In the movie Rio Bravo, a bad guy shoots an innocent man and then the sheriff (John Wayne),with the help of a small band of misfits, needs to hold the bad guy in jail until the US marshall arrives. Meanwhile, the bad guy's brother, a wealthy rancher, keeps on paying people to try to kill the sheriff and his friends so that he can get his brother out of jail before he hangs.
By the end, it looks like the sheriff has lost. The rancher's hired men succeed in capturing one of the deputy sheriffs (Dean Martin) and insists on a prisoner exchange. The sheriff brings his prisoner to the appointed place, as does the rancher. They set their prisoners free and the prisoners start walking across to the other side.
Then something unexpected happens. The deputy sheriff, just as he reaches the midway point, jumps the murderer, wrestles him to the ground, and then manges to get him behind a wall, where he proceeds to knock him unconscious.
This got me to thinking: was it right, what the deputy sheriff did? After all, the sheriff had agreed to swap prisoners and ordinarily it isn't right to break faith on a solemn agreement.
Yes, it was right. The rancher was a bad guy and the sheriff was a good guy. The sheriff's prisoner was a murderer. And the rancher, who was already responsible for the deaths of several innocent men, had apprehended the deputy sheriff by force and left the sheriff with no alternative to set a murderer free. To set a murderer free under the compulsion of another murderer would be a failure of justice. To outsmart and thwart the rancher, even by breaking faith, is to bring about justice.
So is it alright to do a thing in the fight against evil that would be morally wrong if it were done by an evildoer in the pursuit of evil? Apparently yes, at least that is the conclusion that one would have to draw from watching this movie.
Does this mean that the end justifies the means? If you break your word in order to accomplish something good, it's ok, but if it's in order to accomplish something selfish or bad, then it's not?
I think it just means that the context of an action determines its meaning. When government takes the life of a convicted murderer, that is an act of justice. When a person takes the life of a would-be murderer in self-defense, that is an act of justice. When a murderer takes the life of an innocent man, that is an act of injustice. So when a good man breaks his word with a bad man in order to make sure that a murderer does not go free, that is an act of justice.
How might this apply to the political affairs of the US? Consider this article.
"GUANTANAMO BAY – A United Nations committee has reprimanded the U.S. for trying Omar Khadr for war crimes and detaining hundreds of children in Iraq and Afghanistan, when international law requires that they be rehabilitated. Khadr, who was 15 when he was shot and captured in Afghanistan in 2002, and Afghan detainee Mohammed Jawad are on trial here for allegedly attacking U.S. troops."
Ordinarily it would be wrong to try a fifteen-year old and, under certain circumstances, it might make sense for international law to require the rehabilitation rather than the punishment of children. In the case of terrorism, though, so many innocent lives are at stake that if a child becomes a terrorist, then it would seem to be a matter of justice to prevent that child from killing many innocent people.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Treaty-Making and Virtue
In Federalist 75, Publius explains that the Senate must share in the power to make treaties, because the President might lack virtue:
"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration....A man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of chief magistrate, possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, and looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably be obliged to return to the station from which he was taken, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
The US Constitution is designed to make provision for the possible lack of virtue of those who hold power over us.
"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration....A man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of chief magistrate, possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, and looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably be obliged to return to the station from which he was taken, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
The US Constitution is designed to make provision for the possible lack of virtue of those who hold power over us.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Not a Prophet
Two reasons why Jeremiah Wright is not a prophet.
1. Prophets say things that are true, but Pastor Wright says things that are not true. The US government did not create AIDs, did not give syphilis to African-Americans, did not introduce drugs to the African-American community, etc.
2. Prophets emphasize personal responsibility, but Pastor Wright teaches African-Americans that the responsibility for their problems lies with everyone but themselves.
Bill Cosby would be a much better example of a prophet to the African-American community than Pastor Wright.
1. Prophets say things that are true, but Pastor Wright says things that are not true. The US government did not create AIDs, did not give syphilis to African-Americans, did not introduce drugs to the African-American community, etc.
2. Prophets emphasize personal responsibility, but Pastor Wright teaches African-Americans that the responsibility for their problems lies with everyone but themselves.
Bill Cosby would be a much better example of a prophet to the African-American community than Pastor Wright.
Self Restraint
Two incidents in Sands of Iwo Jima.
