute those resources to address social ills is a poorly planned approach to addressing discrimination. Centralized social planning, like centralized economic planning, is inefficient and inevitably unsuccessful. A truly free society, where individuals foolish enough to practice bigotry will turn away applicants, customers, and business opportunities based on objectionable discrimination, will eventually purge such inefficient practitioners, and do so in an manner much more efficient than the state could ever accomplish.
Public discrimination, usually well-intentioned initially and appearing logical when first considered, is simply a sophisticated form of targeted discrimination, ineffective in addressing discrimination as a whole and unacceptable in a modern, progressive society.
As an individual there are two courses to stop this most dangerous form of discrimination.
Firstly, individuals must challenge legislators who seek to remedy traditional discrimination by instituting new forms. Taxpayers must question the idea of state subsidized bigotry, not just because it is morally objectionable, but because it is a waste of money.
Secondly, individuals must live their lives: as consumers, as citizens, as individuals. They do not need to do anything else. There is no need to plan rallies, organize lobbying groups, donate to campaigns, or wear special bracelets. Given time and a free society, unjust discrimination will disappear. The market will trounce persons who are more concerned with turning away clients of a certain race than making a profit- freedom is the ultimate equalizer. Individuals offended by discrimination should seek to redress it in their daily lives, not by demanding massive, inefficient state action.
The eventual solution to discrimination cannot be found in an innovative new law, regulation, or policy. All forms of discrimination can be ended only by the combined power of the free market and the determined effort of individuals, unencumbered by public discrimination, challenging this offensive practice.