Discrimination is Not a Bad Word

I discriminate all the time.  I bet you do, too.

But I despise racists, bigots, and liars.

To discriminate simply means to distinguish between and make decisions based upon differing characteristics.  To “segregate” implies a forced imposition of separation or isolation.

As a white, heterosexual female, I don’t fall into any “group” that has been particularly socially discriminated against. But if someone were to feel hostility or hatred toward me for any of these inborn characteristics,  I’d regard it as an emotional or spiritual problem on their part.  It would be their personal discrimination against me, and it would be their prerogative and their right to discriminate.  I would not want the government to step in to force someone to associate with me if they preferred not to do so.

Discrimination is not a bad word.  If you didn’t discriminate, all manner of people (and some you may find very disagreeable) would be in your life.  But you, and you alone, choose who you associate with based on all manner of your likes and dislikes.  You choose your friends, just as you choose what family members are allowed closeness in your life.  You choose who you get a cup of coffee with, see a film with, or go skiing with.  You choose who you pick up the phone and call.   Think about it, you choose which people you associate with and those your purge from your life or at least minimize minimize communication with.  You choose who you socialize with.

You discriminate.  You discriminate based upon all kinds of things: people’s personalities, similar interests, values, morals, and behaviors that stem from those things. You decide who you’d like to get to know better, and those you’d rather not.

An intelligent thoughtful individual discriminates in many life choices, be it in their health decisions, foods they eat, what they purchase, places they go, activities they participate in, the music and art they appreciate, as well as whom they associate with.  Our values, culture, religious beliefs, and many other factors shape that which we appreciate.

And while there are those who discriminate based upon characteristics you or I wouldn’t regard as important, it is their right to do so.

There is a big difference between personal discrimination and legal discrimination. I’ve rarely experienced legal discrimination, but it is legal discrimination - discrimination by the government - toward anyone (no matter what “group” they’re in) that I reject.

No group, no politician, no government bureaucrat, and no government program should force people to relate to others.

This is why I found U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech commemorating Black History Month to be filled with what I consider to be some of the most objectionable and alarming remarks I’ve heard out from a government official.

Holder’s judgmental pronouncement  that we are a “nation of cowards” on racial issues seems racist in itself, and that we are “voluntarily socially segregated” (what a bizarre and inappropriate use of the word “segregated”)  and that “On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago,” followed by his ominous reference to”creating what will admittedly be, at first, artificial opportunities to engage one another…This will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful but the rewards are potentially great,” are remarks of what I perceive to be a man who intends to use big government, once again, to intrude into areas of our lives which should be left alone.

I get the distinct feeling Holder intends to emphasize and try to achieve a tolerance agenda through public education, affirmative action, and other likely government actions. (This is but another of the many reasons why children should be educated according to your educational and ethical values, not by government.  When agendas, no matter how apparently benign, are sought to be imposed on children, free thought disappears and a dangerous precedent is established.)  Through education, or through other government interventions, race relations is not the job of government that Holder states it to be.  This does not bode well for liberty.

As a libertarian, I focus on human rights and thus equal treatment by the federal government for all. I reject the government granting “special” rights to any group of people. Thus, I think in terms of “human rights”as I believe in individual liberty for all people, and focus upon greater liberty for all Americans.  I don’t divide people into groups.  I respect and will fight for the liberties of all people, whether they are similar to me or very different.  On principle, this has led me to stand up for the rights of those who differ greatly from me in their life.

I’ve opposed the smoking bans in my state, as well as being a strong opponent of the drug war.  But, I’ve never smoked or engaged in drugs in my life.  I’ve also gotten involved in fighting imposition of additional taxation of certain industries which would, if passed, had no direct affect on my life.  There are other issues I’ve gotten involved in because I opposed the unequal treatment of, and thus the legal discrimination thereof, by the government against people.  I’ve even been asked by a few associates, why do I take up such causes when they don’t affect me or when they are the causes of a group of people I have nothing in common with?  Because what is right should be defended by all, just as what is wrong should be fought by all.

You don’t have to be a smoker to oppose smoking bans.  You don’t have to be an immigrant to oppose what has become a war on immigrants.  Neither do you have to take drugs to oppose the drug war.  Neither must you be within any minority group to oppose governmental discrimination against said group. The list of characteristics people discriminate against one another is long, and it isn’t an area government should be involved in trying to alter.  Rather, government should get out of the way and just end all of its rampant discrimination.  It is the rights we have as human beings, and those rights we have as Americans, that we must protect ourselves from government’s taking.

All Americans must be treated equally under the law. There should be no “special” groups of people granted “special” rights, protections, or advantages. There should be no federal discrimination (or favoritism) in regards to any group of people.  For example, government does not create marriages.  People do.  And if you believe marriage is a gift from God, it is a holy union.  Marriage, such an intimate, personal and private part of one’s life, is being discussed as if it is a government invention and as such to be defined by.  We each have our beliefs about morality and sacredness of marriage,  those beliefs and our lives are interfered with to the degree we allow government to intrude into what once was a personal, social and religious decision between two people.  Marriage predates politics, and should not be an area where government grants and withholds benefits upon, that in itself makes so many problems.   The sanctity of this religious and social bonding or institution, important as it is, is becoming less so regarded in societal perception the more government intervenes into it, most especially when governmental economic benefits come into play.  But because government has wrongly and deeply involved itself in what should be a personal and/or religious matter, it now rewards or sanctions some relationships with its approval through advantages over others.  But why is government that involved in the personal lives of people and the relationships they enter into?  This in itself makes the problem.

Another example: I oppose laws making some crimes worse than others based on assumed motives– every crime must be judged on the law broken not who committed the crime, who the victim was, or why.    Those calling for special hate crime legislation are looking for government to discriminate, saying one group is more special than another.  There are no “special” circumstances when it comes to violence; existing laws need only be enforced.

But government likes to focus on differences.  It’s the way they gain much power.  Sadly, many who consider themselves unfairly treated socially, see nothing unjust in asking government to step in to supposedly make things right for them.  They are unable to distinguish between the right every individual has of personal discrimination versus the unjust legal discrimination.  Ironically, they often seek and agree with the imposition of discriminatory practices upon others just to vindicate the persecution they’ve suffered.  But two wrongs do not make a right.

It comes down to this, when government is doing the hiring or firing, when government is paying the wages, when a law is being enforced, when it’ a public facility, or when government is giving a tax break, it should be administered equally across the board.  No preferences, no quotas, and no “affirmative” programs.  Just equality.  But when it’s private sector employment, or an apartment up for rent for example, I believe anybody should be able to discriminate for any reason.  Government discriminatory practices, no matter what form they take, should be abolished.  Private decisions, even amongst organizations, clubs, and groups as to who may have membership should be respected, just as each of us make decisions in our own lives as to whom we associate with.

“Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must - and will - lead the nation to the “new birth of freedom”…” Attorney General Holder stated.  Neither is it the rightful “duty”  or “solemn obligation” he cites of his government agency to do any of these things. True advances or “progress” as Holder states he wants to see in this area of relating to one another will not be forced upon us as he seems to advocate, but will come from the free will of a people as they grow in understanding personally.

I think a quote from a letter I received last week from a man, Lec Zorn, in response to one of my articles sums it up well, “Libertarianism is loving in that love can not come through force, only free will, and in that it combines maximum freedom with maximum responsibility.”  A society whose government was required by its people to simply abide in respect for that thought would be a freer society indeed!

As a libertarian I simply want government to stay out of every area of our lives that we have not constitutionally authorized it to be involved in.  Leave all the rest to the people to do as they will based on their spiritual consciousness.  That is respecting the freedom of every individual.

Christine Smith is a freelance writer and political activist from Colorado. She has written numerous articles for state, national and international publications (newspapers, magazines, online publications) covering a wide range of topics: the arts, technology, business, politics, health, environment, social justice, human spirituality, and profile interviews with high achievers. Articles by Christine Smith at MWC News http://mwcnews.net/ChristineSmith

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Comments (1)

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4