1. Three soldiers jump in a fox hole and realize they are low on ammunition. One of them volunteers to run back to camp to get some and bring it back. After he gets the ammo, he comes upon another soldier making coffee. He sits down and enjoys a cup. Meanwhile, his buddies run out of ammunition and have to make a run for it. They jump into another fox hole, only to find themselves surrounded by a gang of Japanese soldiers with bayonets. One of them is killed and the other escapes wounded. The third soldier returns to find his friend dead.
This incident shows how deadly it can be--for others in this case--when a man lacks self-control.
2. As night falls later that day, the Americans find themselves needing to hold their position with very few soldiers. The commanding officer tells Stryker (the John Wayne character) to spread out his men and make sure they don't smoke or talk or do anything that would give away their position. Otherwise, the Japanese will be able to find out how vulnerable they are and will attack.
During the night, someone starts calling out the name of the American soldiers, as if he were lying wounded on the battlefield. The soldier stationed with Stryker says he is going to go out and see who it is, but Stryker tells him not to because it could be a trap. The soldier tells Stryker that the only way he's going to stop him is to kill him--and Stryker immediately aims a rifle at his face. The soldier accuses Stryker of being inhuman. The scene ends with the voice from the battlefield calling out Stryker's name and the camera focused on Stryker'sface--and you can see that he is in agony. He knows that he needs to stay where he is even if the cry for help is real.
Stryker is not being inhuman here: he is exercising self-restraint--the very quality that the first man lacked. He knows that if he does not stay put, it may well lead to the death of his companions and the failure of the entire mission. Just as the first man's lack of restraint led to the death of his friend, Stryker's ability to exercise restraint keeps his friends safe.
1. Three soldiers jump in a fox hole and realize they are low on ammunition. One of them volunteers to run back to camp to get some and bring it back. After he gets the ammo, he comes upon another soldier making coffee. He sits down and enjoys a cup. Meanwhile, his buddies run out of ammunition and have to make a run for it. They jump into another fox hole, only to find themselves surrounded by a gang of Japanese soldiers with bayonets. One of them is killed and the other escapes wounded. The third soldier returns to find his friend dead.
This incident shows how deadly it can be--for others in this case--when a man lacks self-control.
2. As night falls later that day, the Americans find themselves needing to hold their position with very few soldiers. The commanding officer tells Stryker (the John Wayne character) to spread out his men and make sure they don't smoke or talk or do anything that would give away their position. Otherwise, the Japanese will be able to find out how vulnerable they are and will attack.
During the night, someone starts calling out the name of the American soldiers, as if he were lying wounded on the battlefield. The soldier stationed with Stryker says he is going to go out and see who it is, but Stryker tells him not to because it could be a trap. The soldier tells Stryker that the only way he's going to stop him is to kill him--and Stryker immediately aims a rifle at his face. The soldier accuses Stryker of being inhuman. The scene ends with the voice from the battlefield calling out Stryker's name and the camera focused on Stryker'sface--and you can see that he is in agony. He knows that he needs to stay where he is even if the cry for help is real.
Stryker is not being inhuman here: he is exercising self-restraint--the very quality that the first man lacked. He knows that if he does not stay put, it may well lead to the death of his companions and the failure of the entire mission. Just as the first man's lack of restraint led to the death of his friend, Stryker's ability to exercise restraint keeps his friends safe.
Multiculturalism
America’s greatest heroes
I hear the strangest things from my American Government students about how horrible the United States is. They learned all of this in their history classes. This used to perplex me, until I disovered the reason why, which is multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is a kind of fun-house mirror, by which all of the faults of western civilization and, in particular, the United States are exaggerated or, if need be, invented. All of its good points are minimuzed, ignored, or (if possible) seen as faults. At the same time, the faults of all other cultures and civilizations are ignored and their good points are exaggerated.
The result is a kind of leveling or, to be more precise, a lowering of western civilization and the United States in particular below the level of all other cultures and civilizations. If one assumes that the truth of the matter is that western civilization is, in fact, the highest achievement of human history and the United States its greatest success story (at least for the present), then what multiculturalism offers is an inversion of reality.
