The wrong way to argue about abortion

Abortion is one of the most polarized issues in American politics. It's also one of the worst-debated ones. Both sides tend to rely on straw-man arguments that vilify the people on the other side.

• Pro-Life people portray Pro-Choice people as wanting to kill babies. (That is, they hate Life.)
• Pro-Choice people portray Pro-Life people as wanting to control women. (That is, they hate Choice.)

Both of those portrayals are wrong, because in reality the difference between the two groups comes down to the question of when a human life begins. If we could scientifically prove that, the discussion would end.

Here's a version of the issue that's simplified, but not by very much:

Let's say a woman wants to have an operation. Should she be able to?

• If the operation will kill another person, the answer is no.
• If the operation will not affect another person, the answer is yes.

Which of those bullets represents the situation with abortion? Well that's up for debate. In fact, that's the only thing that really needs to be debated to resolve this issue! [Edit: This is not quite true. See comment at the bottom.] But is that what people debate? No, hardly ever. Instead, people talk about how evil the other side is. It feels empowering to be so right! But it's not really empowering at all. It just makes the power swing back and forth based on who's in office (or on the bench) at the moment.

As an example, on the radio this morning I heard a woman explain that abortion rights are a racial issue. He's the gist of what she said:

Black communities (due to a lower average income) have much higher abortion rates. Therefore they have higher needs, and denying access hurts Black people more. 

But when she says that, here's what a Pro-Life person hears: 

Black babies are killed much more often than white babies. Therefore allowing abortion hurts Black people more.

Same data, same concern for racial justice. Opposite conclusion. It's going to be like that every time.

Here's a great idea that will probably never happen: Compromise, so that each side gets the most important things they care about while acknowledging the validity of the other side's concerns.

Like, for example, what if you you amended the Constitution to say something like this?

Abortion is allowed in the first trimester of pregnancy and forbidden in the third. States may decide what to do in-between.

You could tweak the specific week numbers, but you get the point. Pro-Life people would avoid the most heinous abortion scenarios; Pro-Choice people would avoid unwanted pregnancy for the vast majority of women, since presumably most women who get abortions know they want one pretty early. Nobody would be completely happy. But nobody would lose what they have just because political power swung a different direction this year, or this decade.

Could we just... admit that pretty much everybody involved is a good person and just talk?

Why personal character matters in political offices

I realized that in my recent posts on political offices, I haven't explicitly stated why I think that the character of a political candidate can make them unworthy of an office even if their opponent's policies seem unacceptable. Here's why.

When a person is in a position of power, the way they view power will affect how they use power. And that use will spread to other people in power. A corrupt president will breed more corruption. A leader who is guilty of - or even apathetic about - sexual violence will spawn more sexual violence. A racist leader will encourage more racism. There are very few political issues that can override these sorts of problems. Violence and corruption will ruin any society, no matter how "right" the leaders may be on any particular issue. But more to the point, individuals will suffer at the hands of their leaders if those leaders don't meet a certain bar of morality. So to uphold an immoral leader is to share responsibility for the suffering that they cause. Of course I'm not saying that you're responsible for every action of the people you vote for. But if you know that their world view justifies abuse of some group of people, and you support them anyway, then you are responsible.

I want to share a quote that I think is relevant here. It's from church, so I want to make it clear that I'm not claiming that the church endorses my position exactly. But here it is. It's from a letter from the First Presidency that is read in church (in this form or something very similar) pretty much whenever a major election is near:

...citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest.

Now if you read it in context, the candidate's morality isn't the only thing mentioned. Issues matter too. But to me, the fact that this doesn't say "seek out and then uphold leaders whose views are on the right side of the issues" is significant.

So, why would a good person vote for someone immoral? I'm afraid that one reason is that sometimes an immoral leader will benefit you. Their policies might actually grant you additional wealth, freedom, or (ick!) some special privilege over another group. Sometimes the opponent is even worse, and I understand the desire to vote for the lesser of two evils to prevent the larger one. But I fear that some people stop thinking even that way, and happily uphold leaders who are downright evil, because those leaders are (for the moment) providing some benefit. And of course, if you find yourself in that group, then you are absolutely responsible for the actions and policies that you are supporting.

