Chapter 4: The Non‑Discrimination Principle (NDP)
The following appears in the constitution in the section on discrimination:
- Discrimination means selective treatment whether favourable or unfavourable, based on any characteristic of a person, including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, culture, religion, sex, genetic traits, age, wealth, income, land ownership, appearance, beliefs, preferences, circumstances, or possessions.
- The Non‑Discrimination Principle (NDP): The State shall not discriminate, including through its laws, policies, procurement, pricing, fees, charges, or access to services, except in cases involving:
- Merit‑based suitability for a task
- First-come, first-served priority up to a quota
- Allegiance to the constitution
- Citizenship
- Whether a person resides inside or outside the State Territory
- Violations of the Non‑Aggression Principle (NAP)
- Separate facilities for men and women
- Protection of minors
- Minimum age requirements
- Services and facilities for those who are pregnant, recovering from childbirth, or have physical or mental illnesses, injuries, infirmities, or disabilities
The Non‑Discrimination Principle begins from a premise that appears almost self‑evident: the state should not discriminate.
Few would object to this idea. It feels fair, foundational, and widely shared. It seems like a point of agreement across political, cultural, and moral divides. One might even call it intuitive. Yet its consequences are shocking.
Governments constantly discriminate
Modern governments routinely do the opposite. People think discrimination means racism, sexism and religious bias. But governments discriminate constantly in ways that are so routine they’ve become invisible:
- tax brackets
- means‑tested welfare
- age‑based rules
- asset tests
- family‑structure tests
- targeted subsidies
- targeted penalties
- tariffs which vary by industry
- occupational licensing categories
- zoning categories
- differential fees
- subsidies which vary by category
- industry‑specific regulations
- special exemptions
These distinctions are so familiar that they are rarely recognised as discrimination at all. Every one of these is a form of differential treatment based on group membership. If a private company behaved this way, people would call it discriminatory. But when the state does it, people call it “policy”.
Ironically, people think non‑discrimination is uncontroversial until you apply it. People don't tend to agree with the consequences, such as no progressive tax, no targeted welfare, or no special subsidies.
The discrimination is justified through “public interest” language and normalized through decades of political practice.
The reason people don’t notice is because the discrimination is bureaucratic, not emotional. It’s not driven by hatred or prejudice. The discrimination is procedural, not personal and it’s driven by political incentives, administrative convenience, legacy systems, lobbying, and targeted vote‑buying.
So people don’t feel discriminated against. They just experience: forms, thresholds, eligibility rules, exceptions and penalties.
Testing for discrimination
A discriminatory law reveals itself instantly. If a law mentions any characteristic of a person, such as income, assets, employment status, or nationality, it is discriminatory by definition.
The moment a law says “people with X must do Y,” it has created a category. Categories are discrimination. This is why the NDP is so powerful: you don’t need a court to interpret it. You can see the violation in the text.
The NDP prohibits such distinctions in all cases except a very narrow set of cases listed explicitly in the constitution.
This exposes how deeply discriminatory modern states are. Look at almost any law today:
- tax brackets → income discrimination
- means‑tested welfare → income and asset discrimination
- licensing → occupational discrimination
- tariffs → product and industry discrimination
- zoning → location discrimination
- subsidies → industry and demographic discrimination
- age‑based rules → age discrimination
People don’t notice because it’s everywhere.
Discrimination is the root of political power
Political power depends on the ability to treat people differently.
Every familiar tool of politics, including vote‑buying, targeted subsidies, targeted taxes, regulatory carve‑outs, special exemptions, and bureaucratic discretion, relies on discrimination. These mechanisms only work because the state can divide people into categories and reward some while burdening others.
Without the power to discriminate, these political tools disappear.
The NDP is stronger than equality
Ideas like “equality,” “equity,” and “fairness” sound appealing, but they are vague, subjective, and endlessly contested. Different people mean different things by them, and political actors routinely reinterpret these terms to justify opposite policies. As a result, appeals to equality often become tools for expanding discretionary power rather than limiting it.
The Non‑Discrimination Principle is fundamentally different. It does not rely on interpretations, intentions, or moral judgments. It is objective, mechanical, and text‑based: if a law depends on a personal characteristic, it violates the NDP unless it falls within the constitution’s narrow list of exceptions. There is no room for creative reinterpretation or shifting political fashions.
This makes the NDP far stronger than traditional equality doctrines. Where equality can be stretched, redefined, or selectively applied, the NDP is rigid and non‑negotiable. It prevents the state from creating categories, thresholds, or special rules, and it blocks the political incentives that drive targeted benefits and burdens.
In short, equality is an aspiration; the NDP is an enforceable constraint.