Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Should There Be Discrimination Laws?

iWe
@iWe
Join to bookmark15likesJoin to like30comments

We all discriminate. We pick whom we marry, which stores we choose (and shun), which doctors we like... essentially every choice we make that deals with other people is a form of discrimination. Every choice comes with an opportunity cost.

I think that there should be no laws against discrimination at all. Much "tribal" discrimination can be good: mosques should not have to hire Jews; "entitled" employees should work for companies that cater to them; cohesive social groupings rely on stressing the commonalities between people.

The downsides of discrimination are found in the free market. Companies and individuals that discriminate without concern for merit will discover corrections: "Go Woke, Go Broke." DEI is one big discrimination racket that specifically shuns merit as a means for choosing talent, after all.

That leaves non-profits and governments. And there I am not sure. Should government hiring decisions account for race or socioeconomic class or sexual preference? It is not as if government is efficient anyway. Indeed, I generally prefer my government to be incompetent, in which case hiring for DEI works for me. Should the government discriminate based on the fads of the day, or, as a matter of law, not discriminate on any basis at all? Is there, in any case, any way to ensure or enforce government hiring to be meritocratic?

What do you think?

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by an editor.

Discussion (30)

  • kedavis@kedavis

    I'm interest in balance, too. For example, a Jew who only applies for jobs at mosques, and never gets hired, should not be able to get unemployment. Because that would essentially be a scam.

  • Ray Gunner@RayGunner
    iWe (View Post):
    Should the government discriminate based on the fads of the day, or, as a matter of law, not discriminate on any basis at all?

    Goodness knows the DEI-types sure want to discriminate. The most instructive thing to come out of the recent affirmative action rulings from SCOTUS was that it proved what arrogant hypocrites our DEI-addled elites are. Harvard and the University of North Carolina argued passionately for the right to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc.--as if the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Right Act should not apply to them. But if you were to ask them if the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act should be repealed generally, so elites and non-elites call all discriminate as they please, they would be appalled.

  • Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)@ArizonaPatriot
    ReplyingtoRay Gunner

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    iWe (View Post):

    iWe (View Post):
    Should the government discriminate based on the fads of the day, or, as a matter of law, not discriminate on any basis at all?

    Goodness knows the DEI-types sure want to discriminate. The most instructive thing to come out of the recent affirmative action rulings from SCOTUS was that it proved what arrogant hypocrites our DEI-addled elites are. Harvard and the University of North Carolina argued passionately for the right to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc.–as if the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Right Act should not apply to them. But if you were to ask them if the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act should be repealed generally, so elites and non-elites call all discriminate as they please, they would be appalled.

    Ray, I agree with your assessment, but I wonder why you think that this was a new element of the recent SCOTUS ruling.

    The same issue has been apparent in all of the cases on this issue, going back to Bakke in the 1970s, hasn't it? My impression is that the other side has always been arguing passionately for discrimination against whites, men, and Christians.

  • namlliT noD@DonTillman
    iWe (View Post):
    I think that there should be no laws against discrimination at all.

    I completely agree.

    Now, consider that:

    1. The subject DEI categories all tend to vote Democrat, by a lot.
    2. At the same time, discrimination against Republicans is freely allowed.
    3. DEI sidesteps the regular meritocracy, allowing otherwise unqualified Democrat party operatives to be placed in positions of power, enabling all sorts of graft.
Scroll for later comments
+25 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 30 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.