This approach to education explains the present emphasis on the evils of slavery in the US, the way in which the colonists treated American Indians, the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, the Vietnam War, etc. It also explains the sermons of Jeremiah Wright, in which the US government is the villain that invents AIDs, introduces drugs into the African-American community, and is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (In the last case, notice how Americans are the bad guys and the terrorists who committed the attacks are simply ignored--or seen as bringing upon us our just deserts). It may also explain why some people oppose every tactic the US has used to defend itself since 9/11 (including the Iraq war) and ignore or minimize the evil of the terrorists who are still trying to destroy us.
There are, in my opinion, two purposes behind the project of multiculturalism. First, it is an attempt to destory Christianity (and if one were to speak spiritually, one might describe it as a rebellion against Christ), because western civilization and especially its American expression is essentially Christian civilization. Second, it is a kind of Marxist effort to raise up those who are not successful by tearing down those who are. In the latter case, it is at bottom just an expression of envy.
The danger of multiculturalism is that its goal is to destroy the greatest achievement of western civilization and the US, which is liberty. It is this liberty that has made it possible for so many people to pursue happiness in peace, without being harmed by others (either by government or by other citizens). To destroy it would be to leave us in the misery and vulnerability that mankind has experienced in most places and times throughout human history.
In order to prevent the destruction of liberty, we need to speak the truth about history and current events and (as Christians) live lives that bring honor to Christ and pray that God will help others to see the truth.
I hear the strangest things from my American Government students about how horrible the United States is. They learned all of this in their history classes. This used to perplex me, until I disovered the reason why, which is multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is a kind of fun-house mirror, by which all of the faults of western civilization and, in particular, the United States are exaggerated or, if need be, invented. All of its good points are minimuzed, ignored, or (if possible) seen as faults. At the same time, the faults of all other cultures and civilizations are ignored and their good points are exaggerated.
The result is a kind of leveling or, to be more precise, a lowering of western civilization and the United States in particular below the level of all other cultures and civilizations. If one assumes that the truth of the matter is that western civilization is, in fact, the highest achievement of human history and the United States its greatest success story (at least for the present), then what multiculturalism offers is an inversion of reality.
This approach to education explains the present emphasis on the evils of slavery in the US, the way in which the colonists treated American Indians, the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, the Vietnam War, etc. It also explains the sermons of Jeremiah Wright, in which the US government is the villain that invents AIDs, introduces drugs into the African-American community, and is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (In the last case, notice how Americans are the bad guys and the terrorists who committed the attacks are simply ignored--or seen as bringing upon us our just deserts). It may also explain why some people oppose every tactic the US has used to defend itself since 9/11 (including the Iraq war) and ignore or minimize the evil of the terrorists who are still trying to destroy us.
There are, in my opinion, two purposes behind the project of multiculturalism. First, it is an attempt to destory Christianity (and if one were to speak spiritually, one might describe it as a rebellion against Christ), because western civilization and especially its American expression is essentially Christian civilization. Second, it is a kind of Marxist effort to raise up those who are not successful by tearing down those who are. In the latter case, it is at bottom just an expression of envy.
The danger of multiculturalism is that its goal is to destroy the greatest achievement of western civilization and the US, which is liberty. It is this liberty that has made it possible for so many people to pursue happiness in peace, without being harmed by others (either by government or by other citizens). To destroy it would be to leave us in the misery and vulnerability that mankind has experienced in most places and times throughout human history.
In order to prevent the destruction of liberty, we need to speak the truth about history and current events and (as Christians) live lives that bring honor to Christ and pray that God will help others to see the truth.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Opinion Makers
In Federalist 67, Publius uses a strong word to describe the "devices...which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion in relation to the subject" of the office of the president. That word is "wicked."
Why would he call these devices wicked? It is because he thinks that the ones who adopt these devices are deliberately deceiving the people for their own gain--and by so doing are placing in jeopardy the very lives, liberties, and properties of the people, which (in his opinion) depend on the adoption of the US Constitution.
To this willingness of some opinion-makers to deceive, add the vulnerability of the people to being deceived by such devices, as Hamilton describes it in a speech to the NY Ratifying Convention: "To deny that [the body of the people] are frequently led into the grossest of errors, by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise."
What you end up with is a potentially fatal weak spot in a country dedicated to liberty.
Why would he call these devices wicked? It is because he thinks that the ones who adopt these devices are deliberately deceiving the people for their own gain--and by so doing are placing in jeopardy the very lives, liberties, and properties of the people, which (in his opinion) depend on the adoption of the US Constitution.
To this willingness of some opinion-makers to deceive, add the vulnerability of the people to being deceived by such devices, as Hamilton describes it in a speech to the NY Ratifying Convention: "To deny that [the body of the people] are frequently led into the grossest of errors, by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise."
What you end up with is a potentially fatal weak spot in a country dedicated to liberty.
Music
My wife and I have noticed that our son John loves music. He has a couple of toys that play beautiful classical music when he pushes a button and it is very touching to see all of the joy and delight that lights up his face as he dances to the melody.
This morning I played a rock song on the computer and my wife and I danced, but my son looked scared and moved away from the computer. That may be an indication that there is something wrong with that kind of music.
I said to my wife, "I once heard that rock music corrupts the soul and I'm not sure that's wrong." She agreed.
This morning I played a rock song on the computer and my wife and I danced, but my son looked scared and moved away from the computer. That may be an indication that there is something wrong with that kind of music.
I said to my wife, "I once heard that rock music corrupts the soul and I'm not sure that's wrong." She agreed.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Iran and Al Qaeda
I think liberals and conservatives are both getting it wrong on John McCain's mispeaking about the relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda.
McCain said that Al Qaeda was going up into Iran for training and then returning to commit violence in Iraq.
According to the Washington Post, Iran is supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, but only Shiites are going up into Iran for training: "Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said Iranian intelligence operatives were backing the Sunni militants inside Iraq while at the same time training Shiite extremists in Iran."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102121.html
So liberals are right when they say that McCain misspoke when he said Al Qaeda members were being trained in Iran, but wrong when they say that Shiites in Iran would never support Sunni terrorists in Al Qaeda. (James Taranto also points out that Iran supports the terrorist group Hamas, who are also Sunnis http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120611553243855079.html)
Conservatives are wrong when they insist that McCain did not mispeak. He did, in fact, say that Al Qaeda members were being trained in Iran, "as everyone knows," and that is not the case.
I will add that Obama also gets it wrong when he criticizes McCain for the mistake: "Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shi'ite, Iran and al Qaeda," Obama said. "Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966544.html
While it is true that Iraq did not collaborate with Al Qaeda on 9/11, it is not true that Iraq did not have any ties with Al Qaeda. But that is the subject of another post.
For more on Iran's support of terrorism in Iraq, see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120643509488262009.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
McCain said that Al Qaeda was going up into Iran for training and then returning to commit violence in Iraq.
According to the Washington Post, Iran is supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, but only Shiites are going up into Iran for training: "Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said Iranian intelligence operatives were backing the Sunni militants inside Iraq while at the same time training Shiite extremists in Iran."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102121.html
So liberals are right when they say that McCain misspoke when he said Al Qaeda members were being trained in Iran, but wrong when they say that Shiites in Iran would never support Sunni terrorists in Al Qaeda. (James Taranto also points out that Iran supports the terrorist group Hamas, who are also Sunnis http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120611553243855079.html)
Conservatives are wrong when they insist that McCain did not mispeak. He did, in fact, say that Al Qaeda members were being trained in Iran, "as everyone knows," and that is not the case.
I will add that Obama also gets it wrong when he criticizes McCain for the mistake: "Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shi'ite, Iran and al Qaeda," Obama said. "Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966544.html
While it is true that Iraq did not collaborate with Al Qaeda on 9/11, it is not true that Iraq did not have any ties with Al Qaeda. But that is the subject of another post.
For more on Iran's support of terrorism in Iraq, see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120643509488262009.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Monday, March 17, 2008
Nature's Way
Getting back to the original question. Dr. Thomas W. Shinder, M.D. tells us that "[the] introduction [of syphillis] into the human population is believed to be from sheep that were the original carriers of the disease." He does not tell us how it was introduced and I would rather not think about it too much. It is probably safe to say that if promiscuous sex between human beings leads to the spread of disease, then promiscuous sex with animals does as well. So if it is within the police power of the State to make laws that protect the health of society, it is within the police powers of government to prohibit this kind of sex.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Liberty and Sex (Part 2)
In the last entry, we asked if it was the business of government to put limits on our sex lives. Another way to ask this question is, are there ever any times when sexual behavior affects people other than the ones directly involved in it and even society as a whole?
One obvious example of sexual behavior affecting others is when a child is produced that the parents are unable to support. This happens especially in cases when the parents are not married. In these cases, it becomes necessary for the other members of society to pay for the child's support. This requires government to violate the right to acquire and possess property, one of the three basic rights that political society was established to protect. In discussing this, Blackstone says that if a woman has a child out of wedlock and she is able to support it, then there is no punishment for this behavior under common law. If, however, the woman is not able to support the child, then there is a punishment. So, under common law, the woman has a large area of personal choice without interference from government up to the point that her behavior starts affecting others. At that point, it is considered appropriate for government to step in and limit her choices.
Another way in which sexual behavior can affect others is when it results in a sexually transmitted disease. It was recently reported that one in four teenagers has a sexually transmitted disease. Someone is quoted in the article as saying that the rate is one in two among a group in society that has less access to health care. The implication, I think, is that society has an obligation to provide health care to these teenagers in order to prevent the spread of this kind of disease. From the perspective of liberty, however, it would make more sense to say that the best way to prevent the spread of these diseases is to discourage the teenagers from engaging in this kind of behavior, rather than making the rest of society pay for their medical care so that they can continue to engage in it. There was another article in the paper recently about a Santeria priest who was denied the right to sacrifice goats in his home, because the city in which he lives has an ordinance against it. The purpose of the ordinance is to prevent the spread of disease. If it is a valid goal of society to prevent the spread of disease in a case like this, I cannot think of any reason why this principle would not apply to behavior that is likely to spread a sexually transmitted disease as well.
If, then, it is to the general advantage of society to limit behavior that is likely to lead to the spread of disease and certain kinds of sexual behavior are likely to lead to the spread of disease, then it is reasonable for government to place limits on those kinds of behavior. If it is a valid goal of government to protect the right of property and certain kinds of sexual behavior make it necessary for people to support the children of others as well as their own, or to pay for their medical care, then it is reasonable for government to place limits on that kind of behavior as well. If, therefore, people are to live in a free society, it may well be necessary for government to tell people with whom they may or may not have sex.
We are now ready to consider the question of sex with animals, but that will have to wait until the next entry.
One obvious example of sexual behavior affecting others is when a child is produced that the parents are unable to support. This happens especially in cases when the parents are not married. In these cases, it becomes necessary for the other members of society to pay for the child's support. This requires government to violate the right to acquire and possess property, one of the three basic rights that political society was established to protect. In discussing this, Blackstone says that if a woman has a child out of wedlock and she is able to support it, then there is no punishment for this behavior under common law. If, however, the woman is not able to support the child, then there is a punishment. So, under common law, the woman has a large area of personal choice without interference from government up to the point that her behavior starts affecting others. At that point, it is considered appropriate for government to step in and limit her choices.
Another way in which sexual behavior can affect others is when it results in a sexually transmitted disease. It was recently reported that one in four teenagers has a sexually transmitted disease. Someone is quoted in the article as saying that the rate is one in two among a group in society that has less access to health care. The implication, I think, is that society has an obligation to provide health care to these teenagers in order to prevent the spread of this kind of disease. From the perspective of liberty, however, it would make more sense to say that the best way to prevent the spread of these diseases is to discourage the teenagers from engaging in this kind of behavior, rather than making the rest of society pay for their medical care so that they can continue to engage in it. There was another article in the paper recently about a Santeria priest who was denied the right to sacrifice goats in his home, because the city in which he lives has an ordinance against it. The purpose of the ordinance is to prevent the spread of disease. If it is a valid goal of society to prevent the spread of disease in a case like this, I cannot think of any reason why this principle would not apply to behavior that is likely to spread a sexually transmitted disease as well.
If, then, it is to the general advantage of society to limit behavior that is likely to lead to the spread of disease and certain kinds of sexual behavior are likely to lead to the spread of disease, then it is reasonable for government to place limits on those kinds of behavior. If it is a valid goal of government to protect the right of property and certain kinds of sexual behavior make it necessary for people to support the children of others as well as their own, or to pay for their medical care, then it is reasonable for government to place limits on that kind of behavior as well. If, therefore, people are to live in a free society, it may well be necessary for government to tell people with whom they may or may not have sex.
