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.
Friday, March 28, 2008
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)
