• Bar owner’s property rights wrecked by human rights

In my earlier post titled There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act (you have to love a snappy title like that) I said

I am a classical liberalist and you’re probably thinking that I’m strong on human rights, but that is not true: I believe that there is no such thing as “human rights”.
[…]
The present definition of “human rights” is subjective and invites such evils as the EFA, the anti-smacking law and hate-speech laws. Only when “human rights” are redefined as property rights and personal rights in accordance with the non-aggression axiom can we have a consistent, logical and objective set of rights.

Let’s have a look at another injustice inflicted in the name of human rights:

The Human Rights Commission has warned a newly-opened Kapiti Coast bar over its ban on admitting under 20-year-olds, after young drinkers ruined the drinking establishment’s opening night with bad behaviour.

The commission told Jamie Williams, owner of the $2 million Monteith’s Brewery Bar’ at Paraparaumu, he could not discriminate against which customers he chose to let into his bar based on their age, the Dominion Post reported.

“While bars have the right to refuse entry they should be careful not to do so on the grounds of age, sex or ethnicity,” commission spokesman Gilbert Wong said. (source)

Can you see what is happening here? That bar is private property, but the state is forcing the owner to allow people aged under 20 to enter, even if he doesn’t want them on his property.

The Human Rights Commission website has a prominent piece of fiction:

The Commission works for a fair, safe and just society, where diversity is valued and human rights are respected.

What is ‘fair’ and ‘just’ about using legislation to take away this bar owner’s property rights? Diversity is valued by the state, but only that diversity which is considered acceptable by the state: banning bar patrons under 20 is a form of diversity, but it is not considered acceptable by the state and therefore it is illegal. How is society ‘safe’ when bar owners are forced to admit people that they know are likely to turn violent?

In my earlier post titled I am Pakeha and I am oppressed I said

Socialism/Marxism creates two groups in society: the victims, who are “oppressed”, [in this case, people under 20] and the “oppressors” [the bar owner]. The Socialists then set about righting these (usually imaginary) wrongs by oppressing the “oppressors”, thereby doing just what they accused the “oppressors” of doing [the bar owner is being oppressed by the socialist state].

Laws prohibiting sexual and racial discrimination, as well as other types of discrimination, are nonsensical because everyone discriminates. No one objects if a black American man is a looking for a black wife, but he is discriminating against white women*. He wants a female partner, so he is discriminating against men. He wants a good looking wife, so he is discriminating against people who aren’t good looking. He wants a young woman, so he is discriminating against older people. He wants a wife who can bear children, so he is discriminating against infertile women: the list goes on and on.

Homosexual men discriminate against women by wanting only male sexual partners. Lesbians discriminate against men by only wanting female sexual partners. All heterosexuals discriminate against half of the population, the half that shares their gender.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act forbids discrimination against sexual orientation, and if this is taken to its logical conclusion homosexuality and heterosexuality are illegal; only bisexual people are in compliance with the law, so bisexuality should be made compulsory. Either that or we can get rid of ridiculous laws which deny the reality of the fact that everyone discriminates.

If you take away the politically correct terminology, “discrimination” is in fact “choice”.

My position is simple: that bar is private property and, as part of his property rights, the owner should be free to make a choice about who can and cannot enter his property. The route to a fair and just society is not a complicated one: just restore everyone’s freedom to do whatever they want, and punish them if they violate the personal and property rights of others.

What do you think about the bar owner being forced to allow people under 20 into his bar?

Related post:

Property rights are a part of human nature

~~~~~~~~~~

Equal Employment Opportunities: nonsense on stilts

I have obtained a copy of an Equal Employment Opportunities form (pictured below) used by a company employing almost 1,000 people. This form is given to people applying for jobs and has been sent out to existing employees.

The stated purpose for gathering this information is to “monitor our EEO records as a measure of our commitment to equal employment opportunities” and the form asks for four pieces of data:

1. Gender
2. Ethnicity
3. Disability: “Do you live with the effects of an injury, a long standing illness of disability?”
4. Age

Quite apart from the significant privacy issues, this is paper shuffling at its worst, because the data they gather will be useless and meaningless: allow me to illustrate.

Let’s say that the company crunches the data and finds that they don’t employ any paraplegic Mongolians who play the nose flute. Are they to blame for this vile discrimination? No they are not, because they do not control who applies for a job; if no paraplegic Mongolian nose-flute player has applied for a job then that is because all the paraplegic Mongolian nose-flute players have exercised their free choice and applied for jobs elsewhere.

What happens if the company decides to correct this vile discrimination and advertises for paraplegic Mongolian nose-flute players? Well, then they’re discriminating against anyone who isn’t a paraplegic Mongolian nose-flute player and breaking the law. Thus, even if they identify a “problem” they can’t fix it. Basically they’re gathering data to identify imaginary problems that they can’t fix.

It’s not a perfect analogy, but this is much like those online polls that news outlets and other websites run: when you have a self-selecting sample the data is meaningless. The self-selecting sample in this case is the employees.

Anyway, what’s wrong with “discrimination”? Imagine that you own a roofing company: are you discriminating if you refuse to hire a person in a wheelchair who applies for a job as a roofer? No, you’re exercising free choice and common sense.

As I said in my earlier post:

Socialism/Marxism creates two groups in society: the victims, who are “oppressed”, and the “oppressors”. The Socialists then set about righting these (usually imaginary) wrongs by oppressing the “oppressors”, thereby doing just what they accused the “oppressors” of doing.

Laws prohibiting sexual and racial discrimination, as well as other types of discrimination, are nonsensical because everyone discriminates. No one objects if a black American man is a looking for a black wife, but he is discriminating against white women*. He wants a female partner, so he is discriminating against men. He wants a good looking wife, so he is discriminating against people who aren’t good looking. He wants a young woman, so he is discriminating against older people. He wants a wife who can bear children, so he is discriminating against infertile women: the list goes on and on.

Homosexual men discriminate against women by wanting only male sexual partners. Lesbians discriminate against men by only wanting female sexual partners. All heterosexuals discriminate against half of the population, the half that shares their gender.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act forbids discrimination against sexual orientation, and if this is taken to its logical conclusion homosexuality and heterosexuality are illegal; only bisexual people are in compliance with the law, so bisexuality should be made compulsory. Either that or we can get rid of ridiculous laws which deny the reality of the fact that everyone discriminates.

If you take away the politically correct terminology, “discrimination” is in fact “choice”. There is a Marxist agenda behind political correctness, and the perpetuators of that agenda are using anti-discrimination laws to take away our choices and impose their beliefs upon us. Will you accept it when you are treated like a dumb sheep or will you leave the flock and join the free?

What do you think about the concept of Equal Employment Opportunities?

**********

* calling a black American an “Afro-American” is absurd: if a white person from South Africa goes to America no ones calls him an Afro-American. Africa is a continent, not a skin colour

♦ For an excellent example of reverse discrimination, go to http://www.democrats.org/ and click on People: you’ll see a list of just about every type of American, except white, middle class, urban Americans. Mr Barack “All-inclusive” Obama is discriminating against them

**********

Click on the form for a full-size view.