Political and social freedom,
as I understand it, is messy – really, really messy. I do not say that lightly.
I like external order for I lack internal order. That is, I have an
appreciation for neatly organized spaces for my mind is a horribly cluttered space
of whirling ideas. I like quiet spaces because my mind is a cacophony of voices
all expressing their ideas at once. I already have enough mess and conflict created
in my own mind that I do not want any more of it coming from outside of my
mind.
But I also realize that I
am not important enough as an individual that I should expect the world around
me to conform to what pleases me. I realize that, even though I like neat
places, there should be no law imposing my desire for neatness on others. My
neighbor is free to cut his grass or not. He is free to make his kids put away
their toys or to leave them strewn about the yard. (In an interesting twist, I
am more likely to have a messy yard than any of my neighbors. But the psychological
reasons for that are for another article – an article that will likely never be
written!) I have no right to expect my neighbor to walk tiptoe around his yard,
never turn up his radio to the point I can hear it, or never use a chain saw.
It is expected we will respect one another so as to limit our sound during
those times when people would normally be trying to sleep. But, otherwise, noisemaking
is permitted within broad parameters.
I also have some very
strong moral positions. I admit that I am not all that good at following them.
However, I do have these moral convictions and I believe others should have the
same positions as I do. However, I also recognize that I am not important
enough that my moral positions should be imposed on everyone else. I believe homosexual
activity is perverse and I do not like to be confronted with it. But I also
acknowledge that it is not within my rights to insist that my opinion concerning
homosexual activity should become the law of the land. I do not like seeing two
men walking down the street holding hands or otherwise expressing romantic
attraction. But, quite frankly, in a free society, it is none of my business.
Now, the last paragraph
might have surprised or even offended some of my friends who share a similar
moral code as I do. Now I am going to offend nearly everyone. I think racism is
morally wrong. More than that, I think it is monumentally stupid. I suppose
that I should define what I think racism is. Racism is the belief that any particular
race is innately superior to others or inferior to others. Within the world of
political thought, racism is the belief that some races are worthy of greater
rights and privileges than others. Even if studies were to prove that one race
scored lower on IQ exams than did another race, that has nothing to do with
their dignity as a human being, nor should any individual within that race be
prevented from applying to Harvard on the basis of that statistic, nor should
Harvard lay their application aside on the presumption they are unfit to study
there. (Don’t assign any significance to my example. I am unaware of any such
study and would be suspicious of the results of such a study. It is simply one
of the metrics by which some racists justify their racism.)
But, as opposed to racism
as I am, I do not have the right to impose my beliefs about it on others. My
neighbor is free to be a racist. And I am equally free to decide to have little,
if anything, to do with him because of his racism. He is free to use racial
slurs, put up racist posters, and be a stupid jerk if that is his desire. And,
if he is a grocery store owner, he is free to make it an whites-only grocery
store or a blacks-only grocery store. And I am free to not shop at his store. I
am free to peacefully and non-obstructively picket his store or write letters
to the editor saying that no one should patronize his store. But I have no
right to expect that the government would write a law prohibiting him from
running his business in a racist way and, much as I hate racism, I would stand
up to my government were it to impose such a law. Of course, my government did impose such
laws, and as much as those laws may conform to my moral code, they do not conform
to my political code.
As much as I oppose
racism, I believe that if a group of whites wanted to buy land and build a gated
community in which no blacks were allowed entry, they have the right to do so.
Of course, I would never go in such a community: I would not visit anyone there
and would likely not do business with anyone there. Amazon would have the right
to not make deliveries to such a community. If I were a contractor, I would have
the right to refuse to build, remodel, or repair any house in there.
