On his blog, Don Bordeaux takes the opportunity of a commenter taking him to task for, in the commenter's words, "illegitimately privileg[ing] private morals over public morals," to make an eloquent case for the libertarian view that compelled compassion through the state can be neither moral, nor compassionate.
For my two cents, it's amazing to me how completely individuals can warp reality to fit their preferred cognitive construction.
Even if I were to entertain the idea of "public morals," the idea immediately falls apart in the context of government because of the inherent subjectivity of morality. Didn't we abandon the idea of using government to enforce a specific moral code when we sent the religious right packing with its tail between its legs? (yes, I know some think we're still fighting that battle, but the reality is that the religious right is all bet dead and buried)
When I talk to some who are sympathetic to the view of the state as moral shepherd, and I point out their similarity to the religious right, as far as I can tell the excuse is simply that their morals are correct. Well, of course -- the religious right thinks their morals are correct, too. As does every individual with their own set of morals... if they didn't think their morals were right, wouldn't they abandon them?
To me, the fundamental lesson of history is that humanity is everywhere and always set upon by a cadre of despots and tyrants, and damn near all of them -- now and in the past -- are despots and tyrants in the name of what they believe are noble goals. As the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
**
By the way, Bordeaux has included a quotation from a history of England (early-to-mid-1800s) by a Thomas Babington Macaulay, which does a surprisingly good job of succinctly describing the issue at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment