Should people be allowed to make moral choices for themselves or should such choices be turned over to higher authorities? Actually, that's a false dilemma: some choices are always restricted while others are generally allowed. Thus, the real question is where we draw the line: at what point do we say that no one should be permitted to make personal choices?
In Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today, Wendy Kaminer writes:
It is curious that people would turn choices over to the government on the assumption that the government, made up of people, would make better choices than individuals — or perhaps it's not that curious after all. An institution like the government is organized according to procedures and rules which, ideally, can transcend many of the passions and errors that may plague the decision-making of individuals.
A good example of how this can work reasonably well might be the scientific community: on the whole, "science" works better than individual scientists because of a multitude of checks and balances that exist to prevent the development of bad data. There have been plenty of errors, of course, and success can take a lot of time, but on the whole it has done very well.
So it's not a stretch to think that some other institution, like a government, can be treated in the same way. It's not unreasonable to think that fallible humans might be able to come up with procedures which make a fallible human institution a bit less mistake-prone.
Perhaps government can never work as well as science. Perhaps, because of the power government has (and science doesn't), government needs to be held to a much higher standard. Regardless, it's really not out of line to think that human institutions like government can work better and arrive at better conclusions than random individuals.
This is not to say that Wendy Kaminer is not making a valid argument, but we should be careful not to take her idea too far. It is true that the government cannot be trusted to choose "good" speech over bad or "good" religion over bad, but I'm not sure that it's entirely because individuals cannot. It may be more due to the fact that such a choice is inherently impossible, regardless of who is making it. It may be more because asking which speech or religion is "good" or "bad" is the wrong question and we should instead be looking what whether "harm" is being caused.
At the very least, though, anyone who argues or even just implies that the government should be entrusted with choosing good speech or religion must be asked to defend that. I don't think that it is, in principle, an impossible position to defend, but I think that it would likely be very difficult. Since any government decisions about what is "good" or "bad" will lead to restrictions on how I live, I'll examine that defense a lot more closely than I will most scientific arguments.
In Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today, Wendy Kaminer writes:
[The] assumption that government knows best suggests that we're a nation of children (while the government is staffed by adults), and it's no coincidence that censorship campaigns often begin with the stated intent of protecting minors. Censorship in the name of child welfare usually garners popular support, although it treats child rearing as the collective responsibility of government officials and not individual parents.
In any case, if individuals can't be trusted to choose "good" speech over bad (or "good" religions over "cults"), then neither can their government, which is, after all, composed of individuals, with all their vices; it's not as if being elected or appointed to office magically cleanses them of sin.
It is curious that people would turn choices over to the government on the assumption that the government, made up of people, would make better choices than individuals — or perhaps it's not that curious after all. An institution like the government is organized according to procedures and rules which, ideally, can transcend many of the passions and errors that may plague the decision-making of individuals.
A good example of how this can work reasonably well might be the scientific community: on the whole, "science" works better than individual scientists because of a multitude of checks and balances that exist to prevent the development of bad data. There have been plenty of errors, of course, and success can take a lot of time, but on the whole it has done very well.
So it's not a stretch to think that some other institution, like a government, can be treated in the same way. It's not unreasonable to think that fallible humans might be able to come up with procedures which make a fallible human institution a bit less mistake-prone.
Perhaps government can never work as well as science. Perhaps, because of the power government has (and science doesn't), government needs to be held to a much higher standard. Regardless, it's really not out of line to think that human institutions like government can work better and arrive at better conclusions than random individuals.
This is not to say that Wendy Kaminer is not making a valid argument, but we should be careful not to take her idea too far. It is true that the government cannot be trusted to choose "good" speech over bad or "good" religion over bad, but I'm not sure that it's entirely because individuals cannot. It may be more due to the fact that such a choice is inherently impossible, regardless of who is making it. It may be more because asking which speech or religion is "good" or "bad" is the wrong question and we should instead be looking what whether "harm" is being caused.
At the very least, though, anyone who argues or even just implies that the government should be entrusted with choosing good speech or religion must be asked to defend that. I don't think that it is, in principle, an impossible position to defend, but I think that it would likely be very difficult. Since any government decisions about what is "good" or "bad" will lead to restrictions on how I live, I'll examine that defense a lot more closely than I will most scientific arguments.
SHARE
