Arguing that you have the right not to wear a mask is arguing that you have the right to spread COVID, which shuts down businesses, destroys jobs and takes lives. An angry mob may grant its members such a right but no healthy society does.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
17 July 2020
The Right Not to Wear a Mask
15 February 2010
Biden vs. Cheney - Due Process Loses
I love Joe Biden. Dick Cheney? Well, not so much. And yet Cheney has won the last little tussle with Joe, and this, like so much related to Cheney, infuriates me. He has won because he got Joe to agree with an implied premise in his argument.
Cheney is upset that the Nigerian crotch-bomber was read his Miranda rights. Joe counters that the same thing happened to the ped-bomber from England under Bush's administration. Cheney doesn't think that would-be terrorists deserve rights. Joe seems to (sort of) agree with this inane suggestion, which is why the two VPs upset me.
The executive branch has a duty to execute the laws. VPs, for instance, are sworn into office promising to uphold the constitution. This seems to me a vote of confidence in our laws. And note that our laws are such that having rights does NOT mean that one can't or won't be punished.
So, when Cheney expresses his anger that someone may have hinted that the crotch-bomber (which, by the way, could make for an attention-getting chat name (as opposed to CB handle)) had rights, I have to ask this: if Cheney doesn't trust our laws or due process, why on earth did he waste 8 years of his life as the second-highest ranking member of the branch of government sworn to uphold those laws?
Biden was right to call out Cheney yesterday. He could have gone further and simply said that his faith in our legal system is so great that if an accused terrorist is found innocent he'd accept that verdict as more trust-worthy than trial by media.
I know that it is fashionable not to trust in government. It would be nice, though, if the people heading it up showed a little faith in it.
Cheney is upset that the Nigerian crotch-bomber was read his Miranda rights. Joe counters that the same thing happened to the ped-bomber from England under Bush's administration. Cheney doesn't think that would-be terrorists deserve rights. Joe seems to (sort of) agree with this inane suggestion, which is why the two VPs upset me.
The executive branch has a duty to execute the laws. VPs, for instance, are sworn into office promising to uphold the constitution. This seems to me a vote of confidence in our laws. And note that our laws are such that having rights does NOT mean that one can't or won't be punished.
So, when Cheney expresses his anger that someone may have hinted that the crotch-bomber (which, by the way, could make for an attention-getting chat name (as opposed to CB handle)) had rights, I have to ask this: if Cheney doesn't trust our laws or due process, why on earth did he waste 8 years of his life as the second-highest ranking member of the branch of government sworn to uphold those laws?
Biden was right to call out Cheney yesterday. He could have gone further and simply said that his faith in our legal system is so great that if an accused terrorist is found innocent he'd accept that verdict as more trust-worthy than trial by media.
I know that it is fashionable not to trust in government. It would be nice, though, if the people heading it up showed a little faith in it.
30 April 2009
Torturous Logic
There is lots of news and commentary addressing the question of using torture. The typical arguments against it revolve around the notion that we are better than that, torture is not effective (a person is pain will tell you what you want to hear, regardless of whether it is true), and torture violates domestic and international law. I haven't heard what is, for me, the most important reason for this.
There was a time in our history (think Spanish Inquisition, witch trials or any inquiry by an angry or frightened dictator) when the interrogation methods were essentially punishment. If such interrogation methods were legal, trials were essentially meaningless. If you could be put on the rack and your bones broken in the process of trying to extract a confession or "gather information," then the fact that you might eventually be found innocent is rather poor consolation. Torture as a means to extract a confession is essentially a guilty verdict without a trial.
The modern world with rights for the individual is at odds with torture for this reason. It is both this simple and this complex. Once you begin torture as a means to determine guilt, you've corroded rights.
There was a time in our history (think Spanish Inquisition, witch trials or any inquiry by an angry or frightened dictator) when the interrogation methods were essentially punishment. If such interrogation methods were legal, trials were essentially meaningless. If you could be put on the rack and your bones broken in the process of trying to extract a confession or "gather information," then the fact that you might eventually be found innocent is rather poor consolation. Torture as a means to extract a confession is essentially a guilty verdict without a trial.
The modern world with rights for the individual is at odds with torture for this reason. It is both this simple and this complex. Once you begin torture as a means to determine guilt, you've corroded rights.
16 May 2008
A Safer World
We are gradually choosing a safer world. It is less obvious that this pursuit is making ours a better world.
Canadian teenagers are generally unable to get their driver's license until they are 18. Data proves that drives aged 16 and 17 are more likely to destroy property and lives. It only makes sense that these teenagers ought not to drive, and increasingly, American states are following this lead. Of course, if one follows the data to its logical conclusion, we ought to stop all young adults from driving: even a 21 year old is more likely to wreck than is a 30-something driver.
I'm unable to find the reference, but a town in Brazil instituted a ladies night some years ago. They wanted the ladies in this macho town to be able to go out without harassment or concern. On this one evening each month, no men are allowed out after dark. What they had not anticipated is a drop in violent crime of about 95%. Again, to logically follow from this, it makes sense to have a curfew for all men, every night.
