RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : In Defense of Discrimination

Tuesday
October 23, 2007

In Defense of Discrimination by William Scott Dwyer

Discrimination is bad! We hear it from the pulpit, from the media, from our moralists and especially from our "civil rights" leaders. But is discrimination the evil that everyone says it is? My answer is: No. It depends on the kind of discrimination one is talking about. In fact, discrimination can be a good thing, and even something worth promoting. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (26 messages)

Post 0

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 5:44am

Link

Edit

I thought this was a very well written article.

It drives me nuts when I hear someone talk about how they think everyone in a race is as terrible as the extreme individuals in the race.

I think its clear that there are large differences between people when it comes to age (especially), gender (large), and race (little). So its funny to apply for jobs, they say they will not discriminate by these traits. But you know what one of the first things I tell an employer is? I'm white male unmarried 24 years old and in great health. Unless you want to argue with me that a 65 year old can produce more quality work more efficiently and longer term than me in the field of software development.

And that's a pretty funny story about the housing projects, how they try to force the businesses to deliver there.

Each person is very different from another. So many varieties of personality and abilities. Due to genes and experience.

Post 1

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 6:26am

Link

Edit

Very well written, and timely for me, as I am to have a serious discussion today with a friend and collegue about this very thing. Thank you

Post 2

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 10:34am

Link

Edit

I approve of this article and also a similar excellent article by Walter Williams: Price Discrimination but they don't address the issue of the subtle psychological price you pay for accepting these concessions. There is more to your well-being than money.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 10/23, 10:36am)

Post 3

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 12:13pm

Link

Edit

Interesting idea about the price discrimination and that business don't have an effective way to gage who can pay what...Radiohead just released a new album, internet download only at this point, and they set a pay what you want system, even if it's nothing. It's rather extreme, and I don't know how feasible this is economically, but it's an interesting case study, both pro and con, if businesses really wanted to consider how to discriminate based on ability to pay.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/23, 12:14pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 5:27pm

Link

Edit

The Radiohead album is a bad example. Price discrimination works at its most extreme when it is one on one bargaining between buyer and seller. But that can be very time consuming and thus costly. The Radiohead album only has one party, the buyer, determining the price.

Price discrimination can also be practiced over the passage of time. For example when Microsoft and Sony released their respective new game consoles, the XBOX 360 and PS3, they set their prices for the first wave of customers willing to pay a high price for the product. After that specific market demographic is saturated a drop in price can occur, getting the next wave of consumers who were not willing to buy the product at it's initial high price but are now more willing to buy the product at it's new low price.

Post 5

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 5:51pm

Link

Edit

Explaining "discrimination" and indiscriminate" was really brilliant, Bill. I'm keeping that one. I've never thought of it that way. Excellent.

Post 6

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 6:22pm

Link

Edit

I approve of this article and also a similar excellent article by Walter Williams: Price Discrimination but they don't address the issue of the subtle psychological price you pay for accepting these concessions. There is more to your well-being than money.

What subtle psychological price?! You keep asserting this, Sam, but you've given absolutely no evidence or argument to support it.

Let's say a movie costs $10.00 and that you consider it too high a price, but that you would be willing to attend the movie if the price were lowered to $8.00. Now suppose that the theater owner lowers the price to $8 for seniors in order to attract more business from them. Now the movie is within your price range and you do decide to attend.

How are you paying a subtle psychological price for attending the movie at the lower price? What are you supposed to do -- not attend the movie unless the price is lowered to $8.00 for everyone? Why should it make any difference whether or not other people are charged the lower price? You're being charged the lower price because you're more price sensitive than they are. The fact that you're more price sensitive and are willing to attend the movie only at the lower price should have no affect whatsoever on your self-esteem or psychological well-being.

- Bill

Post 7

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 6:42pm

Link

Edit

Seniors are the demographic that spends the least amount of money on just about any product. Businesses don't delve into any reasons why this is the case, they really could not care less what the reasons are, only that they have a market demographic that they desperately want to tap into and compete for. It is purely a profit motive going on here with senior discounts, nothing more and nothing less than that. When a business sees that seniors are not buying their product, they want to know only "How can I get them into my business and buy my product?", that is all they are worried about, trust me. Speaking as a business man I do the same not because I feel any kind of obligation to seniors, I only want that extra revenue a senior discount generates for my business. Trust me as soon as seniors start spending their money like 18 - 35 year olds do, senior discounts would evaporate from the market place.

Post 8

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 9:19pm

Link

Edit

Bill:

What subtle psychological price?! You keep asserting this, Sam, but you've given absolutely no evidence or argument to support it.

I said on the other thread and you didn't reply:

As far as the reduced price for the elderly is concerned � it's the same situation as a man taking a woman out for dinner. There is nothing inherently wrong with the man paying for the woman's meal but the woman may say to herself, "I don't need special consideration. I'm capable of paying my own way." I think that this is laudable and is indicative of high self-esteem. Do you disagree?

If you don't get it there's nothing more I can say. Perhaps a woman might get it and give her perspective.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 10/23, 9:21pm)

Post 9

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 9:20pm

Link

Edit

Sam - are you a neighbor of Claire Wolfe? you sound so much like her.....
(Edited by robert malcom on 10/23, 9:27pm)

Post 10

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 9:26pm

Link

Edit

I've never heard of her but just did a quick Google on her and she seems to be advocating doing away with the IRS or at least totally revamping the tax system.

Sounds good to me.

Sam

Post 11

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 1:10am

Link

Edit

I wrote (to Sam), "What subtle psychological price?! You keep asserting this, Sam, but you've given absolutely no evidence or argument to support it." Sam replied,

I said on the other thread and you didn't reply:

As far as the reduced price for the elderly is concerned � it's the same situation as a man taking a woman out for dinner. There is nothing inherently wrong with the man paying for the woman's meal but the woman may say to herself, "I don't need special consideration. I'm capable of paying my own way." I think that this is laudable and is indicative of high self-esteem. Do you disagree?

Yes, and you should be able to determine why from my previous posts, in which I made the point that price discrimination does not entail a patronizing attitude. It is simply a cold blooded business transaction undertaken to maximize the seller's profit.

Besides, any woman who objects to having her dinner paid for by the man who asked her out, far from having high self-esteem, is probably suffering from feelings of insecurity. It is preposterous to suggest that if a man takes a woman out for dinner and pays for it, he is implying that she isn't capable of paying her own way. It is true that if he is inviting her to dinner, he is giving her "special consideration." If he weren't, then why would he invite her out? Are you suggesting that no one should give anyone else special consideration -- not even a man who invites a woman on a date and pays for her dinner as a way of expressing his interest and affection??

Secondly, the above example has nothing to do with price discrimination, which is a purely economic transaction between buyer and seller The seller is offering the buyer a lower price, because the seller doesn't think that the buyer will purchase the product at a higher price. Why should the buyer turn down the offer if it happens to be within his price range? I cannot fathom why you think that buying the product at the lower price should have any negative impact on the buyer's self-esteem! It's not as though the buyer isn't paying his own way; he is; he's just paying less than those who are not as price sensitive.

Suppose that you were able to haggle with a seller and get him to lower the price just for you. Would you say that paying the lower price in that case is damaging to your self-esteem, and if not, then why do you say it in the case of senior discounts? It's the same principle at work in both cases: you are given a lower price, because the seller doesn't think that you'll buy his product at a higher price. He is not giving you "special consideration" in the patronizing sense that you're implying. He is simply charging whatever the market will bear.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/24, 8:53am)

Post 12

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 3:01am

Link

Edit

Besides, any woman who objects to having her dinner paid for by the man who asked her out, far from having high self-esteem, is probably suffering from feelings of insecurity.

Precisely - isn't going 'dutch' an egalitarianism, not an individualism.....?

(Edited by robert malcom on 10/24, 3:03am)

Post 13

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 7:04am

Link

Edit

The penny finally dropped. The intuitive package on the right side of my brain finally made it across the corpus callosum into my left brain where it got converted from analog to digital, where it could get articulated.

It involves the little internal dialogue that we have with ourselves. After having the date the woman says to herself, "I wonder if I should have offered to split the check? I could have paid my half � maybe I should have", and the dialogue goes on from there depending on whether she wants to see him again. But it isn't guilt � it's just that teensy-weensy bit of uncertainty and self-questioning that inserts itself. The woman who has asserted herself has no such little, niggley concerns and neither does the gold-digger.

So, you can accept that or not. It's my take on it.

Sam

Post 14

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 8:07am

Link

Edit

Sam,

If someone invited you to dinner at his house, would you wonder whether or not you should have offered to pay half the grocery bill? Are you saying that no one should ever offer to take a friend out to dinner, because to do so implies that the person cannot or should not pay his own way?

What you're dealing with in the dinner date is an issue of convention -- of dating etiquette. Any uncertainty the woman may have concerning whether or not to pay half the bill has nothing to do with self-reliance; it concerns the message she wants to send to the man who asked her out. If she doesn't want the date to be construed as a romantic interlude, she may communicate this by insisting on paying her own way. If she's interested in him, she may be comfortable with his treating her to dinner. That doesn't mean that every time they eat out, he should be expected to pay. She could reciprocate by inviting him to dinner and paying for it.

I do think there is a problem in the relationship's being a one-way street -- with the man's always paying and the woman's always accepting every time they eat out -- unless, of course, she reciprocates by cooking him dinner at her place. If one person is always paying the other's way, it does suggest an unequal relationship. I have a friend whom I don't see very often, but when I do and we get together for dinner, he's adamant about paying even in the face of my protests. He's that way with everyone -- you know, like the guy who enjoys buying everyone drinks. I find it somewhat odd, but I've decided not to make an issue out of it -- although maybe I should. I do think there is a problem with the message it conveys, which he doesn't seem to be aware of. But again, this has nothing to do with price discrimination.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/24, 11:05am)

Post 15

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 11:30am

Link

Edit

Another brave, honest, fine article from Bill!

One additional point here is that discrimination is the utter right of all individuals. Natural Law -- which is the universal and absolute governing legal principle of humanity -- grants all individuals the unlimited right to practice discrimination and "racism" to their heart's content.

It needs to be eventually understood on this planet that -- except for government agents involved in government activities -- all people at all times have an inalienable, unchallengeable, and limitless right to bigotry, stupidity, and depravity. All that is properly legally forbidden to men is crime i.e. physical force and financial fraud.

No "benevolent" government, group, or individual has any right to interfere in another man's full, free, infinite exercise of his bigotry, stupidity, and depravity. No putative saint or genius is allowed to coercively "help" another in the name of peace, socio-economic harmony, and the brotherhood of man. And this is true however much a social benefactor the first man thinks himself; and however intelligent, wise, and virtuous this would-be philosopher-king fascist dictator fancies himself to be.

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 10/24, 11:46am)

Post 16

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 1:01pm

Link

Edit

Bill, this was a brilliant article. I felt like I was reading "Economics in One Lesson". You make your point early, and then you go on to apply it again and again, in different ways and contexts, but each one showing how important the idea was. It really shifted the way I thought about the subject of discrimination. It's one of the best articles I've read on this site.

I don't want to take anything away from that praise, but I'd like to offer a little constructive criticism. You didn't really define discrimination in the article. I didn't really notice this until the end when you said "The point is not that all discrimination is legitimate (obviously, such things as separate facilities for blacks and whites are not)...". Through the article, you seemed to be meaning "to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately". But the example made it sound like you meant something like "treating people unequally". If we read the example more carefully, it could just mean that the separate facilities is based on a faulty distinction, and it's the distinction that is what's obviously wrong. But it was unclear.

Post 17

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 6:09pm

Link

Edit

Dean, Gigi, Teresa, Kyrel, and Joe (and anyone else I may have missed)-- thank you all for the fine compliments on my article.

And Joe, in addition to your compliments, I appreciate the perceptive criticism. Yes, I think you have a point. I was a little unclear near the end of the article. Of course, I object to what passes for racial discrimination (not giving the members of one race the same level of discriminating judgment that one gives the members of another. But, as I mentioned, the problem with that kind of "discrimination" is really its failure to discriminate among the members of a particular race.

I was thinking that segregation based entirely on race is a form of discrimination, but here again, the fault lies not in discrimination but in the failure to discriminate, because racial segregation is a process of lumping all people of a certain race together indiscriminately and separating them from the members of another race who are themselves lumped together indiscriminately. This kind of racism constitutes a profound abdication of discriminating judgment, and in that respect is the opposite of discrimination.

So, in reality to oppose racial segregation is not to oppose discrimination; it is to oppose the unacknowledged absence of discrimination that is characteristic of racial segregation.

Thanks for helping me to see more clearly the essential theme of my article.

- Bill

Post 18

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 7:27pm

Link

Edit

As Rand said, racism is a form of tribalism, which see the group, not the individual, as the unit.....

Post 19

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 10:51pm

Link

Edit

Sorry but I can't figure out what the point of this article is. What is so interesting about it that it is attracting considerable attention?

Are you trying to convince someone(yourself?) that they should discriminate more? Are you trying to convince someone(yourself?) that they should appreciate being discriminated against?

Are there any blacks or children on this list?

I am presently reading Clarence Thomas' "My Grandfather's Son," and for sure he has seen way too much discrimination in his life.

And children forced to do seat-time at their local neighborhood GRTF(Government Run Tax Funded) school do not enjoy age discrimination.

And as I have already explained on another thread I discourage discrimination for or against me. Apparently I am being too selfish for some folks on this forum.

Maybe you are pointing out that the definition of "discrimination" has been politicized just as "gay," and "School Choice," and "freedom," presently mean far different things than they did in olden days past. Maybe you are attempting to redefine "discrimation" once again for the purpose of this forum? If so I think that is a bad mistake because casual surfers may decide that being reasonable is not for them.

Or maybe some of you folks are using a brand new definition of "reason" that I have not heard of before. Not that is something to reason about.

Makes my head hurt. Dale