Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As you know part of my contribution as a guest blogger has been the fact that I write much from personal experience. This particular blog is one that I’ve thought about for awhile and have had some trepidation in writing because as you will see it touches on a very sensitive topic for most males. As a boy coming of age in the 1950’s one of the unvoiced, but omnipresent topics was male homosexuality. For a male growing up in that period, among the most upsetting epithets you could be called was queer. This was especially disturbing for those entering puberty, which in the 50’s context was coming into the macho essence of your own self worth. If you were queer you were deemed to be less of a male, a wimp, a fag and most essentially a loathsome pervert who did disgusting things with other males. People were bullied and beaten at school while being called degrading names. Even though I was always big for my age, I was a gentle and sensitive boy and while when attacked I would always fight back, I would be throwing punches through tears of frustration and rage at the injustice of it all. As I cried and fought, all those demeaning epithets would be hurled at me by the jeering bystanders. If I had the temerity to be winning, then other boys would attack me from behind. Finally, a teacher or Administrator would break it up, many times though my rescuer would sneer at the fact that my crying was “unmanly”.
At the same time in the 50’s, stories would occasionally appear in the papers and TV, of police raiding homosexual nightclubs and arresting the participants for engaging in lewd acts. These stories were always couched in vague terminology since homosexuality was such a sensitive topic, indeed most discussions of sexuality in general were not considered decent topics for open discussion in the media. Even though my parents were very open about sexuality for the time and I was told the “facts of life” at a young age, they never discussed homosexuality with me. To be honest I never asked because my father was what you would call a “Man’s Man”, or “hale fellow well met”. He was large and had a history as a brawler in his youth. I wanted to be like him have his respect, so although I could ask him anything about sex, I never asked him about homosexuality. Taboo subjects interested me. The mystique surrounding homosexuality perked my interest. Through reading and from Freud, I tried to get a handle on what this strange “perversion” was and why it was considered so bad that it needed the intervention of law enforcement. My attraction was always towards women, but I wanted to understand why some men (and some women) were attracted to the same sex. There simply wasn’t enough information at the time to give me any sort of understanding and Freud’s position was among the least helpful. What I did know is that having been called queer and fag, knowing how it hurt, my empathy for those who were homosexual and how they were treated increased. It is the question of do you side with the oppressors, or the oppressed? What moved me to finally write this piece was a story out of Louisiana in the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/louisiana-police-sting-gay-men-anti-sodomy-law_n_3668116.html It is about the Sheriff’s Office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that has arrested at least a dozen men since 2011 for agreeing to have consensual sex with undercover police officers. What makes this case so bizarre for these times, yet so familiar when its law enforcement dealing with homosexuality, is that they were arrested under a law that had been declared unconstitutional?
“In all of the cases, the men were arrested under the state’s anti-sodomy law, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
“Technically invalid yet still on the books, the state’s “Crime Against Nature” law prohibits “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same-sex or opposite-sex or with an animal” along with “solicitation by a human being of another with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation,” according to Louisiana legislature.
“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, told the Baton Rouge Advocate. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”
However, the Advocate also revealed that none of these cases had been prosecuted by District Attorney Hillar Moore III, whose office could find no evidence of any crime being committed by any of the arrested men.”
Obviously, District Attorney Moore had more common sense than the Sheriff’s Office that formulated the “sting”. The statement by Mr. Hicks is thoroughly disingenuous to say the least. Knowing the “law on the books” was unconstitutional they did it anyway as their way of harassing gay men and most probably because of their own distaste for homosexuality. Before SCOTUS rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas , all over this country the police were harassing members of the LGBT community. Some of this harassment was done because of the predominant religious mores of the particular community and some was done because by nature many police officers and District Attorneys in the U.S. see themselves as macho defenders of justice and more importantly public morals.
Even today when being Gay has been favorably portrayed in the media, when there are beloved Gay celebrities and when SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage, there are many who are horrified by the notion of homosexuality and consider it evil. Many of these people are in positions of power today and the vileness, to me at least; of their statements railing against the notion of Gay Rights proliferate even though those rights are now being recognized as Constitutional guarantees. Below are some links that will give you an idea of the amount of anti-gay bigotry that is hysterically increasing in the face of this country becoming far more accepting of people’s inherent right to their sexual preference.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41549/10-craziest-michele-bachmann-anti-gay-quotes
There are many more quotations available, but let me point out that two of those links refer to people who were contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination and other was from a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Clearly the battle for the human rights of the LBGT community is far from over, even though much progress has been made. The fact is there are many in the United States that for religious reasons, personal prejudice and preference will keep battling against what seems to be a rising tide. I write this to emphasize that it is not time to rest in this issue which to me has an importance far beyond just the issue of who consenting adults have sex with. I have written before about the threat that religion of the extreme fundamentalist stripe creates towards the idea of democracy. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/morsi-democracy-and-problem-with-fundamentalist-politics/ . This blowback by religionists is taking place in many regions of the world.
“MOSCOW — A new law banning “homosexual propaganda” in Russia is raising concerns about the state of human rights in a country already notorious for silencing dissent.
The legislation is vague but its intent is clear: It is now “illegal to spread information about non-traditional sexual behavior” to minors (under 18), and there are hefty fines for those who disobey. Foreigners are also subject to fines and can be deported.” http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/27/19699629-homosexual-propaganda-law-signals-latest-russian-crackdown?lite
This crackdown in Russia is now being pushed to further extremes and affects visitors there:
“In an even wider crackdown in Russia over expressions of homosexuality, gay athletes and fans will be prohibited from displays of affection and the wearing of pro-homosexual rainbow pins and badges during the 2014 Olympics. Violators face steep fines and jail time, foreigners will face similar penalties plus deportation.” http://www.catholic.org/sports/story.php?id=51935
Much of this Russian zeal to crackdown on homosexuals stems from pressure coming from the Russian Orthodox Church upon Putin and other Russian officialdom. In post Communist Russia the Orthodox Church has been a major player and has undergone a tremendous resurgence. It has definitely been an important political player and Putin et. al. have courted their support. The Russian Orthodox Church probably outdoes the Catholic Church in its opposition to homosexuality. However, homophobia in Russia has a long history and in 1933 Stalin also came down hard on homosexuals and led one of his characteristic purges.
“In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy. The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality
On Friday Professor Turley even posted a blog about the situation in Russia. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/02/russian-gays-forced-to-drink-urine-and-beaten-as-part-of-cure-by-nationalist-thugs/
Another example of “legal” homophobia around the world are the attacks on homosexuals by various African Governments and the draconian penalties for being homosexual that are being imposed:
“More than two-thirds of African countries have laws criminalizing homosexual acts, and despite accounting for a significant percentage of new infections in many countries, men who have sex with men tend to be left out of the HIV response.” http://www.irinnews.org/report/87793
As we can see there is still significant oppression of homosexuals around the world and I haven’t even gotten into the dangerous situations in many other countries for those who don’t meet the standard heterosexual criteria. In the U.S. Russia’s anti-homosexual laws have drawn praise from a source that seems a surprise, but then again maybe not a surprise at all:
“As the hub of the Soviet Union, Russia was reviled for rights abuses by many U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. Now some are voicing support and admiration as Russian authorities crack down on gay-rights activism. The latest step drawing praise from social conservatives is a bill signed into law Sunday by President Vladimir Putin that would impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors.
“You admire some of the things they’re doing in Russia against propaganda,” said Austin Ruse, president of the U.S.-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “On the other hand, you know it would be impossible to do that here.” Ruse, whose institute is seeking accreditation at the United Nations, plans to travel to Russia this summer to meet with government officials and civic leaders. “We want to let them know they do in fact have support among American NGOs (non-governmental organizations) on social issues,” he said.
Among others commending Russia’s anti-gay efforts was Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”Russians do not want to follow America’s reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion, sexual perversion, and anti-biblical ideologies to youth,” LaBarbera said on his website.
In a sign of Russia’s evolving stature among some U.S. social conservatives, the Illinois-based World Congress of Families plans to hold its eighth international conference at the Kremlin’s Palace of Congresses in Moscow next year. Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/russia-anti-gay-bill_n_3530050.html
My premise is that the battle for the right to be of different sexual orientation is a subset of the battle to impose a religious based morality on people under the color of law. The issue of Gay rights is just one aspect of this threat. It has assumed almost a center stage in the battle to theocratize governments because for males all over the world, the idea of not being “man enough” hits at the core of their being. I reject the whole concept that a male’s self worth should be tied up in his sexual preferences and experiences. Many who have known me view me in macho terms. As the son of a “man’s man” I learned how to interact with other males and can talk sports, cars and women with the best of them. There is a swagger to my walk and with my height and large head many friends called and call me “Big Mike”. I played many sports and while never a good athlete I was competent as a player. Those who really know me best though see my more sensitive, feminine and in many ways better side. I’m a bit of a gossip; I love Broadway Musicals; loved Judy Garland and Peter Allen and I cry copiously in both joy and sorrow. Yes those are clichés used regarding Gay men, but these clichés apply to me as well.
I believe that for the human race finally to learn to live together peacefully and harmoniously we need to learn to stop making these distinctions about what is the natural state for perhaps ten percent of all of humans and indeed animals. Our sexual drives are complex and the need to satisfy our sexual urges is what drives us to interact with others. Sexuality needs to be viewed in its true sense as a spectrum of responses humans make in the search for pleasure and fulfillment. A good part of sexuality is curiosity and indeed one of the reasons humans have progressed so far is that we have an insatiable curiosity. This leads me to my own confession which I alluded to in the title and in my opening of this blog. In the 60’s and in the early 70’s I was an active participant in what was known as the sexual revolution. For the homosexual community the opening battle for their rights could be said to have occurred in the Stonewall Riots. I had many gay friends and acquaintances when those protests began on June 28th 1969. I even knew some who directly participated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
When news of the protests reached the media I cried in joy at the unity in fighting back against police repression and the corruption it engendered. In the following days I shared the sense of triumph coming from those protests with my Gay friends. To me looking back this was the opening shot of the fight for Gay freedom. Since I was so openly a supporter of freedom from oppression for the Gay community it was inevitable that a few years later one of my Gay male friends would proposition me. That this occurred was well known in my social group and there was good natured pressure on me to at least give it a try. This pressure arose partly because at the time I was involved in a ménage with two women and they playfully taunted me that what was good for the goose, was good for the gander. It was with much fear and trepidation that I took my male friend up on his offer. My experience was a good one and there was pleasure to be had, but it also confirmed for me that my sexual preference was for the female body. So it goes and it matters not if it had led me on a different relationship path. It was said back in the day that one could be a married man for years, but if a man had even one homosexual experience he was a queer. That is frankly nonsense and is believed by ignorant people. Admittedly I gave into peer pressure and in a sense I can’t claim that my experiment was one of courage, but I would also be lying if I denied that I was curious about the difference between gay and straight sex. The truth is that there is really very little difference except body structure and the limits that imposes. The underlying reality though is that normal human interaction between individuals doesn’t differ to any great degree and depends primarily on the personality of the participants. I look back upon my experiments in sexuality with warmth and a certain amount of pride that I was able to satisfy my curiosity along with the pleasure it brought.
However, that is not my point. What one does with their sexuality, provided it is consensual and among peers, is nobody’s business but that of the participants. One’s sexuality neither defines ones character, nor does it define one’s self worth. Those “paragons” of morality, who would call those whose sexual practices don’t conform to their own “evil,” are to my mind somewhat crazy. Why should any of us care how people get their pleasure as long as it harms no one?
In many places of the world, in many eras of civilization’s long history, religion has made sexuality a target of hatred. Some, but certainly not all religions target sexuality as a means of gaining political power. In many eras through history religion and government have had a symbiotic relationship, with religious belief being used to assist the powers that be in retaining their power and their positions atop a society’s hierarchy. We see in the Gospels of Christianity for instance a Jesus who disdains wealth, abjures the rich and would even break bread with those looked down upon by society. Jesus never once deals with homosexuality. Yet the Roman Catholic Church began under the control of the Roman Emperor and so the emphasis of Jesus strictures to “turn the other cheek” or the difficulties of a rich man getting into Heaven were downplayed and the Pentateuch’s sexual rigidity was brought to the forefront. I don’t mean to single out Christianity in this respect, because we see the same pattern existing in all great religions. Economic disparity and oppression are hard to justify morally and certainly would put any religion on a collision course with the elite’s power that they seek to share, so sexuality becomes an easy focus. Those with political power and wealth don’t mind sexual repression since it never interferes with their own pleasures and it certainly helps to keep the common folk down. Since most places throughout human history have been dominated by Alpha Males repression of homosexuality has found approval, but no more so than repression of women’s rights. The irony is that some of the most “Alpha” of males like the Spartan Army and Alexander The Great were probably gay, or at the least “Bi”. Then of course they were pagans and in many of those religions sexuality was of little import.
The prejudice against the LBGT community is a real evil that we face simply because it is a prejudice against the reality of human nature. To demonize people for their sexuality, their sex, the color of their skin or for their ethnicity is the real evil in this world. I support, nay demand, full citizenship rights for the LBGT community and if in your opposition to that natural state you want to call me queer, go right ahead, I’ll wear the mantle proudly.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
OS:
“Government has no business at all telling people who they can love or have romantic attachments to. Nor is it government’s business to be involved in the family structure.”
I agree 100% with that.
But then why dose government have a right to be involved with health care?
Lets say in the future a republican evangelical comes to power and says we are not going to fund aids care to gays, or we are going to force obese people [and we will determine what the BMI will be] to follow a training and eating protocol if they wish to be covered.
You acknowledge a limitation on government is good but only in certain areas. But government intrusion in our life affects those areas whether we like it or not.
vestal virgin:
if Tony doesnt help you catch fish, he isnt entitled to fish unless he brings some coconuts or wild pig with him. But then maybe he is a useless tool and cant hunt, fish or find water or build a shelter. In that case you would take pity on him and share while you teach him how to become a useful man who is now able to help increase your chances of survival.
Now if he cant work, through no fault of his own; an injury, disease, etc., well then you should share with him and most people would since they would want the same good will afforded to them if the situations were reversed.
But now lets say there is a third person on the island with a gun who forces you to help him and Tony C., at that point its slavery. And you are under no moral responsibility to help secure food for the man with the gun or Tony C.
VV: wouldn’t you say that when the perpetrator and the victim are the same person, there’s no less a loss to society?
You fail to consider the reversal case. Yes, there may be a loss to society, but preventing that loss is not worth the far greater loss of the freedom of all individuals to choose their own destiny, just because a few choose risk and lose.
Also, I object to “no less a loss,” there is indeed less of a loss. The loss to the society when the perpetrator kills somebody else is that the killed person had their rights violated, and it is a loss to society because they failed to keep that person safe from oppression and, empirically speaking, that statistically reduces their own probability of remaining free from oppression (in this case, the oppression of being murdered).
I do not think it makes sense to talk about a person violating their OWN rights or oppressing themselves. I do not think that is possible, I think such acts are just choices, and I think freedom is the Right to make choices, including choices that are risky, lethal, or just bad for you.
By killing themselves, society did not fail to protect them from any oppression by another person. So indeed, the loss to society is less, it is not equivalent. In my view Society as a whole does not have any Right to that person’s presence or future contributions in any way.
One of my relatives went on a “survivalist” kick many years ago (and got over it after five years or so). But I think it is possible for a family to live on about two acres, relatively fertile, with a well, and sustain themselves indefinitely with good nutrition and zero input from outside. The French method of intensive farming and (laying) chickens, on two acres, can provide enough food and protein to sustain people indefinitely, barring freak weather disaster or fire. Throw in an apple tree and the caloric excess is enormous and the work is relatively light.
If somebody wants to buy a few acres and withdraw from society, earn no money and contribute absolutely nothing in taxes or productivity or work other than working their tiny farm and chicken ranch entirely for their own survival — I think they have that Right. Society (the rest of us) are not inherently entitled to any contribution to our own welfare from others.
Now if everybody made that choice, then we might have a problem with defense and protection, but I don’t think that is a valid criticism because it is never going to happen. Human psychology typically strives for more than mere survival, which is another way of saying we strive for profits, monetary and material. We typically strive to produce more than we need to survive, not just what we need to survive. We typically want comfort, entertainment, and security and lots and lots of fun toys and mental stimulants (both intellectual and otherwise).
I think that will always be true, and by taxing the profits that most will choose to earn, in order to pursue their desires, we can always provide the defense and protection we all need.
The argument “if everybody did it” is not a valid argument unless it is plausible it would come true to some significant extent. It is like saying “Suppose aliens arrived, then X happens.” But that isn’t going to happen. If your premise is effectively impossible, then any conclusion that requires that premise is also impossible; and we do not need to take any steps at all to prevent that conclusion.
Yes, if everybody became adamantly homosexual and absolutely refused to reproduce by any means whatsoever, that would lead to the extinction of humans. But that isn’t going to happen, it isn’t even remotely plausible. We don’t have to worry about the extinction of humans by that route. Preventing gay marriage is NOT preventing the extinction of the human race, it is only preventing the one in ten or twenty people that, for whatever reason are only attracted to their own gender, from finding love, happiness and companionship in a life partner.
Tony,
Your arguments and points are compelling. Dr. Hawking is a good example and is not an analogy. Analogies always break down if pursued to ad infinitum, ad adsurbium, but Hawking’s life is the real thing.
The list of what society should subsidize out of both morality and common sense can easily be found, because the work of Abraham Maslow gives a roadmap. Dr. Maslow devoted his life to the study of normal and mentally healthy people, not the mentally ill. His work tells us what people need in order to maintain mental (and physical) health.
The lower levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs tell us what it essential, not just to the quality of life, but life itself. As one goes up the ladder, some things can and should be left to the individual’s own devices to achieve, if they want.
Maslow proposed five levels of basic needs as one moves toward being a fully self-actualized person. The first two levels are the ones society in general should be morally obligated to help their fellow human beings have. Since individuals, or unorganized groups of individuals, cannot implement these goals alone, we can do it collectively through government assistance. Don’t forget, government in this democratic republic is us. All of us.
The third level, as proposed by Dr. Maslow, has government implications, but also areas that as I heard President Eisenhower say in a speech, “..are none of their damn business.”
Romantic needs. Families. Where have we heard that one before? The same people who claim government has no role on the first two levels say government has a compelling interest on the third level. Curious and cognitively dissonant. Government has no business at all telling people who they can love or have romantic attachments to. Nor is it government’s business to be involved in the family structure. The only interest government should have in those matters is if it involves safety, shelter, food, or medical care for those who are vulnerable and cannot care for themselves.
Since his death, others have continued his studies.
For a graphic representation of Maslow’s hierarchy look here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg
An extensive bibliography and links to his writing and books are here:
http://www.maslow.com/
OS wrote: “The same people who claim government has no role on the first two levels say government has a compelling interest on the third level.”
Not sure how to take this. The first level has sex and the third level has sexual intimacy, and the second level has family and the third level also has family. The only thing on the third level that is not on level one or level two is friendship. Who claims government has a compelling interest in who I make my friends?
OS wrote: “Government has no business at all telling people who they can love or have romantic attachments to. Nor is it government’s business to be involved in the family structure.”
The problem here is that you conflate friendship and romantic attachments with family structure. They are not at all the same thing. People for the most part are born into this world through the family structure. Their development is primarily through the family. Society is framed on the basis of this family structure, and many relationships in society are based upon the recognition of the family structure. Where have the courts ever declared that the government does not have an interest in defining and enforcing the rights, duties and obligations of the parties involved in a family?
All this to say that the state has an interest in preserving the health of people against their own reckless behavior.
Tony,
All right. I guess our ways of thinking are just very different. You set out your arguments well, but I disagree. I could keep responding, but the law of diminishing returns sets in after the first few exchanges.
But, if we ever get stuck on a deserted island together, and I’m like catch a fish, dude, catch a fish(!) and you start making this I’m-entitled-to-do-what-I-want-as-long-as-I-don’t-harm-anyone argument, and then you even start eating the plants I spent hours collecting because they’re “not really mine”.. Well, I’ll probably let you.. but I’d be tempted to hit you with a coconut!
Vestal Virgin
tony c:
“Norwegian model which I consider proof of feasibility.”
A small homogeneous country of not quite 5,000,000, with huge oil wealth is not proof of feasibility.
Now it might be but you would have to power up this economy and double or triple GNP. But that isnt going to happen because “free market socialists” [an oxymoron if ever there was one] arent going to let it happen.
Which is really curious. Maybe Aristotle has them figured out:
“[8] And those whose possessions or successes are a reproach to themselves, and these, too, are those near or like them; for it is clear that it is their own fault that they do not obtain the same advantage, so that this pains and causes envy. ”
Book 2/10/8 The Rhetoric
Envy is a terrible thing. And some would rather destroy.
VV: who’ve now had their freedom reduced by loss of income to the government?
Read my post to David, I do not regard that as a loss of “freedom.” I do not equate money or property with Rights, and I do not agree the income was “theirs” to begin with.
VV says: On a less extreme scale, but following the same principle, if most people do not value education, that translates into an economic impact on me, in terms of reduced job opportunities.
Well, so be it. Why should your desire for greater job opportunities give you the right to coerce “most people” into education? I do not regard “good job opportunities” as a fundamental Right for you, me or anybody else. I think that is trumped by the freedom of others to choose how to run their life as they see fit (without stepping on other people’s actual fundamental rights).
I believe in freedom, regardless of the outcomes. You seem to be intent upon a pre-determined outcome you have labeled as Good regardless of whether people are happy or unhappy, coerced or willing. I reject that some End justifies the Means to get there. I think we begin with maximizing freedom by minimizing coercion and desperation, and then what happens, happens.
I am willing to put my trust in the collective intelligence of the average human psychology (which is neither sociopathic or psychotic) that will find a way, without coercion, to make a living, earn a profit, raise a family, provide security for themselves and their future, and neutralize the sociopathic and psychotic individuals amongst them, all without some pre-determined overall externally imposed “Goal.” Each person can define their own goal, and to me the goal of society is to maximize the potential of its citizens within the resources it has; to waste as little as we can.
Consider, by analogy, Stephen Hawking. He has “servants” that keep him fed, washed, secure, and as healthy as possible with his disease. They handle his transportation, his legal work, and financial security at his direction.
They do not dictate the direction of his research, his instructions to his graduate students, or the appearances he chooses to make at conferences or on TV. They are servants, from doctors and other medical professionals to lawyers and agents.
By taking care of Stephen Hawking they indirectly advance science and physics, but they have no long term plan or desired outcome for science or physics, whatever happens, happens.
Government should be, in regard to the citizenry, servants analogous to Stephen Hawking’s servants. Hawking’s doctors do not have the authority to overrule his wishes and prevent him from flying to a conference overseas on the grounds they think it might endanger his health. That is his decision, they serve him, they do not own him as a pet. Government should not overrule our wishes and force us to do what they think is best for us. Our decisions should be ours, as long as we don’t harm anybody but ourselves. We are not their property or their pets.
V V
slippery slope, that one.
what happens if my shoddy concrete work at the local prison collapses and kills everyone in the life without parole section and saves the state millions?
no loss of income for the prisoners families sue for.
can you determine what the lowest cost a human life is worth?
DavidM: Would not housing, food, and clothing be more life critical services than any of these other things (education, healthcare, and transportation)?
They are; I include those in the category of “social safety net.” I believe in the idea behind food stamps and nutrition programs; I believe in subsidized basic housing. If clothing is an issue, some sort of basic clothing should be available. I think there is something wrong in a society where some people purposely get arrested for petty crimes in order to spend time in prison in order to get basic health care, shelter, clothing, sanitation, food, and relative safety (compared to homelessness).
Sorry. One more thing.
4. Do you think that when a tort or a crime results in someone’s death, that there’s no loss to society, that there was social value in their life? Whether quantifiable or not? If your answer is that there was a loss to society, wouldn’t you say that when the perpetrator and the victim are the same person, there’s no less a loss to society?
DavidM: so in addition to security, government also has a role in wealth redistribution for those services that in your opinion everyone ought to want for themselves?
I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean, but the inclusion of the phrase “wealth redistribution” means you are pre-denigrating my position. I do not believe in wealth redistribution; that presumes the wealthy are somehow solely entitled to all the money their businesses earn and I do not believe that (despite starting over twenty businesses in my lifetime).
“redistribution” implies ownership which I do not acknowledge. I consider the country (and therefore society) as an equal partner in all businesses, it provides the common infrastructure, the police, the courts, the roads and sewers and regulatory agencies that give their customers confidence in their products (which saves them money by shifting the company’s burden of proving safety and efficacy to the public instead of their own balance sheet).
The country is a partner in every business within its borders, it is a partner with every earner, it is analogous to the Mall landlord that maintains the grounds, parking lots, security, A/C, garbage, cleaning, common areas, marketing and security for the tenants. I think that analogy is not precise, but is close enough to convey the idea.
As a partner, the country (and society) is entitled to a share of the profits earned, which inevitably uses its resources. A business “uses” the police even if the police never visit their store: The police prevent crimes and reduce the crime rate, without them the business would have a higher risk of crime and would have to charge much more to provide its own armed security against robbery and violence.
So “wealth redistribution” presumes ownership of profits that I do not acknowledge. I have been in many a partnership, sometimes as the managing member of a partnership, and I do not (and did not) regard the profit shares I pay out to my silent investors as a redistribution of my wealth, I regard it as money to which they are entitled and are free to do with as they please. Due to the mechanics of business and sales and payments, I may be temporarily in possession of all the money, I may have to write and sign the check to them for them to get access to their share of the money, but their share was never MY money.
That is how I feel about taxes. Again, the analogy is close enough; I consider America much like an investor that brings critical services to the table. They don’t take my money in taxes, taxes are the way we compute their fair share of the profits their services and my talent are producing.
Tony,
I see. Thanks for the clarification. I’m not sure there’s much to add because we’re somewhat off topic at this point, and I’m exhausted, because I went hiking. But, some observations:
1. Somewhere, at some abstract level, the arguments for socialized medicine and the arguments for laws that disincentivize promiscuity converge. We’re not entirely in control of our economic destiny. Other people and larger forces are. Likewise, we’re not in control of the culture and families we’re born into, and the influence of these often play a role in the poor sexual choices people make.
2. Just out of curiosity, you seem so emphatic about civil liberties, but how do you square this with socialized medicine? If you aren’t willing to discourage smoking through higher taxation, for example, aren’t you just transferring the cost of the larger number of smoking-related illnesses to taxpayers, who’ve now had their freedom reduced by loss of income to the government?
3. There are cumulative, collective effects of individual behavior that affect other individuals not involved in the behavior. If everyone in the country decided to kill themselves, as you seem to think is okay, I would have to live like Robinson Crusoe If everyone were planning such a thing, I think it wouldn’t be so wrong of me to ask them not to, for my sake. On a less extreme scale, but following the same principle, if most people do not value education, that translates into an economic impact on me, in terms of reduced job opportunities.
Vestal Virgin
**********************
Squeeky,
I enjoyed the music very much. Thank you so much for introducing that singer to me!
Vestal Virgin
“I am a Democratic Socialist and Capitalist that believes in communal action, and I believe in extensive civil liberties, far more than we have now. I believe all life critical services should be socialized (education, health care, transportation, etc), and the rest should be up to capitalism.”
Yep.
VV: Don’t you think both the market and the government have a role to play in preventing food adulteration, for example? One could easily imagine circumstances where neither the market nor the individual is positioned to ferret out the addition of harmful substances to food.
Not really. I think the government has that role; the market should certainly not have to see people poisoned, disabled, or killed by food adulteration and then “punish” the company producing that food financially. They should be subject to criminal charges, not financial damages that they can choose to risk or game. To me, food adulteration is fraud and perhaps endangerment and liability should be inescapable if it was intentional or criminally negligent. I do not see a role for “market forces” in that, I see a role for men and women with holstered guns on their hips and handcuffs on their belts.
I see a role for regulations, inspections, and the fear of being decertified and shut down if they should fail.
VV says: The public policy behind these laws has in mind also the health & safety of the speeder and smoker,
That may be true, and if so the laws are right for the wrong reasons; in my opinion. I do not believe it is ever your business what I do with my body or life as long as I do not directly harm you. Since it is not your business, it is not the business of those that represent you in government. I do not believe in a parental government. I am not a child. I am also not a moron, I believe I need a government to field an army and police to protect me against those that would subjugate me, both foreign and domestic (i.e., criminals).
I am not really a Libertarian, as you seem to allude. That label carries far too much baggage. I am a Democratic Socialist and Capitalist that believes in communal action, and I believe in extensive civil liberties, far more than we have now. I believe all life critical services should be socialized (education, health care, transportation, etc), and the rest should be up to capitalism. Regulated capitalism for the purpose of protecting consumers, investors, workers, and the environment. If that orientation helps. I believe in a much stronger social safety net than we currently have; along the lines of the Norwegian model which I consider proof of feasibility. And I believe in supporting that with a high tax rate, and an aggressively progressive taxation scheme with severe punishments for evasion.
Tony C wrote: “I believe all life critical services should be socialized (education, health care, transportation, etc) …”
Hmmm. Not sure these are all life critical services, but in any case, so in addition to security, government also has a role in wealth redistribution for those services that in your opinion everyone ought to want for themselves?
Tony C wrote: “I believe all life critical services should be socialized (education, health care, transportation, etc) …”
Would not housing, food, and clothing be more life critical services than any of these other things (education, healthcare, and transportation)?
@vestal Virgin:
Oh no, I never saw you as being mean or anything. Goodness, people are supposed to say what they think, and then be prepared to defend it, or if they see that they are wrong, change their mind. I am not even mad at Mike, although I am a little teed off that he ripped off the word “prig” from me. That is a somewhat unique word, and I used it first!!!
If you like the music in the video, the last two songs were by April March, who is a very talented person in more than one field. You don’t often hear the last song, Caribou, which is kind of like a French version of “Bang Bang You Shot Me Down” by some old timey person. Except Caribou has Indians instead of cowboys. The French also have a particular slant on two men, which this is like the dance song of all time for 60s type dancing, and you don’t have to know French to enjoy it. Because I don’t speak French. Nobody does anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyBeG-ub9Uk
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Tony,
You wrote that speeding and smoking laws are designed only to protect third persons from harm. I think this is inaccurate. The public policy behind these laws has in mind also the health & safety of the speeder and smoker, not just third persons. Some costs are best placed on the choices of the individual, or by the collection of individuals as a group–the “market”, as it were, but not all are. To say otherwise is to have, IMHO, a one-dimensional view of human nature. You could think of the market as being the group in its reactive form. The government is the group in its proactive form. The group isn’t positioned to make decisions on behalf of its own welfare, in advance, via law or regulation? The group, as government, knows nothing, accumulates no wisdom? It can only react, time and again, when the same circumstances happen over and over, as if it’s experiencing them for the first time? The group can preserve memory and wisdom, in the form of laws, where specific individuals with experience pass on and new individuals, without experience take their place.
Don’t you think both the market and the government have a role to play in preventing food adulteration, for example? One could easily imagine circumstances where neither the market nor the individual is positioned to ferret out the addition of harmful substances to food. Thus, we create a state agency to fill the gap.
Libertarianism, like autocracy, has its own cruelty, in that people aren’t perfectly rational, don’t always act on their rationality. Line drawing is hard, but human nature is vastly more complex, messy, and varied than can be accounted for by a single principle, so in some cases the individual is best suited, in some cases the government, in some cases the market, and so on. We don’t just rely on one and cruelly let the chips fall where they may in the other situations, because our single principle is the prism for understanding all of human nature and is true in all situations.
Mike,
You said, “once again [I] castigate homosexuals”. I’ve spent the whole thread defending against the idea that homosexuality should be viewed as synonymous with promiscuity under the law, although I may have, in a dependent clause that prefaced one of my sentences above, allowed for the possibility that gay males are more promiscuous than straights. I am a sexual minority myself by the way.
You wrote, “The problem with working to legislate promiscuity in any manner is who defines promiscuity and what disincentives/laws get passed to regulate it?” A straightforward definition for starters, one that’s connected to the immediate reality that confronts us, would be promiscuity is sexual behavior that increases one’s chance of contracting an STD. Even if the laws were hypocritically enforced in the past, which I agree with and have been arguing against in this thread, I don’t see why we would be condemned to continue to do so, having become aware of this pitfall.
There are tens of thousands of new HIV infections every year. Bring it up, and you don’t get any concern from the left for the victims of the plague. All you get is a history lecture on the pathology of morals legislation. I don’t understand.
Squeeky,
I liked your video, although I don’t speak French, so I couldn’t tell if the dialogue matched the subtitles. But, if the subtitles were accurate, it was lovely. I hope I wasn’t mean before. Thanks so much for your sincere response, by the way. I really appreciated it.
Vestal Virgin
Well, just FWIW, the ways things should be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1js00HY5tw
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Well, just FWIW, the ways things should be”:
Squeeky,
Really……..I’ve been married 32 years and I never had an interlude like the guy had with the woman he picked up. He was flirting….I don’t flirt. That in itself in MY eyes would be being unfaithful to my wife. I love her and I’m committed to her and that precludes flirting with other women. At the last minute this guy touches his wedding ring and realizes he doing wrong. What a hoot. He did wrong when he followed her down the street. And this my moral little prig is what you see as perfection. Damn Squeeky, even believing what I do about sex I’m far more moral/ethical than you. You’re just a bigot who doesn’t like Gays and probably Blacks. You also have a warped view of sexuality and commitment.
Or proably a more salient point is that the law can coercively tax people, which some people find distinctly immoral. Even though the prevented harm bought with the taxes would occur, some people think it is immoral to force them to pay taxes that protect somebody else.
DavidM says: Morality is about the right or wrong of behavior. For example, stealing, murder, lying, etc. are immoral because they cause harm.
Not exactly. Stealing, murder, lying, etc cause harm, and in the moral calculus of some people, they are also immoral. Perhaps you would be less confused if you read my post again; these two systems overlap, but they are not identical.
The Bible, for example, asserts it is immoral (a sin) to covet. I do not see that such a mental action causes any harm to anyone, including the person coveting.
The Bible asserts it is a sin to work on the Sabbath; therefore I assume immoral for one that subscribes to that rule book. I, however, at times, routinely work seven days a week and I do not believe it causes anybody any harm, including me. In fact I believe that practice has benefited me and others greatly, and achieved results before deadlines that would otherwise have cost my clients dearly. I have never seen my working on the Sabbath, no matter how immoral others may believe it to be, cause anybody any harm.
(Notice I do not define their outrage or ill will toward me as “harm” to them; I do not believe any system of rules can ever be devised that prohibits hurting people’s feelings or causing them moral outrage as being some form of “harm,” and obviously NO system of rules, anarchy, is bound to do the same. Hurt feelings and moral outrage are inevitable in all systems.)
The government is not in the business of morals; or is so only indirectly in the sense that preventing actual harm (the denial of rights, freedom or property, the acts of coercion and force, and violence) does indeed correspond, for most people, with elements of their morality.
But do not mistake the two as identical, or one as a subset of the other. Morals often include prohibitions that do not actually cause others harm; as I illustrated above. And sometimes law can prohibit harms that are not actually part of some people’s moral systems: The Bible, for example, clearly endorses slavery and female subjugation, both in the Old Testament and the New. That was considered moral in America, by the majority, for quite some time, but it has been outlawed. Some still believe, because of the Bible, they are being moral in their discrimination against others, such as blacks and most recently Muslims. But the law (as written) can impose penalties for such discrimination, or the subjugation of women that many Christians feel is also a matter of their morality.
Tony C wrote: “The government is not in the business of morals; or is so only indirectly in the sense that preventing actual harm (the denial of rights, freedom or property, the acts of coercion and force, and violence) does indeed correspond, for most people, with elements of their morality.”
Very interesting and thought provoking response, Tony.
Religion has typically concerned itself rather extensively with morals. Morals can be classified into three categories:
1) Right or wrong behavior in relation to God
2) Right or wrong behavior in relation to others
3) Right or wrong behavior in relation to self
You mentioned the Bible, which is somewhat unique in that contrary to our evolving civil system, it combines both religion and law together. You then mentioned laws in it that prohibit conduct that you do not consider immoral.
Following is how I am understanding you. Correct me if my understanding or your view is wrong.
You perceive morals as primarily something for each individual to decide for themselves. So each individual is in the business of constructing his own moral code. From your perspective, government is not in the business of morals except when some individual’s behavior would cause harm to another person. So perhaps we could say that the role of government is not morality, but rather it is both the security and freedom of the individual. This function of government is a smaller subset of the larger subject of morality. In regard to the three categories of morality that I listed above, only category 2 would be the realm of civil government.
Before I go further, please tell me if I am understanding your perspective properly. I would also ask this question of you: Do you agree that the current laws of our American society do not completely reflect your system of morality and the role of government?