Finally, 21st century laws like the Patriot Act and new executive orders are seeking to make ours a safer world by monitoring your mail, reading, phone calls, and Internet activity without a warrant and by allowing detention without cause for an indefinite period. This, too, is making America safer.
"There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where the police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, the government would probably discover and arrest more terrorists or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally. But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live, and it wouldn't be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that country wouldn't be America.
- Senator Russ Feingold, October 11, 2001, in a debate over the Patriot Act. Senator Feingold was the only senator to vote against it.
These are just the first steps towards making this a safer world: stop young adults from driving, keep men in their own homes after dark, monitor all thinking, and lock up and / or deport anyone we think is suspicious.
Canadian teenagers are generally unable to get their driver's license until they are 18. Data proves that drives aged 16 and 17 are more likely to destroy property and lives. It only makes sense that these teenagers ought not to drive, and increasingly, American states are following this lead. Of course, if one follows the data to its logical conclusion, we ought to stop all young adults from driving: even a 21 year old is more likely to wreck than is a 30-something driver.
I'm unable to find the reference, but a town in Brazil instituted a ladies night some years ago. They wanted the ladies in this macho town to be able to go out without harassment or concern. On this one evening each month, no men are allowed out after dark. What they had not anticipated is a drop in violent crime of about 95%. Again, to logically follow from this, it makes sense to have a curfew for all men, every night.
Finally, 21st century laws like the Patriot Act and new executive orders are seeking to make ours a safer world by monitoring your mail, reading, phone calls, and Internet activity without a warrant and by allowing detention without cause for an indefinite period. This, too, is making America safer.
"There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where the police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, the government would probably discover and arrest more terrorists or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally. But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live, and it wouldn't be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that country wouldn't be America.
- Senator Russ Feingold, October 11, 2001, in a debate over the Patriot Act. Senator Feingold was the only senator to vote against it.
These are just the first steps towards making this a safer world: stop young adults from driving, keep men in their own homes after dark, monitor all thinking, and lock up and / or deport anyone we think is suspicious.
03 October 2007
Mob or Majority?
The only thing that keeps the majority from becoming a mob is the rights of the individual. Here are three tidbits from O'Reilly, Goleman, and Milgram to argue my case.
I’m at the gym the other day, getting news without sound. Bill O’Reilly is on. A graphic flashes up, something to the effect that “Was it proper that the police tasered that guy at Florida State who asked a rambling question of John Kerry?” The poll results? 75% said yes, and 25% said no. The vast majority of Americans agree that it makes sense to inflict pain on a guy who they find annoying.
Daniel Goleman, in his new book Social Intelligence, tells the story of 3 year olds in a study. Stage one, the 3 year olds are exposed to adults playing a game by clearly observed rules. Stage two, puppets come into the room and begin to play the same game – but make obvious mistakes. The reaction of the children? They begin to clamor for the puppets to behave properly. Not only do the children learn the rules, they seem to have a compulsion to foist those rules onto others, ensuring social conformity. (Goleman speculates that the basis for this might be genetic.)
In a famous study at Yale, Stanley Milgram learned how willingly individuals become Nazis. In the wake of World War 2, wondering at how an entire nation could become willing accomplices to evil, Milgram set up a study that appeared to have two volunteers – one of whom inflicted pain on the other in a study of memory. One volunteer would read a list of paired words, like “bird,” and “nest.” The other “volunteer” would be tested on memory, as the first volunteer would read “bird” and the second volunteer would be expected to say “nest.” If the second “volunteer” forgot the response word – or didn’t say anything – the first volunteer would administer a shock. The shock administered would steadily increase in voltage, up to 450 volts, an amount marked “dangerous.”
As it turns out, the second “volunteer” was actually an actor. The shock was simulated. And as the shock increased in intensity, this actor would scream in pain, would begin to complain about a bad heart, and would eventually not speak at all. The actual volunteer could continue to administer the shock even if the actor was not responding – a penalty for not remembering.
Milgram expected (as did almost everyone he asked) that only about four-tenth of one percent of the population would ever take the shocks all the way to the max level of 450 volts. As it turns out, more than half did. (Since duplicated dozens if not hundreds of times across countries and age groups, the results of Milgram’s study indicated that the average person would, indeed, be a willing accomplice to evil even if they might not initiate it.)
All this to say, O’Reilly’s data might indicate that we still haven’t done a particularly good job of over-riding the impulse to conform and to enforce conformity. As a guy whose ability to fit in has always been spotty (at best), this tendency of groups frightens me.
The real brilliance of the founding fathers was not just that they embraced democracy. Knowing the psychology of groups, they went further: they granted civil rights to ensure that the individual was protected from the democratic majority eager to coerce conformity.
I’m at the gym the other day, getting news without sound. Bill O’Reilly is on. A graphic flashes up, something to the effect that “Was it proper that the police tasered that guy at Florida State who asked a rambling question of John Kerry?” The poll results? 75% said yes, and 25% said no. The vast majority of Americans agree that it makes sense to inflict pain on a guy who they find annoying.
Daniel Goleman, in his new book Social Intelligence, tells the story of 3 year olds in a study. Stage one, the 3 year olds are exposed to adults playing a game by clearly observed rules. Stage two, puppets come into the room and begin to play the same game – but make obvious mistakes. The reaction of the children? They begin to clamor for the puppets to behave properly. Not only do the children learn the rules, they seem to have a compulsion to foist those rules onto others, ensuring social conformity. (Goleman speculates that the basis for this might be genetic.)
In a famous study at Yale, Stanley Milgram learned how willingly individuals become Nazis. In the wake of World War 2, wondering at how an entire nation could become willing accomplices to evil, Milgram set up a study that appeared to have two volunteers – one of whom inflicted pain on the other in a study of memory. One volunteer would read a list of paired words, like “bird,” and “nest.” The other “volunteer” would be tested on memory, as the first volunteer would read “bird” and the second volunteer would be expected to say “nest.” If the second “volunteer” forgot the response word – or didn’t say anything – the first volunteer would administer a shock. The shock administered would steadily increase in voltage, up to 450 volts, an amount marked “dangerous.”
As it turns out, the second “volunteer” was actually an actor. The shock was simulated. And as the shock increased in intensity, this actor would scream in pain, would begin to complain about a bad heart, and would eventually not speak at all. The actual volunteer could continue to administer the shock even if the actor was not responding – a penalty for not remembering.
Milgram expected (as did almost everyone he asked) that only about four-tenth of one percent of the population would ever take the shocks all the way to the max level of 450 volts. As it turns out, more than half did. (Since duplicated dozens if not hundreds of times across countries and age groups, the results of Milgram’s study indicated that the average person would, indeed, be a willing accomplice to evil even if they might not initiate it.)
All this to say, O’Reilly’s data might indicate that we still haven’t done a particularly good job of over-riding the impulse to conform and to enforce conformity. As a guy whose ability to fit in has always been spotty (at best), this tendency of groups frightens me.
The real brilliance of the founding fathers was not just that they embraced democracy. Knowing the psychology of groups, they went further: they granted civil rights to ensure that the individual was protected from the democratic majority eager to coerce conformity.
02 July 2007
Ben Franklin's Dark Prophecy
"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of government but what may be a Blessing to People if well-administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
- Benjamin Franklin's review of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 (from Gore Vidal's Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson).
A friend of mine came from Iran shortly after the revolution that catapulted the Ayatollah Khomeini into power. I asked him what was most remarkable about the transition from Iran to the U.S. He said, "All the things that are being taken away. Liberty. Freedom. Privacy. Refusal to torture. In Iran, they used religion to intimidate and to support law."
Perhaps Ben Franklin was right that we will simply become too corrupt to maintain a great government. But for me this kind of thing is so unnecessary. There are a lot of problems we haven't yet solved. For instance, how to create a thriving economy without creating lots of green house gases. Or how to ensure a sense of meaning to employees and citizens within large companies or countries. But the problems of individual liberties, of keeping religion out of government, of privacy - these are problems that we've solved. It is the worst kind of idiocy to turn our backs on those already provided solutions and retreat from progress.
- Benjamin Franklin's review of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 (from Gore Vidal's Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson).
A friend of mine came from Iran shortly after the revolution that catapulted the Ayatollah Khomeini into power. I asked him what was most remarkable about the transition from Iran to the U.S. He said, "All the things that are being taken away. Liberty. Freedom. Privacy. Refusal to torture. In Iran, they used religion to intimidate and to support law."
Perhaps Ben Franklin was right that we will simply become too corrupt to maintain a great government. But for me this kind of thing is so unnecessary. There are a lot of problems we haven't yet solved. For instance, how to create a thriving economy without creating lots of green house gases. Or how to ensure a sense of meaning to employees and citizens within large companies or countries. But the problems of individual liberties, of keeping religion out of government, of privacy - these are problems that we've solved. It is the worst kind of idiocy to turn our backs on those already provided solutions and retreat from progress.
24 October 2006
A Confusion Between Rights and Being Right
Governments in France, the UK, and the US are corrupting a precious legacy of Western Civilization. France's lower house of parliament recently passed a bill making denial of the Armenian genocide a crime. The British recently charged an activist for passing out anti-homosexual leaflets at a gay and lesbian festival, enforcing a law that allows the crown to prosecute anyone causing a person "alarm or distress" on "at least two occasions." Bush has decided that habeas corpus is a gift that he is free to take from anyone he deems unworthy of it.
This confusion between what seems to be right - squelch the speech of activists who harass those with whom they disagree or indefinitely hold suspects without the need to go public with potentially dangerous information - and rights - freedom of speech and the right to trial - can very easily lead down a slippery slope towards benevolent dictatorships. Communities need to reverse their trend of worrying about what is right for the individual and instead focus on protecting individual rights.
This confusion between what seems to be right - squelch the speech of activists who harass those with whom they disagree or indefinitely hold suspects without the need to go public with potentially dangerous information - and rights - freedom of speech and the right to trial - can very easily lead down a slippery slope towards benevolent dictatorships. Communities need to reverse their trend of worrying about what is right for the individual and instead focus on protecting individual rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)