Someone may say that I am
being inconsistent for I take a very firm stand on abortion. My moral view is that
there should never be any elective abortion. The only abortions allowed should be
those in which the life of the mother is put at grave risk. This is not a “health”
exemption. This is not saying that the difficulties of gestation, giving birth,
and raising a child should be sufficient grounds for abortion – not even the psychological
stress that gestating and giving birth to a child conceived in rape. If there
is any path to the child being born that would not lead necessarily to the
death of the mother, that path should be taken. Period. And I believe that this
view of abortion should be made a matter of law because it involves the life of
a human being. The moment there is conception, there is a human being, and that
human being must be granted all the rights and protection any already-born
human being would have. Abortion is not a legally private act, Roe V Wade notwithstanding.
The woman’s decision directly impacts the life of another human being; thus her
choices are limited in what she is legally at liberty to do.
But at present, our laws
are being written in a way that violates the rights of many. Some of the most
fundamental rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association
are being stripped away by those who presently do not hold the levers of
political power. Their self-righteousness in their quest to control the private
morality of others is as self-righteous as the most tyrannical religion. But
our Constitution was written specifically to limit the authority of those who
hold those levers so that the rights of the weak are not trampled on by the
power of the strong.
“How is the government
trampling on anyone’s rights?” you ask. The most obvious example is the civil
rights legislation that forces people to perform activities that violate their conscience:
activities that are contrary to their own moral opinion. Florists, bakers, and
photographers are forced to service gay weddings or risk huge fines, civil
settlements, and the loss of their businesses. Therapists are being forbidden to
offer counsel to those who desire to address their same-sex attraction or
gender dysphoria. Doctors are being stripped of the right to participate in any
government paid medical practice (like Medicare) unless they are willing to
perform abortions and/or gender reassignment procedures. (That is part of the
present “Equality Act” being promoted by the Biden administration.) Aside from
the gross violation of the rights of these service-providers, there is a
violation of the rights of others as well. Does not the same-sex attracted
person have the right to seek help if that is what he /she wants? And imagine
this: You are a retiree on Medicare and you have cancer. Right in your town is a
surgeon renowned for his ability to remove cancerous growths in the body. But
he refuses to perform gender-reassignment surgery. So you, a person who actually
paid for your Medicare coverage by the money taken out of your paycheck over
your entire working career do not have access to this doctor unless you are
willing to pay out of your own pocket. Where is the freedom in that?
Right now, some are
trying to address these violations of personal rights by lobbying for legislation
that that allows exemptions for religious convictions. Tyrants are trying to
get around those protections by severely limiting what religion means. And the
organizations that are helping those who are being sued for supposedly
violating someone’s civil rights are doing so only in the limited sense of
protecting someone from having to engage in artistic expression that involves a
violation of their morals.
But such a narrowly
defined limitation of the government’s power to compel activity Is contrary to
the Constitution and the concept of a free society. The answer to all of this
is very simple: Set everyone free. Make it so that people can run their lives –
which includes their businesses, churches, personal activities – yes, the entirety
of their existence – however they want to. Let them be racist, “homophobic”, self-righteous,
even hateful, so long as they do not violate the rights of another to pursue
their lives as they see fit. And acknowledge that no one has the right to
require another person to provide them with anything. No one has a right to
force someone else to bake them a wedding cake, take their wedding pictures, or
cater a reception for a gay wedding. Or a Muslim wedding. Or a Christian
wedding. Or any particular wedding for any reason the service provider may have.
All have the right to look for someone who is willing to provide those
services, but no one has the right to force anyone to perform a service for
them.
No one has the right to tell
a person they cannot fly a Confederate flag or even a Nazi flag in their front
yard unless they bought said property with such restrictions already in place
and as part of the purchase agreement.
Political liberty is not
just about me being allowed to conduct my life as I please; it is about everyone
being allowed to conduct their lives as they please whether or not it meets
with my approval!
If you do not want the government
to enforce someone else’s private moral system on you, do not try to make
government enforce your private moral system on others. Freedom is grand, but
there is no real freedom until everyone is free. And real freedom demands
tolerance of those things you do not approve of. Not acceptance or approval,
but tolerance. So if you want a politically and socially free society, you must
be ready to tolerate a lot of things you do not approve of.
But that is a small price
to pay for freedom.
