Say It Loud! I Discriminate! And Iím Proud!
Mike (in Tokyo) Rogers
by Mike (in Tokyo) Rogers: Used
by the State, Even in Death
to be conspicuously compassionate if others are being forced to
pay the cost"
~ Murray Rothbard
I admit it.
I discriminate. I am kind and respectful to the elderly; I am helpful
to the handicapped and I open doors for women.
When I go into
a Japanese restaurant, I am a racist. I donít want to see a white
guy or a black guy or a Latino guy, or even a Korean guy making
my sushi. Funny that. When I go into a Korean restaurant I certainly
donít want to see a Japanese making the food either (ask any Koreans
you know if they agree with me).
of Seoul food, ditto goes for, say a German or Italian, or down-south
real Soul food restaurant; and nope, I donít want to see a guy named
Yamazaki making the pork chops and gravy with collard greens.
I guess that
makes me a sexist and a racist and all sorts of naughty things and,
in some peopleís eyes, an all-around scum of the earth.
I am proud
to say I discriminate.
claim that sexism or racism should be outlawed by the nation will
say, "I dream of a world where people can be judged not by their
skin color or sex, but by their merits." They claim that want
everyone treated equally.
Then they go
on, in the next breath, and say, "But special considerations
for some people!"
subjective and hypocritical.
One great example
we often hear in Japan is how women are treated like "Second-class
citizens." This seems a curious notion in a country where women
hold the pursestrings in over 80% of all Japanese households.
So many will
say, "Women in Japan are discriminated against and should have equal
rights and equal pay at the workplace!" Yet we have "Women's
Only" cars on trains and subways that operate during morning rush
hours to work... Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with "Women's
Only" cars... But I practice discrimination so it doesn't bother
me. I don't claim that "everyone is the same and we are all equal."
The ones who
claim to want everyone treated equally are far too often subjective
about what that means. They claim to want to use morality as a guide,
but fail to see how that, too, is totally subjective.
I have a handicapped
daughter and don't want people to be treated equal. I want special
considerations for some. I love how Disneyland allows handicapped
people to go directly to the front of the line and ride the rides.
Is this discrimination? Yes! And I thank Disneyland for it.
is handicapped. I call her "perfect!"
Also, I want
to decide, for myself, how and to who those "special"
considerations should be applied. For example, I like having elevators
and facilities for the handicapped; I think it is good there are
men's and women's restrooms; I think pregnant women, old people
and the handicapped should be treated with deference, kindness
and respect and be given seats on the trains and buses, (I'm old
we should give up our seats to handicapped, old or pregnant (and
others) do we need laws to force kindness or morality? No. And,
by the way, just how does a law that forces us to, say, give up
our seats to old people promote equality? I think that is forced
age discrimination, isn't it?
I also think
forced equality is bad for business...
Let's be ridiculous
for a moment and look at what anti-discrimination laws that force
equality in employment would do to professional sports! Take the
NBA (please!) Can you imagine having your favorite basketball team
staffed with people that represent the cultural make-up of their
"home" market? Imagine the new and improved Los Angeles Lakers;
two white guys, one black guy, and one each of a Hispanic, short-legged
Japanese who canít jump, a great Jewish athlete (good luck finding
one of those), two women, one gay and one lesbian, a transexual,
a transvestite, a Democrat, and a hairdresser (I can't specify sex
of hair dresser as that would be discriminatory!).
It would be
wonderful. Probably would draw in as large the crowds the freak
shows do at Ringling Brothers Circus!
Nope. I guess
that won't do.
The only way
to handle this discrimination "problem" is the private property
vs. public property philosophy of Libertarianism. Libertarianism
stands up for the free rights of all people.
S. Rozeff once wrote:
champions equal rights. It champions the person and the potential
of every person to use liberty to the fullest. Libertarians would
NEVER have authored Jim Crow laws or denied the vote on the grounds
of race or denied equal access to public facilities depending on
one's race. Libertarians have for decades preached against the drug
war, which severely discriminates against blacks and browns. The
prisons are filled disproportionately with people of color. Libertarians
have stood staunchly against wars initiated by the U.S. against
people of color and fought to a large extent by American soldiers
In this Libertarian
philosophy, private property is respected. You can do what you want
with your private property as long as you do not commit aggression
against me. Not allowing people in your private business, for whatever
reason, is your choice. That you do not allow some people onto your
premises is not, in any sense of the word, aggression against anyone.
In fact, if
you stop and think about it, people who want to use government power
to force their morality onto others are the ones committing aggression.
I don't have
any right to order you to associate with people you don't want to
on your private property. Nor do you have the right to tell me how
to run my business or who I should allow as my customers.
We donít need
laws against stupidity or bad business decisions. You can't outlaw
stupidity. It won't work.
A public property
(paid for by taxes) is a different story. Those places must be open
to everyone regardless of race, creed or color.(But we all know
the public government discriminates all the time).
If a restaurant
policy of, say, "No dark skinned people," was so odious that it
scared away (or pissed off) all their customers (even ones without
dark skin) what would happen to that restaurant? It would probably
go bankrupt very quickly, right? The free market would handle the
I don't have
dark skin and if I saw a sign that said, "No dark skinned people," I
wouldn't patronize the place at all (I've been discriminated against
many times in my life and I have friends who are gay, lesbians,
women, men, whites, transvestites, transexuals, Indians (from India),
Indians (from America), Bangladeshis, Germans, Kiwis, Aussies, blacks,
etc. etc....) and I donít particularly care for it, but I will not
ask that government force people to do something they donít want
If I saw a
sign that said, "No darkies!" I certainly wouldn't want my friends
to go in there and would seriously wonder if they werenít nuts if
they insisted upon doing so.... But! I don't think that the government
can pass laws on who you associate with or laws against stupidity....
The more laws
we have, the worse things are getting (current situation should
be proof enough of that fact!)
And this brings
me to an absurd real-life example of how confused people are when
they base their ideas of how we should deal with discrimination
on a "moral level" instead of considering private property
Now, in Japan,
some people who scream "Discrimination" are in a huff because the
Japanese women's team had to fly to the Olympics in economy class
while the menís teams flew business... Well, that is terrible
sexism! By the folks screaming, "Discrimination!" A second
ago, these same people were spouting the virtues of "treating
people equally" but now they want special consideration because
these athletes are women!?
Why the sudden
contradiction whereby suddenly now they think the women should
be treated differently because they are women? Uh, don't look now,
but they are now contradicting themselves!
Why did the
women fly economy class while the men flew business class?
were treated equally and on their merits and their company is trying
to cut costs. Makes sense to me.
Let me explain:
The Olympics are a for profit organization (in spite of the nationalist
brainwashing you receive about this event every few years). In just
about every country, there is a privately run organization, that
runs their own "Olympics" (kind of like a Kentucky Fried Chicken
franchise). The owners of the Olympic games know from advice given
by their Madison Avenue Marketing agencies that to make money, they
need to promote statism and nationalism.
It's an old,
tried and true formula.
In the Japanese
case, the men's Olympic soccer team has a professional soccer league,
the Japan Soccer Association (JSA) involved in the money making.
That men's league get's 15,000 ~ 35,000 people paying to come and
see their games. The games are televised. Some players play in European
leagues. They have big name sponsors, money and all players are
league? Well, now, they lose money every year.
They almost went bankrupt in 2000 and are now subsidized by
the JSA. The women's games have a hard time with attendance. They
might have a few hundred fans in attendance (nonpaying mostly),
no TV, few sponsors and no professionals...
Now, in a privately
run for profit organization, why should the women be treated differently
from the men? If the owner wants to do so, then that is their choice.
If we want them treated differently then that is acknowledgement
of their differences... Hence sexism (polite booing here, please!)
committee is not run by taxes (thank God for that!) If it were,
then I could see people complaining. (And theyíd better be complaining
about spending their tax money on Olympic crap otherwise Iíd backhand
See what I
mean? Here, let me explain it for your Liberal friends:
Team A makes
lots of money. They fly 1st class. Team B loses lots of money and
is subsidized by an organization that lives off the profits of Team
A. Team B flies economy class. What's the problem with that?
To claim, in
this case, that Team B should fly business class, the same as Team
A, is not fair and is discrimination.
I can't see
how these people complain about "discrimination" but then, a second
later, say that women should be treated differently.
If this Olympic
committee were a government run organization, paid for by our taxes,
they probably legally canít do that. But, they are a private organization
paid for by private investments and sponsors: they can do what they
want with their money and their property and their employees....
The same as a privately run restaurant can. No?
exercising freedom of choice is exercising discrimination.
Like I said,
I exercise discrimination constantly: I help the handicapped, I
am kind to old people and to pregnant women and give my seat to
them on the train; I like to go to Sushi restaurants and see a Japanese
sushi chef. I like to go to Italian restaurants and see an Italian
cooking (trust I will ask where the chef is from or will have checked
before I arrived)... on and on... I don't mind it if people want
to enjoy their space and I don't think we should force people to
associate with those they do not wish to.
don't really care if someone is gay, lesbian, transsexual, Indian,
black, Hispanic (though I am quite partial to Japanese women!) Oops!
There I go discriminating again....
Many of these
people who scream "discrimination!" are not consistent
in their thoughts because they are confused on private property.
How you run your place of business is up to you and no one has the
right to tell you how to act or what you can and cannot do inside
of your own house or in your place of business.
So, well, until
the Japanese womenís team wins gold in soccer at the London Olympics,
or they become a profitable private business, I guess theyíll be
relegated to economy class... If were up to me, I wish they could
ride business class... But it is not.... And, Iím certainly not
volunteering to pay for them to ride business class when their employer
is not... Are you?
(in Tokyo) Rogers [send
him mail] was born and raised in the USA and moved to
Japan in 1984. He is the president of an Internet & Cross Media
advertising/marketing agency and a media production company named
He writes about marketing, the Internet and Social Media at the
Marketing Japan blog. His book, Schizophrenic
in Japan, went on sale in 2005.
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
(in Tokyo) Rogers Archives