"That government is best which governs least," first quoted in the United States Magazine in 1837 and the opening argument of Thoreau's 1849 Civil Disobedience, has been often quoted ever since, usually in arguing against a proposed new power of government. The Republicans especially have used it against what they see as increasing government interference in our freedoms.
It is important, however, to examine Thoreau's expansion of the thought. When all the citizens accept responsibility for the society they create, they will not need a government at all. But Thoreau saw that many people had not evolved to this point - they "were not prepared for it," as he put it. Until then, government is a necessary evil - an expedient (though he notes that most are inexpedient). I submit that we still have not reached this Utopian state of society, and we never will. Until the Singularity occurs and we can all relax into the protective arms of our robotic masters, we will have to govern ourselves as best as we can. Still, most of us humans - and especially I think Americans - long for a world without so much bureaucracy and so many rules.
What strikes me when I hear this quote or its concept invoked, is that so often it's used on the wrong side of the issue. Gay marriage is a perfect example. Opponents say that government (especially the judicial branch in this case) is interfering with traditional marriage and we need laws like DOMA to protect it. I want to ignore the pros and cons of gay marriage for now (perhaps in a later rant). But isn't passing laws to give the government the power to tell you who you can and can't marry just such an expansion of government power into our lives, depriving a large proportion of citizens of one of their freedoms?
Abortion bans, another hot-button Conservative issue, continue to pour out of the new Republican Congress. This is another example of new laws to take away a freedom that Americans have - I can't say enjoyed, but certainly exercised freely - for a half century.
So are prohibitions on alcohol and drugs, costing the Country over a trillion dollars since Nixon declared his War on Drugs. Nearly 3% of all Americans are either incarcerated, on parole, or in probation. Taking away a citizen's right to take drugs takes away some of his freedom, and it creates a vast bureaucracy. Yet many Conservatives support these laws.
In all three of these cases, the actions to be prohibited have no direct effect on the voter. These laws do not make you safer. They do nothing to increase your own freedom or advance your pursuit of happiness. If you disapprove of these actions, don't marry someone of your sex, don't have an abortion, and don't take drugs. You have that freedom. But you are not affected in any way if a lesbian couple marries, a woman has an abortion, or somebody gets high (DUI will always remain a required law). Yet conservative voters consistently vote for more government and less freedom.
Wouldn't it be better to not pass new restrictive laws and repeal those already on the books? No, we're not yet Thoreau's perfect society that can do away with government. But can't we let people make their own decisions about their own lives, especially when those decisions do nothing to lessen our own freedoms? Marriage (gay or otherwise), abortion, and drug use are all complex and serious issues, with huge effects on the lives of those engaging in them. Many people make terrible mistakes. People should be thoroughly informed of the pros and cons of each choice, and competent and unbiased advisors should be readily available to help people make those decisions. Each person's conscience should be their guide. But get government the hell out of the way.
If you're going to use Thoreau's quotations for your argument, I suggest this one:
“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.”
No comments:
Post a Comment