Call of the Wild

This past week, something that I never thought would happen, actually came to pass: I actually found myself agreeing with a libertarian viewpoint. It surprises me to even write that, but when the State of Maryland and its Child Protection Services intervened to detain two children who were walking home alone, I could not help but feel that there are times when the "less government" crowd is onto something.

Impossible claims aside - and let's face it, I could no more embrace a libertarian worldview than become the next President of USA (or India, for that matter) - I did find myself wondering what was wrong with our government that it devotes its time to grabbing children of the street and threatening to separate them from their parents. Yet, what was even stranger, was the revelation that the officials involved were following the law in their actions - Maryland actually requires that all children under the age of thirteen be accompanied by a guardian. What I did realize, once I'd filtered out all the noise and hyperbole, was that this is a perfect example of what I'd discussed a few blogs ago, that we pass laws with excellent intentions that then become impediments to other equally well-intentioned individuals. In this case, we have a law that was clearly meant to provide protection for children and ensure that the authorities had permission to intervene when they perceived a need. Of course, perception is everything and what the zealous officers of the local police and CPS felt was warranted was viewed quite differently by the parents who were at the receiving end. Hyperbole aside, and I feel quite sure that both parties will exaggerate the aspect that suits their narrative and downplay all else, the fact is that like the blind men conducting a tactile examination of a pachyderm, all are slightly right and also wrong.

Now those who want less government in our lives may immediately point to this case as evidence enough that the government needs to be reigned in and downsized. Sadly, things are never quite so simple. It was not the police in black helicopters who swooped in to seize the children, rather they were summoned by a concerned citizen. I would wager much that the concerned neighbor who saw two small children walking by alone had no idea that it was actually in the law that they should be accompanied but instinctively felt that it was not right and hence summoned the police. He, or she, was driven by the best of intentions and as a quick perusal of any discussion forum will reveal, there are many who share that opinion and would censure a parent for sending their children out alone. There are many though who feel that parents have the right to raise their kids as they see fit and that such laws as allow the State to intervene between parent and child are wholly misplaced and need to be repealed. Life, though is painted in subtle shades of grey, and there is no easy demarcation between the rights of parents and the responsibilities of the State.

Even were it possible to draw a bright line in this particular instance, there are so many more cases that muddy the water. Should children be prevented from touching any alcohol or should parents be allowed to choose when and where their child is exposed to the fruit of the vine? We not only proscribe parents from making this choice, but we threaten them with dire consequences for any infringement. This may be one law that is driven by self-righteous and meddling busybodies, and one that causes far more harm than it prevents but it also enjoys plentiful support. Vaccinations, and the refusal of some parents to allow it, is yet another hot issue, and the State may claim a legitimate interest, while parents may, and do, argue that it is their right to make that decision for their children. Methods of disciplining children is but one more example where the State often intervenes and separates children from parents. The target is abusive parents, but we have yet to find a universally accepted definition of child abuse. While caning or the use of a cat-o'-nine-tails may be generally accepted to be off limits, spanking, slaps and even yelling are still debated with great passion by both sides of the question. There is little doubt in the most egregious of cases, but it is the borderline and debatable cases that usually draw widespread attention, in part because of their ambiguity, and because of the passion they excite by partisans of all political stripes. It is worth noting here, that some of my more militantly atheistic friends claim that indoctrinating children in blind faith is a form of child abuse, an idea with which no religious parent would ever agree, highlighting once more my familiar refrain. One could sift through and find thousands upon thousands of similar examples, and they all show one thing: it is not the over-reach of the State that is the problem, but difficulty in formulating a law that protects the weak and powerless without intruding on the individual's privacy and sovereignty.

In cases such as this, it is worth pausing to reflect that the laws we hate, while sometimes deserving of our approbation, were usually, if not always a result of a public demand. An excellent case in point is the laws on sexual offenders. There are laws that prevent convicted offenders from living anywhere near all sorts of institutions - schools, parks, churches - which were enacted to meet a public desire to be safe from such menaces. Of course, the consequences can be quite devastating for those affected directly and sometimes counter productive; many sex offenders are unable to find accommodation (for who wants a rapist as a neighbor?) and hence logically unable to comply with the terms of their parole. This is but a single extreme case, but there are plenty more like this. The fault is not "the government" for our elected representatives typically act in ways that will win them continued support. And in the words of Lincoln, after all, we have a government of the people and by the people. When it seems that our government is not really acting in the interests of the people, we should take a deep breath and realize that in fact it very likely is expressing the will of the people and it is, we the people who have no clear idea of what we want. We are usually quite clear on how much  the State may encroach upon our lives, but we rarely are in agreement on the proper boundaries for our neighbors.

