Home <>----<> Photography <>----<> Muffins <>----<> Poetry, Prose & Politics <>----<> Purchase from On The Fly
The Cynical Libertarian Society
|
|
|
|
The Cynical Libertarian Society
|
|
|
|
I attended a debate sponsored by UNC's political philosophy department (oxymoron anyone?), the topic: The ethical dilemma of the shooting of Joe Gallegos. I was curious to see what sort of ethical dilemma could be found in this situation. Things were proceeding at a slow pace, so I tried to liven it up by stating what seems an obvious fact. "Society has standards that one lives by in that society, such as one does not kill, rape, steal, etc. When a person breaks these standards, they give up their right to the protections of that society. Thus, society is entitled to blow their brains out." This was the second most scorned remark of the night.
Side note: The remark which drew the most dirty looks that night was when some poor Freshman girl stated that she favored the death penalty. Dear, if you are reading this, some advice. This is not something you say on a college campus if you want to have friends and pass classes. But don't worry, in four years time you will be brainwashed into revoking this opinion.
Back to the subject. I was asked "Do you speed?" The question came from a college kid, so I figured he was talking about drugs. I was trying to figure out what that had to do with anything, when I realized that he was talking about speeding - like in a automobile. So now I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with anything. Then, revelation. When I said "society" they heard "government". When I said "standards" they heard "laws". I was asked if people should be shot for speeding. I stated "I'm not talking about needless laws, society could exist with only about 20 or 25 laws." At this the chaos of the minds was in full swing. A Freshman (not the smart one previously mentioned) brought up jaywalking. How could we function without a law against jaywalking he pondered aloud. How could we function with fewer laws than we now have? I was in shock. I was prepared to defend my comments against intelligent attacks. But here were people who made a moral equivalent between murder, jaywalking and speeding. Here were people who believe that without jaywalking laws society will collapse. Having never expected to be in a intellectual vacuum of this degree I was stunned into silence. The "debate" then drifted on to how we should feel sorry for Joe Gallegos, as he was only trying to show his ex how much he loved her, by shooting her in the foot . . .
Now, days (daze?) later, I have figured out what I should have said to the UNC students. It follows something like this (warning - prepare to be offended): Society could function fine with 25 laws, if people were polite, considerate, intelligent and responsible. However, as we live in the Oprah age, I know these things will not happen. First off, the fact that you believe speeding, jaywalking and murder to be morally equivalent indicate the lack of morality, as does the fact that you need a law against murder to tell you murder is wrong in the first place. Most people can get that without the government telling them.
On to the specific examples. Jaywalking. Now hang with me folks. You are at the middle of the block. You want to cross the road. As you cross the road, you are not smart enough to avoid walking in front of a automobile. Now, if you are not smart enough to cross the road in the middle, what makes you think you will be smart enough to cross at an intersection?
Speeding. You are controlling an automobile. You are aware of the state of your vehicle, the road conditions, the weather conditions, the environment (open highway, residential section, road construction, etc.), and your own driving ability and physical condition. Based on these conditions, you are able to select a safe speed and travel at that speed. If you can not perform this train of thought in the absence of a speed limit, what makes you think you can perform this train of thought in the presence of a speed limit? If the speed limit is 55, but you have been awake for 20 hours, the road is iced, and your tires are bald, do you still do 55? If you are a UNC student, I suppose so. After all, that's the law, and the law supersedes any need to think.
For Generation X, the Cliff Note version:
1. Laws do not make dumb people smart.
2. Government is not Society, it is a baby-sitter for people lacking character, intelligence, decency and morals.
3. Just because government passes a law does not make it good, right or proper.
4. Natural selection eliminates stupid people regardless, laws will not save them.
5. If a law is important enough to exist, it should have a harsh punishment. If a harsh punishment is overkill, the law shouldn't exist.
A real long time ago, this Greek guy, Isocrates, said "Where there is a multitude of specific laws it is a sign that the state is badly governed." Or perhaps it's a sign that the people are irresponsible children.