Happy recluse

I understand the frustration of life such that sometimes I think, “Somebody outta pass a law. . . .” But the moment passes, I laugh about my own impatience, and then I move to other things. I understand that nonsmokers like a world free from tobacco smoke, and so they want laws forbidding smoking in resturants, stores, malls, and even outdoors on a college campus. But I am bothered by the notion that we have a right to force the restaurant owner to forbid smoking in his establishment. After all, he owns the restaurant, and whether I like it or not, his ownership must protect him from legal and political action brought by majority opinion.

Conservative or libertarian thinking says we let the owner alone. He decides whether or not anyone is allowed to smoke in his restaurant. Presumably majority opinion sways his actions without the club of political action. The population will determine whether to frequent his business or not, and if he can maintain his business by allowing smoking or by forbidding it, he is free to make those choices. In this way of thinking we omit the govermental middle-man, and we escape the more terrible oppression by law.

The issue of smoking tobacco is only an example where the majority decides to compel the minority to live according to the larger group’s decisions, but my support of conservative thinking follows a similar path in most things where liberals support legislation forcing everyone to live and act as they see fit. Liberals want to see health care being available to everyone regardless of cost. I have the same sympathies. I am saddened to hear of anyone suffering due to some minor lack of funds. But I don’t think it’s right to compel everyone to pay for such a system. How does the premise, “I wish no one suffered due to a lack of money,” justifes the conclusion, “Therefore, we have a right to compel everyone to pay these costs”? Of course, there must be a second premise, or more, tying the first premise to the conclusion, but I can’t think what it might be without appealing to something absurd like, “Whatever I wish gives me the political authority to make it so.” So, what premises fit to make the liberal argument sound?

Of course, we all agree that crime justifies our eliminating someone’s freedom. Committing a crime requires that you freely choose the crime, that’s the difference between a crime and an accident. His criminal choice, then, requires that we mete out punishment. (Neglience is more complicated, but basically it occurs when freely choose to ignore some circumstance that you should have paid attention to.) But crime occurs only when the bad guy violates someone’s freedom. He steals from you, thereby violating your freedom. His freedom is violated in turn.

Liberals often argue a sense that the wealthy person commits a crime by not being charitable when it is easy for him to do so. I admit that is a moral crime, but I see no justification for compelling him to pay through higher taxation. We are morally required to help our neighbor when we can, but instead of helping that neighbor or giving to a charity liberals tend to pass laws. It’s amazing that all of the time, money and energy spent on getting health care for the poor, no politican or political leader stood up an announced his contribution to a charity that provides health care for the poor. The cry is always to pass a law and make other people pay with little consideration for what the speakers themselves are willing to sacrifice. Let me give an example.

We had a local referendum to raise property taxes for the schools. One of my neighbors said, “I’m willing to pay more for better schools.” I asked him if he ever made a voluntary contribution to the school system. “Well, no,” was his answer. But if you’re willing to pay for more better schools, then why don’t you do that? Affirmative action is another example.

Our political leaders decided to provide greater opportunities for minorities who are less qualified than the rest of an applicant pool. (I say that these minorities must be less qualified, for if they were equally qualified or more qualified, there would be no reason for Affirmative Action, but that gets me off my main point.) We’ve seen a generation affected by these laws and yet during that whole time I’ve personally not heard of a single person announcing his decision to step down from his career path midstream to make room for minorities. Those who passed the laws and enforced Affirmative Action guidelines in the name of justice have offered no sacrifice for their beliefs in that justice. I did hear of a professor who retired early forcing the unversity to hire a minority in his place, but his early retirement cost him nothing that he needed for his retirement. In fact Congress fully supported Affirmative Action as long as it didn’t apply to them and whomever they employ.

I can imagine compassionate people doing without a family vacation, a new and large home, or a typically over-priced Christmas to give that money to the poor or to the local school. I can image these compassionate people leading the charge against poverty and illiteracy by imploring the rest of us to contribute. But when people show their compassion by passing laws forcing everyone else to contribute, I begin to think their interest isn’t in helping other people, but in controlling everyone else. Their “compassion” is only a means for securing political power. And that shows more clearly when compassionate people don’t give of themselves and haven’t tried to encourage others to give voluntarily.

So, I don’t see the contest between liberals and conservatives as one between compassionate people who only want to help others as opposed to greedy folk. The contest is honestly between those who want to control everyone else and those of us who think people ought to be left alone, to be free, and seek a course in life that suits each of them best.