After asserting that we should not attempt to legislate morality, it probably seems odd that I would speak about anything which I would define as 'political morality'. Perhaps I would do better to state that we should not attempt to legislate personal morality. And the reason that I say this is because the attempt to legislate personal morality creates heavy restrictions upon the individual in the name of the State (or the people, take your pick).
Political morality, on the other hand, takes into consideration the actions under which a government can still be considered a good, liberal government.1 I submit for consideration a simple means by which we can make this determination. A good, liberal government passes laws and enforces them in such a way as to provide for the greatest level of individual freedom while still protecting the individual's inherent rights.
It is under this consideration that I make the following statement:
“[I] would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society.”
To make clear the reasoning here I will go from a to d. A: The rapist has no inherent right to commit his action, but the victim has the right not to be violated. B: Defending a rapist against his victim protects the individual's inherent right against violent attack. C: Therefore, defending the victim is a just act. D: Because the individual has the inherent right not to be violated, the laws against rape are also just.
Now, lets talk about vigilantism versus policing power. As I stated in Rights in Conflict, one of the primary functions of government is to provide a neutral arbitrator when rights come into conflict. This naturally assumes that policing power of government is generally preferable over vigilantism as mediator of justice. This only works, however, as long as that government continues to work in such a way that protects the inherent rights of all. The very danger of vigilantism is as Mike has put it, that it will bring innocents into the conflict and become a matter of revenge versus a matter of justice. It is protecting 'kith and kin', as Mike puts it, that allows for a government to provide for a free and secure society and insure that individuals, and only those individuals, are held responsible for individual action.
And again, I will say that none of these arguments work well against the availability of abortion. Let me try and sum up my whole problem with the abortion debate. First, I find abortion morally indefensible. There can be no more innocent or defenseless life than that of the unborn. My problem with legislating against abortion, however, is when it comes with the State trying to assert itself as de-facto decider of the unborn. A blanket law against abortion provides the State with the power to determine if a particular woman will bring her child to term. Considering the general tendency for government to expand its powers (more on this later) then how long before the government decides it can order life to be created? When the ability becomes available, what is to stop the government from deciding that the life created must follow particular ideals? Our government already states we must buckle our seat-belts to protect ourselves. What's to stop them, once in conjunction with right to determine the fate of possible future citizens, to tell all parents that they must remove all genetic markers for the tendency towards obesity? Or homosexuality? Or aggressiveness? All of these would be 'good' things and would protects us, wouldn't they? Yes, all of these traits are influenced, though not completely controlled, by genetics.
While this argument may seem fantastical or paranoid, consider this: government power rarely decreases. Our government already attempts multiple laws for 'our own good'. The technology already exists to change the genome of a eucaryotic cell. The human genome has been mapped and new genes are being identified at a quick pace. The US court system has already provided mixed results on your rights over your own tissues and genetics (see whoownsyourbody.org). Really, how paranoid am I to worry about the government asserting its power over the unborn?
1. Liberal government here is used as a government that supports basic freedom and expression, this is not a reference to the Liberal political ideology.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
“Authority Exchange?”
You make a curious, related Statement (forgive me for saying so) I find nearly opaque:
“To return to my example, I have no doubts Mike that you, as I, would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society.”
By this I take it that if presumably we would not stand in the way of the unfortunately raped girl, then we should not ask the State to do what we would not do ourselves. Where does this notion come from? It is not at all established that the State must follow one individual’s example. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this principle, which individual or hosts of individuals is the State to take its dictates? Even in relatively small populations this is unworkable. Plus, if I were you, I wouldn’t be so sure to think what I or someone else would do. But more importantly, I believe Libertarians may be misconceiving the dynamics on the ground.
In fact, we demand the State to do all sorts of things we cannot or will not for a variety of reasons do ourselves. We often charge the State with police powers to act as the presumed authority to impose due process in place of vigilantism. Vigilantism is a real hazard and destructive to society; yet citizens often resort to acting outside the law when the State cannot or will not impose order during grave frictions among fellow citizens.
Well, the police can’t be everywhere, so absent the gendarmes, would I assert my brute strength and stand in the way of our hypothetical rape victim? No, but not for the reasons you might imagine.
Societies of Law and Societies of Vendetta
I would not do so for the respect of the “rule of law”. The rule of law is an inheritance from the days of the Roman Republic. It is largely true Rome’s observance of this principle was spotty at best. Yet the idea comes down to us. Before, justice was a matter of vendetta and blood feud. Insults and injuries to a family were settled by vengeance—an act which may come immediately or (worse) plotted to take place in the open future. Of course, this often meant weaker individuals and families (it has to be remembered crimes against one person also meant a crime against kith and kin.) could not take even this justice. This also meant that vendettas jeopardized peaceful transactions and community trust for one another as both friends and associates may find themselves unintentionally under the umbrella of vengeance.
The rule of law meant the transfer of seeking justice and vindication to the State in a variety of judgeships. This held individuals responsible rather than kith and kin. It provided for the exoneration of the innocent. It also put in safeguards that punishment was meted out so that the guilty are punished no more than they deserved. The key is that the actions of all parties were placed under restraint in submission to civil authority.
Under our system of the rule of law, the young woman may proceed to her transgression under the protections of the State under our current liberalized circumstances. As the Pro-Life community presses on to persuade and convince the majority of its case, someday this may not be the case. Until that time, the Pro-life community is bound to the societal moral duty of restraint.1 Under the regime of vendetta, on the other hand, this same young woman will be bound to honor the customs of her fellow tribal members. Should she fail to honor those expectations she may be held captive. But if she indeed was allowed to walk the path leading to the “Satanic Mill”, in vendetta she could well find her abortionist swinging hanged at the nearest tall tree.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 This is a hard devil’s bargain for the Pro-Life community. Restraint from civil violence sometimes leads to slurs from the Pro-Choice folk to the effect that if abortion really is the equivalent to the Holocaust then how come Pro-Lifers don’t do something decisive about it? This, of course, is a rude accusation of hypocrisy. But it is the judgment of the Pro-Life movement that failing to preserve a civil society poses a much greater threat. In edition, no forum will emerge out of chaos and disorder to make their case. “Decisive” action simply isn’t on the table.
“To return to my example, I have no doubts Mike that you, as I, would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society.”
By this I take it that if presumably we would not stand in the way of the unfortunately raped girl, then we should not ask the State to do what we would not do ourselves. Where does this notion come from? It is not at all established that the State must follow one individual’s example. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this principle, which individual or hosts of individuals is the State to take its dictates? Even in relatively small populations this is unworkable. Plus, if I were you, I wouldn’t be so sure to think what I or someone else would do. But more importantly, I believe Libertarians may be misconceiving the dynamics on the ground.
In fact, we demand the State to do all sorts of things we cannot or will not for a variety of reasons do ourselves. We often charge the State with police powers to act as the presumed authority to impose due process in place of vigilantism. Vigilantism is a real hazard and destructive to society; yet citizens often resort to acting outside the law when the State cannot or will not impose order during grave frictions among fellow citizens.
Well, the police can’t be everywhere, so absent the gendarmes, would I assert my brute strength and stand in the way of our hypothetical rape victim? No, but not for the reasons you might imagine.
Societies of Law and Societies of Vendetta
I would not do so for the respect of the “rule of law”. The rule of law is an inheritance from the days of the Roman Republic. It is largely true Rome’s observance of this principle was spotty at best. Yet the idea comes down to us. Before, justice was a matter of vendetta and blood feud. Insults and injuries to a family were settled by vengeance—an act which may come immediately or (worse) plotted to take place in the open future. Of course, this often meant weaker individuals and families (it has to be remembered crimes against one person also meant a crime against kith and kin.) could not take even this justice. This also meant that vendettas jeopardized peaceful transactions and community trust for one another as both friends and associates may find themselves unintentionally under the umbrella of vengeance.
The rule of law meant the transfer of seeking justice and vindication to the State in a variety of judgeships. This held individuals responsible rather than kith and kin. It provided for the exoneration of the innocent. It also put in safeguards that punishment was meted out so that the guilty are punished no more than they deserved. The key is that the actions of all parties were placed under restraint in submission to civil authority.
Under our system of the rule of law, the young woman may proceed to her transgression under the protections of the State under our current liberalized circumstances. As the Pro-Life community presses on to persuade and convince the majority of its case, someday this may not be the case. Until that time, the Pro-life community is bound to the societal moral duty of restraint.1 Under the regime of vendetta, on the other hand, this same young woman will be bound to honor the customs of her fellow tribal members. Should she fail to honor those expectations she may be held captive. But if she indeed was allowed to walk the path leading to the “Satanic Mill”, in vendetta she could well find her abortionist swinging hanged at the nearest tall tree.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 This is a hard devil’s bargain for the Pro-Life community. Restraint from civil violence sometimes leads to slurs from the Pro-Choice folk to the effect that if abortion really is the equivalent to the Holocaust then how come Pro-Lifers don’t do something decisive about it? This, of course, is a rude accusation of hypocrisy. But it is the judgment of the Pro-Life movement that failing to preserve a civil society poses a much greater threat. In edition, no forum will emerge out of chaos and disorder to make their case. “Decisive” action simply isn’t on the table.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Operative Principles
While Mike may not have been attempting to do so, he did hit upon the major theme of my blog. This blog is exactly about operative principles. What is the principle under which our government (or more accurately, elected and appointed officials) functions? Is this principle correct? Should it be changed, and if so, how?
As I should have made clear in earlier posts, I contend that there are major ideas present within the political debate that are based on false premise. The major one of these being the idea of constitutional rights. Mike is mostly correct that my first operative principle is that freedom only comes with a lack of restraint from the State. He is close to being correct. Freedom only comes when the State maintains its correct role, in preserving freedom and not attempting to control it. Am I wrong to think this way? Am I misinterpreting Franklin's idea? “Any society which trades a little Freedom, for a little Security, would lose both and deserve neither.” I think, in fact, that this principle is also the very idea upon which this country was founded. And I would like to see some solid evidence to suggest that our Founding Fathers thought otherwise.
Now, Mike also suggests that my second operative principle is an 'almost pacifist response' to the use of violence. Here, he is totally incorrect. I have a moral repulsion against the use of violence, which is not the same thing. I understand the need for violent action. But it is the States responsibility to ensure that it uses this action only to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to practice their inherent rights as is possible. This naturally leads to the idea that the State should be as restricted and limited as possible, because when the state attempts to order the lives of its people, then it becomes detrimental to the practice of inherent rights.
Conservatives often use the 'slippery slope' argument. The idea being that if we accept what seems a small concession, then that concession will be used to justify a larger one, and then a larger one. Do they never stop and see how this in turn can be used against their positions? I ask them, where do we draw the line? What level of government involvement is correct? I know my answer, it is is minimal. I'm not saying this simply as a matter of personal belief. This is based off of the writings of our Founders and the Constitution itself.
Oh, and to Mike's Conservative 'anthropology'. I don't disagree with you. Evil, violence, and war are not aberrations of human behavior. Were we diverge is our understanding of government. The power of government is going to be a natural attractor to those whom would abuse that power and this would result in evil, violence, and war. Most importantly, because these people, attracted to and corrupted by the natural power of government, have the ability to influence the lives of millions of people... should we not want our government as restricted as possible?
To conclude:
This all started around the subject of abortion. And I will be the first person to acknowledge that my arguments can easily be used to further the idea that the law of this country should be anti-abortion. How better to support the idea of inherent rights than to ensure them for the unborn? I cannot argue against this. I'm very ambivalent about abortion. As a practice it abhors me. I cannot imagine a more brutal act of savagery other than perhaps child-rape. And yet, there is my practical side that acknowledges that sometimes it is necessary. Just as I acknowledge the need for violent action by the State, I acknowledge the need for people to make their own choices, even when I think that choice would be morally wrong.
Also, I am currently working on researching the history of anti-abortion laws in this country. I recently came across an article that suggested that they were not what they are sometimes suggested to be. After my research is complete, I will be posting.
As I should have made clear in earlier posts, I contend that there are major ideas present within the political debate that are based on false premise. The major one of these being the idea of constitutional rights. Mike is mostly correct that my first operative principle is that freedom only comes with a lack of restraint from the State. He is close to being correct. Freedom only comes when the State maintains its correct role, in preserving freedom and not attempting to control it. Am I wrong to think this way? Am I misinterpreting Franklin's idea? “Any society which trades a little Freedom, for a little Security, would lose both and deserve neither.” I think, in fact, that this principle is also the very idea upon which this country was founded. And I would like to see some solid evidence to suggest that our Founding Fathers thought otherwise.
Now, Mike also suggests that my second operative principle is an 'almost pacifist response' to the use of violence. Here, he is totally incorrect. I have a moral repulsion against the use of violence, which is not the same thing. I understand the need for violent action. But it is the States responsibility to ensure that it uses this action only to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to practice their inherent rights as is possible. This naturally leads to the idea that the State should be as restricted and limited as possible, because when the state attempts to order the lives of its people, then it becomes detrimental to the practice of inherent rights.
Conservatives often use the 'slippery slope' argument. The idea being that if we accept what seems a small concession, then that concession will be used to justify a larger one, and then a larger one. Do they never stop and see how this in turn can be used against their positions? I ask them, where do we draw the line? What level of government involvement is correct? I know my answer, it is is minimal. I'm not saying this simply as a matter of personal belief. This is based off of the writings of our Founders and the Constitution itself.
Oh, and to Mike's Conservative 'anthropology'. I don't disagree with you. Evil, violence, and war are not aberrations of human behavior. Were we diverge is our understanding of government. The power of government is going to be a natural attractor to those whom would abuse that power and this would result in evil, violence, and war. Most importantly, because these people, attracted to and corrupted by the natural power of government, have the ability to influence the lives of millions of people... should we not want our government as restricted as possible?
To conclude:
This all started around the subject of abortion. And I will be the first person to acknowledge that my arguments can easily be used to further the idea that the law of this country should be anti-abortion. How better to support the idea of inherent rights than to ensure them for the unborn? I cannot argue against this. I'm very ambivalent about abortion. As a practice it abhors me. I cannot imagine a more brutal act of savagery other than perhaps child-rape. And yet, there is my practical side that acknowledges that sometimes it is necessary. Just as I acknowledge the need for violent action by the State, I acknowledge the need for people to make their own choices, even when I think that choice would be morally wrong.
Also, I am currently working on researching the history of anti-abortion laws in this country. I recently came across an article that suggested that they were not what they are sometimes suggested to be. After my research is complete, I will be posting.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Second 'Operative' Principle
The Power of the Sword
This gets me to the other unspoken, operative principle. You seem to have an almost pacifist repugnance toward the threat of harm—implied or otherwise1.
"We must remember that the power of the State is the power to utilize violence to achieve its ends. Behind every law is the implicit threat of violence. It is this understanding that separates the Libertarian from the Conservative. "
Oh, no. To the contrary. Conservatives are well aware of the coercive menace behind law. I fail to see how you think Conservatives don’t know this. Neither do I see why the “implicit threat of violence” in itself is so dispositive toward the open availability of abortion.
Conservative “Anthropology”
Perhaps part of our differences on this score is Conservative “anthropology” —that is the Conservative observation on human nature2. Men are not just a rational being—not even primarily a rational creature. He is also an emotional and instinctual being. He does not live in two different modes. Instead, he is all of this in one whole in every instant. In surveying actual human historical behavior, Conservatives do not think violence, conflict and war are aberrations. Instead, violence and war are inevitable. The miserable fact is the world is ruled by the aggressive projection of force or threat of same3.
Especially after taking stock of human history, Conservatives believe in the existence of radical evil—a malevolence that cannot be appeased nor reasoned with. Others, while not evil in the extreme, will harm and steal from the weak, defenseless and peaceful if they can extract some advantage for themselves without challengers. Therefore, to preserve civil peace and maintain justice, force and the threat of violence are unexceptionally necessary for self-defense and coming to the aid of another. To protect civil society and punish crime, Conservatives do not mind occasionally showing the bloody axe.
1 Surely this can’t be right. It doesn’t seem all together likely that the Libertarian ranks are filled with pacifists. If a Libertarian society ever were established, how would such political régime be preserved? How would the Constitution be upheld and defended? Something, some qualifier, is missing here.
2 There is no denying that “Conservative Anthropology” is decidedly Augustinian. It should be noted that no Conservative believes this violent world is the way it should be nor should it be the way anyone should want. What we have is a tragic state of affairs. It’ not the way we want it; but there it is.
3 The mistake many of us make is thinking we share the same interests. Nation states rarely do. Even in the hope for “world peace”, such a goal exists in different priorities among countries. That is to say those interests are frequently asymmetrical. Nation States have their own internal logic in seeking and then pursuing their national interests. For “Machiavellian” reasons, international unrest may serve a nation better than stability.
This gets me to the other unspoken, operative principle. You seem to have an almost pacifist repugnance toward the threat of harm—implied or otherwise1.
"We must remember that the power of the State is the power to utilize violence to achieve its ends. Behind every law is the implicit threat of violence. It is this understanding that separates the Libertarian from the Conservative. "
Oh, no. To the contrary. Conservatives are well aware of the coercive menace behind law. I fail to see how you think Conservatives don’t know this. Neither do I see why the “implicit threat of violence” in itself is so dispositive toward the open availability of abortion.
Conservative “Anthropology”
Perhaps part of our differences on this score is Conservative “anthropology” —that is the Conservative observation on human nature2. Men are not just a rational being—not even primarily a rational creature. He is also an emotional and instinctual being. He does not live in two different modes. Instead, he is all of this in one whole in every instant. In surveying actual human historical behavior, Conservatives do not think violence, conflict and war are aberrations. Instead, violence and war are inevitable. The miserable fact is the world is ruled by the aggressive projection of force or threat of same3.
Especially after taking stock of human history, Conservatives believe in the existence of radical evil—a malevolence that cannot be appeased nor reasoned with. Others, while not evil in the extreme, will harm and steal from the weak, defenseless and peaceful if they can extract some advantage for themselves without challengers. Therefore, to preserve civil peace and maintain justice, force and the threat of violence are unexceptionally necessary for self-defense and coming to the aid of another. To protect civil society and punish crime, Conservatives do not mind occasionally showing the bloody axe.
1 Surely this can’t be right. It doesn’t seem all together likely that the Libertarian ranks are filled with pacifists. If a Libertarian society ever were established, how would such political régime be preserved? How would the Constitution be upheld and defended? Something, some qualifier, is missing here.
2 There is no denying that “Conservative Anthropology” is decidedly Augustinian. It should be noted that no Conservative believes this violent world is the way it should be nor should it be the way anyone should want. What we have is a tragic state of affairs. It’ not the way we want it; but there it is.
3 The mistake many of us make is thinking we share the same interests. Nation states rarely do. Even in the hope for “world peace”, such a goal exists in different priorities among countries. That is to say those interests are frequently asymmetrical. Nation States have their own internal logic in seeking and then pursuing their national interests. For “Machiavellian” reasons, international unrest may serve a nation better than stability.
Morality and Legislation
The rest of your post is a well reasoned, cogent, and persuasive defense for a viewpoint I do not share. By my lights, one of the most injudicious pieces of folk wisdom we share is the notion that we can’t legislate morality1. Legislate morality? Admittedly, Conservatives have some ambivalent thoughts on the matter—mostly in the particulars under any consideration. But it inescapable that morality is the thick stuff of public life. Not only can morality find its place in the law, the reality is we do it everyday. Every law and piece of legislation no matter how minimal reflects moral choices our representatives have made. We may employ whatever “legal fiction” we like but there is no such thing a morally neutral or “agnostic” law. It is simply a fact of governance that in ordering our lives together we are discriminating between what is good and what is bad and what we count as justice among us.
In choosing or even in not choosing, somebody’s “idea” is being codified as to how we live our lives. (Ironically, the Libertarian notion to separate “personal morality” from “political morality” is a moral worldview you would oppose on a public not so inclined) We even go so far as to “constitutionalize” particular notions of what arrangements benefit us as a free and self-governing people. And, yes, the State uses the power of the sword to back it up. Argument and reason, yes, by all means. But we are men and not angels. It is a mistake to think we can do all the time what in fact we can only do some of the time. Much of the time we like to think of ourselves as philosopher kings. But reason is only a tool and we can reason our way into some pretty strange conclusions. Thus the law is there as a teaching authority for the thoughtful, the modestly gifted, and willful alike. The power of the sword is there when reason falters and malice prevails.
As to your hypothetical 16 year old rape victim:
“Tell me, Mike, would you stand before a 16-year-old rape victim, gun in hand, and demand that she not abort the child that is the result? Would you demand, on pain of violence, that she allow the child to come to term, even if she in turn gives the child up for adoption?”
Mr. Campbell, I am as close to an absolute abolitionist2 as you could get. I have no trouble using force to stand for justice toward the weakest among us—the unborn—whom I must point out suffer lethal violence in their “termination”3. What the Pro-Life movement advocates is nothing less than a “Copernican” revolution on the entire
question. A revolution that is every bit as political as it is “social”. There is no more public question than who we count as one of us and to whom we extend our protections4.
-Writen by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 If you mean that simply passing a law will not make a people virtuous then I agree with you. But it doesn’t appear that that is your point. I agree we have too many laws and the state attempts to regulate our lives way too much. But that is a subject for another day.
2 I am also a political realist. However logically inconsistent it may be, in our time the American people simply will not accept any prohibition against abortion without exceptions for rape, incest and the endangered health of the mother. It is not the “best”; but to climb out of the “worst” we’ll take the “better”. We can continue to make our case from there.
3 A rather cold, analeptic, and clinic term. A more accurate word would butchery.
4I think we should make a clean breast of it and recognize that what is obvious. One can certainly debate this in the abstract; but when, opponents abject to the “social issues” crowd, nine times out of ten what they are really mean is the single issue of abortion. What is often referred to as “blue blood” Republicans claim that economic freedom is the only thing the party should be about. Whatever the merits of being an “economics” party, at least as far as the Republican Party is concern, it is blatantly ahistorical. The Republican Party began as a anti-slavery party. As opposed to the present time, Republicans for at least half is existence was not a “free trade” party.
In choosing or even in not choosing, somebody’s “idea” is being codified as to how we live our lives. (Ironically, the Libertarian notion to separate “personal morality” from “political morality” is a moral worldview you would oppose on a public not so inclined) We even go so far as to “constitutionalize” particular notions of what arrangements benefit us as a free and self-governing people. And, yes, the State uses the power of the sword to back it up. Argument and reason, yes, by all means. But we are men and not angels. It is a mistake to think we can do all the time what in fact we can only do some of the time. Much of the time we like to think of ourselves as philosopher kings. But reason is only a tool and we can reason our way into some pretty strange conclusions. Thus the law is there as a teaching authority for the thoughtful, the modestly gifted, and willful alike. The power of the sword is there when reason falters and malice prevails.
As to your hypothetical 16 year old rape victim:
“Tell me, Mike, would you stand before a 16-year-old rape victim, gun in hand, and demand that she not abort the child that is the result? Would you demand, on pain of violence, that she allow the child to come to term, even if she in turn gives the child up for adoption?”
Mr. Campbell, I am as close to an absolute abolitionist2 as you could get. I have no trouble using force to stand for justice toward the weakest among us—the unborn—whom I must point out suffer lethal violence in their “termination”3. What the Pro-Life movement advocates is nothing less than a “Copernican” revolution on the entire
question. A revolution that is every bit as political as it is “social”. There is no more public question than who we count as one of us and to whom we extend our protections4.
-Writen by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 If you mean that simply passing a law will not make a people virtuous then I agree with you. But it doesn’t appear that that is your point. I agree we have too many laws and the state attempts to regulate our lives way too much. But that is a subject for another day.
2 I am also a political realist. However logically inconsistent it may be, in our time the American people simply will not accept any prohibition against abortion without exceptions for rape, incest and the endangered health of the mother. It is not the “best”; but to climb out of the “worst” we’ll take the “better”. We can continue to make our case from there.
3 A rather cold, analeptic, and clinic term. A more accurate word would butchery.
4I think we should make a clean breast of it and recognize that what is obvious. One can certainly debate this in the abstract; but when, opponents abject to the “social issues” crowd, nine times out of ten what they are really mean is the single issue of abortion. What is often referred to as “blue blood” Republicans claim that economic freedom is the only thing the party should be about. Whatever the merits of being an “economics” party, at least as far as the Republican Party is concern, it is blatantly ahistorical. The Republican Party began as a anti-slavery party. As opposed to the present time, Republicans for at least half is existence was not a “free trade” party.
First “Operative” Principle
Mr. Campbell, when faced with your moral dilemma in choosing between allowing an evil such as abortion or using the coercive power of the State to prevent it, it appears to me there are two choices: 1.) Refrain from using the power of the State and permitting abortion or 2.) End abortions by using the law and law enforcement. Your solution is to allow abortion and then use the power of personal persuasion to curtail it—essentially choosing option #1 and then attempt to change our social ”ecology” by changing the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens1 2. But why? How did you get there? In what line of reasoning or criteria is your solution the best resolution of the dilemma?
If I may venture a guess, after reading your entire response, your argument rests on two “axioms” you may believe are obvious but for the most part are unarticulated—at least it appears so among non-Libertarians.. I don’t think you were being deceptive by any means. We all make arguments time to time assuming we share common ground and assumptions when that isn’t necessarily so.
In graduate level mathematics, one has left the realm of ordinary physics calculations into a highly theoretical analysis. The texts are extremely specialized and quite expensive as only a few hundred may sell in any particular year. Both to save money and the expectations that students in graduate school should not need to lead around by the hand, theorems and proofs are presented in an abbreviated form with the expectation that students should be able to work their way from point “A” to point “L”. In much the same way, Libertarians sometimes argue in this fashion. But there is a problem even for those exposed to a fair number of Libertarians during his lifetime. Unlike mathematics, one cannot be certain where to begin. As many Libertarians advise, they are a varied and independent bunch and so it is not safe to non-Libertarians to assume that we necessarily understand each one’s argument. The premises a particular Libertarian may be working from may not be shared by others.
Thinking through your presentation, if I may presume, I would say your first “operative” principle is to preserve and defend as much liberty and independence from the State as possible (“[the] ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority”). Libertarians have a prejudice (in the best sense of the word) against the State controlling our choices for us. I believe this in part is how you come out where you do. There seems to be another “operative” principle you involve which I will take up in a later post.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee.
1 As a side note, it is commonly said that abortion is a private matter between a woman and her physician. I can tell you it is not. I worked as a technician in surgery for fifteen years. I never participated in an abortion although I was in an uncomfortable proximity. The truth is that it takes a great deal of social cooperation and involvement by others so that abortions may take place—especially on the scale abortion takes place in our country. From the manufacture of specialized equipment, the sharing and education of technique, and the use of general medical facilities and medical personnel to support and enable abortions—not to mention the medical documentation that must be done—we are not talking about a matter which takes place between two consenting adults in a hidden cave outside of town. Without this support system, many physicians simply would not risk performing abortions.
2 It should be remembered that in the 1960’s that one of the “promises” assured by those advocating the open availability of contraceptives was that they would virtually eliminate abortions. In fact, the sea change went into the opposite direction. I am not arguing against contraception, mind you. What I am pointing out is that there is already a history of unintended consequences on the subject of abortion.
If I may venture a guess, after reading your entire response, your argument rests on two “axioms” you may believe are obvious but for the most part are unarticulated—at least it appears so among non-Libertarians.. I don’t think you were being deceptive by any means. We all make arguments time to time assuming we share common ground and assumptions when that isn’t necessarily so.
In graduate level mathematics, one has left the realm of ordinary physics calculations into a highly theoretical analysis. The texts are extremely specialized and quite expensive as only a few hundred may sell in any particular year. Both to save money and the expectations that students in graduate school should not need to lead around by the hand, theorems and proofs are presented in an abbreviated form with the expectation that students should be able to work their way from point “A” to point “L”. In much the same way, Libertarians sometimes argue in this fashion. But there is a problem even for those exposed to a fair number of Libertarians during his lifetime. Unlike mathematics, one cannot be certain where to begin. As many Libertarians advise, they are a varied and independent bunch and so it is not safe to non-Libertarians to assume that we necessarily understand each one’s argument. The premises a particular Libertarian may be working from may not be shared by others.
Thinking through your presentation, if I may presume, I would say your first “operative” principle is to preserve and defend as much liberty and independence from the State as possible (“[the] ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority”). Libertarians have a prejudice (in the best sense of the word) against the State controlling our choices for us. I believe this in part is how you come out where you do. There seems to be another “operative” principle you involve which I will take up in a later post.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee.
1 As a side note, it is commonly said that abortion is a private matter between a woman and her physician. I can tell you it is not. I worked as a technician in surgery for fifteen years. I never participated in an abortion although I was in an uncomfortable proximity. The truth is that it takes a great deal of social cooperation and involvement by others so that abortions may take place—especially on the scale abortion takes place in our country. From the manufacture of specialized equipment, the sharing and education of technique, and the use of general medical facilities and medical personnel to support and enable abortions—not to mention the medical documentation that must be done—we are not talking about a matter which takes place between two consenting adults in a hidden cave outside of town. Without this support system, many physicians simply would not risk performing abortions.
2 It should be remembered that in the 1960’s that one of the “promises” assured by those advocating the open availability of contraceptives was that they would virtually eliminate abortions. In fact, the sea change went into the opposite direction. I am not arguing against contraception, mind you. What I am pointing out is that there is already a history of unintended consequences on the subject of abortion.
Opening the Debate
To reiterate (for those of you reading from the top down) this is a continuation of debate started on The American Spectator online. See previous post for outline and links and how to contribute to the debate.
This posting will depart from my usual theme of avoid contrast between Liberal and Conservative ideals as well as focusing on a single issue to provide illustration of the general ideas.
Mike, I must refute your assertion that I do not answer my rhetorical question of how to choose between the immorality of abortion and the immorality of using police power to force our ideals onto another. I clearly state in my original posting that we must legally allow the practice while we teach against it from a moral stance. Yes, this is 'my' suggestion, arrived at through the trying to chart a moral course through two positions I find equally abhorrent.
Tell me, Mike, would you stand before a 16-year-old rape victim, gun in hand, and demand that she not abort the child that is the result? Would you demand, on pain of violence, that she allow the child to come to term, even if she in turn gives the child up for adoption? I apologize for the use of such a crass argument, but it cuts directly to the center of my point. I know that I could not take such an action, and I have my doubts that you would. Would you instead turn such an action over to the state? We must remember that the power of the State is the power to utilize violence to achieve its ends. Behind every law is the implicit threat of violence. It is this understanding that separates the Libertarian from the Conservative. I have no doubt, Mike that you, like me, when faced with this hypothetical young rape victim that you would use every moral and reasoned argument you could find to convince her to bring the child to term, even if only to give to adoption. We can both realize that we should not take vengeance on the unborn for the actions of the immoral father. It is the understanding of this situation which makes me say we must allow the practice. This is not an argument to allow abortion for just rape victims, this is instead to help illustrate that we cannot know the whole of a situation, and therefore we cannot make blanket laws.
Please realize, Mike, the central argument of Libertarianism. It is not that societal rules be abandoned, we leave that to Liberals. We advocate that you cannot legislate morality, which is a very different stance. Because of the implicit threat of violence behind every law, we must be very careful in every law that we pass. We must ensure that the law itself is moral, not in the sense of personal morality, but in the sense of political morality. And here is where the argument of forcing your view point onto others comes into play. Once you realize and understand the power of the state is the power to police, the utilization of violence, then you must realize that some laws cannot be allowed because they are, in effect, the utilization of violence to force your ideas onto another. You may disagree with my reasoning, but I hope you can at least understand how I come to think this way.
To return to my example, I have no doubts Mike that you, as I, would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society. We trust in the State to provide for a free and just society, and to ensure that our society remains that way we must in turn carefully examine each and every law with the understanding that we are making an implicit threat of violence.
This in turn provides the reason for saying that our country was founded on Libertarian ideals. Our Founding Fathers were men of rare wisdom, and even rarer morality. They understood the power of government, and sought to limit where the government could act. This idea of limiting government is what makes someone a Libertarian. I've said it in many of my writings to the Spectator; we cannot argue against Liberals utilizing government to advance their agenda only to turn around and have Conservatives utilize government to advance their agenda. Instead, we must choose the harder road, the road of longer work and less reward. We must stand together and defend the moral traditions of our forefathers because they are right, because they represent the collective wisdom of thousands of years of human experience. But we must do this through argument and reason, and not through the implicitly violent threats of the State.Please, Mike, understand that many people claim the title of 'Libertarian.' Most of the time, they do so in error and misunderstanding. Often you have a Liberal trying to make himself look better by calling himself Libertarian. But what separates the Libertarian from both the Conservative and the Liberal is that a Libertarian is talking about the role of government, not the role of morality. It can be easy to misconstrue my arguments as a case of moral relativism. They are not. I am not saying that having an abortion, or not, is the same in moral terms. I unequivocally state that having an abortion is immoral. But I also state unequivocally that using violence to stop someone from having an abortion is also immoral. My suggested solution is the result of my reasoning on how we handle a difficult moral quandary. I also would say that this understanding, the practice is immoral but must be allowed in a legal sense, is but the first step to creating a more just society where we can see the rate of abortion start to drop to include only extreme circumstances. Finally, let me close with my thanks to Mike for both your compliment to the reasonability of my previous arguments and giving me so much practice to further hone my arguments and writing skills. And also, Mike, my apologizes. First, for your apparent dislike of Libertarians. I assure you, good sir, that on deeper reflection you may find that we do not disagree as much as you seem to think, but only on methods and means. Also, I make no claim to having a monopoly on reason, even if some Libertarians do. Most of us will argue for the sake of argument because we enjoy the debate, and it is only through constant questioning of our assumptions can we come to understand if they are correct or not. And second, my apologizes for appearing to equate abortion with lying, adultery, and other such actions. I was not trying to argue a moral equivalence, but rather a legal one. It was a poor choice in presentation and misleading. And in true closing, let me just say this: While some Libertarians may give the impression that we think we have a monopoly on reason, some Conservatives give the impression that they think they have a monopoly on morality. Let us both avoid the Liberal's mistake of painting each other with too broad a stroke, eh?
This posting will depart from my usual theme of avoid contrast between Liberal and Conservative ideals as well as focusing on a single issue to provide illustration of the general ideas.
Mike, I must refute your assertion that I do not answer my rhetorical question of how to choose between the immorality of abortion and the immorality of using police power to force our ideals onto another. I clearly state in my original posting that we must legally allow the practice while we teach against it from a moral stance. Yes, this is 'my' suggestion, arrived at through the trying to chart a moral course through two positions I find equally abhorrent.
Tell me, Mike, would you stand before a 16-year-old rape victim, gun in hand, and demand that she not abort the child that is the result? Would you demand, on pain of violence, that she allow the child to come to term, even if she in turn gives the child up for adoption? I apologize for the use of such a crass argument, but it cuts directly to the center of my point. I know that I could not take such an action, and I have my doubts that you would. Would you instead turn such an action over to the state? We must remember that the power of the State is the power to utilize violence to achieve its ends. Behind every law is the implicit threat of violence. It is this understanding that separates the Libertarian from the Conservative. I have no doubt, Mike that you, like me, when faced with this hypothetical young rape victim that you would use every moral and reasoned argument you could find to convince her to bring the child to term, even if only to give to adoption. We can both realize that we should not take vengeance on the unborn for the actions of the immoral father. It is the understanding of this situation which makes me say we must allow the practice. This is not an argument to allow abortion for just rape victims, this is instead to help illustrate that we cannot know the whole of a situation, and therefore we cannot make blanket laws.
Please realize, Mike, the central argument of Libertarianism. It is not that societal rules be abandoned, we leave that to Liberals. We advocate that you cannot legislate morality, which is a very different stance. Because of the implicit threat of violence behind every law, we must be very careful in every law that we pass. We must ensure that the law itself is moral, not in the sense of personal morality, but in the sense of political morality. And here is where the argument of forcing your view point onto others comes into play. Once you realize and understand the power of the state is the power to police, the utilization of violence, then you must realize that some laws cannot be allowed because they are, in effect, the utilization of violence to force your ideas onto another. You may disagree with my reasoning, but I hope you can at least understand how I come to think this way.
To return to my example, I have no doubts Mike that you, as I, would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society. We trust in the State to provide for a free and just society, and to ensure that our society remains that way we must in turn carefully examine each and every law with the understanding that we are making an implicit threat of violence.
This in turn provides the reason for saying that our country was founded on Libertarian ideals. Our Founding Fathers were men of rare wisdom, and even rarer morality. They understood the power of government, and sought to limit where the government could act. This idea of limiting government is what makes someone a Libertarian. I've said it in many of my writings to the Spectator; we cannot argue against Liberals utilizing government to advance their agenda only to turn around and have Conservatives utilize government to advance their agenda. Instead, we must choose the harder road, the road of longer work and less reward. We must stand together and defend the moral traditions of our forefathers because they are right, because they represent the collective wisdom of thousands of years of human experience. But we must do this through argument and reason, and not through the implicitly violent threats of the State.Please, Mike, understand that many people claim the title of 'Libertarian.' Most of the time, they do so in error and misunderstanding. Often you have a Liberal trying to make himself look better by calling himself Libertarian. But what separates the Libertarian from both the Conservative and the Liberal is that a Libertarian is talking about the role of government, not the role of morality. It can be easy to misconstrue my arguments as a case of moral relativism. They are not. I am not saying that having an abortion, or not, is the same in moral terms. I unequivocally state that having an abortion is immoral. But I also state unequivocally that using violence to stop someone from having an abortion is also immoral. My suggested solution is the result of my reasoning on how we handle a difficult moral quandary. I also would say that this understanding, the practice is immoral but must be allowed in a legal sense, is but the first step to creating a more just society where we can see the rate of abortion start to drop to include only extreme circumstances. Finally, let me close with my thanks to Mike for both your compliment to the reasonability of my previous arguments and giving me so much practice to further hone my arguments and writing skills. And also, Mike, my apologizes. First, for your apparent dislike of Libertarians. I assure you, good sir, that on deeper reflection you may find that we do not disagree as much as you seem to think, but only on methods and means. Also, I make no claim to having a monopoly on reason, even if some Libertarians do. Most of us will argue for the sake of argument because we enjoy the debate, and it is only through constant questioning of our assumptions can we come to understand if they are correct or not. And second, my apologizes for appearing to equate abortion with lying, adultery, and other such actions. I was not trying to argue a moral equivalence, but rather a legal one. It was a poor choice in presentation and misleading. And in true closing, let me just say this: While some Libertarians may give the impression that we think we have a monopoly on reason, some Conservatives give the impression that they think they have a monopoly on morality. Let us both avoid the Liberal's mistake of painting each other with too broad a stroke, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)