While the case for minimal government is very strong, that doesn’t mean that there are easy answers for every question. For instance, we know that markets will – over time – penalize people who discriminate. A merchant or employer who deliberately shuns women, blacks, or some other group of people is being economically irrational and is going to incur higher costs and lose out compared to competitors.
But that doesn’t mean discrimination won’t exist, and that’s a challenge for libertarians. For all intents and purposes, a belief in private property and an aversion to government intervention leads to the conclusion that racists, sexists, and other unpleasant people have the right to be jackasses.
But that offends us as moral people, which is why libertarians have been wrestling with this quandary for decades, trying to figure out how to be against discrimination without giving government powers that inevitably will be abused.
I was reminded about these issues while reading about discrimination against unattractive people. Simply stated, life is better if you were lucky enough to be born with good looks, and life is not so much fun if you got the genetic short straw. And the discrimination goes well beyond who you can date. Here are some key segments of the article in New York magazine.
… attractive people make more money than unattractive people. A lot more money, in fact: $230,000 over the course of a lifetime, which holds true even in professions where looks wouldn’t seem to matter. Hamermesh found that fetching professors, for example, earn 6 percent more than their average-looking peers, while unattractive quarterbacks earn 12 percent less than their hunkier counterparts. Men, in fact, suffer the greater repulsiveness penalty in general: Unattractive women earn 3 percent less than average-looking women, while unattractive men’s take-home is reduced a whopping 22 percent. …Knowing the extent to which people are economically penalized (or rewarded) for their looks raises the question: Should the ill-favored be protected? And if so, how? Hamermesh, in the Über-cautious fashion of an economist, predicts that the most unsightly people will eventually receive the same kinds of legal protection extended to Americans with disabilities. Putting such statutes in place would require agreeing on a universal scale of attractiveness, and then having eligible people step forward to claim their protections. The financial incentive is obvious; the social and psychological costs, murkier. Would you be willing to petition the U.S. government for official recognition of your ugliness? Would you do it for $230,000?
I’m rather surprised, by the way, that ugly men suffer significantly harsher consequences than ugly women, but that’s just an aside. The real issue is whether this discrimination is real and whether it justifies government intervention.
I’ve actually written about this issue before, including a link to other research showing that tall people have an economic advantage over short people. So I don’t doubt that “lookism” exists. Heck, I try to engage in such discrimination in my personal life and I keep my fingers crossed that women won’t be similarly shallow.
But does that mean we should have some sort of government bureaucracy with the power to sue, fine, arrest, or otherwise harass based on whether people claim they didn’t get promotions because of their appearance?
International Liberty 
[…] government intervention isn’t the answer, as I explained back in […]
[…] don’t try to address this very meaningful form of inequality. Where are their plans to prevent discrimination against those of us who didn’t win the looks lottery? And to imposes taxes on those who wound […]
[…] stands or marriage. And it’s not just sex and relationships. Being physically attractive makes life easier in all sorts of […]
[…] there is research on how attractiveness means higher earnings and some folks actually think government should somehow intervene to compensate for […]
I visit everyday some sites and information sites to read content, however this blog offers feature based writing.
[…] What’s next? Government intervention on behalf of ugly people? Oops, forget I asked. […]
Свежие новости Москвы происшествия
Only the sidebar header graphic of this model layer of ownership papers, followed close to untimely posts on another layer just now below. Main gratify square footage categories included in the website and a unique search only two colors present – it’s either white or orange. Has evident header gist is a unique, a woman of a indulgent article sitting completely uncovered on best of the pages links. Elegant.
Customizable wordpress templates
[…] people have more tact than myself. Oh if you were wondering if I have proof, the answer is yes: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com…t-ugly-people/ […]
Kathy Lovelady
What about the pretty women in the office? I think that a very attractive woman in the office is much more likely to be subjected to discrimination by ugly women, than vice versa.
In fact, the ugly woman will try to bring down the pretty woman much more than a pretty woman would ever try to bring down an ugly woman. A pretty woman is usually more confident, thus not feeling intimidated by the ugly woman, and would even be willing to help her. But I have seen far too many times where woman who are attractive experience discrimination from the other women, to the extent even where the other woman do everything in their power to jeopardize their job.
And what about the attractive woman that gets treated differently, for her looks and not her intelligence?
Are the ugly people sure that this is a can of worms that we wish to open?
What about the pretty women in the office? I think that a very attractive woman in the office is much more likely to be subjected to discrimination by ugly women, than vice versa.
In fact, the ugly woman will try to bring down the pretty woman much more than a pretty woman would ever try to bring down an ugly woman. A pretty woman is usually more confident, thus not feeling intimidated by the ugly woman, and would even be willing to help her. But I have seen far too many times where woman who are attractive experience discrimination from the other women, to the extent even where the other woman do everything in their power to jeopardize their job.
And what about the attractive woman that gets treated differently, for her looks and not her intelligence?
Are the ugly people sure that this is a can of worms that we wish to open?
Hey, Mr. Mitchell, can you help me out? I’m single and broke!
“Lookism” springs from human nature, since we all seek pleasing over unpleasant experiences every time. Aversion to the ugly, smelly and painful is a reflex, and not always a conscious decision. While not flattering to humans, attraction to beauty as much a part of being human as breathing. It’s one reason why pictures of puppies are universally popular, while photos from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are not. All the lawyers in Washington DC cannot change human nature, they can only cash in on the effects.
Can’t the phenomenon be somewhat linked to the fact that attractiveness is largely about maintenance, and that maintenance is about discipline, and discipline clearly is a skill that pays off in one’s professional life? A person who is astute enough to understand what others find attractive, and then has the discipline to maintain a healthy weight and see to details such as hair, makeup, well-chosen and pressed clothes, and so on, and furthermore has the interpersonal skills to present a charming mien (eye contact, smile, etc) is going to carry those skills into their professional life as well.
How much of the difference can be explained by attractive people being, on average, more productive? The professor example, for instance; an attractive professor will tend to have more attentive students.