What's wrong with discrimination? It only means freedom of choice, as in preference and discretion...?

Noted black economist Walter Williams points out that people practice discrimination in choosing friends and spouses...and that marriage has much more of an impact, economically, on racial groups(because people generally pick mates of their own race) than any hiring or contracting process.

If you choose to marry person A instead of person B, person B may experience loss while person A enjoys advantages.

The point being, that if the government continues its trend/efforts to eliminate "discrimination"--that is, free choice--in all aspects of society with EEOC lawyers and affirmative action and so on, then soon it will be forcing people to marry someone outside their race in order to promote "equal opportunity" and quotas, etc.

Answer:
I agree and am a fan of Walter Williams.

Look at examples where people advocate legal discrimination in this country:
-Different incomes are taxed at different level: That is discriminatory taxation based on income.
-Medicare is for people only if you are over a certain age: That is discrimination based on age.

When people think discrimination, they only think color. So let's take a look at that. The people who make the most noise about discrimination are also the same people who make the most noise about greed profiting corporations. But if a corporation only cares about profit, they do not discriminate against someone who will help them make a profit. People cannot have it both ways. If they discriminate against people of different colors, then they sacrifice profit.

Discrimination is a red herring. It is easier to rant about that than it is to discuss rampant illegitimacy, for example.

And how dare I type this: People discriminate between which neighborhood they drive through all the time. It does not make them a bigot.

Freedom to choose is a good thing.
.
What if we take your ridiculous argument one step further. What if someone looks at me funny and I decide to beat them to death. Isn't that just freedom of choice?

You are arguing for the right to hurt people by discriminating against them in the work place. You would like to discriminate against them because of the color of their skin or their ethnic origin. Sadly, it is racists like you that make anti-discrimination laws necessary. In the ideal world, such laws would not be needed.
Sounds disastrous, doesn't it? Communism gone haywire.
It is an interesting point. Granted, people do discriminate when choosing a spouse, or friends etc. I think that the whole idea behind anti-discrimination acts is to prevent people from being discriminated based on their appearance or ethnic background in the workplace. It is somewhat idealistic, I agree, but the whole idea of equal rights for everyone is good. Maybe there is a better way to do it, but we haven't figured it out yet?

Watch Gattaca!
I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Freedom of personal choice is about you having the right to decide certain things for your own personal self, where your decision is not going to materially interfere with the life and well being of somebody else. When you make a decision whom to marry, it is absolutely important that you pick somebody with whom you feel compatible, and since you CAN only pick one person, how ridiculous would it be for you to choose to marry somebody you knew you wouldn't be happy with? Not to mention that this would only end up making that person unhappy too.
In the world of business and free enterprise, if you put your business out there and advertise that you wish to hire people to work for you, it is socially recognised that you are announcing this information to "the Public at large" You have a position to offer anybody who has the credentials or the skills to fill that job. How outrageous and just plain ridiculous, not to mention downright unfair, would it be, if you then start turning away eminently suitable candidates because they weren't as "good looking" as you wanted, or their skin color wasn't right, or they walked with a limp, or so on? THAT is discrimination, and it also deprives certain people of THEIR free right to apply for a job they believe they can do proficiently. The overall public wellbeing becomes a strong factor here. When you exercise your reasonable and sensible right to choose the person you are supposed to be going to spend the rest of your life with, that certainly isn't something which will have a profound effect on the well being of Society as a whole. But when you start creating situations that will deprive people of the right to take a job and earn a living, you are going to be taking a terrible road that can only lead to ultimate social breakdown and chaos.
No pun intended, but it is NOT a black and white as your question suggests. My short answer is moderation. You can lean to much to left or right and tip the boat over. It means endless adjustments and adaptation. Moderation is best even regarding the all encompassing term "freedom."
Choice means to pick out what the best solution is to a given situation. Discrimination is an illogical reaction to a situation that is not based on facts. Therein lies the difference between the two.. perception and facts. It is human nature to pick out what is best for you (based on actual facts) but to do so by basing it on unfounded bias is discriminatory. The choice of a mate would depend on the person's ideals of what a good mate would be. The reason why a person would CHOOSE to marry within his race could be because of a myriad of factors i.e shares same likes and dislikes, shares the same religion, love for children,grew up in the same neighborhood, etc. If a suitable mate of another race that fills up these criteria could be found, then race as a factor in the choice of a mate becomes irrelevant. But if the desired marriage mate is eliminated from the pool of candidates because of skin color, social strata, ethnic bias, religious belief etc., then, this choice is flawed (discriminatory) because it is influenced by PERCEIVED factors that is based on groundless facts.The BELL CURVE published in 1994 asserts that some race is genetically superior to others. Asians are better in math, african americans are inferior to caucasians..how do you explain the likes of great men like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and a host of others too many to mention..a statistical anomaly? I have an asian friend, a very likeable person perfect in every way except for one thing.. the inability to balance the cashier's bank issued to him at the end of the shift..another statistical anomaly? In the early 1900's, black athletes were given very little chance in participating in the game of basketball because "they were not good enough." A look at the roster of the NBA teams would show their dominance of the game. Whoops, sorry, another statistical anomaly?...
I am able to distinguish between black and white and other colors, will that mean that I need to become colorblind in order not to discriminate. I have been given free will, why should I not be able to distinguish between person of a different color or my own color who is more suitable to be my marriage partner. I do not think that our Government will interfere in private life decisions. This does not make sense to me. That all need to have a chance at employment if they qualify that I can see, and all races should have equal opportunity of having their own business or franchise opportunities, in order to provide a living that makes sense.
That's true to large degree ; but political correctness goes to extremes in many areas..discrimination included , and turns every distinction into a crime many times ..
When one shows different treatment to someone because of race ; religion ; nationality or gender - it's wrong .But when discrimination is mere preference , why should it be wrong to choose A , B or C ? I've heard Walter Williams and can appreciate where he's coming from when he says that .
The government and society has an interest in promoting equal treatment in the public sphere. One has only to look at the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Nazi Germany, or even Iraq to see the damage that can arise from racism and discrimination against ethnic or religious groups. Freedom to choose has little meaning without civil order, and civil order is hard to maintain when segments of the population are denied equal opportunity. We live in a heterogeneous country and it is becoming more so every day, so it is increasingly important that the instinctual fear of the "other" not be allowed free expression in public life.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:

More Questions and Answers:
  • would it be right to question china as a communist country surely there are some conservative aspects to they?
  • What type of business systems exist outside of the job that most people go to every day?
  • Capitalism Socialism Communism?
  • We certainly need defense industries, and we must protect them from import competition by placing restrictions
  • Homework Help! Read Details!!?
  • What would be the lowest amount of money you could be recorded with, and still get excited about?
  • What is so bad about privatization of social security?
  • What is the difference between the real interest rate and the money interest rate?
  • How long can a fiat money scam go on before it's inevitable implosion?