| | I quote from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, from Section 2 Chapter 1: The man who belonged on earth. It's a conversation between Hank Rearden and a governmental employee. 'R' denotes Rearden, 'G' denotes the governmental employee.
(G) "Nobody has ever refused to sell an essential commodity to the government. As a matter of fact, the law does not permit you to refuse to sell your Metal to any consumer, let alone the government."
(R) "Well, why don't you arrest me, then?"
(G) "Mr. Rearden, this is an amicable discussion. Why speak of such things as arrests?"
(R) "Isn't that your ultimate argument against me?"
(G) "Why bring it up?"
(R) "Isn't it implied in every sentence of this discussion?"
(G) "Why name it?"
(R) "Why not?" There was no answer. "Arc you trying to hide from me the fact that if it weren't for that trump card of yours, I wouldn't have allowed you to enter this office?"
(G) "But I'm not speaking of arrests."
(R) "I am."
(G) "I don't understand you, Mr. Rearden."
(R) "I am not helping you to pretend that this is any sort of amicable discussion. It isn't. Now do what you please about it."
In the context, Hank Rearden refuses to comply with a governmental order, which is against the law. You can see here he holds on illusion about the governmental employee's purpose.
Upon reading this, I found myself thinking that the governmental employee should proceed to arrest Mr. Rearden, because ultimately that is what he is there to do. Even though I disagree with the legitimacy of the law in that case, I don't disagree that it must be enforced. Only through its application can its legitimacy be tested.
At this point I realised this sentiment can be applied elsewhere. People preach all the time about how homosexuality is something natural, that people are born with a specific sexuality, and other such hogwash. The same sentiment can be applied to this. Recognising people's right to determine their own actions does not necessarily imply that you think such actions are worthwhile, or warranted in any way. Accepting people's choices doesn't mean you can't think they are fools for choosing as they have.
I recall a scene in one of the Crocodile Dundee movies where Mick is in a high-rise building and wants to go for a smoke break and steps out onto the balcony. He notices somebody nearby who is threatening to jump to his death. Instead of the expected response, something like 'No, don't jump', he speaks to him completely normally, as though he sees this type of thing all the time, and has no problem with it. This shocks the jumper completely. Mick even tells him 'could you hurry up please'.
The jumper ends up not jumping. Mick put the full responsibility for the jump on the shoulders of the jumper. He basically told him in not so many words 'if you want to jump, jump, it's got nothing to do with me'. This is a good strategy, because typically people who are trying to commit suicide believe they are doing it because of what somebody else, or society in general, did to them, to pay them back by sacrificing themselves.
When Mick gave the jumper all the responsibility, suddenly he wasn't prepared to accept it. It was fine when it was somebody else forcing him to do it, but when it was his decision he wasn't prepared to make it.
This same sentiment can be applied to the restriction of liberty. The use of drugs is a good example. Drugs are illegal, but nobody who is in the know can deny that vast numbers of young people take drugs, and in scary amounts. They are like the jumper, taking drugs because it is something disallowed, escaping society's leash. Making such drugs legal has the result of making the decision to take drugs totally their responsibility. While it does have the effect to make taking it seem more okay, it has the much greater effect of making the individual solely responsible for that choice. Similar to the jumper, many people won't be prepared to accept the responsibility, especially when drugs lose their rebel image.
In the same way that many people have no desire to peruse sex shops, even though they are legal, so too many people will have no desire to take drugs. In the long term it is better to allow it and enable people to rely on their own value judgements, than entice them into it by restricting them. Only in applying a theory can we test it. While we can provide advice and evidence to the folly of such pursuits, if in the face of such evidence the person makes a judgement to try it, by refusing them that right we inhibit their ability to develop.
This is a vast change in what I thought, and comes out of this thinking. I thought to myself that it didn't matter that drugs aren't legal, because it isn't good to take them. I then thought about gun laws. I have always supported the rights of people to own handguns for protection or for recreational use. I have never owned a gun, nor lived in a house with a gun available, but many people in South Africa do own guns. My view on this has been that guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun in the hands of a responsible person isn't a dangerous thing. Many people oppose this view, especially europeans it seems. I figured it was okay for the government to allow people to have guns, following my views on it.
There is a trend here that I realised. The things that government prohibits or allows that I felt were okay were typically the things I held the same opinion of. In a way, I was accepting government's opinions in that regard because they were the same as my opinions. What I was doing was thinking that it is okay restrict things I think should be restricted, and allow things I think should be allowed.
The gist of this is that I wanted the decision on what should be allowed or not. As they say, power corrupts. While I might believe that I wouldn't be corrupted in a position of power, I can't know of any other person whether they will be corrupted or not. How can we know? Even if we find a person that we collectively believe won't be corrupted, and is very objective, typically they will disagree with some of our opinions about what should be allowed or not. In the face of such disagreement, we would then need to override our own opinion on the matter, and take their opinion to be true above ours, without rational basis.
Who can put such faith in another man's opinions about how we ourselves should act? It is highly debatable that such a person would even be found, because typically people would vote for those candidates that see things 'their way'. This is typically how society works now, we choose the party that supports our views. In doing that, we then necessarily relinquish control into their hands. In choosing the party we support we are in a way wanting things to be 'our way'. We want to choose how things must be done, we want the power.
This is such a radical change to my earlier thinking it is startling. We need to realise that we only have the right to make decisions about how we live our own lives, not how other people conduct theirs. In giving each person full control of their actions, we relegate the responsibility of such actions solely to them. Nobody told them to do it, they took it upon themselves to do it. Since the responsibility of the actions we choose is solely ours, we will then necessarily be more cautious in what we choose to do. As a result, the population in general will become more aware of their responsibilities, as any shirking of responsibility will lead the blame straight to them. A responsible population is something the world has never had.
-- continued --
|
|
