All Posts Tagged With: "role of government"

I had another Guiness-fueled profound thought last night while watching my beloved Illini get their asses handed to them by Dookie. So here it is. Robin Hood. When I was a kid I loved Robin Hood. I loved all of it, the Errol Flynn movie, the Disney movie, the books, and the stories. My cousin and I lurked in the Sherwood Forest of my Grandma’s back yard with home-made bows and arrows. Lucky we didn’t put an eye out. Read more…

Robert Wright, a prolific writer of books and articles and the such, and Will Wilkinson, who works at the Cato Institute, had a discussion of libertarianism (and a couple other topics) at bloggingheads.tv that I thought was interesting and which I recommend to all of you. It’s pretty long (about an hour and fifteen minutes) but it’s more interesting than anything on TV, so give it a look if you’ve got time.

This is probaby the sort of thing that I should just e-mail to Tom and leave it at that, but I figure why not share it with the rest of you?

I was urged to write something more substantial in regards to the Ron Paul video that I posted yesterday. I said that I was going to do a piece on an alternative to pragmatic compromise, which, of course, opened all of the worm cans from earlier discussions with Billy Joe. *sigh*

The pragmatic compromises that the Republican Party have made in the last year have all but destroyed them. The surge is not working as planned, and the commanding general has asked for more time. The immigration bill that republican senators (including that champion of compromise and moderation, John McCain) have devised in cooperation with their accomplices across the aisle has divided the party base with an already extremely unpopular president deriding the very individuals who voted for him. The party that was the proponent of small government in 1964, 1980 and 1982 now believes that it needs a larger, more powerful government to accomplish the social reforms that would force America into the moral mode that it sees as necessary to survive.

All of these dismal failures can be attributed to the refusal to stand on principle. The means by which an end are accomplished is critical. This is the kind of thinking that I am opposed to, and always will be. However, merely stating one is opposed to the use of disreputable means is not enough, since critics will loudly proclaim that they are the only way to accomplish the changes necessary to create a safe, just and decent society.

Those critics are completely wrong.

Now, I am not always a big opponent of compromise. After all, a family can’t go to see Spiderman and Pirates on the same evening, there’s just not enough time. Compromise is the grease that allows social interaction to be something other than mere power-plays.

However, one cannot compromise with evil, for the taint of that evil rubs off on the compromiser and doesn’t slow down the evil one bit. Chamberlain learned that when his “peace for our time” agreement turned into the Second World War.

One cannot also compromise and trade away rights, since those rights are not granted by Men, but are innate in human existence. By the same token, government cannot grant rights.

So, how does one manage to fight evil and reduce the amount of power that others have over life without pragmatic compromise? How do we totally avoid using evil means ever?

The answer lies in engineering. There is a method of changing engineering designs and operations by a series of small steps, called incrementalism. Using feedback, a design is pushed in small steps towards an optimal solution. Wikipedia is based on this idea, as was John Bardeen’s research that resulted in the transistor. It’s an old and well-respected method.

So, how does this apply to politics? Let’s say that there’s an issue that needs to be addressed. The government has laws against something (or for something) and those laws must go.

You start by making a small request or demand for a change. You do not offer anything in return whatsoever. While remaining honest and true to your principles, you bring every shred of evidence available to bear on the issue, mobililize activists, contact government officials, educate the public until your opposition backs down.

When that happens, you act as if it was the only possible outcome, rest and prepare for the next step. Some time passes. You now make your next request/demand, again without offering anything in exchange. You use the same tactics you used the first time, again keeping your methods pure (no dishonesty or coercion.)

Again, the powers that be give in after a period of time. Eventually, you get what you desire, without using evil means or compromising any of your core principles.

Now, this is obviously not going to work in some cases. It would be remarkably ineffective in a 1984-type dystopia where the government controls access to communications between individuals. It would also not work in a fascist state like the dictatorships of the mid-20th, due to the mind-control tactics used.

However, our current nation, with its lightning-fast communication and sensitivity to public opinion is perfect for this kind of political action.

