"Ending" transgender discrimination fails and does worse

How "progressive" of the Exeter Rulers to support unanimously a resolution whose stated goal is to end transgender discrimination. It absolutely does not do this. Instead, it will further erode respect for private property. Here is the resolution:

Urging the state of New Hampshire to amend its current anti-discrimination statutes to include language for anti-discrimination protections and equal treatment, respect and dignity for individuals on the basis of gender expression and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations. 

Because this is such a hot topic nowadays, it's important to look at it rationally. Let's do that.

First, discrimination is not a de facto evil. A man discriminates against other men when considering only women for a spouse. Discrimination in businesses exist too. Go to Thrive on Portsmouth Ave. It is a "community for women." Is this discriminatory against men? Yes. Is it a problem. Absolutely not. It makes perfect sense: there is a market for women who like to exercise and who feel more comfortable without men around who would otherwise see them sweaty, in gym clothes, and in exercise positions. I am interested in hearing how they will respond when transgender people want to join.

Next, the resolution fails on its face in the same way all anti-discrimination laws do. It will not end discrimination. A law pertaining to this resolution may end some overt acts of discrimination, but it can't change what's in the hearts and minds of others.  We should realize that forcing someone to behave charitably does not make that person charitable. In fact, these laws can breed resentment from those who are targeted, and so the resolution might actually exacerbate discriminatory acts, which would still exist but in less obvious ways. (As an example, even after the Jim Crow laws ended, prosecutors could still strike all black people from juries, potentially making for a less empathetic verdict.)

An anti-discriminatory law will succeed in violating property rights, which are simply an extension of the right of self-ownership. A person has the right to do what he pleases with his person and property so long as he does not initiate physical force against someone else.  A storeowner who puts up a sign that says, "Whites only" is racist, but he is not initating physical aggression. Regrettable as it is, he has the right to do so. To those who disagree: suppose a racist black person refuses to shop at a white person's store because of their color differences. Would you make this illegal and force the former to shop there? Property rights are reciprocal.

A common reply: "If there were no laws, all the evil store owners would discriminate against everyone." Maybe some will and some won't. BUT what's crucial to recognize is that the market punishes such overt acts. As long as there are no segregation laws or laws that outlaw boycotts or give monopoly privileges to various businesses, discriminatory practices result in loss of revenue (to the extent that consumers disapprove.) This is not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. This is exactly why the Montgomery boycotts were successful. (Here, note that the segregation was mandated by government in the first place.) Street cars in the South ignored segregation laws because they lost business. Even wrongful capital convictions that smelled of racism were questioned by local businessmen who saw that the perception of community racism would lose tourism*.

A common reply to this: "Yes, well, that may be so, but the evil store owners just care about their bottom lines." Maybe so, but that misses the point, which is that the market punishes exactly the actions that these anti-private property laws seek to eliminate. Besides, even conceding the point, all that can be said is that it has no worse effect than the law that the Exeter resolution supports. Bottom line: live and let live. We don't need laws to tell us how to interact with people.

NOTE: opposition to prohibition of an action does NOT constitute endorsement of the action itself. I oppose laws that prohibit speaking bad words, but I wouldn't endorse someone who goes around using profanities. The first reaction to opponents of "anti-discrimination" laws is often emotional: supporters often claim that such opponents simply want to be able to discriminate freely. This is incorrect. Arguing that the motive of someone's argument invalidates the argument is a logical fallacy. A KKK member might support free speech laws, but it doesn't mean that the first ammendment is racist, only that the motives of some individual supporters are.

 *B. Stevenson, Just Mercy, (Spiegal & Grau), 2014, p. 213.