“Discrimination is simply the act of choice.” This opinion is used by free market economist Walter Williams to advocate for an individual’s right to discriminate against others. It seems off-putting that someone could promote such a horrible practice. It becomes more alarming when you realize that Williams is a black man.
Despite having experienced discrimination first-hand, Williams continues to defend a person’s right to be a bigot and a racist. For me, this is the test of a true libertarian.
Last week I couldn’t help but think of Williams as controversy grew around the state of Mississippi. Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill that allows businesses to refuse service to people based on “sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions.” This means that anyone from the LGBTQ community could be discriminated against by businesses around the state.
Mississippi no longer seems like the “Hospitality State” that it used to be. When gathering my thoughts about the new law (much of which I disagree with) I asked myself the question all free market believers should ask; what would Williams say?
Without putting words into his mouth, I think Williams would ask why the law stopped at religion. Why not allow individuals the right to discriminate for any reason?
In reality, everything we do involves discrimination. We discriminate when we choose to go to McDonald’s over Wendy’s or when we choose to spend time with our family instead of our friends.
We all have our own discriminatory preferences. These preferences affect every choice we make, especially who we choose to associate with.
Discrimination, in the legal sense we think of today, is no different. When a business owner refuses to serve at gay weddings, the owner chooses instead to serve at straight weddings. The owner is simply acting on his preferences, and people do it on the market all the time.
Consumers have all the freedom in the world to discriminate. They have the power to give their money to any business they want. A consumer could choose to support only businesses owned by black families if they really wanted to. This is a discriminatory act, yet we allow it.
Producers, on the other hand, have much less say in who they associate with on the market. Under anti-discrimination laws businesses are required to enter into exchanges against their will.
The free market is full of countless relationships between producers and consumers. The hope is that both parties come to an agreement voluntarily. But how is this possibly when producers are forced into relationships?
If consumers are allowed to discriminate by choosing (for any reason) which businesses to support, why shouldn’t producers be able to discriminate by choosing which consumers to do business with? All I ask is that we be logically consistent.
When the government prohibits us from associating with one another, like it did in the era of Jim Crow, we are not truly free. But when government mandates us to associate with one another, like it currently does under anti-discrimination laws, we are also not truly free. As Williams states “forced association is not freedom of association.”
Tyler Grudi is a staff writer for the Bona Venture. His email is gruditj15@bonaventure.edu
