The Case for Discrimination

by Walter Block

Walter Block has been writing on the economics of discrimination - and in defense of discrimination, rightly understood - for more than 30 years. This large hardcover collects nearly all of this writing to present a radical alternative to the mainstream view. His thesis is that discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place. It is chaos. The market embeds institutions that assist people in making the wisest possible choices given the alternatives. In this sense, discrimination is rational and socially optimal. For the state to presume to criminalize it based on social and political priorities amounts to a subversion of the market and of human liberty that leads to social conflict. The empirical detail in this work is as rigorous as the argument is radical. What politics regards as a dangerous inequality, Block regards as perfectly rational given existing realities. In essence, Block's book is a specialized application of the libertarian perspective on society, as applied to a particular controversy in our times. It is supremely rare in tackling this issue head on, and offering a no-compromise abolish all anti-discrimination law on grounds that it makes no economic sense and only generates conflict where none need exist. Will this book cause controversy? Most assuredly. But that it is not its goal. Its goal is the uprooting of a flawed and failed social theory and its replacement by a realistic one that is rooted in a genuine concern for human rights and the good of all.

Genres: Economics, Law, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

512 pages, Hardcover

First published December 30, 2010

About the author

Walter Block earned his PhD in Economics at Columbia University. He is an author, editor, and co-editor of many books which include Defending the Undefendable; Lexicon of Economic Thought, Economic Freedom of the World 1975-1995; Rent Control: Myths and Realities; Discrimination, Affirmative Action, and Equal Opportunity; Theology, Third Word Development and Economic Justice; Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard; Religion, Econonomics, and Social Thought; and Economic Freedom: Toward a Theory of Measurement.

Dr. Block has written more than 500 articles for various non-refereed journals, magazines and newspapers, and is a contributor to such journals as The Review of Austrian Economics, Journal of Libertarian Studies, The Journal of Labor Economics, Cultural Dynamics, and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is currently a professor and chair of economics, college of business administration, at Loyola University.

Reviews

[Ronald J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book. Walter Block has a very cogent and logical writing style. I've been fascinated with the topic of the pay gap between men and women since college, and I knew economists had figured out that it had nothing to do with discrimination. This book proves that, and more. I liked the chapter on free association in the Boy Scouts, and the many articles. I don't always agree with Block, but he always makes me think at a deeper level, which I highly appreciate. Highly recommended.

[Mint · Rating 4 out of 5]

To discriminate means, in economic term, to choose between options in an environment of scarcity. All have discriminate against something. When it's time to marry, most people will discriminate half of the population because of their gender.

This is an enjoyable read for me because the book presenting the case with data from studies and law cases to build the case for discrimination thus make it easy to follow the argument.

I will leave the review with a part of the first chapter:

Discrimination Runs Rampant

Now comes a University of Manitoba study which shows that people also discriminate in favor of good looks (as if this facet of human nature were not already fully documented). According to a survey conducted by the psychology department, respondents are more likely to consider an unattractive person guilty of a crime.

The study first asked 40 students to rate head-and shoulders photographs in terms of attractiveness. Then, they were asked to determine which were most likely to have committed murder or armed robbery. The resulting correlation between guilt and ugliness was statistically significant.

It will come as no surprise whatsoever that tall, smart, and handsome people earn more than their short, stupid, and homely counterparts. Few will deny that they are more successful, for that matter, in all other aspects of life as well. Indeed, merely to state this is to belabour the obvious.

Is there a need, then, for affirmative action for these groups? According to one vision of social propriety, there certainly is. Individuals are short through no fault of their own. No matter how hard they try, some people will always be wiser than others. And, the best efforts of the cosmetic and fitness industries notwithstanding, the ugly stepsister can never attain the beauty of Cinderella.

If it is no one’s fault that he or she is short, dull, and plain, and if such people almost always get the short end of the stick due to the discriminatory behavior of others, then the case for government interference with such results is all but made. Given that quotas and other systems of preferential treatment are justified for groups on the basis of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and handicap status, there would seem to be no reason not to make such programs available to these other victims of discrimination.

But there is a competing philosophical perspective that can guide public policy prescriptions in such matters. In this view, the role of the state is at most to protect persons and property. Its responsibility is to set up rules so that all can compete, but not to attempt to ensure equal outcomes. If a tall but ugly and blind lesbian Protestant with bad breath earns more than a short deaf divorced but smart Catholic homosexual, or if an atheistic bald male Jew confined to a wheelchair is promoted to a job coveted by a beautiful but fat Jewish female with no sense of humor, it should be no business of the state.

People, in other words, should have the right to voluntarily associate with others on whatever terms they find mutually agreeable. They should be allowed to indulge their prejudices, no matter how unsavory they appear to the rest of us. The right of free association is simply incompatible with a program that forces employers, or anyone else, to hire workers based on ethnicity, gender, or any other criterion.

[Private Account · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, that was fun!

This book badly needs an editor, as previous reviewers have stated.

