Human beings are individuals as well as members of groups. Due to the prevalence of stereotypes and prejudices in relation to groups, it is often thought that there is not much point in individual members of disadvantaged groups attempting to make economic progress. The prevailing notion, which is rooted in egalitarian ideologies and interventionist policies, is that economic progress is impeded by membership of a disadvantaged group. Any individual members of a disadvantaged group who achieve notable success—for example, millionaires or pop stars—are viewed as exceptional cases that prove the rule.
It is certainly true that individual life outcomes are influenced not only by the available economic opportunities, but also by constraints arising from the legal, social, or political system within which those individuals live. Historically, such constraints were explicitly enforced by a legal system that institutionalized discrimination based on one’s membership of a specific class or race. For example, the Master and Servant statutes of England were based on class and status distinctions. The Jim Crow legislation in America segregated citizens based on race. The earliest example of Jim Crow laws is from Massachusetts: “The term ‘Jim Crow Law’ was first used in 1841 about a Massachusetts law that required the railways to provide a separate car for black passengers.” In 1838, “The Eastern Rail Road began with trains running between East Boston and Salem, MA, but it provided separate cars for white and black passengers.” …
This is not to say that free markets eradicate discrimination or that discrimination does not exist. On the contrary, even in the absence of legal or institutionalized coercion, there will be many life constraints on an individual’s ability to participate in economic activity. For example, freedom of contract entails the freedom to enter into agreements or choose not to enter into agreements, so the same freedom that enables economic activity also constrains it in the sense that there is no guarantee that everyone one wishes to contract with will return the sentiment.
Free markets contain no guarantees. The same is true of freedom of association—the same freedom that enables people to associate with anyone of their choice also entitles them not to associate with anyone of their choice. Similarly, the sanctity of private property requires robust protection for property rights, but it must not be forgotten that property essentially entails the right to exclude. Thus, liberty is, in this context, a double-edged sword: its exercise by some may bring disappointment or even disadvantage to others in specific situations.
It is nice to see someone describing freedom and liberty as working two ways: you have the freedom to do and the freedom to not do. In other words, if you are talking about freedom of association, people are free to associate if they want to associate or they have the freedom to deny association if they want to deny it. Freedom to contract or not to contract, freedom to own property and freedom to exclude others from it. The sword cuts both ways in a free economy and the only way to stop it from cutting both ways is to institute rules that enforce only one-way cuts. Freedom is the best way to deal with human action because there is no such thing as having to deal with majorities or groups only individuals.