This Thing of Ours

Today is India's Independence Day, a day when a nation newly minted stepped forth into the community of free people and prepared to address the critical question of just what kind of government it should adopt. The word is instructive, for India chose her form of government, and while it often leaves much to be desired, and can drive its people to near insanity with its Byzantine forms and methods, it still is the government selected by the people of India. It is a day when I find myself musing on the nature of government itself, and its role in our life today, especially here in the United States.

In my current domicile, faith in government, tenuous at best is dropping once more, driven by a disgust at partisan gridlock and our elected representative's Nero-esque mastery of fiddling and fed in part by a strange delusion that it is American to distrust one's government. Whether such distrust is historic I cannot say, but one thing seems to be fairly certain - the current distrust and hatred of every aspect of our government is fruit of the Reagan revolution. Ronald Reagan, that master of the pithy soundbite, injected a poison into the body politic stronger perhaps than even he realized, and today we still suffer the consequences. When he declared that government was not the solution to our problems, but the problem itself, Reagan gave a catchy slogan to opponents of government and started us on the path to destroying ourselves.

Today, there is a strong constituency in the country that believes that whole government, or at least a very large part thereof should be shut down and those functions handed off to the private sector. This is, to view it charitably, a philosophy that seems largely ignorant of history. The American government, more than any other in the world, and certainly the first of its kind, was not a system of rules imposed upon the nation by an external force; rather it was a compact formed by the people and adopted as the most effective way of meeting the challenges they faced. This is a government, as Lincoln put it, by the people and for the people. And yet today we face a group of people who continually talk about the government as an alien entity that must be opposed and destroyed; one might as well seek to cut off one's arm or leg in a fit of pique.

There are two broad views of the fundamental nature of government. The minimalists believe that the government should be of such size and power that it cannot impact their lives at all, it should have no power to tax, or regulate. Being of the opposite camp, of course, I exaggerate their position, but based on statements by some of the loudest cheerleaders, I do not think I state it very wrongly. They would have people live by their personal means, and would have the government never aid or hinder the progress of any person, nor their destruction. There are naturally shades of difference, and this libertarian viewpoint is often compromised by those who would impose their own social values upon the rest through the medium of government.

On the other hand, there is the liberal view of government, of which I am a firm believer. Government was formed by us to serve our needs and purposes. It is a tool we have created to ensure our safety and progress, and it serves us at every level, from city to state to nation, and we have bestowed powers upon our government to serve specific needs in response to specific challenges. There is no magical level at which government becomes unacceptable and at some point the artificial walls between nations will crumble and be swept away and a world government will succeed our national governments as the highest power - this is the arc of history and we can embrace reality or stick our heads in the sand; the result will be the same with the difference being the level to which we can fashion the government that forms. As a liberal, I believe that we have formed our government to ensure equality and equal opportunity. It is something of an article of faith amongst believers in capitalism that "a rising tide will lift all boats"; we liberals believe in the same concept, that if we help our less fortunate brothers, it will benefit everyone.

It is sometimes suggested that liberalism is the enemy of capitalism. While some left-leaning governments have misstated the case, nothing could be further from the truth, really; the two are not mutually exclusive systems and should in fact bring out the best in both. Capitalism when it works, rewards excellence. A liberal government would actually ensure a healthier market to consume the fruit of a capitalist' labor and by promoting equal opportunity would actually inure the market against it's naturally monopolistic, and self-defeating tendencies. If there had never been a bust up of AT&T would we have enjoyed the explosion of mobile technology, or would we have been forced to suffice with whatever a monopolist company deigned to give us? Can capitalism thrive if there are no consumers for its produce? If capitalism is allowed to concentrate all wealth in the hands a very small number, wherefore the capital to fund development and innovation and improvements, given that great personal wealth rarely is harnessed in pursuit of the greater good?

And that really is the crux of the question: do we want a liberal form of government dedicated to the greatest good of the greatest number or do we wish to plow our lone farrows neither seeking help from anyone else nor offering any in turn? But in the end, no man is an island, and in the words of Disraeli, we must hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately.