In this section on America's current hot issues,
I have tried to portray what a free America would be,
not necessarily what I would like.
Hot Issue: Guns
My English friends say our obsession with guns is "daft."
I suspect if England had
the same borders and ethnic diversity as we do
with their current gun laws,
then their "bobbies" would soon be armed like ours
or they would have a bloodbath on their hands.
In any case,
guns are part of our culture in America,
they're part of our Bill of Rights,
and our mass-killing shootings almost always happen
in places where guns are strictly controlled.
I think most of us believe the World Trade Center twin towers
would still be standing if a half dozen passengers were armed
on the typical airline flight.
A different question is whether other airline flights would be
shoot-'em-up bloodbaths like our
long-haul passenger trains and bus lines,
but we decided long ago to side on the side of people being armed.
(Oh, wait a minute.
Our long-haul ground passenger transportation is actually quite safe.
I take that back.)
As Americans,
we recognize the role gun control plays in tyranny
and the role guns play in violence,
and choose to be an armed society with all the risks.
Hot Issue: Privacy
Here's a complex issue, particularly in this century.
We have found ourselves living in a cyberspace fishbowl
with information about our lives sprawled across social-network pages.
That shouldn't surprise anybody—most of us put it there!
When you post every airport you visit
and every meal you eat on Facebook,
should it surprise you that anybody can find out
what you're doing?
("Every breath you take,
every move you make,
every bond you break,
every step you take, I'll be watching you.")
This may have nothing to do with government,
but it's a fact of twenty-first-century life.
It takes a serious effort to stay "off the grid."
When government takes a serious effort to spy on us
is where it crosses the line.
It's none of their business and they should treat it that way.
While there's no specific protection of privacy
in either the Declaration of Independence or our Constitution,
The Bill of Rights makes it clear there should be a pressing need
before government snoops on us,
or at least uses what it already sees against us.
Hot Issue: Abortion
Isn't abortion one of the great hot issues?
Every gamete is a potential human life,
at least every zygote,
and at some point the fertilized egg
becomes old enough to vote.
Somewhere in that nearly-nineteen-year continuum
it becomes appropriate for our community to interfere
to protect it.
Some draw the line at conception,
some twenty-four weeks after conception,
some at birth,
the Book of Genesis at our first breath,
and it might be later than that in some societies.
Arguments go back and forth about when life begins.
It could be conception, birth, or
when the last kid gets through college and the dog dies.
But maybe the dividing line on this issue should be
not about when life beings but when humanity begins.
Most of us are comfortable killing animals
and even the staunchest vegans are comfortable
killing plants and fungi,
so it isn't killing that's the issue here.
It's about killing humans.
Whatever you believe about the inception of humanity in fetal life,
they didn't have anti-abortion laws at our country's founding in 1789.
One critic said,
"Well, they didn't have laws about seat belts either."
No, they didn't, but abortions and the ethics surrounding them
haven't fundamentally changed while vehicular safety issues have.
If anything has changed on abortions,
then it's that they're enormously cheaper and safer than in 1789.
Nobody then suggested having government pay for them, however,
and nobody now should suggest that either.
The decision to end a pregnancy is
a hard, painful, personal decision
and it should remain that way, especially personal,
not one made by legislation or even judicial interpretation.
Hot Issue: Prejudice and Discrimination
People hate other people, WE look down on THEM, whatever.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all love each other equally?
Actually, part of what we are is the competitive spirit
of US-versus-THEM rivalries,
our school is better than theirs and,
among alumni, my year's team is better than yours.
It really is okay to feel allegiance to, and preference for,
school, geography, profession, and nation.
We're comfortable with same-ism in marriage but not in employment.
We should be very uncomfortable with discrimination,
the act of acting on our prejudices,
in any public institution.
The statist, left-wing, liberal approach is
to have innumerable rules
telling us how not to discriminate or,
far worse,
how to discriminate in a nice, "goodthinkful" way
like "affirmative action" or "reverse discrimination."
The other statist, right-wing, conservative approach
is to decide that discrimination is just fine
because we won and they lost and that makes us better than them.
How about the libertarian approach
simply to have fewer and fewer public institutions
and to allow people to make their own decisions privately?
If a restaurant doesn't want to serve black people, or Jews,
then fine.
I just prefer they tell us somehow on the outside
so we don't have to deal with a negative confrontation inside.
For those who want to live in a discrimination-free world,
we could have some outfit certify organizations as being correct
and those who prefer non-discrimination in their lives
could follow that outfit's recommendations.
Or at least we could try.
When we let the government do it,
we got forced cooperation for everybody (maybe not so bad)
and then the utter evil of affirmative action (very bad).
Government racial and ethnic policy hasn't turned out so well
in other countries either.
So let's let people be who they are, except in a public way.
Defining what is and isn't public isn't easy.
Just as I said there would be new and different environmental law,
there will be new and different law about what is public.
If there are a dozen restaurants on a street,
then people have choices.
If we don't like them discriminating against us,
then we can buy one of the restaurants.
Maybe we can be non-discriminatory,
maybe we can keep them out of our place,
but it's our choice.
If this is the only restaurant on the only road from A to B,
then maybe there's a public obligation
to serve all willing to pay for food.
I might also argue that those businesses who want the advantage
of a public-facing entrance have public responsibilities,
either to serve all equally or
to announce restrictions before entry.
(Here's a thought:
Any place public enough to have anti-descrimination policy apply
should also be public enough to be required to offer their business
in the English language.)
Just for fun,
let's take an example from popular anti-discrimination history,
Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott in Alabama.
There are no seats in the black section in back,
Ms. Parks decides she's tired and sits up front,
the bus company gets snooty about it,
and the blacks decided not to use the public bus system.
Some enterprising and charitable people started a super-cheap
taxi-cab company to get black people where they needed to go.