We are now ready to consider the question of sex with animals, but that will have to wait until the next entry.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Liberty and Sex
The Dutch Parliament just passed a law making it illegal to have sex with animals.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/13/1364382-dutch-parliament-bans-sex-with-animals
This new law promotes liberty in the sense of living under laws made by our representatives in a legislature--or self-government. Before this law was passed, the representatives of the Dutch people decided to make it legal to have sex with animals, so long as the animal was not harmed. Now the representatives of the people have changed their mind. Either way, the people are living under laws made by their representatives.
The real question here has to do with liberty in the sense of having a large area of personal choice without interference from government--or personal liberties. Is it the business of government to tell people with whom--or in this case, with what--they can have sex? To answer this question, it may be helpful to go back to an old definition of personal liberties, the definition in the common law as we inherited it from Great Britain.
The name that Blackstone uses for personal liberties is civil or political liberty--the liberty of a citizen, as opposed to the liberty of a person living outside of any political society. Outside of political society, according to Blackstone, people can do as they please so long as they do not harm anyone (in his words, the only limits are those imposed by the law of nature). Once we live in society, however, there will be more limits on our behavior than just not doing any physical harm. It is necessary in political society for government to impose further limits on people for the public good, for the general advantage of society as a whole. Blackstone insists, however, that these limits must not go beyond what is of advantage to society. When government limits our behavior in matters of indifference, it is a tyranny, even if these limits are imposed by the people themselves through their representatives.
We may infer from this that, in a free society, our area of choice may be too large as well as too small. If a government limits our behavior in matters of indifference to society, the people are not free. Yet if government fails to limit our behavior in matters that do affect society as a whole, the people are not free in this case either. In a society in which the area of personal choice is too large, it will become increasingly difficult for government to accomplish the purpose for which it was established. What is that purpose? According to Locke, Blackstone, and the Founders of the United States, the primary purpose of government is to secure the three basic rights of human beings--personal security (or life), personal liberty (or simply, liberty), and property.
So how does sex with animals fit into all of this? Or, to repeat the broader question, is it the business of government in a free society to tell us with whom or with what we can have sex--or to limit our sexual behavior in any way whatever? A good question--and one that I am not yet prepared to answer. Stay tuned until the next entry.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/13/1364382-dutch-parliament-bans-sex-with-animals
This new law promotes liberty in the sense of living under laws made by our representatives in a legislature--or self-government. Before this law was passed, the representatives of the Dutch people decided to make it legal to have sex with animals, so long as the animal was not harmed. Now the representatives of the people have changed their mind. Either way, the people are living under laws made by their representatives.
The real question here has to do with liberty in the sense of having a large area of personal choice without interference from government--or personal liberties. Is it the business of government to tell people with whom--or in this case, with what--they can have sex? To answer this question, it may be helpful to go back to an old definition of personal liberties, the definition in the common law as we inherited it from Great Britain.
The name that Blackstone uses for personal liberties is civil or political liberty--the liberty of a citizen, as opposed to the liberty of a person living outside of any political society. Outside of political society, according to Blackstone, people can do as they please so long as they do not harm anyone (in his words, the only limits are those imposed by the law of nature). Once we live in society, however, there will be more limits on our behavior than just not doing any physical harm. It is necessary in political society for government to impose further limits on people for the public good, for the general advantage of society as a whole. Blackstone insists, however, that these limits must not go beyond what is of advantage to society. When government limits our behavior in matters of indifference, it is a tyranny, even if these limits are imposed by the people themselves through their representatives.
We may infer from this that, in a free society, our area of choice may be too large as well as too small. If a government limits our behavior in matters of indifference to society, the people are not free. Yet if government fails to limit our behavior in matters that do affect society as a whole, the people are not free in this case either. In a society in which the area of personal choice is too large, it will become increasingly difficult for government to accomplish the purpose for which it was established. What is that purpose? According to Locke, Blackstone, and the Founders of the United States, the primary purpose of government is to secure the three basic rights of human beings--personal security (or life), personal liberty (or simply, liberty), and property.
So how does sex with animals fit into all of this? Or, to repeat the broader question, is it the business of government in a free society to tell us with whom or with what we can have sex--or to limit our sexual behavior in any way whatever? A good question--and one that I am not yet prepared to answer. Stay tuned until the next entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
