#1: My Beliefs, Part One
I was going to make one post about my political beliefs and call it a day, but I think I'm going to divide them up into two posts for the sake of clarity and also for the sake of not driving everyone away on day one not posting a big wall of text. Today, you get my overarching principles, next time I'll delve into the specifics.
I should probably start by saying that I don't feel like my beliefs have changed that much over the years, but I've stopped identifying with a lot of the labels I used to prefer (socialist, pro-choice, etc). I'm not quite sure how to classify myself anymore. Maybe by the time I finish writing my 100 Things, I'll have it figured out!
A few months ago, I was doing some research and I came upon a site called Bleeding Heart Libertarians. This isn't how I think of myself; I've never been a bleeding heart of any ilk, though I have been called heart-less. Regardless, the people writing for that site specified that they subscribe to a libertarian philosophy because they believe that it is best for all people. They implied - or maybe even said outright - that others hold political beliefs because they feel they are right even if their beliefs are not best for everyone.
That very simple statement took me by surprise. I suppose I'd always assumed that right, left, or centrist, individuals selected the political ideals they did precisely because they believed that their ideas were best for the whole of society. Realizing that one could hold a belief and at the same time acknowledge - not even pretend otherwise but flat-out acknowledge - that it wouldn't benefit the whole country was ... freeing. It strikes me as very sensible that something could be beneficial for most but detrimental for others and still be The Right Thing. Now, when I think about how government should operate and what freedoms (and responsibilities) we should have, I don't try to make everything fit into a neat little box in which everyone benefits equally; I accept that in some cases, running the world the way I think it ought to be run will not help everyone and may in fact hurt some.
What I believe most firmly is that everyone deserves the freedom to make choices about his or her own life without interference, so long as those choices do not limit someone else's freedom. That's decidedly libertarian. I don't think that most people are smart enough to make good choices. In fact, I think what we call average is actually quite stupid, and I expect that a lot of people, given this freedom, will make poor decisions. Abolishing policies that protect people from their own stupidity may harm some, but this brings me back to what I said above; something can be right without being good for everyone.
At the same time, I believe in education and I believe in the power of shame. Let people do what they will, but don't pretend that all choices are equal. If you choose poorly, you should expect that others will at least attempt to shame you for your actions. If you still feel that you did the right thing, this shouldn't get you down. If you feel that you did the wrong thing, then guilt is the proper emotion to have - feel it and use it to guide your decisions in the future.
This is something that comes up a lot in the whole breastmilk vs. formula debate. At times, I've said that formula should be given by prescription only. However, I don't really trust doctors not to give scripts to women who don't NEED them just because they demand them. Doctors write prescriptions for all kinds of drugs that aren't necessary simply because their patients request them - we cannot expect that formula would be any different. What's the solution? Good old social conditioning in the form of shame. If your baby actually needs formula, you've got nothing to feel bad about, but if s/he doesn't (and most babies don't) and you simply chose not to nurse, you deserve dirty looks and comments. WIth any luck, the embarrassment you feel will help you make better choices next time around.
In short, liberty for all, but without the brainlessly open-minded nonsense that says judgement is wrong. Judgement is healthy. Liberty and judgement for all!
I should probably start by saying that I don't feel like my beliefs have changed that much over the years, but I've stopped identifying with a lot of the labels I used to prefer (socialist, pro-choice, etc). I'm not quite sure how to classify myself anymore. Maybe by the time I finish writing my 100 Things, I'll have it figured out!
A few months ago, I was doing some research and I came upon a site called Bleeding Heart Libertarians. This isn't how I think of myself; I've never been a bleeding heart of any ilk, though I have been called heart-less. Regardless, the people writing for that site specified that they subscribe to a libertarian philosophy because they believe that it is best for all people. They implied - or maybe even said outright - that others hold political beliefs because they feel they are right even if their beliefs are not best for everyone.
That very simple statement took me by surprise. I suppose I'd always assumed that right, left, or centrist, individuals selected the political ideals they did precisely because they believed that their ideas were best for the whole of society. Realizing that one could hold a belief and at the same time acknowledge - not even pretend otherwise but flat-out acknowledge - that it wouldn't benefit the whole country was ... freeing. It strikes me as very sensible that something could be beneficial for most but detrimental for others and still be The Right Thing. Now, when I think about how government should operate and what freedoms (and responsibilities) we should have, I don't try to make everything fit into a neat little box in which everyone benefits equally; I accept that in some cases, running the world the way I think it ought to be run will not help everyone and may in fact hurt some.
What I believe most firmly is that everyone deserves the freedom to make choices about his or her own life without interference, so long as those choices do not limit someone else's freedom. That's decidedly libertarian. I don't think that most people are smart enough to make good choices. In fact, I think what we call average is actually quite stupid, and I expect that a lot of people, given this freedom, will make poor decisions. Abolishing policies that protect people from their own stupidity may harm some, but this brings me back to what I said above; something can be right without being good for everyone.
At the same time, I believe in education and I believe in the power of shame. Let people do what they will, but don't pretend that all choices are equal. If you choose poorly, you should expect that others will at least attempt to shame you for your actions. If you still feel that you did the right thing, this shouldn't get you down. If you feel that you did the wrong thing, then guilt is the proper emotion to have - feel it and use it to guide your decisions in the future.
This is something that comes up a lot in the whole breastmilk vs. formula debate. At times, I've said that formula should be given by prescription only. However, I don't really trust doctors not to give scripts to women who don't NEED them just because they demand them. Doctors write prescriptions for all kinds of drugs that aren't necessary simply because their patients request them - we cannot expect that formula would be any different. What's the solution? Good old social conditioning in the form of shame. If your baby actually needs formula, you've got nothing to feel bad about, but if s/he doesn't (and most babies don't) and you simply chose not to nurse, you deserve dirty looks and comments. WIth any luck, the embarrassment you feel will help you make better choices next time around.
In short, liberty for all, but without the brainlessly open-minded nonsense that says judgement is wrong. Judgement is healthy. Liberty and judgement for all!