Before I begin writing this, let me say that my position is rooted in the inability of government to effectively regulate anything, and in the ability of person-composed companies to do what is right for their business. I believe, in fact, that government's inactivity in something is the road to the best-case scenario. I am, in no way, encouraging racism or any other type of prejudice.
Rand Paul was asked by Rachel Maddow if he would have voted for or against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul attempted to explain his position. Dr. Paul explained that he in no way supports racism, institutional or otherwise. He admitted that many of the provisions of the act were necessary. He also asserted - and was cut off - that there were things that government ought not be able to restrict, regardless of the moral implications.
Allow me to explain my interpretation of what I would hope he would have said.
People are generally followers. People also tend to be altruistic when their actions are broadly judged by society. Unlike at the beginnings of this country's history (or the current statuses of other countries), the larger majority of people recognize the general equality of all people - regardless of [insert the government required fine print non-discrimination verbiage... blah blah blah]. Paul's arguments are rooted in the elimination of institutional racism, and allowing the people to do with their businesses what they will.
If a business owner chooses to allow whites-only to patronize their establishment, they are necessarily limiting their customer base. This is not only because of the non-whites who will not patronize the establishment, but also because of the whites who value diversity and/or detest discrimination. Likewise, if a bar owner limits their customers to straight males, they will not only exclude females and gay males, but they will also lose the business of men who enjoy the company of women at such an establishment.
The market does work, despite the constant drumbeat of regulators blaming the market for their failed regulations. People will only purchase products or employ services in which they see value: that is, it is something they agree with, need or want and would not be embarrassed to employ (with some exceptions, but I'm talking about physical businesses here). If a business owner, regardless of their personal feelings about diversity, desires to maximize profits, they need to maximize their customer base. In fact, in most communities, an establishment of any kind wouldn't survive if they discriminated in their customer practices (or hiring practices, for the most part) even without government regulation.
As I write this, I'm watching the Flyers vs. Canadiens in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. It brings to mind a time when non-whites were completely disinterested in the sport. In the past decade, the NHL has seen more "minority" players on the ice, which has broadened the interest-base of the sport. What does that mean? Inclusiveness has actually increased profitability. Government didn't have to step in and institute a racial quota. The league and its teams see the benefit of racial diversity (taking talent into consideration, obviously) and now go out of their way to employ non-white players where talent allows.
Contrarily, professional basketball has been consistently thought of as a "black" sport in recent decades. Most of the superstars are black - and most non-black players do not make waves - so most of the fans of the league are black. Viewership of NBA games has decreased in the past several decades because of the perceived lack of diversity (and its decline). When it comes to basketball, most non-black "customers" prefer college ball, likely caused at least in part by the diversity of college basketball teams, as opposed to NBA teams. Don't even get me started on the WNBA.
If something is not profitable, a business will likely not do it. For instance, a company that employs only one classification of people (based on gender, ethnicity, etc.), is significantly less likely to garner the business of the community at large. Forced diversity solves nothing - it's faux altruism that instills racial quotas, costs beyond what are reasonable and penalties for not complying with some bureaucrat's idea of diversity. It fosters negativity in the marketplace, the workplace and the community. Supporters of quotas are angry with the perceived lack of concern for diversity in those who disagree, and those who seek talent regardless of classification are derided for their insensitivity, and punished for their disdain for diversity.
In reality, people are most satisfied when they accomplish something on their own. When they are compelled to do something, they do it solely for the reason of compulsion. Think about when you were a child. If your parents let you pick your friends, you were satisfied with your choice and enjoyed yourself - and tended to have a modicum of diversity in your social circle. Contrarily, if your parents told you with whom to be friendly, you likely held an amount of disdain for the friends, for your parents and for the ends that your parents attempted to accomplish (that is, no matter what reason, the compulsion caused disdain that may not have been there prior).
The argument isn't about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other meaningless classification. The argument is rooted in the difference between government compulsion and personal freedom. If we look through history, the most successful societies are the ones with highest degree of person freedoms. Governments only work when they have an enemy. Who is the enemy in the argument about compulsory inclusion of minorities? It ends up being the majority - regardless of culpability - especially those who are perceived as having been favored. For example, let's imagine that I am a candidate for a job, and the only other applicant is a similarly qualified minority applicant. I have a little more experience than the other applicant, and minimally higher results in my pre-employment testing. In some cases, an employer will - usually for fear of reprisal by the government, the other applicant, or both - choose the less qualified applicant to avoid potential consequences.
This doesn't happen as often as it's purported. However, it does happen, and it's detrimental to everyone involved. There is also a double standard. If a company employs mostly "minorities", there is no obligation (theoretical or actual) that they hire a white person, or a male. For government to impose penalties for ideas that do not cause physical harm is government overreaching.
People are more content when they are empowered to make their own decisions. When a person is compelled to do something, they gain little satisfaction from their actions and, as I stated, often disdain both the authority compelling them and the action they're forced to perform. It is not beneficial in a society such as ours (where people are free) to exclude people from employment or being able to patronize a business; in fact, to do so is most often detrimental. Wouldn't it make for a better society to allow qualifications - not genetics, physiology or personal choices - to determine someone's eligibility to participate in something? Wouldn't it lead to a better workplace environment if everyone there knew that they were there because of their fitness for the job and not because of some government regulated quota? Would it reduce - or even possibly eliminate - certain tensions in society if things were based on the wants, needs or practicalities of that society, and not based on government compulsion?
I would posit that our society would actually be more vibrant, that racial tensions would decrease dramatically, that businesses would be more successful and individuals would experience a greater amount of satisfaction with themselves and others around them if we allowed society (and the market) to regulate itself. Government intervention is like overuse of antibiotics - it decreases the ability of the body's natural immunity to fight off infection, and creates dependence on an external force to do a job that the body ought to be able to do on its own, as well as disables the body from adapting to future infections. In the end, the perceived altruism of government intervention is actually one of the most dangerous things for society.
Again, racism is a disease. Sexism is as well. There is no place for them in society. The point of my writing this is exactly that - society will dispel of them on its own, as long as it isn't dependent on government to do it for them. Rand Paul is right - the concept of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a great one, and the goal the same. But, in practice, it does more harm than good, fosters continued hatred and disables society from acting on its own.
Rand Paul was asked by Rachel Maddow if he would have voted for or against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul attempted to explain his position. Dr. Paul explained that he in no way supports racism, institutional or otherwise. He admitted that many of the provisions of the act were necessary. He also asserted - and was cut off - that there were things that government ought not be able to restrict, regardless of the moral implications.
Allow me to explain my interpretation of what I would hope he would have said.
People are generally followers. People also tend to be altruistic when their actions are broadly judged by society. Unlike at the beginnings of this country's history (or the current statuses of other countries), the larger majority of people recognize the general equality of all people - regardless of [insert the government required fine print non-discrimination verbiage... blah blah blah]. Paul's arguments are rooted in the elimination of institutional racism, and allowing the people to do with their businesses what they will.
If a business owner chooses to allow whites-only to patronize their establishment, they are necessarily limiting their customer base. This is not only because of the non-whites who will not patronize the establishment, but also because of the whites who value diversity and/or detest discrimination. Likewise, if a bar owner limits their customers to straight males, they will not only exclude females and gay males, but they will also lose the business of men who enjoy the company of women at such an establishment.
The market does work, despite the constant drumbeat of regulators blaming the market for their failed regulations. People will only purchase products or employ services in which they see value: that is, it is something they agree with, need or want and would not be embarrassed to employ (with some exceptions, but I'm talking about physical businesses here). If a business owner, regardless of their personal feelings about diversity, desires to maximize profits, they need to maximize their customer base. In fact, in most communities, an establishment of any kind wouldn't survive if they discriminated in their customer practices (or hiring practices, for the most part) even without government regulation.
As I write this, I'm watching the Flyers vs. Canadiens in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. It brings to mind a time when non-whites were completely disinterested in the sport. In the past decade, the NHL has seen more "minority" players on the ice, which has broadened the interest-base of the sport. What does that mean? Inclusiveness has actually increased profitability. Government didn't have to step in and institute a racial quota. The league and its teams see the benefit of racial diversity (taking talent into consideration, obviously) and now go out of their way to employ non-white players where talent allows.
Contrarily, professional basketball has been consistently thought of as a "black" sport in recent decades. Most of the superstars are black - and most non-black players do not make waves - so most of the fans of the league are black. Viewership of NBA games has decreased in the past several decades because of the perceived lack of diversity (and its decline). When it comes to basketball, most non-black "customers" prefer college ball, likely caused at least in part by the diversity of college basketball teams, as opposed to NBA teams. Don't even get me started on the WNBA.
If something is not profitable, a business will likely not do it. For instance, a company that employs only one classification of people (based on gender, ethnicity, etc.), is significantly less likely to garner the business of the community at large. Forced diversity solves nothing - it's faux altruism that instills racial quotas, costs beyond what are reasonable and penalties for not complying with some bureaucrat's idea of diversity. It fosters negativity in the marketplace, the workplace and the community. Supporters of quotas are angry with the perceived lack of concern for diversity in those who disagree, and those who seek talent regardless of classification are derided for their insensitivity, and punished for their disdain for diversity.
In reality, people are most satisfied when they accomplish something on their own. When they are compelled to do something, they do it solely for the reason of compulsion. Think about when you were a child. If your parents let you pick your friends, you were satisfied with your choice and enjoyed yourself - and tended to have a modicum of diversity in your social circle. Contrarily, if your parents told you with whom to be friendly, you likely held an amount of disdain for the friends, for your parents and for the ends that your parents attempted to accomplish (that is, no matter what reason, the compulsion caused disdain that may not have been there prior).
The argument isn't about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other meaningless classification. The argument is rooted in the difference between government compulsion and personal freedom. If we look through history, the most successful societies are the ones with highest degree of person freedoms. Governments only work when they have an enemy. Who is the enemy in the argument about compulsory inclusion of minorities? It ends up being the majority - regardless of culpability - especially those who are perceived as having been favored. For example, let's imagine that I am a candidate for a job, and the only other applicant is a similarly qualified minority applicant. I have a little more experience than the other applicant, and minimally higher results in my pre-employment testing. In some cases, an employer will - usually for fear of reprisal by the government, the other applicant, or both - choose the less qualified applicant to avoid potential consequences.
This doesn't happen as often as it's purported. However, it does happen, and it's detrimental to everyone involved. There is also a double standard. If a company employs mostly "minorities", there is no obligation (theoretical or actual) that they hire a white person, or a male. For government to impose penalties for ideas that do not cause physical harm is government overreaching.
People are more content when they are empowered to make their own decisions. When a person is compelled to do something, they gain little satisfaction from their actions and, as I stated, often disdain both the authority compelling them and the action they're forced to perform. It is not beneficial in a society such as ours (where people are free) to exclude people from employment or being able to patronize a business; in fact, to do so is most often detrimental. Wouldn't it make for a better society to allow qualifications - not genetics, physiology or personal choices - to determine someone's eligibility to participate in something? Wouldn't it lead to a better workplace environment if everyone there knew that they were there because of their fitness for the job and not because of some government regulated quota? Would it reduce - or even possibly eliminate - certain tensions in society if things were based on the wants, needs or practicalities of that society, and not based on government compulsion?
I would posit that our society would actually be more vibrant, that racial tensions would decrease dramatically, that businesses would be more successful and individuals would experience a greater amount of satisfaction with themselves and others around them if we allowed society (and the market) to regulate itself. Government intervention is like overuse of antibiotics - it decreases the ability of the body's natural immunity to fight off infection, and creates dependence on an external force to do a job that the body ought to be able to do on its own, as well as disables the body from adapting to future infections. In the end, the perceived altruism of government intervention is actually one of the most dangerous things for society.
Again, racism is a disease. Sexism is as well. There is no place for them in society. The point of my writing this is exactly that - society will dispel of them on its own, as long as it isn't dependent on government to do it for them. Rand Paul is right - the concept of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a great one, and the goal the same. But, in practice, it does more harm than good, fosters continued hatred and disables society from acting on its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment