Prejudice is Liberty
Prejudice is liberty, it is an act of choice, anyone who seeks as an end to force an other not to be prejudice is trying to invoke their will over an other person, this is not liberty. Before you shake your head and stop reading are there any groups you don’t like, let us say, the Nazi or the Ku Klux Klan? Chances are you are prejudice, you can justify it any way you want, but the simple truth is that if you hold an individual who belongs to such a group as anything less than an equal you are exhibiting prejudice. Now, holding the individual responsible for their words and actions is a little different.
Is prejudice unjust? No, not in and of itself, it is the application of prejudice that may (and often does) result in injustice. When prejudice is applied as a deciding factor in consideration of another person’s individual rights it is unjust. Not undertaking activities with a group of people, when such choice is available (as opposed to not allowing someone to participate) is not an injustice, ignorant or stupid perhaps but not unjust. The act of not participating does not limit or impact the individual rights of those who are participating, where as excluding a person does violate their individual rights.
Prejudice is a function of group mentality. Groups while comforting as a result of association of the familiar, they have a tendency to cause separation within society. This happens from within the group by isolation and from outside the group through generally the concept of fear. This is not to say all groups cause separation within a society.
This is not to say that prejudice is a good thing. The idea of “when such choice is available” does not allow for an open ended choice but rather is extremely confining in its application. It might apply to not going into certain businesses or attending events but it is not a choice in housing, hiring or any other action that you have to perform to an individual. This is something along the line of the idea of being “civil” to someone. This requires a degree of externalization. I am not going to belabor this point as most who are prejudice will not do so.
Jefferson said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Additional he said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” In the context of this piece, some times you may have to put up with assholes, if you want liberty for yourself.
Additionally, it is worth noting that a prejudice is in most case a minority and should have its rights protected as any other. This does not extend to acts that injure the rights of others. In a open society is better that extremist voice are allowed to be heard or would have them plot in silent darkness and commit vile and unspeakable acts? "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." – Lord John Morley. Laws do not end prejudice they offer punishment but may force it into silence or at best raise awareness. The Sea of Liberty is turbulent, and sometimes we must yield our personal beliefs when doing so do no harm to us, other than our sensibilities.
Is prejudice unjust? No, not in and of itself, it is the application of prejudice that may (and often does) result in injustice. When prejudice is applied as a deciding factor in consideration of another person’s individual rights it is unjust. Not undertaking activities with a group of people, when such choice is available (as opposed to not allowing someone to participate) is not an injustice, ignorant or stupid perhaps but not unjust. The act of not participating does not limit or impact the individual rights of those who are participating, where as excluding a person does violate their individual rights.
Prejudice is a function of group mentality. Groups while comforting as a result of association of the familiar, they have a tendency to cause separation within society. This happens from within the group by isolation and from outside the group through generally the concept of fear. This is not to say all groups cause separation within a society.
This is not to say that prejudice is a good thing. The idea of “when such choice is available” does not allow for an open ended choice but rather is extremely confining in its application. It might apply to not going into certain businesses or attending events but it is not a choice in housing, hiring or any other action that you have to perform to an individual. This is something along the line of the idea of being “civil” to someone. This requires a degree of externalization. I am not going to belabor this point as most who are prejudice will not do so.
Jefferson said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Additional he said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” In the context of this piece, some times you may have to put up with assholes, if you want liberty for yourself.
Additionally, it is worth noting that a prejudice is in most case a minority and should have its rights protected as any other. This does not extend to acts that injure the rights of others. In a open society is better that extremist voice are allowed to be heard or would have them plot in silent darkness and commit vile and unspeakable acts? "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." – Lord John Morley. Laws do not end prejudice they offer punishment but may force it into silence or at best raise awareness. The Sea of Liberty is turbulent, and sometimes we must yield our personal beliefs when doing so do no harm to us, other than our sensibilities.
