Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
A long long time ago, when I had more free time in my life, I read copious quantities of science fiction (and other pulp fiction). Donald Kingsbury in The Moon Goddess and the Son
had a crucial insight on democracy, which I suggest that many of us have forgotten. One of the primary threads in the book was a peaceful means to bring about (and bringing about) the fall of the iron curtain and the possible rise of a democratic in the place of the former Soviet empire (in part this was helped by a viral board/video/war game in the book). It should be noted that this book was written in 1986 some years before the actual fall of that regime.
One insight which might as well be drawn in part from our own revolutionary process is that, to embark on democracy is to fundamentally lose control. Centralization of power is satisfying and tempting in the larger part because of the control. The (wise) leaders of a revolution (or democratic government) must, in order to remain a democracy, yield control to the (unwise) individuals. I’ll give a few examples:
- First, in one of Ms McArdle’s essays today she writes on health care and choices. She suggests that we assume that people would prefer to spend “new money” from government grants to the poor on health care. But that is, in turn, paternalistic and somewhat dictatorial in making up their mind for them and treating them as children. If a poor man would prefer to die in 5 years with an untreated condition and instead spend the money on a fast fancy car. By what right do we insist that he spend that money on health care? [aside: Btw, I favor throwing #2 “overboard” and think the only fair method of rationing health care (demanded by #3) is ability to pay, with the caveat that certain minimum levels of health care should be available to all.]
- In Iraq, we say we want them to be democratic then at the same time, we complain that the choices they make are not what we would recommend. However, giving them democratic freedom means … we lose any control or ability/right to make recommendations.
- The progressive movement often would put in place large scale structural elements to “guide us” in righteous thinking on racial and gender issues. Their centralization of doctrine and practice is their fear of the loss of control that comes with democracy. People will “misbehave” if they don’t force their hand pre-emptively. This urge is the very essence of the anti-democratic impulse. Leninism and the worst horrors of the 20th century were put upon their people, “for their own good.”
The question then, is how can we protect our individual freedoms and rights and at the same time prevent abuses that in a large measure give rise to the paternalism impulse that drives centralization?
Sharia law in the Middle East from a rights perspective is seen by the west as, well plainly said, horrible. The uneven freedoms granted differentially to men and woman (and infidel) within their society is shocking to the Westerner. It is my view of government that a state is acting within its bounds if it only takes the authority granted to it by its people. If they grant that women should be treated unevenly, then it is right for the state to reflect that. A Muslim community anywhere (including the US) might very well be within its bounds of authority, in my view is righteous.
How does one put this in practice however? What does it even then mean for such communities to overstep their bounds? Well, one might suggest that if I put you in jail unjustly it is one thing. It is another if you complain about being placed unjustly in jail but that the door is open and you can leave at any time. And that might be the key. If we allow great freedoms in the ordering of individual small communities and at the same time insist that information about the “outside” and other communities makeup and practices be available and that that “door be left open and unlocked”, that might be enough to insure your civil liberties be protected.
It might also, go a lot further to establish the sorts of civil progressive changes that the left wishes would occur. I would suggest that asking many more of us to get involved in the crafting of just law would go a lot further to internalize civil behavior than anything that might be attempted from “on high” within the beltway or the vaunted halls of the ivory tower.
Monday, July 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I’m in a bit of a time-bind so … today y’all get all the links again.
Friday, July 25th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I’ve got more, but I’m out of time. Maybe later in the day or tonight.
Monday, July 21st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If, one were to take seriously (which is admittedly hard), the left’s seriousness about reducing abortion as in Mr Clinton’s (in)famous: safe, legal, and rare … there is the problem of adoption. [note: in the following I’m going to ignore the clear conundrum raised by the question unasked or unanswered by those to whom that phrase has meaning, which is if abortion is not problematic, then why is rare valued.]
Adoption is held as an mythological sign for the pro-choice crowd. Both asking, well if you pro-lifers are so serious about saving babies why aren’t y’all adopting. But, examining the adoption procedures in this country a little more carefully the answer becomes clear. Because the largely pro-choice crowd has raised immense barriers to adopting. Getting qualified for an adoption costs close to $20k for legal fees, home studies and the like. The question is … Why?
Well, one reason one might suggest is that because the parents of the child are giving up their moral and legal responsibilities toward the child, they cannot be depended upon to insure the quality and home for the child so the state must do that instead. But, at what cost? A great number of well qualified caring parents are excluded from the process because they lack the disposable income in order to jump through the states required adoption hoops.There is another conclusion to be drawn from the existence to high barriers to adoption. That is, that orphans and children needing adoption (in this country) are in fact rare. If the problem of excess orphans was actually acute, essential moral market forces would bring the barriers down. That they haven’t and that adoption agencies and their lawyers successfully continue to charge high prices for their services is
Actually another highly likely reason is that legislators setting guidelines for abortion (often) forget TANSTAAFL when they make their laws. What cost adding one more check, after all it might just save one kid from misery? Well, there is a cost. But it’s not apparent.
There is another conundrum present. The pro-choice crowd consistently paints abortion as easy, pregnancy as difficult, adoption as freely available (and a choice rarely chosen by the pro-life side). However, that begs a question. If the reason that the high barriers to adoption exist are in fact that in giving up their responsibilities toward the child mean that the state do due dilligence in vetting the parent then that begs the question: Why does that at the same time exclude the state from exercising due diligence when a pregnant mom wants to terminate her child. Is she not as well, yeilding her moral and legal responsibilities toward her offspring as well?
