1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13380/minnesota-government-mistreats-ladies/

Minnesota Government Mistreats Ladies

July 26, 2010 by

Minnesota’s recent crackdown on ladies’ night shows that the state’s politicians and economists cannot trace out the unseen effects of their own policies. FULL ARTICLE by Robert P. Murphy


JFF July 26, 2010 at 9:42 am

Really? Weird that the state is “defending” men for a change.

Daniel July 26, 2010 at 10:15 am

I too find this amusing. People must never forget that any power they give to the state (e.g. to discriminate in women’s favor) can and will be used against them in the future

elgecko84 July 26, 2010 at 10:16 am

I have long wondered why privately owned businesses are not allowed to discriminate as much as they want. Segregation would have happened a loooong time ago if it had been left up to the market and not the government.

I really enjoyed this article, especially the point that if the bar is doing it intentionally it must be because its worth it to them. Alas, chalk this up to one more victory for the socialists, where everyone has to be treated exactly the same regardless of what’s best for society.

J. Murray July 26, 2010 at 10:55 am

I think you mean desegregation. Historically, in the USA, segregation was forced onto the private market by government. There is little benefit to segregate unless that’s the overall theme of the business or organization, and even then, it would only truly cater to a niche market and few businesses could operate in such an environment, effectively forcing a more inclusive business and hiring model to remain profitable.

michael July 27, 2010 at 4:20 pm

“I think you mean desegregation. Historically, in the USA, segregation was forced onto the private market by government.”

Actually it was emancipation that was forced onto the country by the government, during the Reconstruction Period (1866-1877). Federal troops enforced equality throughout the South, and were highly unpopular.

Then the Feds withdrew the troops and Reconstruction was over. The South re-segregated, meaning white southern males reasserted their primacy. But I’d love to hear your version of events.

Zach Bibeault July 26, 2010 at 10:59 am

This is great! I live in Minneapolis and I remember being shown that story. Murphy does a good job exploding (hat tip Mises) the fallacies involved.

Marc Sheffner July 26, 2010 at 12:13 pm

chalk this up to one more victory for the socialists, where everyone has to be treated exactly the same regardless of what’s best for society.

It’s not about what’s best for society, silly, it’s about who gets to say what others can (and can’t) do.

Ben July 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm

How absurd! Price controls on liquor? Less than 100 years ago we attempted to ban it, and now we are telling bar owners that they have to charge everyone the same price! Lets just go back to midevil times where we all believed the Earth was flat, our God-King was supreme ruler, and no one but nobility had any discernable rights. Does the legislative body not have other things to do deal with, like crime? I guess charging a female 2 bucks for a drink and then charging a male 5 dollars for that same drink is criminal. Criminally STUPID, considering the fact that both of them can get more for their money by going to the store and purchasing the liqour themselves! If I were a bar owner in that city, I would continue to have ladies nights, continue to charge different prices, and take all the citations they want to throw my way. I would not pay the government one red cent for the privelidge of being told how to run my business.

noah July 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm

The most absurd thing about the “seen and the unseen effects” of this government policy is that none of the effects are positive, at least as they apply to the human actors involved. You would be hard-pressed to find a single bar patron, owner or employee who thinks this is a needed regulation. The thousands who are negatively affected must suffer a bit to benefit the one human who is pleased and has gained: the Good Regulator.

Artuad July 26, 2010 at 3:07 pm

As a logical extension, readers in or from the State of Minnesota who have participated in any similar schemes of gender or age bias in that jurisdiction – such as having willfully purchased girl-scout cookies or knowingly received student discounts, discounted airline tickets for children, or senior citizen discounts, etc. – should be prepared to voluntarily turn themselves in to MN authorities for assessment of financial penalties and registration in reeducation classes. Those who do not voluntarily turn themselves in will likely be assessed additional penalties, as failing to turn yourself in will no doubt be a separate offense (a.k.a. revenue stream).

Meanwhile, MN women will now be “protected from” having to pay lower cover charges and drink costs when going out to socialize and MN males will now be “protected from” having to pay the same cover charge for nightclubs filled with greater numbers of already liquored-up, single females!

To the unenlightened naysayers, it does not matter that this is a lose-lose-lose situation for nightclub owners, as well as females and males incentivized to go to “ladies’ nights.” As most politicians or any Eichmann-style bureaucrat knows, politically backward people always fail to properly appreciate how government protects them against the exercise of unsanctioned freedom, no matter how mutually beneficial the exchange.

Jason July 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Price discrimination also happens with pharmaceutical drugs. This is based on nationality. In the US, we pay a premium on drugs which are available in other countries for a fraction of the price. The up-side is that we get the newest drugs first and then they make their way to the rest of the world.

Dave Albin July 26, 2010 at 4:29 pm

I don’t know if that’s always true or not – I bet some “studies” go on in other countries where the pharm. companies don’t have to operate in regulatory hell. My guess is that pharma promise to give out new drugs to those who need/want it, and thus, the new drugs go there first. It is something like 1 billion dollars that is required to get a new drug to market in the US – a lot of this is regulatory costs that are simply not found in developing countries.

J. Murray July 26, 2010 at 6:16 pm

It’s more like the foreign government basically telling the pharmaceutical company that it cannot sell its product there unless they engage in price fixing. It’s how Canada operates. They tell companies like Glaxo-Smith Klein that they cannot legally sell their product in Canada unless they agree to the Canadian government’s price for the drug. That’s hardly voluntary price discrimination.

Dave Albin July 26, 2010 at 9:41 pm

You said it better than I did – that’s what I meant by giving away drugs in other countries. I was in a hurry when I wrote that :)

laura July 26, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Very good points regarding the “domino effect” in economic terms. However, I think some men just don’t like to see men chasing women rather than men. They become quite fascist in their attempt to “spoil the fun” of women who are competing for the attention of men ~~ as well as the fun that those men were having chasing women. Some men and women are so fascist, and jealous, they will take control actions through the state to attempt to suppress the public behavior of men pursing women and women being pursued by men.To hades with the economic realities!! Perhaps they are so militant in their desire to remake society through social control mechanism of the state, they have neither care nor compassion for the economic plight of the owner of heterosexual bars, employees, suppliers, or patrons.They’d perhaps be happier if heterosexual venues were shut down. Perhaps they’d be happier if such fun were no longer had thus “engendering” an increased monopoly of homosexual establishments and society through government intervention in an abuse of power. Perhaps they are willing to abuse power to suit their own discriminatory vision of a “grand society”. Perhaps what really galls them is that those men could be pursuing men not women if they were not heterosexual, and those women could be pursuing women if they were not heterosexual. Hades hath no fury like that of a homosexual lobby and individual in government power?? Economic warfare can become a form of cultural warfare to limit choices through government to “engender” the outcome of the personal prejudices and proclivities of those who wield power.Therefore, the best answer is not to give anyone power to control society and therefore economics in the first place. Government control should always be resisted and eliminated to as great extent possible.We have the right to form our own associations without social control being engineered by bigots of various types wielding government control. Bigoted social control can produce economic punishments of behaviors in which they personally do not engage for which they have no sympathy or behaviors in which they do not engage to which they take personal offense.

Efforts to end discrimination are another form of discrimination, quite often.

Eric July 26, 2010 at 7:23 pm

Letting someone in for free is not charging them less, is it?

So, I propose that bar owners let good looking women in for free and charge ugly women the full freight.

Dave Albin July 26, 2010 at 9:45 pm

Next step is banning discrimination based on appearance….. It’s not so far fetched!!!!

Mark July 26, 2010 at 9:08 pm

Maybe they understand the consequences and they just don’t care.

Bruce Koerber July 26, 2010 at 9:31 pm

Is it the ‘market’ part of marketing that the ego-driven interventionists cannot relinquish? Who thinks that the marketing profession will be a rewarding career in a socialistically trending economy?

Wuggles July 26, 2010 at 10:33 pm

This is a similar situation to what is already happening here in Michigan with our recently passed indoor smoking ban on all worksites. Nowadays, in Michigan, you can’t smoke in places like bars and restaurants (among others) and shockingly it’s killing business.

Of course we are all better for it accourding to our state government (who is so concerned about everyone’s welfare after all)
“This is historic legislation that will protect the health of all Michigan citizens,” said Director Janet Olszewski of the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH). “Second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in Michigan, resulting in about 2,500 deaths each year. By creating smoke-free environments we are taking a significant step toward creating a healthier Michigan.”

What a joke.

Clayton July 26, 2010 at 10:57 pm

Lets point out the most obvious benefit of ladies night:
Evening the ratio of males to females.

That is the #1 reason for ladies night. Women want to meet successful men. If a man is not willing to pay full price or extra, they are not as successful as the men to attend, and have a much higher probability of being economically compatible.

Clayton July 26, 2010 at 10:58 pm

They are not as successful as what the women want to attend*

wastate July 27, 2010 at 12:29 am

Does anyone know what ‘problem’ MN is trying to solve with this regulation?
This seems like an odd place to start trying to force equal rights on people.

wastate July 27, 2010 at 12:34 am

excerpt on the topic:
The Minnesota Department of Human Rights has filed gender discrimination charges against five Twin Cities bars, alleging that they violated the rights of men everywhere—by holding ladies’ night. “Gender-based pricing violates the Human Rights Act,” the commissioner tells the Star-Tribune, vowing to pursue every complaint received about on the matter. The state tried a similar crackdown back in 1994, but most bars shrugged and kept the cheap drinks flowing.
“It isn’t a matter of wanting to discriminate. If you’ve got 200 ladies, you have 400 men,” says a Tavern League of Minnesota official. “This is just a marketing niche.” The previous head of the Human Rights Department said he too sees no problem with the promotion. “It is on its face discriminatory,” he said, “but on a practical level, it’s a little bit of ‘Who cares?’”

Who exactly is the one that is going to complain?

Shay July 27, 2010 at 10:03 am

I am all for this crackdown on discrimination. I think we should next eliminate the utterly discriminatory bathroom policies seen almost everywhere. Why should a person be denied entry into a bathroom simply because of the way he or she was born? It’s wrong!

Old Mexican July 27, 2010 at 10:10 am

Re: Shay,

Why should a person be denied entry into a bathroom simply because of the way he or she was born? It’s wrong!

But the long lines, Shay! Those looooong lines! Please, don’t give them any ideas!

Jonathan owner of Website Fresno August 23, 2010 at 4:43 pm

All discrimination is bad no matter how its intended. It is just another separator that we do not need in this country. Thank you for the blog, very informative.

Allen December 27, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Facts are facts. If the ladies decide a place is popular then the gents will follow. Bureaucrats can’t change the basics of nature. It is in no way unfair. Thee are a very few places that we go that don’t at least offer a senior citizens discount. Is that discrimination as well? I think not.
Being involved in the nightlife scene, I would like to experiment with some different targeted discounts and see which works best. I know we have discussed the topic with a lot of our lady customers and they like the idea of a “Ladies Night” with reduced prices and don’t feel discriminated against at all.
Maybe if the politicians would focus on running our country and stop interfering with free enterprise and trying to control our lives, we would get more done by them at a lower cost.
Just my 2 cents worth.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: