I was about to write "I expect my last post to generate complaints that private racism would still exist" when I checked my comments and discovered that that was precisely the comment I received. As is usual, the left suffers from three related problems, the inability to distinguish private from public, a silly utopianism, and an urge to use the government to cure all ills. I wrote at great length in"Private Versus Public Racism" about these problems, so I will only touch on them briefly, but the point is, yes, there will be private racism if the government ends affirmative action and EEOC and such, but there is private racism now as well. Private individuals think what they will, regardless of the state. The only difference now is that affirmative action, EEOC and others, by enshrining race as an official category, CREATES racism, where otherwise it would not enter the minds of many people. However, the left, with their boundless faith in the state, insists that dwelling on race and discriminating against one group to favor another will somehow eventually create a utopia where no one thinks of race.

Just let that one sink in for a moment.

Discrimination, obsessing on race, and favoring specific races to the detriment of others is the route to racial harmony. Which, of course, is why the Jim Crow era was such an enlightened, harmonious time, and apartheid South Africa was such a model society... Oh, that's right! The left denounced both of those, as they discriminated in the WRONG WAY. While the only way to harmony is to discriminate in the RIGHT WAY...

I have an easier way to look at this problem.

First, the government SHOULD be prohibited from discriminating, in any direction. Now Congressional Black Caucus, no White Caucus either. No discrimination in favor or against anyone, for any reason. Any distinctions drawn by the state must be clearly relevant to the question at hand. Such as not allowing funding for hysterectomies for men or vasectomies for women. That sort of sensible distinction. Otherwise, the state should be blind as to race, sex, religion, sexual preference, musical taste, philosophy, and taste in home decor. To the state, as I wrote in "My Vision of Government Part II", everything in a single category, such as people, should be identical, unless there is a VERY good reason it is not.

After that, it is no one's business. If I own a store, and I want to allow in only Irishmen, or want to keep out women, that is my business. If I want to hire only big breasted women or guys with one eye named Pete, that is my right. It is my private property and both property rights and the right of association argue in favor of that. Just because it is a "public accommodation" does not mean my rights are suspended. But I argued all this a while ago in "In Defense of Discrimination", so I won't go into that either.

Instead, let me tread some new ground, though it is a bit sad that it qualifies as "new ground", as our grandparents* would have called it common sense.

You see, many will say "but then you can discriminate all you want!" And, yes, that's true. However, the left also tells us discrimination is bad. That we miss out on good employees, lose out on diversity and so on. (And I agree, from an economic perspective, unless the ere is a prove correspondence between race and productivity, discrimination is harmful.) So, if discrimination is harmful, then let me do it, I will only hurt myself. And, in the long run, I will be driven form business and replaced by those who don't discriminate.

In the past, people understood that the best way to deal with an idiot was to let him do what he wanted, as sooner or later he would suffer the consequences of his idiocy and eventually change. And that is what I am proposing. Those who discriminate will pay the price, and eventually will either change or will be driven out. And that will cure discrimination in business much more quickly than all the government programs in history. Greed is much more strongly motivating than fear of legislators.

Better yet, my plan doesn't involve enshrining race a a permanent category of thought, discriminating against this group or that, or involving the state at all. My suggestion is simple. Thanks to the general public opposition to discrimination, it will be far too costly for most businesses to discriminate. Yes, maybe in some backwater, somewhere, or in some really small subcultures (of all races), there will be a market for single race, single religion or single sex businesses, but by and large social pressure, combined with economic, will end racism.

Of course, it won't totally eliminate it, and won't work instantly, and the left will hold that against it. But I ask in response, has 45 years of government intervention done better? Why must free market solutions work perfectly and instantly, while government programs are forgiven decades of failure? No, it won't work immediately, and some racists will remain, but so what? It is far better than what we have, without violating anyone's rights or putting the government in the business of discriminating? On what grounds can one object?

------------------------------------------------

* I should change this claim, as my grandparents were the generation that voted in FDR and otherwise destroyed the nation. Yes, they won World War II, but let us not forget the "greatest generation" bled Social Security dry, cashed in on medicare, and put FDR in office, so they took AT LEAST as much as they put in, if not quite a bit more. So, perhaps I should say "my grandparents' grandparents would call it common sense".

--------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Please note the "idiots" of the title are the racists, not those commenting on my last post.