Election 2020 :|

This election, like the last one, presents an icky choice for conservatives. I mean, if you're a democrat, the choice is easy. If you're moderate, the choice is also pretty easy. If you're a conservative, you have to make a nasty choice. One candidate is on the wrong side of some important issues (abortion, religious freedom, government overreach in various areas). The other candidate could be argued to have made progress in some areas, while grossly violating social justice in many others (racism, sexism, permanently separating children from their parents, etc.). I have seen a lot of vitriolic Facebook discussion about how to go about responding to this. Just like last time, lots of people I know firmly believe that you have to keep the democrats out of office no matter what, while others firmly believe that Trump isn't worthy of the office and must be kicked out, regardless of the cost in other areas. I don't want to wade into the mess of Facebook comments, but I do want to go on record for where I stand on it all. And then I have one final comment about voting in general.

As I said four years ago, Trump's moral failings make him unworthy of the office, and even if I agreed with him on every policy issue (which I don't), I could never vote for someone who is sexually abusive. Never someone who uses racist comments to attack his opponents. Never someone who tries to make national enemies of a religion to rally his voter base. Never someone who takes children from their parents and says it's to protect national security. Never, never Trump.

[Edit] I realized I hadn't said why his personal character matters in the decision to not vote for him. More on that in this post.

But what about Biden? Well if I lived in a swing state, I might be persuaded to hold my nose and vote for him. But I live in Washington State, where all of the electoral votes will go to Biden anyway. So I'm comfortable voting for someone else, someone who has no chance of winning. (I haven't decided who yet.) Hopefully this vote (and those of other voters like me) will send a message to the party system that not all conservative votes can be assumed based on just a few issues, or on the grounds of  "I'm not that other guy". The idea of a major third party might be a crazy dream, but it is where we should go, so I'll take a little step in that direction. Biden is terrible.

Now, about voting - I've also heard a lot of comments to the effect of "my vote doesn't count". Some people say it in frustration, and others say it to explain their intention to not vote. To that I ask, what do you expect your vote to do? Be the one that decides the election? If your vote is always the decisive one, you don't have a democracy or a republic. You have a monarchy. It's a fallacy to think that a vote that doesn't contribute to the win doesn't count. If everybody thought that way, nobody would vote. The whole point of voting is that opinions are expressed in aggregate. You either participate or you don't. I'll admit that I don't vote on every position that ever shows up on my ballot, but I feel like I have a moral obligation to participate when there's a moral issue on the ballot. And the presidency seems to always have moral issues attached to it. So I guess I'd say that even if the voting system makes your vote unlikely to sway the results of the election, if nothing else you can see it as taking a side. You are making it known that one person is standing up for your position. And personally I feel like I'm standing accountable for what I believe in.

And as a final note, if everybody who doesn't like Trump or Biden voted for a third party, that third party would win. Everybody needs to vote.

Flat Earth & the Alt Right

I had a bit of an epiphany today. It involves to seemingly-unrelated topics - one pretty trivial and the other very important. But they share something important in common. I'll start with the trivial one.

Debunking "Flat Earth"

A few days ago, I made the mistake of reading the comments on a Facebook post about some astronomy thing and was painfully reminded that there are a bunch of people who are convinced that the world is flat, and that all the evidence to the contrary is either forged or misunderstood. For some reason, it really, really bugs me to think that there are people who believe this. I find myself wishing that I could sit down with these people and have an honest conversation; I felt like if I could just ask them one or two questions, I could convince them to change their ways.

This begs the question: if you only had their attention for one question, which would you ask? It can't be too complex or rely too much on math, because if you have to rely on something that abstract then you've already lost the argument. I had a progression of questions that came to mind (along with some of the responses I might get):

1. Why hasn't anybody just taken a picture of the edge? That should settle the matter pretty easily. (I guess they believe the South "Pole" is the edge, and it's dangerous to get there, and your navigation gets messed up, so you're not where you think you are.)
2. If you can't get to the edge, then why not just do a trip around the edge of Antarctica, and measure the distance/time? With the globe model, the trip should be the same as a trip at a high northern latitude. But with the flat model, the trip should be much longer than it would be even at the equator.
3. My wife brought up the question of seasons - that doesn't really make sense in a flat world. (I guess a lot of people don't understand the seasons anyway.)
4. Similarly, what about the sun rising in the east? If I see the sun rise on the eastern horizon, shouldn't everyone? (I wondered if maybe they thought that horizon is just as far as you can see, so maybe they'd think that the sun on the horizon just means the sun is really far away but in the sky?)
5. Even simpler: If it's noon for me, the sun is high above. Shouldn't it be high above for everybody? Why is there no sun in the sky at all for some people?

I think question #5 should do it. The fact that some people see the sun to the east, others to the west, some straight up, and others not at all - at the same time - has to mean that the world isn't flat. And it's super simple - it relies only on a phenomenon that we experience every single day.

So, why do I care so much about people not believing this? Hold that thought for just a moment.

Debunking White Supremacy

There are people in the country right now who are convinced that white people are in danger. I'll discuss why this is wrong later, but for just a moment, let's try (I know it hurts) to understand their claims. They see all the good stuff in American history and American culture, and guess what? Most if it involves white people. These people, like all people, have problems. And they look around and see efforts to lift minorities out of what seems like very similar problems. Scholarships. Quotas in schools. Diversity efforts in companies. From these people's perspectives, these efforts can't help but displace white people and supplant their culture.

To be very clear, that's all a distortion of the truth. It's too big a topic to discuss fully, but let me give a quick example of why. Let's say you're a white guy who's applying for a job. There are ten positions open, and twenty people applying - ten white and ten black, all of them qualified. The employer is a white supremacist. Guess what? You have a 100% chance of being hired!

Now change the scenario - let's say that the employer isn't racist, and laws prohibit hiring based on race. Now your chances of getting the job have dropped to 50%! From a purely self-centered, unprincipled point of view, the change in policy has hurt you. It has taken a chance that was once yours and given it away. I guess that's why the "alt right" is worried. But of course we can see that the extra chance you had originally was unfair, and the new system is actually better. It's just not more convenient for you. And if you're a moral person, that distinction matters.

And one more thing: Since before this country was founded, you've had white people who knew that racism was hypocrisy in a nation that believed in freedom. You have also had people who were afraid that if you granted freedom to minorities (particularly black people), then they'd use that freedom to retaliate. And guess what? Those people have been wrong every time. The slaves didn't try to take over the south. When black people could vote, they didn't try to eradicate white people. Sure, you've got the occasional evil person who has advocated violence, but the fact is that white people at large have never been in danger from the people who have managed to get free of the historical oppression that has afflicted them.

Epiphany

The second point has been on my mind in the past few days due to the Charlottesville thing. And today as I was thinking about the flat earth bit, I realized why it bugs me. It's because of the mentality that leads to it - and that it's exactly the same mentality that leads to a belief in white supremacy.

Believing that the world is flat involves limiting your point of view to your own experience, ignoring the multitude of experiences that show that the world is more complex and more interconnected than you can tell from any single point. If you open yourself up to what the world is like to someone on the other side of it, you have to realize that the flat earth model is inadequate. And the same is true of white supremacy. Sure, you can find someone with darker skin who has life a little easier than you. But if you listen to just a few of the stories of this country, you'll see the obvious - that there's this big, ugly stain on American history made of racism. We have come a long way toward removing it, but there are still people suffering from it. A lot of people. We can disagree on the best way to fix it. But pretending that white people are in danger from our dark-skinned neighbors is just as wrong - and even more infuriating - than believing the world is flat.

And that leads to an important distinction: While people's belief in a flat earth doesn't really hurt anyone, the belief that white people are superior and threatened is extremely damaging. It's making that big ugly stain grow even as we're trying to wash it out. People are literally dying because of it.

I'm really not sure what the best way to fix the problem is, especially since I'm pretty much preaching to the choir as I write this. But I hope that someday I get to talk to a white supremacist. Not to yell at them or tell them how embarrassed I am to have them in my country (although that might be the gut reaction), but to sincerely talk and maybe ask them one question in an effort to force them to see the world in a new, broader way. To change their mind. I wonder what question it would take to get them to do it.

Trump's "immigration" ban

I don't normally post a lot on current events (like on Facebook) because I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, given my limited number of contacts. But Trump's ban on people coming into the country from a set of supposedly-dangerous countries keeps coming up. And I made the mistake of reading comments on an article my sister posted. So now I have to yell some stuff to the universe.

First of all, the ban is not protecting anyone. Visa applicants were already being vetted. And there's no evidence that terrorists are leaking through from these countries. Most of the violence in America is caused by Americans. At best, we are inconveniencing innocent people and embarrassing our country. And it's not just inconvenience. Families are being kept apart. Our country has made a commitment to people and then just backed out on it without warning.

Of course, there's also the incompetence of how things have been handled. (Not communicating implementation details, no warning, etc.) But since the whole thing is ill-conceived to begin with, I'll move on. There's also the political agenda. Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not France? But again, the main problem isn't really how you came up with the list.

One thing that really set me off is the repeated comment I've heard that it's "only temporary". Come on. The internment camps in Wold War 2 were only temporary. They were also a blatant violation of people's basic rights. That event happened because people were afraid of what so-called "outsiders" might do, just like the sentiment now. I don't think those internment camps actually protected anyone - those people were American citizens and no less likely to be violent than any other citizen. But even if there was a spy locked up somewhere, it still wouldn't justify the camps, because a threat from a bad person is not an excuse to violate the rights of an innocent person.

And that's the key issue here, I think. Sure, the people involved aren't American citizens, and the magnitude of what's happening is less than in the internment camp example. But I really think the principle is the same: People are scared, and they want someone to hate. They think that if they can just push some people away, they'll feel safer. But by doing that based on where you were born - not what you've done or even what you think - the country is pretty much abandoning the whole created-equal thing. And I can't believe how many people are going along with it.

We are not safer as a result of this. But even if we were, it's an embarrassment to the country.

Election 2016 :(

Curse.
Curse curse curse curse curse.

Here's the deal: I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton; I'm in favor of supporting the constitution and not putting huge amounts of power in the hands of a few people (i.e. executive orders and court rulings that ignore Congress). Not to mention the whole abortion thing, etc. But somehow - I haven't fully figured out how yet - the person running against her is Donald Trump. Like just about everyone else, I thought it was a joke at first. And honestly I didn't know that much about the guy. But at this point it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the moral character to deserve a political office.

That creates an interesting dilemma. (Not for liberals, of course - I'm sure they're loving this.) You don't want to vote for Trump. But you don't want Clinton in power. It seems that most of the Republican leaders are deciding that they have to keep Clinton out of office at any cost, and so they are endorsing Trump, even while they condemn his racist, sexist, and otherwise disrespectful comments. No doubt they hope that they can sway him, to convince him that he needs to tone things down in order to attract a broader voting base. And obviously a lot of voters are behind this.

I can't do it. As much as I don't want Clinton to be president, I can't be a part of someone like Trump getting there either. And that's not to say he wouldn't do less damage - I honestly don't know what he'd do. I kind of doubt that he'd really attempt most of what he has suggested he would. But at this point, I'm not sure it even matters. Even if I agreed with Trump on every issue (which of course I don't), I still wouldn't vote for him, because again, I think that there's a bar you have to set on morality, and he doesn't meet it. In fact, it seems to me that the only value Trump has is that he wants to feel like a winner. If that's the case, then he'd do anything to feel like he's winning. Anything. At least Hillary Clinton is clearly self-centered and cares about her image. That's not respectable, but it's predictable.

So some will accuse me of helping Clinton win. And they are probably right - I am sure that lots of conservatives will feel the same as I do, while most liberals will happily pick Clinton over Trump. But you can't set your priorities such that you will keep a particular person out of office "at any cost". Those costs can become very high. It's too high this time. I'm not sure who I'll vote for, but I'm sure they won't win. But if Trump somehow manages to become president, and if he is as destructive as it seems he could be, I'll be able to say that I had no part in it.

But still, curse.

The Whole “Marriage Definition” Thing

This is probably as politically-incorrect as one can possibly be these days. The usual disclaimers apply – what I’m saying here doesn’t represent any organization, just my opinion.

This whole definition-of-marriage thing is pretty distorted in the media and online “conversation” (to use the term loosely). It’s held up as a step toward civil rights, and maybe that’s understandable, since people with same-gender attraction have definitely been discriminated against historically and even persecuted. I don’t think anyone is happy about that fact. If you look at the country today, most people are all for treating people fairly and with respect. So then people ask, why the objection to re-defining marriage?

What it all comes down to for me is that it’s not about an adult’s right to have his or her lifestyle sanctioned by the government. No one has that right. Of course we can choose our lifestyle, but I don’t get the government to give me special treatment because I like video games or because I serve in my church calling. People who like to skateboard or hunt or smoke or play basketball or party all night don’t get to have laws passed to guarantee them equal exposure in the media or school literature. The law should preserve people’s rights to choose lifestyles, but it shouldn’t institutionalize them.

So what about marriage? Well, that’s not about lifestyles. It’s about brining human beings into the world. Creating a physical body for the children of God. Granted, not everyone believes that last part, but society as a whole considers human life sacred (even most atheists), so we have laws about that. In other words, laws about marriage are not about adults’ rights at all; they are about children’s rights. A child has a right to a mother and father. A child has a right to not be introduced to sexuality in Kindergarten by a government employee. (Having a mom and a dad in a text book doesn’t present a sexual issue because it’s just about families – kids get that. A dad and a dad brings up the notion of why, and how the child got there – subjects kids deserve to hear first from their parents, and when their parents decide they’re ready.)

That is why the law needs to preserve a proper definition of marriage. Children have a right to the kind of family that will give them the best chance at success in life. Of course, marriage isn’t just about children. But the parts that aren’t don’t really need government support. If people want to live together without being married, or if insurance companies want to cover a domestic partner, or even if they want to file taxes jointly, I’m not complaining about that.

And finally, to make sure this is clear: This is not about civil rights! There are already laws to preserve safety and freedom. There are no socially-accepted lynchings or people trying to make separate schools for people who are attracted to the same gender or to restrict votes. Trying to compare this to the civil rights movement diminishes the importance of that movement. And ironically, the people pointing that finger are often themselves the ones making hateful comments at huge groups of people. But that’s fine, they can talk all they want. The point is that no one’s civil rights are being violated here. Except, arguably, the children, whose schools and other government institutions are going to force them do deal with issues they shouldn’t even have to think about. We need to leave them alone and let adults pursue their lifestyles on their own time.

Debt and Taxes

Okay, time for another political rant.

Say you’re a parent, and you’re low on money, but your kids want cell phones. No problem, you say, you’ll just borrow some money. So you take out a loan and get them cell phone plans. You take some of the kids’ money to help pay for the plan, but you also have to pay back the loan. They kids are happy, but soon they tell you they need text messaging added to their plan. It seems like a good idea, since not getting it could cause them to rack up insane bills, so you take out another loan and buy a text plan. You take more of their money but also have to pay off the loan. Now they need data plans, so they can browse the web and use GPS and stuff. Again you take out a loan. Again, they’re happy with what they have, but at this point you have some tough decisions to make. You don’t have the money to pay off all these loans, and the charges never end because the kids will always expect their phone and data plans. So you can keep taking out loans until your credit is so bad no one will give you money, at which point you lose everything, including the phones. Or you can take away the phones. You’ll still have the loans to pay off, and the kids won’t be happy, but at least the charges will stop. (Of course, not getting the phones in the first place was an option too in the beginning, but it’s too late for that now.)

The analogy here is, of course, government spending and the national debt. We want the debt to be smaller, but anytime someone proposes to cut spending, they’re treated like heartless monsters who want to destroy people’s lives. But there really aren’t a lot of choices. We can cut spending, even to worthwhile projects, or we can keep taking out loans (which just increases the problem, obviously). There’s always raising taxes, but that’s not really a solution either, because from the citizens’ perspective, having money taken away isn’t that much different from having money depreciate due to the debt. In the case of a family instead of the government, there is also the chance of increasing income. But the government doesn’t produce any wealth; it’s a cost center. So the only way to reduce debt is to reduce spending. Which means cutting stuff that’s valuable but doesn’t have to come from the government.

Needless to say, raising the debt by a third in four years makes me very unhappy.

Being -ist

I get the impression that a lot of people today want to feel persecuted. They draw comparisons between themselves and groups of people historically who really were killed, enslaved, or otherwise mistreated because of various differences – race, religion, etc. And I’m not saying that people aren’t persecuted today, but, in this country, there’s really nothing that compares to what you would have seen even fifty years ago. That is to say, you don’t see widespread prejudice that is socially or politically acceptable. People who want to persecute other people tend to have to keep it within a closed group, or hide it altogether. So the country isn’t where it should be, but it’s a lot farther along than a lot of people make it out to be.

One bit of evidence of this is the fact that “racist” (or any other kind if “-ist”) is one of the worst things you can call someone. I think most of us are properly ashamed of what has gone on in the country’s past, and we won’t stand for people trying to make that our present as well. But if that’s the case, then why are the -isms such a big deal in the media?

I think that one reason is a blurring of the definition. People don’t see as much genuine racism as they used to, so they go and apply it to the next-worst thing, and the next-worst after that. After all, being able to call yourself persecuted lets you elevate yourself to the status of… actually I can’t finish the thought, even sarcastically. As Pinky once said, “no no, it’s too stupid.”

So once again I think it’s important to settle on some reasonable definitions:

• -ism: hatred or outright disrespect. Using race as an example, firing someone from a job or insulting someone because of their race is racist.
• insensitivity: not making the effort to think about how your words or actions will affect other people. Pointing out someone’s race in a context where it’s not relevant may be racially insensitive, as would be using terms with an obvious negative connotation just because they are part of culture. (What kind a “giver?” What kind of a fire drill?) In this situation, you’re not thinking something negative about someone; you’re not thinking about them at all.
• ignorance: saying or doing something that is unflattering to a group of people because you’re honestly unaware of the effect. A lot of stereotypes stem from ignorance. I saw this painting of a teepee in a forest, apparently in the Pacific Northwest. Really? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure (and Wikipedia confirms this) that teepees are more of Great Plains thing. I’m sure the artist wasn’t trying to be insulting. (After all, what insult could possibly be meant?) But a little research may have shown a bit more respect for the culture being depicted – whichever one that was. So that would seem to be an example of racial ignorance. Or cultural ignorance. Or something.

It’s dramatic to call something a more severe term than it deserves. But that drama comes at the cost of communication. For instance, if you start calling people who punch other people “murderers,” then pretty soon calling someone a murderer won’t sound quite so bad. And if the word doesn’t sound so bad, there are people out there who will decide the act isn’t so bad either. Likewise, if you tell every person you date that you love them, what do you say to the person you decide you want to marry? Similarly, it doesn’t do anyone any good to throw the label “-ism” around so freely that people lose track of how bad the real thing really is.

The other problem with the way people label things as -ist comes when they apply the term to inanimate things, like grammatical constructs. You can say that people should say “firefighter” instead of “fireman”, or “remotely piloted” instead of “unmanned”, but you can’t call the language sexist; a language can’t hate anyone. And you can’t say that people who use those terms are sexist, unless you seriously think that people walk around thinking of ways to exclude women from their word choice. And if you think English is “hateful,” then what about Spanish, where adjectives have a masculine suffix when applied to mixed groups, and where inanimate objects have gender attached? Do you think that all Spanish speakers are sexist? Because that would clearly be some kind of -ist. (Not exactly racist, since not all Spanish speakers are the same race. Languageist?)

The Meaning of “Good” Government

There are sort of two main philosophies about government these days. The first is that government should make the world good – it should take care of people, prevent bad things from happening, and compensate for people’s losses when bad things do happen. The second is that government should ensure freedom and then stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. For the sake of this discussion I’ll label these ideals “Equality” and “Freedom,” although both terms are overloaded (in the programmer sense – they can mean multiple things depending on the context) – hence the capitalization to distinguish the specific meanings I’ve given above. Now, it’s not immediately obvious why Equality and Freedom should be mutually exclusive objectives, but when we’re talking about how much power leaders should have over the lives of citizens, it turns out that you generally have to choose one or the other.

I think it’s pretty clear that Equality is winning out in today’s government. And from a naïve perspective, that my look like a good thing. After all, don’t we want life to be Good? Shouldn’t the government make the world Good? What good is Freedom if some people use it to take advantage of or ignore the needs of others? It’s an understandable challenge, but it is very important not to take those questions rhetorically; without very clear answers, they can lead to a very dangerous place.

The key point is to decide what is Good – that is, what is really the ideal state of a mortal world. If Good implies a utopia where nobody is sick, nobody is poor, and nobody can get away with being dishonest, violent, or unkind, then again, it seems natural to try to enforce those ideals. And who better to enforce them than a powerful government? (Again, not a rhetorical question. There is an answer.)

In my view, a “Good” world is not one where bad things don’t happen. In fact, such a world will never exist (at least as long as we’re in a mortal state). And giving power to a few government leaders will certainly not make it happen. It has been tried before, and history makes it very clear that when you try to force people to live an ideal – even a worthy ideal – you end up violating their rights and creating a world that is the exact opposite from what you set out to build.

So what is “Good” then? I certainly wouldn’t argue that peace and prosperity aren’t desirable, but when we’re talking about what is Good, in the sense of morally and ethically right, and worthy of enforcing with the government, is the ability of people to make their own choices for their own lives. Of course there are situations where one person’s choices affect someone else, and the world is on fire with debates about where those boundaries lie. But I think that essential to the definition of Good is the notion that nothing is morally good or evil except for human choices. And that means the government’s highest objective should be to preserve Freedom, even in situations where it must come at the expense of someone’s prosperity or comfort – or even their sense of Equality.

To illustrate my point, imagine a society in which the leaders force everyone to work, then take the food and other goods that are produced and distribute them evenly to everyone. For the sake of argument, assume that they produce enough food to meet everyone’s needs (despite the fact that history casts strong doubt on that). So we have a society full of non-hungry people. And we also have a lot of people whose hard-earned money is going to feed less-fortunate people. So is this society Good? Are its people charitable? I argue that neither is the case. No one is voluntarily giving money to the poor, so no one is being charitable. And the government is taking people’s money against their will with nothing in return, so it is violating their freedom. Not good.

Now consider a society in which the government does absolutely nothing to redistribute food or money. There are rich people and poor people. Some of the rich give to the poor, and others don’t. Is this society Good? In this case, we could judge the society based on how charitable its members are. We almost can’t even talk about the goodness of the society as a whole, because its individuals are all at different points on the goodness scale. But that’s the way it’s supposed to be. They’re free to choose how good they’ll be. And that, as far as the government’s role is concerned, is Good.

But what about justice? Can we really sit back and allow people to let their neighbors starve? Well it depends on who “we” are. If “we” refers to the government, then I say, simply, yes. If “we” are individuals, then we should take care of each other. But it’s a moral “should”, not a legal one. (And that brings up an ironic side note: a lot of the people who believe that the government should enforce redistribution of wealth because that’s what’s “right” are the same ones who will tell you that you shouldn’t vote based on what you believe. See [this entry] for more on that topic.)

And lest my claims seem too callous and uncaring, I’ll add that I do think that the voluntary acts of charity in a society will contribute to its strength. When you choose to contribute to those around you, you gain a vested interest in the prosperity of others, so you’re more likely to make decisions that will help build up society. On the other hand, if the government is already taking a huge chunk of your money, you’re likely to feel that you’ve already done your part and therefore feel content to focus on yourself. I don’t have any empirical data to back up that claim, but I do have a couple of scriptural examples that I think are relevant.

(And remember, I’m not claiming that my ideas are endorsed by my Church.)

The prophet Moroni wrote that the fate of our nation would be tied to the righteousness (read “ethical choices”, if you want) of its people:

Ether 2

9. And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

12. Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

We aren’t serving God if we’re not free to choose whether to do so or not. In a lot of ways our country is less “ripe” than a lot are, but we’re ripening. I don’t think we’ll turn around because the government forces redistribution of wealth. We might turn around if people are forced (and allowed) to take responsibility for their own communities.

The other problem with redistribution of wealth is that it takes someone with a lot of power to do it. Arguably, it would take more power than anyone should have. After all, we’re talking about the power to forcibly take away people’s property and decide where it goes. Can we trust the government to do that justly, let alone effectively? (Hint: no.) And even if we happen to trust the people in charge today (which I don’t, generally speaking), can we trust whoever’s in power tomorrow or ten years from now? Here’s what King Mosiah said on the subject when he explained to his people why he was setting up a representative government instead of choosing an heir to the throne:

Mosiah 29

13 … If it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, … then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. …

16. Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.

17. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! …

24. … it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you. …

26. Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

(Verse 27 is good too, but it’s a slightly different topic.)

Doing business by the voice of the people requires Freedom. It even means that we have to be free to make the wrong decisions at each other’s expense if we choose, because if we lose that choice, we lose the ability to make the right decisions. And even if were in the government’s right and power to make our society peaceful, happy, and even Equal, we couldn’t trust that the people in power would always leave it that way. Better to count on the majority of the people to get it mostly right most of the time.

Voting and Morality

There’s a common battle cry in today’s politics that goes something like this: “You’re trying to legislate morality! You’re trying to push your values onto me!” The problem I have with that is that all major laws are moral issues that people have decided to legislate. There’s no scientific reason why stealing or killing need to be illegal. There are laws against them because the vast majority of people believe they’re wrong and don’t want to live in a world where they’re allowed. Of course some laws are more arbitrary decisions, like driving on the right side of the road. But even then, you have a group of people who made a decision – what they thought was best – and then legislated it. Either way, legislating morality is at the very core of what a government is for. The goal is not to take religious beliefs out of the law, but to make sure that the right ones – the ones most people can agree on and will preserve people’s freedom the best – make it in. And even the “preserve people’s freedom” part is a religious value – relatively few people in history have held that as a high priority for the government.

Given that perspective, it’s easy to see what would happen to the world if we removed all laws that were subject to religious controversy. Should murder be illegal? Well there are plenty of people in the world that believe that you are not only allowed, but obligated to kill someone who is of the wrong religion if you can. Slavery? The folks in northern Sudan would be religiously offended by our claims that they should not enslave people they consider to be inferior. And who are we to say that their beliefs are wrong, just because we don’t share them? You see the point. We have these laws because most Americans believe that stealing and killing and enslaving people are wrong, and they are willing to legislate those beliefs.

So what about more controversial issues – values that are shared by a much smaller majority? In this case, it is even more important that people be willing to vote based on what they think is right. There are two sets of scenarios to consider. First, the majority can be right or wrong. Second, the majority can be willing to vote based on their beliefs or unwilling. Obviously, if the majority is right and willing to vote on its beliefs, then the laws will be right in a government where the people choose the laws. If the majority is wrong and willing to legislate its beliefs, then the laws end up wrong. But if the majority is right and unwilling to vote based on beliefs, the situation is no better – the laws still end up wrong. Only now, the people who knew better have to live with the will of the minority because they were unwilling to stand up for what they believed. (And of course, the minority in this case were obviously willing to vote for their beliefs.) The final possibility is that that the majority is wrong and unwilling to legislate based on beliefs, in which case the laws presumably end up right. The following table summarizes the possibilities:

	Majority legislates decision	Majority does not legislate decision
Majority is right	Good laws	Bad laws
Majority is wrong	Bad laws	Good laws

So if you say that the majority should not legislate its beliefs, you are betting on most people being wrong most of the time. Not really a good bet, since if most people have wrong values, your society is going downhill anyway. It’s true that you still have a possibility of bad laws if everyone votes for what they think is right, but at least you only get the bad laws if that’s what people choose and again, if most people are choosing what’s wrong, you’re in big trouble regardless of what your laws are. It makes more sense to bet on the majority being right. Which means that everyone should vote based on what they think is right, not what they think is politically correct.

Of course that doesn’t mean that people should try to turn all of their values into laws. It just means that they should not refrain from passing a law just because it happens to correspond to a personal value. If they hesitate to vote on issues they have religious beliefs about, then the laws will still be based on values – but they will be the values of minorities. (And I don’t mean ethnic or religious minorities; I mean ethical minorities.) When any old minority can get a law passed just because the majority believes it is wrong and therefore won’t vote against it, your society is guaranteed to fail.