The War On Bullshit

The recent swell of support for US Presidential candidate Ron Paul is astounding. And I can see why: he’s anti-war, anti-torture, anti-taxes and anti-government-screwing-with-individuals. In other words, he’s not a sadistic, subhuman, nut-job radical like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. But when you probe a little deeper, and I just mean read the Wikipedia entry on his positions, you might be vexed. Here are 10 disturbing political positions of Ron Paul.

For: Constitutionalism

While I think most would agree that ignoring your county’s constitution like the Bush Administration is a bad idea, being a staunch constitutionalist is equally dangerous because the constitution is an historical document that gets out of date. Sensible countries rewrite their constitutions once in a while, but we all know the USA is not a sensible country. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that some things that made sense centuries ago might not make sense anymore?

For: Gun Ownership

The arguments for gun ownership are bogus. In the U.S., the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For you gun-happy rednecks out there, I’ll try to put this simply: Since a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary for U.S. security, the right to bear arms must be re-evaluated. As for the “I have the right to defend my family argument,” has it occurred to anyone that if the bad guys think you have a gun, they’re a lot more likely to shoot you then if you they think you’re unarmed? Increasing the number of armed civilians does not act as a deterrent, it just escalates the cycle of violence. I dare you to show me just one scientific study that shows that having a gun will deter a crackhead from robbing you. There is just no evidence that people are safer in a gun-toting society, and it’s no good to point at safe gun-happy societies because that does not show causality.

Against: Federal Department of Education

I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but the US education system SUCKS. I don’t give a damn whether the constitution says education is a state matter, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Education is a global concern so I don’t see why it can’t be addressed at the national level. While I agree that this No Child Left Behind thing is a joke, that’s no reason to scrap federal education programs.

Against: Separation of Church and State

Now this is just stupid. Tolerant Christian society is an oxymoron. Religions are intolerant by nature: they set out a bunch of rules, supposedly derived from God, and then do not tolerate violations. Besides, if the church is going to have some say in government, which church will it be? Catholic? Anglican? Methodist? Mormon? Quaker? How about all of the above? How the hell is that supposed to work? What about the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs? They have just as much right to vote and participate in the pseudodemocracy as the Christians? Why not throw in a few reps from the Church of Scientology? If Tom Cruise could speak in the senate at least the viewership might improve; we’ll just need to bring in a couch.

Religion has no place in politics. Religion plus politics equals the crusades, witch trials, persecution of minorities, subjugation of women and laws against blow jobs. Oh it all sounds good with all the talk of God loving you and a few days off for Christmas, but wait until you get a few laws against birth control, premarital sex and oral. Then see how you like.

For: Voluntary School Prayer

Ron Paul says if people want to pray in school, let them. That sounds good right? Wrong. Allowing prayer in school will quickly stigmatize anyone who does not pray when their classes do. This facilitates the brainwashing of children into a particular religion. If you inculturate a child into a religion before the child has fully developed critical thinking skills, freedom of religion (or freedom of thought for that matter) is impossible. This is precisely how Islamic terrorists are developed. I suppose you rednecks out there somehow figure that brainwashing children into Islam is bad, but brainwashing them into your religion is OK. Would it surprise you to learn that many Muslims think the same thing?

Libertarianism

A libertarian (like Ron Paul) is someone who believes that everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of others. This has some cool consequences, like how corporations would not be permitted to pollute the air or neighboring properties. Unfortunately, Libertarians generally promote free market capitalism. A simple thought experiment shows why this is folly: the free market treats everyone fairly in the sense that everyone can bid their money, goods and services for the money goods and services of others, e.g., if you want police protection or medical care, you can pay for it. The problem is that not everyone can bid, particularly children and people who have not yet been born. Thus, under a free market structure, future generations are subjected to the myopic despotism of the current generation. Because the impacts of environmental destruction are long term, the people who will be most affected can’t bid (they’re children or not yet born), and environmental impacts are undervalued by the free market. The underlying assumptions of free market capitalism are quite obviously invalid.

For: Privatized (Free Market) Health Care

Privatizing healthcare is evil. Here’s just one reason: children born to rich parents get good care, and children born to poor parents get no care. Would anyone like to stand up and argue that the medical care provided to a sick child should be determined by the income of its parents? I didn’t think so.

Against: abortion

Opposition to late term abortion I understand. Opposition to early abortion I do not. If life begins at the moment of conception, then practically every woman who is trying to conceive is a mass murderer because not all eggs attach. This doesn’t make sense. Why don’t people understand that when a woman doesn’t want a baby, there’s usually a damn good reason?

Pragmatically speaking, abortion is beneficial to society. Economist Stephen Levitt (author of Freakonomics) became famous for showing that the legalization of abortion caused the rapid decrease in crime in the US in the late 90s. Moreover, one of the greatest threats to the continuation of the human species is overpopulation, so a few less babies is probably a good thing.

For: Withdrawal from the United Nations

I cannot fathom why Ron Paul wants out of the UN. Someone please enlighten me so I can annihilate the argument.

For: Federal Regulation of Marriage

Why is it that Ron Paul wants to get rid of federal regulation of education, taxes and Homeland Security and just about everything else, but not marriage? Why is it that Ron Paul thinks people should be able to do what they like, unless they’re Gay? Same sex marriage does not interfere with anyone’s rights, so how in the hell can a self-confessed libertarian be against it? This doesn’t make any sense, unless Ron Paul is just anti-gay.

