 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fat people are up in arms.
"Discrimination!" they cry. "How dare anyone judge us, judge our personalities, judge our skills merely on the basis of how much we weigh? There oughta be a law."
Now there is. Actually, there are several, but the latest legal assault on freedom in what is a disturbing trend of statism occurred in San Francisco. On May 8, the Board of Supervisors in the home of the Golden Gate Bridge unanimously decreed that fat people shall enjoy the same "freedom" from the judgments and choices of private citizens as afforded to transsexuals, the handicapped, homosexuals, anyone of any age and ethnic or racial background (except, of course, for white males of European descent), and those professing any religion (except, of course, those godless atheists).
No, no. People must "accept fat" regardless of how they feel about such a physical condition. If someone would prefer not to hire the obese or rent them housing or grant them a bank loan, forget it! Board member Tom Ammiano declares that, "Clearly discrimination in any form is wrong."
If taken literally, of course, his statement is the rankest nonsense. To "discriminate" is "to distinguish; to observe the difference between; to select from others" and "to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of) or prejudice (against)" something. (Emphasis in original; Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, second edition.)
Ammiano, of course, is being very selective in his use of this word. He focuses solely on the "prejudice against" something, in this situation, fat people. But, of course, his statement is still self-serving. He is not truly even against "prejudice" as a general principle. He is merely opposing those who are against what he favors. He is clearly fighting against those who believe in property rights. He in no way wants individuals to be able to employ only whom they want (for whatever reasons they select). Landlords should not be able to set the conditions for how their houses or apartments should be used (or who should be allowed to use them).
This government official is "clearly" against voluntary and peaceful associations among the citizens of this country. He much prefers to resort to the violent, coercive power of the State to force anyone and everyone to act in the manner that he and his like-minded collectivists desire.
Ammiano and his liberty-hating ilk would perish in short order if they literally believed and acted on the notion that "discrimination in any form is wrong."
Would he contend for an instant that we should not "discriminate" between food and poison? That we should not "favor" the former and be "against" ingesting the latter?
Does the "all discrimination is wrong" crowd seriously suggest that anyone should not "distinguish" between those hobbies, those jobs, those activities we favor and those we do not? How about selecting from among all our acquaintances and deciding who shall be our friends? Is it "wrong" to pick out one woman or one man to marry and live with from the billions who exist in the world?
Ammiano's statement is a ridiculous exercise in Orwellian thought control.
Every waking moment of our lives, every behavior we perform, every word we utter, every step we take involves an act of judgment, a use of our minds to choose one option from a myriad of others. To rail against "discrimination" in "any form" is to denounce the volitional nature of the human mind. It is to condemn the free will that distinguishes humans from lower animals, from plants, from rocks.
It is to outlaw morality itself. For what is a moral code except a guideline for making free-will choices among alternatives?
Such an anti-individualist stance seeks to smear the true essence of humanity: our unique identities; our particular personal interests and talents; our exclusive, singular, and unshared characteristics that make each of use a distinctive individual.
In a fashion similar to the mangling of language (and, thus, thought) evident in those using such words as "gun violence" (analyzed in my essay, "The Myth of Gun Violence," published in Laissez Faire City Times), "market failure" (see "The Myth of Market Failure," Laissez Faire City Times), "individualism" (see, for example, my reviews of Tibor Machan's books in Laissez Faire City Times), and "diversity" and "tolerance" (see "The Best of Intentions" and "Zero Tolerance," published elsewhere but available on my website), "discrimination" is yet another perverse example of the "anti-conceptual mentality" (to use Ayn Rand's term).
In this case, such obfuscators seek to substitute the connotative (or emotional, subjective) meaning of a word or concept for its denotative (or actual, objective) meaning. Such propagandistic sleight-of-hand may be worthy of Joseph Goebbels but hardly conducive to respecting the moral autonomy and Constitutionally protected rights of real, actual, and individual American citizens.
Rand discussed many such "package deals" and "anti-concepts." So-called polarization, consumerism, extremism, isolationism, simplistic thinking, economic vs political power illustrate the same impulse to obscure meaning, confuse thought, destroy independence, and impose control over those who are either too intimidated by or too ignorant of such slippery tactics to oppose them in any effective way.
The bald-faced temerity of these self-righteous statists has -- unfortunately -- not diminished since Rand first identified and wrote about such conceptual abuse.
In essence, the fat people who pushed for this law are attempting to make "sizism" into yet another "hate crime" (another conceptual quagmire dissected in my essay, "Hatred Is Not a Crime"). One can almost envision the flurry of trumpets and the unfurling of the royal proclamation: "Henceforth, reliance upon stereotypes about fat people shall be deemed a criminal offense!" Punishable by beheading, I imagine, if they thought they could get by with such a consequence.
The trend for these kinds of heinous and immoral prohibitions gained a major impetus with the passage of the ill-designed Civil Rights Act of 1964. As Rand said in her essay, "Racism," (in The Virtue of Selfishness), "It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities and establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any citizens. And by the very same principle, the government has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments." (Page 134, emphasis in original.)
Too many citizens have forgotten (if they ever knew) that the only proper function of government is protect our rights -- our lives and our selves -- from the coercive transgressions of others.
These unsophisticated or intellectually lazy people are unaware of and apparently unable to discriminate (i.e., recognize the difference) between having a "right (having the option or ability) to do X" versus judging "action X as being right (morally correct)."
As an adult, you have the right to: eat too much, drink excessively, ingest drugs, be sexually promiscuous, lie to friends and family members (in most contexts), not work, avoid housework, and a plethora of other activities. Yet these same self-destructive behaviors are not morally right for you to engage in, i.e., you should not be doing these on a consistent basis since you may harm yourself and, perhaps, those close to you.
Each and every one of us has the right to be wrong, to make incorrect choices we would be better off avoiding. Indeed, we can be unjust in our dealings with others (such as in breaking a promise to a friend) as long as we do not violate their rights (do not threaten or use force to obtain our goals).
Our culture -- and especially our government -- exhibits rather schizophrenic attitudes in how it views and deals with fat people.
On the one hand, people in authority have seriously advocated that we should tax "junk" food (such a designation to be determined by them, of course) and subsidize "healthy" food and nutritional education. Some advocate outright bans or, at least, more strict regulation of fatty foods and such chemicals as caffeine. We are subjected to "public service" announcements urging us to exercise. Commercials ridicule "couch potatoes." Excess weight -- obesity -- is decried as an "epidemic" (another anti-concept when used in relationship to people's choices).
The Center for Science in the Public Interest wants restaurants and the soft drink industries to be held "responsible" for obesity. Fat people are viewed as "victims" confronted with a "toxic food environment." Ronald McDonald is the moral equivalent of Joe Camel. (Who is also blameless; see my, "Defending Joe.")
Lawsuits, anyone?
"Fat" becomes nothing more than yet another excuse for the statists to increase their power over the health system (and, ultimately, us).
On a private level, growing numbers of people have a mania for exercise. Health clubs flourish. "Extreme" sports are lauded. Joggers, walkers, and bicyclists clog our streets and our parks.
And yet...
On the other hand, we come face-to-face with ludicrous laws obsessively dedicated to prohibiting discrimination against fat people and thereby violating property rights and our right to engage in only voluntary social relationships. To take a stand for freedom is to be labeled "mean-spirited" or "bigoted" and "biased."
To hell with freedom of speech. To hell with liberty. To hell with a peaceful, tolerant society that respects the rights of people to decide for themselves how they shall live their lives.
The "fat rights" movement will do precisely as much to eliminate "fat discrimination" as laws against "racial discrimination" and for affirmative action did to eradicate racial prejudice.
In other words, nothing. Zip. Nada. Just as racial tensions have been exacerbated by clumsy moves to mandate integration, so, too, will distaste for fat people grow when everyone is forced to grant them special favors or face fines and imprisonment.
If some fat people are truly disturbed by prejudice against them, I have two words they should take to heart:
Diet. Exercise.
But whatever you do, keep your pudgy paws off my life.
