Ending Choice in the Name of Anti-discrimination

Last November, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously upheld Seattle’s “first-come, first-served” ordinance. The law requires landlords to publicize their criteria when selecting tenants and then rent to the first qualified individual.

Proponents of the ordinance claim that it provides equal treatment for all individuals. According to the Seattle Times,

When landlords are allowed to choose among multiple qualified applicants, their conscious and unconscious biases may come into play, leading to discrimination against people of color and people with disabilities. [emphasis added]

In other words, since a landlord’s unconscious thoughts might impact their decisions, property owners will be prevented from using their conscious thoughts.

The pretense of combating discrimination is a sham. Fundamentally, anti-discrimination laws are an attack on freedom of choice.

To discriminate is to recognize differences. If we buy our groceries at HEB rather than Kroger, we are discriminating. We are recognizing differences between the two grocers. The same is true when we select friends, an employer, or entertainment. Every choice we make is an act of discrimination.

Certainly, some individuals will use irrelevant or irrational criteria in making choices. But freedom of choice does not apply solely to those who make rational decisions. Freedom of choice also applies to those who make irrational choices. Freedom of choice includes the freedom to choose irrelevant or irrational criteria.

To attack discrimination is to attack freedom of choice. It is an attempt to force individuals to use only those criteria that government officials deem relevant and rational. Which means, government officials will force their choices on everyone else.

In its ruling, the Court stated,

Though the first-come, first-served law is “unquestionably an experiment,” and though “there is room for substantial debate about whether such an experiment is likely to succeed,” it’s an experiment allowed under Washington’s constitution.

The results of this “experiment” are quite easy to predict. Prohibited from acting on their own judgment in selecting tenants, landlords will exercise one choice still open to them. They will pull housing units from the rental market and Seattle’s affordable housing crisis will get worse.

In principle, this is no different than Seattle’s “experiment” in raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Deprived of the freedom to choose the proper wage for employees, business owners exercised the choices still open to them. They eliminated jobs or simply closed their business.

Social problems, whether real or imagined, are not solved by government mandate. They are solved when individuals are free to envision innovative solutions and then act accordingly. Social problems are solved when freedom of choice is protected.