In a post entitiled "Canada Makes the Baby Jesus Cry," Ed Brayton had this to say about the Canadian Parliament's recent refusal to reconsider last year's approval of gay marriage throughout Canada: Now, of course, Canada's entire culture will collapse, people will stop marrying one another and loving their kids,…
Dangerous idea, that.
If you were in charge–if you were King–what would do? What would fix? What would you ignore?
The Socratic ideal is the philosopher king, whose first act upon accession to the throne is to abdicate. The idea being that a truly ethical thinker would refuse to accept the responsibility to rule a nation.
Pity the world doesn’t work that way.
The problem with such systems–and there are many, including those proposed by certain self-proclaimed Libertarians–is that human nature refuses to cooperate. There’s a kind of Malthusian coefficient involved–population growth always outstrips the potential for ideal behavior. All such utopian systems are based on one fallacy that keeps gumming up all the works of any system anyone cares to name.
The fallacy is that We’re All Alike.
It’s a widely touted formula–the things that we have in common outnumber those that divide us; underneath we’re all the same; people are people. The Libertarians believe as an article of faith that if government got out of everybody’s way, we’d all be fine because people basically know what’s best for themselves and their immediate circle of intimates. Socialists believe (mostly) that without class structures, everyone would get along quite nicely. Communists like to assume avarice is an aberration that can somehow be bred out of the species.
If only.
It’s not so much that we’re so very different–but that we’re alike in such individualized ways.
The fact is, we come in all shapes, sizes, talents, capacities, points of view, …
According to this article, some airlines are starting to enforce policies that children shouldn't be seated next to unrelated men, because you never know what might happen . . . Frances Kemp booked an aisle seat on a recent British Airways (BA) flight because she had a bad leg that…
Michael Moore recently published this pledge in the Los Angeles Times. I applaud each of these twelve points: 1) We will always respect you. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us. 2) We…
I know, a catchy title. A little unfair maybe, since there’s nothing particularly titillating in what follows. Or maybe there is, depending on what–what’s the saying?–“pumps yer nads!” But in view of Erich’s post about our newly appointed head of Family Planning, I thought this might be the time to indulge more than a little in a topic rather close to my heart (depending on where one locates said metaphorical organ).
Did you know that the last week of October is national Protection From Pornography Week? Yes, indeed, signed into law by our illustrious president, Mr. Bush back in 2003. I for one had no idea I needed to be protected from it. How reassuring to know that we are being defended from dangers both real and imagined by the ever watchful gaze of our very own homegrown clerics.
We’ve spent tax dollars on this. Here is the link to the official White House proclamation.
Seems innocuous enough, even homey. All that stuff about the destructive effects of porn on children, who can argue?
Has it occurred to anyone throughout the last two decades (beginning, in my opinion, with Ed Meese–anyone remember him?) of the war on pornography that–like alcohol and tobacco–pornography is simply not for children? It seems a ludicrously simple idea to me–it was never intended for them. We manage to have reasonable laws about things not intended for children. We don’t let them drive cars (except at amusement parks, in specially constructed rides), we don’t let …