Quotes:

"Discrimination is not the economic bugaboo that it is commonly supposed to be. Much discrimination was aimed at Jews and Orientals and yet they had higher than average incomes, discrimination did not reduce their economic viability. Given that Blacks and Hispanics are also the objects of discrimination, this cannot account for their relative poverty."

"The story of the Malones goes back a few years. They first applied to the Boston Fire Department in 1975. At that time, they identified themselves as white. But their scores on the state civil service exam were below the cut-off point for this racial group; thus, they were not hired. In 1977, they took the test again, this time identifying themselves as black, and passed, due to the lower requirements demanded of members of this group. (They later explained that in the interim, their mother had told them that their maternal great-grandmother was black.) According to the fire department spokesman, the two brothers "look like 6'2" white guys, Irish guys, maybe a little German." And, stated a Boston City Councilman, "it's a very serious situation." Very serious? More like all but intractable, at least in terms of people who may or may not have in them that proverbial "one drop" of black blood, as claimed by these firemen. How do you tell the difference between blacks and whites of this sort? .... People on the borders, such as these, cannot be scientifically distinguished on the basis of race, and any attempt to do so is to leave the real of science and enter that of superstition."

"It is to the eternal shame of the U.S. and Candada and other western democracies that we have now joined the Confederacy and the Republic of South Africa in legally imposing racism."

"However, another issue arises: one of the strongest motivating forces behind the leftist push for female politicians is the quaint notion that apart from underhanded skullduggery, all groups would be exactly equal. That is, that in a truly just society, bother genders, all races and nationalities, all ages, people of all sexual orientations, etc, bloody, etc., would be equally represented in all callings. If they are not, this is due to exploitation, or injustice, or some such. That is, absent improprieties such as racism, sexism, look-ism (I kid you not), able-ism, etc., since males and females comprise roughly 50 percent of the electorate, this would also be their representation amongst office holders. (Also, the National Basketball Association would employ as players tall, strong, athletic blacks, and short, fat Jews in proportion to their overall numbers in poplulation; it is only due to racial discrimination against Orientals that so few of them are on National Football League team rosters.)"

"It is important to emphasize that what is meant by "discriminate" is something very particular. It is to ignore, avoid, evade, have nothing to do with, another person. It most certainly does not imply the "right" to lynch or beat up or enslave or commit assault and batter upon someone from a despised group."

"If a prospective employee declines to take a job with Brigham Young, Loyola, or Yeshiva Universities on the grounds that their religious mission offends him, that person is still in full compliance with the law. But let any one of them apply a similar criterion in their hiring of professors, and all hell breaks loose, legally speaking."

"Private property rights are in effect a license to exclude. The entire point of such rights is to draw a line between "mine" and "thine." If a man cannot exclude others from his premises, then there is a strong sense in which they are not HIS premises at all."

The Big Brothers of Greater Los Angeles got in trouble for excluding homosexuals. "Make no mistake about it. If Mr. Stanley and the ACLU prevail in this case, it will spell the death knell for groups such as Big Brothers. If these organizations can no longer guarantee the female heads of single-parent families that their sons will not be placed in an intimate situation with adult male homosexuals or bisexuals, they will soon enough be unwilling to have anything to do with the program. But do not homosexual and bisexual men have the "right" not to be discriminated against in this matter? That is, do they not have the "right" to have innocent young boys placed in their tender care, against the wishes of their parents or guardians if need be? Even to ask such a question is to see the utter ludicrousness of it. No one has the "right" to impose himself on an unwilling victim.... No man, of whatever sexual preference or practice, as a "right" to utilize the law of the land to force a woman to ender into a relationship with him. Even less so, then, can he properly use the courts to become Big Brother to her son.... In a free society all relationships should be based on mutual consent. Every person has the right to ignore, or boycott, or discriminate against those one would rather avoid."

"Women who were married, divorced, separated, or widowed earned 33.2 percent as much as men in the same situation. But among people who had never been married, females were found to earn 99.2 percent of male income.... No matter how large their paycheck, the working wives were still almost entirely responsible for the couple's housework.... Well, if women do all the housework and the men are busy studying and preparing for promotions, is it ay wonder that given equal talents, the male will outpace the female income?"

"It is more than a passing curiosity that gays, who have long been associated with the view that they should be allowed a sphere of privacy in the bedroom or in the bathhouse for acts between consenting adults, are not intent upon violating the private spaces of those who do not welcome them."

"Suppose their were two races of apes, otherwise equally fit to survive, which had different customs regarding warfare. One group of apes (let's call them human apes) did not allow their females to fight. Instead, they tried to protect them as much as possible. When the fighting took place, it was with the expendable males in the front lines. The other group of apes (call them extinct) either pushed women forward to the front lines of battle or were egalitarian... Which group would more likely survive? Obviously the first "human" apes, because women are far more important--when it comes to the survival of the species. A dramatic illustration of this is that one male and 25 females" can have 25 babies the year after the war. The tribe with 25 males and 1 surviving female can have one baby. To risk the death of your women is to risk the extinction of your group. Our ancestors were NOT morons. There was a reason women didn't go to war.

"There is no logical reason why an offer to commercially interact with some people should be interpreted as an offer to business with all."

"Human rights advocates are so enthused about the so-called rights of people not to be discriminated against, that they neglect the real rights of people to engage in discrimination. Consider people forced to send their children to school where the teacher is gay. Parents resent this strongly, but are often unable to resist. Why not look at these people as underdogs and defend their rights? Surely, homosexuals have a right to practice the lifestyle of their choice. But inflicting themselves upon unwilling recipients is hardly consonant with the law of free association."

"Our failure to defend people in such a position stems from moral myopia--the right of some people are more important than the rights of others."

"Forget about whips and chains. There is nothing unique about these to slavery; sado-masochists engage in their use every day. The problem with slavery was that its victims had no right to quit; that is to *disassociate* themselves from their masters. If they but had a right to free association, this would render slavery innocuous."

[Ietrio · Rating 2 out of 5]

It starts up well, but soon it goes downhill. Somehow Block, a proud Jew, becomes a Catholic priest that feels a need to reinforce the cultural boundaries. People are free to discriminate, but not distinguishing the marital status of the woman is a masonic conspiracy to erode the family. People are free to associate, but the only way to make a free society is by having a family. And not just any family, but the fairy tale family with "one man and one woman".

Finally, I found disturbing the similarities between Block's divagations from his own set subject and the discourse of fundamentalist Muslim preachers.

And Block conveniently mixes concepts. So "survival of the species" is actually an authoritarian discourse on the supremacy of a given tribe. And surely, the women have proven they can be teachers, but they should be kept segregated while running, because the poor imbeciles won't be able to win. Oh, and don't forget ALL grandmasters in chess are male, just like him. And how would you keep this gender role order? Well, like his equally anrchist counterparts on the Left, Block is an anarchist as long as there is a powerful state run by other individuals than his gang. Later on, a god like government should be created to police the poor idiots. And while the likes of Chomsky need it to do the magic of redistribution, Block's god will have to split sport events like in any decent Mosque, stimulate the women to breed, and so on, and this only for "the survival of the species", of course. And like in the world of Stalin or Franco, the people could be free, but not now, but "when they are ready".

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

I actually agree with most of the arguments presented in this book. Discrimination is economically rational and morally justified. It is a function of human beings having subjective preferences. Discrimination is necessary and many efforts to counter it in the name of fighting racism lead to incoherent policies which infringe on individual rights. The problem is that the book is just ridiculously overwritten. This could have been accomplished in half the length. Maybe the writing is less boring for people who are super into policy minutia or something. Its a boring book. So boring that I cant be bothered to bore myself by reviewing it more than this.

[Mark Geise · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Case for Discrimination" is a collection of essays, articles, and papers that support Walter Block's general thesis that discrimination is a necessary part of human affairs. Government efforts to stamp out private discrimination have had unintended negative consequences, while markets have far better ability to stamp out the racial and sexist discrimination that these laws are intended to fight. At the core of Block's beliefs is the idea of self-ownership and, by extension, the right of free association. This necessarily implies the right to determine with whom you will do business, marry, befriend, and otherwise interact. It is the right to be as bigoted in your everyday interactions as you would like (unless, of course, you are a representative of government). The beauty of the marketplace is that it tends to weed out those that discriminate. If a business owner discriminates against particular groups, whether as customers or employees, it comes at a price. If he discriminates against particular customers, he will lose those customers to other establishments, lowering his sales volume. If he discriminates against particular employees, his labor costs will be higher than his competitor that is less discriminatory. These financial disincentives have been far more effective at reducing negative discrimination than has government intrusion. More importantly, this position is consistent with a principled defense. Block makes numerous great points about the hypocrisy of the position that governments must impose laws to punish those who discriminate. For example, if we take discrimination to be inherently bad such as a crime like murder, then why do we continue to allow it in the institution of marriage and in friendship? Assault is bad whether you shove one person or punch twenty innocent people in the face; they are different gradations of something negative. However, we accept most instances of discrimination as perfectly normal and acceptable, yet single out certain instances as deplorable.

I reviewed a previous work of Block's similarly. The content is fantastic and I enjoy his writing style. However, because this is a collection of essays, articles, and papers, there is significant repetition and little flow throughout the book. If you read this, be prepared to read the same statistics about the fictitious gender wage gap six or seven times throughout. Due to this repetition, the same case could have been made just as strongly in 250 or so pages rather than 450. Despite the quality of Block's arguments, that is why I am giving this three stars. This book is available legally for free on the Ludwig von Mises Institute's website for anyone interested.

[Levon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am about a quarter of the way through this collection of essays and articles. I have studied economics to a level sufficient enough that Block's views are sound and valid. The arguments presented which describe the state and it's methods of intervention which actually promote negative discrimination are enlightening. It is shocking at first to come to understand that even affirmative action is discrimination, packaged in a pretty bow, but is no better than its opposite.