Conclusion

Come to think of it, I don’t think there’s anything in the U.S. constitution that denounces hate speech, Nazism, burning a cross on a black person’s lawn, bribing a judge or child pornography. Do you endorse these things Ron Paul? If not, why should we have laws about child porn but not prayer in schools? Child porn is a bad thing, but religious brainwashing of children leads to ethnocentrism, terrorism, global conflict, persecution of women and gays and countless murders. Not even child porn can compete with that for evil.

How do you make up your mind, Dr. Paul, when the constitution doesn’t comment? Can’t you see the terrible consequences of massive deregulation in a country full of radicals, rednecks, racists, right wing whackos, warmongers and Bill O’Reilly?

To all you Ron Paul supporters, are you sure this is where your country ought to go?

On to Part Two –>

(or, “Why human rights are a bullshit basis for a legal system”)

Disclaimer: this article is not about human rights violations by any particular person or group and is not right wing propaganda aimed at justifying torture, terrorism, genocide or other evils in our world. This is about scrapping human rights as a basis for ethics and law in favor of something more effective.

Many countries have a bill of rights or equivalent legal document that sets out the rights and freedoms of citizens. See, for example:

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2006)
• Human Rights Act 1998 (United Kingdom)
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
• United States Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution (Completed in 1789, ratified in 1791)

Here are some examples of rights:

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
• Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability (Canada).
• A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (United States)

Here are six reasons why basing a legal or ethical system on rights is a really bad idea.

1. Inter-Rights Conflict

The primary reason that any rights-centered ethical system is doomed to abuse or impotence is that practically all of the rights are in conflict with each other. For example, freedom of religion is clearly in conflict with freedom from discrimination based on gender, race and sexual orientation, because of the racism, sexism and homophobia ingrained in some religions. Said Rajaie-Khorassani, the Iranian representative to the United Nations said in 1981 that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which conflicted with Islamic law. [1]

It is easy to contrive situations where freedom from torture conflicts with right to life, or where the right to trial by jury conflicts with the right to security. Just pick a few rights and use your imagination. I’m sure you won’t have too much trouble finding the conflicts.

2. General Absurdity

In the novel Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein criticizes the U.S. Declaration of Independence and 20th century democracy in general as unrealistic, idealistic fantasies in which “people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.” (p. 93). What good is the right to work when you can’t find a job? What does your right to life mean when a man with a gun threatens your family? What does the right to liberty mean in a country full of jails? What good is the right to asylum when some psycho in Guantanamo Bay is shoving a taser up your ass? Some people have this notion that they have a right to the things that make life worth living. This is nuts. Family, career and hobbies all require work and sacrifice, and sometimes shit happens and your rights don’t mean squat.

3. Judges’ Pragmatic Misapplications of Rights

The next problem is that judges tend to interpret rights in a social context, rendering them impotent. This is why, for instance, free speech does not apply to children in school. If all people have a right to free speech and are entitled to freedom of discrimination based on age, and elementary education is mandatory, it clearly follows that children have the the right to free speech in school. However, the judges who’ve ruled on this thought for a few minutes about the problems it would cause and shut it down. As far as I know, there are no bills of rights that say, “you are entitled to the following rights as long as it’s not too difficult;” yet, this is how judges interpret rights, time after time.

4. Pragmatic Rights

When government officials sit down to write a bill of rights, they do so in a particular social and historical context; they’re human too, with all the biases and irrationalities that may imply. Some rights, like the right to a name, may be timeless. Others, like the right to bear arms, are included for reasons that make sense in a particular historical context. The problem is, once rights are granted, it can be prohibitively difficult to remove them, even when the world changes such that they no longer make sense.

In the U.S., the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Of course, a militia is no longer necessary to national security in the United States. At first glance, then, the second amendment should be repealed (unless another justification is found). This has proven incredibly difficult. Arguments of the form, “you can’t introduce gun control because it’s against the constitution” miss the point that a constitution should be regularly updated to keep pace with the changing social context. But I digress (I’ll return to gun control in a later post).

5. Layman’s Misunderstandings of Rights

Ever hear someone claim they have the right to smoke? To hurt themselves? To eat badly? To punish their children how they see fit? To be rude? To drive?

Many people succumb to the delusion that they have a right to do whatever they want, as long as it is not illegal. This is simply untrue. A person’s rights are explicitly granted by national legislation such as a bill of rights. If no legal document confers a right (e.g. to smoke) then no such right exists.

Some people make a philosophical argument that certain human rights are innate (see the preamble to the UDHR). Practically speaking, however, your rights are those your country decides to give you.

6. Promotes Egocentrism

I don’t know about anyone else, but I am sick and tired of people whining about their rights. What ever happened to responsibilities? What about honor? Depending what country you live in, you probably have the right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean you should be rude, incite fear and hate, make people uncomfortable or generally irritate the people around you. You may have the right to pursue happiness, but that doesn’t mean you can neglect your children if they get in the way.

I suggest (and this is just a conjecture, but worth considering) that the emphasis on rights in western society explains at least some of the self-centered behavior that has become ubiquitous. If our culture instead emphasized duty and honor, doesn’t it seem likely that people would treat each other better?

Conclusion

I hear and read constant blathering about rights without any regard to responsibility. Simultaneously, we have a dearth of intelligent debate on whether certain rights should be granted or whether right are the best basis for our ethical and legal systems.

In my next post, I will suggest an alternative basis for ethics and law in western culture.