In today’s complex societal structure, one divisive issue stands out: should businesses have the freedom to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation? In this highly charged argument, many are quick to shut down the notion, citing blatant injustice. Yet, a deeper dive into the issue presents a counterintuitive perspective, particularly when viewed through the lens of libertarianism. This discourse isn’t about championing discrimination but rather about arguing for the autonomy of businesses to make their own decisions and deal with the subsequent societal and economic repercussions. Herein lies the crux of the controversy – the paradox of business freedom to discriminate in the grand scheme of a free market economy.

The unsettling silence surrounding the recent arrest of Abi Roberts, a London-based comedian renowned for her staunch opposition to authoritarianism during the ‘pandemic’ and her advocacy for those adversely affected by the vaccine, shines a glaring spotlight on the deteriorating state of free speech in the UK. The fact she was detained solely for swearing is a startling reminder of the increasing threats to freedom of expression. This incident also unearths the disconcerting absence of principled reporting from supposed ‘alternative media’ outlets on issues they profess to champion.

Roberts, a familiar face on free speech platforms like GB News, Talk TV, and YouTube’s Tiggernomentary during the early ‘pandemic’ days, is no newcomer to controversy. However, her increasingly sidelined status, due to her heterodox common sense views, casts serious doubt on these platforms’ alleged commitment to freedom. It also questions the ability of broadcasters to genuinely uphold free speech under the scrutinising gaze of regulatory bodies such as OFCOM.

Consider a recent controversy: a web designer refused to create a wedding website for same-sex couples, leading to accusations of discrimination and exclusion. However, in the eyes of a libertarian, the focal point isn’t about endorsing her refusal; it’s about supporting her freedom to make that choice.

Historically, the term ‘discrimination’ summons powerful imagery of injustice, underscoring the societal necessity to battle such inequities. However, from a libertarian viewpoint, the concept takes a different shape: In a truly free market, businesses choosing not to serve specific groups create opportunities for other businesses to welcome those individuals with open arms.

Imagine a conservative business owner opting not to cater to a minority group. Likely outcomes in our progressive society would be a significant public backlash, boycotting, or even the business’s closure. This isn’t government-imposed but societal, underscoring how the consequences of our actions serve as societal checks and balances.

We champion free speech, but it’s not devoid of repercussions. Expressing polarising views or using controversial language can invite potent societal backlash, which itself serves as a deterrent against such behaviour.

Economic implications of discrimination are staggering, with history offering numerous examples, such as the debilitating effect on the economy due to Jewish exclusion in Nazi Germany. Discrimination isn’t merely harmful to the targeted individuals or groups; it hampers the entire economy.

This argument isn’t an endorsement of discrimination. Instead, it’s a plea for safeguarding market freedom and individual liberty, crucial for balancing personal freedom with economic prosperity. It emphasises the market’s capacity to accommodate those ostracised and illustrates how societal pressure can discourage discriminatory practices.

Though discrimination carries the weight of centuries of prejudice, my argument for a business’s right to choose its clientele isn’t a validation of discrimination. Instead, it’s a defence of liberty— the liberty for businesses to make their own choices and confront the ensuing consequences, either reaping the rewards or suffering the losses. In a truly free society, we must have the freedom to choose, and the courage to accept the consequences.