DISCRIMINATION

Segregation that was fought against years ago was imposed by government law. Civil rights movements were movements to repeal laws that denied minorities public access to everyday situations. Thus, there should be no laws that prescribe which rights and privileges should be applied to individuals based upon race or heritage. This is regardless to whether the laws are intended to be pro or con on racial relations. Instead, everyone should be treated the same without regard to their race. Minorities should have the same inalienable rights and enjoy the same general privileges as the rest of society. Accordingly, affirmative action and racial quotas will be eliminated allowing minorities to experience the same privilege of merit-based performance compensation that the majority society enjoys and competes for.

Take note that racial quotas would merely cloak and camouflage any remaining racist enterprises, negating the ability for consumers to punish them in the marketplace. Quotas relegate minorities in those companies to token status while their labors contribute to an alleged racist enterprise. Affirmative action has the unintended consequence of keeping up appearances. Consider when a minority is under-represented within a certain industry due to actual lack of skills within that community, affirmative action removes the incentive for the minority's members to improve replacing that with tokenism. Besides, today's attitudes are much more oriented towards demonstrating acceptance and inclusion so the current social etiquette and awareness is widespread enough to counter those harboring an actual supremacist agenda. There also may be an effect of a community's culture as to why they are not hired in greater numbers -- they are just not as interested in that vocation or industry where there are no associated influencers.

Concurrently, while we are a party that looks down upon racial, religious or ethnic discrimination and the like; it is nonetheless the inalienable right for an individual or private group to deny an access to their own private property or their own business interests. Everyone has the right to deny entrance to their property or dwelling whether or not such denial is reasonable or polite. While we may disagree or speak out against such attitudes, it is not the place of government to deny people the right of association any more than it is to decree segregation. This will apply to business practice as well. A restaurant, for example, may discriminate its patrons on the basis of attire. Why should not a restaurant owner be allowed to exercise their personal though unreasonable prejudice and deny access to the premises which they own? If however, the restaurant takes the patron's money and then does not deliver a meal, the restaurant will be charged with fraud whatever the minority status was of the patron. Should any individual or private group be forced to sell or transact with someone they would prefer not to? Would one force a person having a yard sale to sell to someone they held something against despite how unreasonable their justifications? Remember too that a minority business should also have the right to deny serving the members of a majority as well.

When an organized or de facto embargo exists upon some faction of the community which results in the actual widespread denial (not merely inconvenience) of life and liberty simply because of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. will official action be considered. Initial action will not necessarily resort to government involvement but other solutions if available will be used first. For instance, we may use bully pulpits to encourage businesses and services from other communities to come in and serve the oppressed faction. Shame and boycott are also effective measures to use against offending businesses in order to gain access to the goods and services for the oppressed faction. Only when there are more desperate needs to sustain life, limb, freedom or preventing crime and fraud should official government involvement be necessary. Government involvement would be in such a way to enable the oppressed faction to provide for themselves. This may be achieved by using government secured enterprises (GSE)s to fulfill the roll of some vital service or business that has been denied by the greater or local community. If the embargo is more involved then the government may orchestrate incentives for the oppressed to relocate or even charter a new community on their behalf while keeping tabs on cost-effectiveness. All this should not be construed to say that civic leadership actions will not be taken against cases less severe than embargo.

As far as government functions and public (not private) services upon any individual -- all will be treated equal under law and undue racial, religious, ethnic, etc. discrimination will not be tolerated -- due process for all.