Discrimination is mostly a matter of personal freedom

Suppose we abolished all anti-discrimination laws outside the realm of government. Would businesses suddenly rush to exclude customers or employees based on race, gender, or religion? It seems unlikely. In a free market, bigotry is bad for business. Firms that refused service to certain groups would face social backlash, economic boycotts, and competition from more inclusive rivals. The pressure of public opinion and economic self-interest are more effective deterrents to discrimination than any law could be.

The assumption underlying anti-discrimination legislation is that making bias illegal will eradicate it. But there is little evidence to support that claim. Prohibiting offensive speech does not eliminate prejudice; it merely drives it underground. Likewise, banning discriminatory behaviour does not change private thought. If Janis Joplin had been legally forbidden from preferring handsome men, she would not have found plain ones any more attractive.

We all discriminate in our choices—of friends, partners, employees, and beliefs. It is an inescapable part of human nature. To outlaw discrimination entirely would be to outlaw choice itself. The key question, then, is not how to eliminate discrimination, but how to distinguish between harmful and harmless forms. When discrimination involves coercion or violence, as in apartheid, it must be opposed. When it simply reflects personal preference, it should be left alone.

Freedom necessarily includes the freedom to make choices that others may find foolish, unfair, or offensive. A truly tolerant society allows individuals to act according to their own values, provided they do not violate the rights of others. Governments should protect equality before the law, not equality of outcome. They should defend our liberty, not direct our moral taste.

Discrimination, in its many forms, is part of being human. We can condemn it morally or socially, but we should be wary of giving the state power to control it. Once governments begin legislating virtue, freedom becomes conditional on approval. A society that values liberty must trust its citizens to make their own choices—even when they have “untrustworthy eyes.”