The anti-smoking movement is an excellent example of how effective this form of political action can be. Twenty-five years ago, there were only anti-smoking laws for theatres, hospitals and schools (and of course regulating age). Around the mid-80s, activists began lobbying for laws against smoking on airline flights of more than three hours. Every single extension of that ban, first to all flights, then to various and sundry buildings on the ground can be traced to that first effort.

Now, one can make a case either way for whether or not the laws were a good idea. However, it cannot be denied that the method that they used, the one that I outlined above, worked, and worked extremely well. All you need is a couple of decades and you can change virtually anything this way.

After all, can you name a single thing that the anti-smoking lobby gave up in order to get what they wanted?

So, you have a choice. All it requires is a moral heart, bravery, determination and patience.

FINAL NOTE TO ABOVE I am not implying in any way, shape or form that this is an original idea on my part. It has been part and parcel of non-violent social activism for at least a century. I am merely offering it as an alternative to the “ends justify the means” mentality that pervades so much of modern politics.

Go Ron Paul.

Tom

Two recent developments in the world of prenatal science have caused me to start pondering why a less conventional argument against abortion rights has not taken on more steam.

The first is this New York Times article about the rise of prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome, which had previously been available only to women over 35 but is now available for all pregnant women. A stunning 90% of women who who are given a Down’s syndrome diagnosis choose to have an abortion. This is concerning to parents of children with Down’s syndrome, who argue that if people knew more about the realities of raising a child with Down’s syndrome, they would not so often decide to abort. These parents, faced with the decreasing population of children with Down’s syndrome, understandably worry about what will happen to their children in a world where their potential companions are aborted:

“If all these people terminate babies with Down syndrome, there won’t be programs, there won’t be acceptance or tolerance,” said Tracy Brown, 37, of Seattle, whose 2-year-old son, Maxford, has the condition. “I want opportunities for my son. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, but I do.”

The second development is that a company called DNA Worldwide has begun offering home test kits that can determine the gender of the child at six weeks. Previous gender tests have not occurred until twenty weeks. This has spurred objections that the test will facilitate abortions for sex selection. The company has said it is not selling the test in China and India and some other areas, but ultimately argues:

The company operates in the UK, a liberal society that does not prize babies of one sex over another, a culture which also places the responsibility for the unborn baby firmly with the mother. As this is the case with most if not all Western cultures we are happy that, with education and informed debate, responsibility should lie with the individual.

Both of these stories present difficult ethical questions that we have discussed here at Urbanagora before. But they have gotten me wondering, why hasn’t the pro-life community used stories like these more effectively to argue against a woman’s right to choose? It seems to me that all this time, pro-lifers have centered their arguments on one simple assertion: abortion is murder. Obviously many Americans do not accept that argument. But I would guess most Americans – even many pro-choice Americans – are uncomfortable with anything that could lead this country down a path toward eugenics. With all of the prenatal tests that are now offered, wouldn’t an effective pro-life argument be that allowing women to get abortions means that we will be entering a brave new world in which children with characteristics parents don’t like will be aborted?

I should note, I don’t accept the argument. I’m just asking since it seems that it would be an effective tool and I’m wondering why it isn’t being employed. Ultimately, I have no real issue with pregnant women who receive a Down’s syndrome diagnosis getting an abortion. I fully understand the desire not to be burdened by that (and let’s not skirt around the issue by pretending a child with Down’s syndrome wouldn’t be a burden, at least to many parents). I do have a problem with sex selection, but I don’t perceive that as being a problem in the Western world. If I’m wrong about that, then we should regulate gender selection tests, not abortion. As I have said before, I think the most ethically sound solution is to allow parents, whether they are dealing with embryos or feti, to avoid children who possess traits that medicine considers a disorder or disease, then prohibit selection beyond that.

New column’s up today (I switched days with Jon since the school board election I’m discussing happens tomorrow and we wanted it to be timely): “Banning Kurt Vonnegut and Other Sins Against Man.”