Anyway, Mr. Goldberg is back to writing The Goldberg File again, published every Thursday, similar to and just as irreverent as the old one. It's available only by email; you can sign up for it here. Today's entry discusses the necessity of taboos and prejudice against certain behaviors if we were ever successful in limiting government's reach into our daily lives. He uses, as one example, his discrimination against all drug addicts when he is hiring a babysitter for his daughter.
Goldberg points out the belief on the Left that we should be non-judgemental regarding all behaviors and all people (unless, of course, it has to do with eating cheeseburgers, Sarah Palin or Nativity scenes) does not allow for a more free society:
Indeed, if the Left wants to adopt the mantle of libertarianism [as they define themselves on social issues], they need to understand that if government gets less involved in our lives, civil society must get more involved. That means more taboos, more stigma, more discrimination properly understood. That's the difference between spontaneous order and childish chaos.
I've come to the same conclusion concerning the word discriminate, especially given the widely accepted use of the word as always referring to racial prejudice.
In a truly free society, people need to be free to discriminate. I don't mean in the racial sense, I mean in the prudential sense. We all discriminate -- i.e., make choices based on experience, data, and intelligence -- in every facet of our lives [my emphasis]. The man who doesn't discriminate literally cannot tell shit from shinola (lighten up, it's the G-File). And in a minarchist state, the regulation of social norms must of necessity be left up to society. That means employers, landlords, would-be fathers-in-law (!), neighbors, etc., can judge people by what criteria they find relevant.
In fact, one of my big pet peeves is when someone can't show prejudice in the face of appalling behavior. Take a stand. Don't be a wimp. Lordy.
Which brings me to a related topic ~ people who believe our political system would work better if politicians were non-partisan. This just begs the question WTF? I mean, really.
Equally WTF, there is now a group of people who believe people shouldn't label themselves according to their political beliefs, like, you know, libertarian, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Socialist or Republican. They've come up with a wonderfully neutral name for their organization: No Labels.
While I believe it's old-school to vote party line for the sake of voting party line, I also believe labels matter. It's pretty obvious, when reading through the site, that the No Label people are pretty enamoured of big government; they just want everyone to put labels aside and work together to come up with (big government) solutions. *No surprise, they believe in public financing of campaigns. Some of the stuff on the No Labels site is ridiculous:
We live in the time of the movement [what movement is that?] -- where views and opinions of our citizens can be aggregated and collected and heard as one voice through social media and online organizing technology.
There is a new movement afoot -- one that represents the majority of Americans left out of the current political debate--it's called No Labels.
I don't know, it seems to me a majority of voters, which is the group of Americans that count when it comes to political change, had quite an impact on the last election. They gave themselves a label, used social media and online technology to be heard, all to great effect. I have a feeling the No Labels people are taking a stand against, dare I say it, the Tea Party folks, without, um, naming names.
Reminds me of a song.
No comments:
Post a Comment