That should have been the end of the story.
Instead, the government decided
to use its authority to declare
the cabs not legal because they're not licensed,
so they used their authority to maximize the hurt
to the blacks of not using public transportation.
This is where I get all up in arms about government
not only not being the solution but often being the problem.
Hot Issue: Sexual Preference in Public Life
When did we wake up and find sexual preference such a hot issue?
Even people who marry the socially-approved opposite sex
get a lot of grief if they marry
the wrong number of spouses
as reported in Colorado City.
It's a lot of public fuss over people's private lives.
I hope people decide that consenting adults
do with their sex lives
is of the same interest as what toothpaste brands they use.
As an American who believes deeply in American values,
I have a problem with people voting to allow gay marriage,
although not as much as voting not to allow it.
We should be comfortable not having any political say about it.
That being said,
I have no problem with any institution refusing to be part of it.
A church may decide only to perform heterosexual marriages,
based on faith or preference,
and a living community may decide to restrict choice in its bylaws.
(I don't really want to know how such a community plans
to police such prejudicial policy.
I'm sure that's in their bylaws somewhere as well.)
Hot Issue: Religion in Public Life
Religion is a part of the lives of most Americans,
at least they go to church on Sunday morning.
(A few attend synagogue on Friday night or Saturday morning
and a few others go to mosques or other temples.)
Christmas trees adorn town squares
and business display holiday ornaments with religious overtones
and nobody should be offended by it.
(All Hallows Eve on October 31 that we now call Halloween
was originally part of All Saints Day, a religious holiday.)
There are many ways to respect the sanctity of our world
and religion is the option most Americans choose.
That being said,
there is no place for religion in public institutions.
If the public is paying for it,
then the public shouldn't have religions views forced upon them.
America of yesteryear respected this.
When Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister,
wrote
our Pledge of Allegiance,
there was no mention of religion.
Our country's motto was "E Pluribus Unum,"
(Latin for "one out of many")
with no religious overtones.
We are a religious country, even a Christian country,
but one that respects freedom of religious choice and
even freedom from religion.
As I said earlier,
those freedoms do not apply to private life.
If a private school wants to start each day with a prayer,
then that is their right.
If you don't like it, then go somewhere else.
If a private company wants a statue of Gansesha
or a Star of David or a nativity scene,
then our American values should support that
or have us keep quiet if we don't like it.
I expect most American towns will erect a Christmas tree
or put the ten commandments in a public forum,
and I can go along with that.
Noting that many of the really-smart people I know are atheists,
noting that the Christian "jihad" of the Spanish Inquisition
was still going on (until 1834),
and noting that our constitution makes no reference to any deity,
I figure Thomas Jefferson had serious doubts about religion.
He seemed to have no doubt about the right role of religion in politics,
which is none at all.
He made it clear that another person's religious beliefs do no harm
and, therefore, are outside the legitimate powers of government.
Hot Issue: Drugs
Both sides are right, in some ways.
Drugs should be legalized,
both non-prescription, recreational drugs and prescription drugs.
If somebody wants to take cocaine for fun or laetrile for cancer,
then I may think him an idiot,
but it's not for the law to stand in his way.
On the other hand,
an employer is not invading anybody's privacy
requiring drug tests to ensure a drug-free workplace.
As for tobacco and alcohol,
we need less regulation.
If a bar or restaurant wants to allow smoking,
then I have no problem so long as they announce this
in appropriately prominent places
(their entrance and their web page come to mind).
So far as alcohol goes,
everybody knows that alcohol degrades driving performance,
as do sleepiness and cigarette smoking.
We have laws against weaving out of lane,
not using turn signals, and driving at erratic speed.
Is there any evidence that drivers with the same amount
of weaving, turn-signal misuse, and speed varying
are differently dangerous with different amounts of alcohol?
There are scientific ways to measure these effects,
so has anybody done the due diligence to justify
the invasion of privacy of alcohol measurement
above and beyond the non-invasive laws we already have
that we don't enforce?
Here's a good one:
Let's say I'm an alcoholic.
I might have a proven history of a drinking problem
or good reason (family history) to think I have that tendency.
I might want to live in a community that is alcohol free
to avoid temptation.
It's a lot less of a struggle to avoid something
that isn't all around me.
I would hope we would respect people choosing to create cities
that enforce laws that we would not want to have on a larger scale.
Perhaps we also want local anti-drug laws in some areas
for the same reason.
Here's an interesting note on federal power.
When the Prohibition movement arose to make alcohol unlawful
everywhere in the United States,
it was apparent to all that it required constitutional expansion
of federal powers since the existing document
clearly prohibited Prohibition at a federal level.
Somehow, a few decades later,
when the federal government decided to pass anti-drug laws
with the exact same constitutional limitations,
nobody saw fit to stop them.
Shame on our Supreme Court for that,
and many other things.
What about medicine and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)?
I'm comfortable having an agency
testing medicines for efficacy and side effects.
I'm less comfortable with them telling me what I can and cannot take.
Too much risk for a six year old with the sniffles
taking a cold medicine
may be within limits for a late-stage cancer patient
trying to breathe.
We have doctors and pharmacists who can give us advice.
I'm okay to have a required red, yellow, or green sticker on the box,
meaning the overseeing agency has rejected,
not yet evaluated, or approved the drug
and I can make my own choices,
or my insurance company can make its choices.
Hot Issue: Health Care
Government messing with health care is bad thing.
The past century should make that obvious to anybody.
So why is our "free market" health care system such a disaster?
Because it isn't free.
I would point out that health care insurance
isn't the same as health care.
It's just an easier way for most of us to pay for it.
(I pay medical bills for the other members of my household
without
insurance of any kind,
just MasterCard, and they get very good care.)