Ask Auntie Pinko
December 19, 2002

Dear Auntie Pinko,

While I would agree that government is a powerful servant in addition to being a troublesome servant, I also believe that government is, at its base, and institution of violence. Though this might sound a bit out there, I do think that all social programs are funded based on the threat of imprisonment for nonpayment of taxes, which is to be enforced by violence. This led me to abandon my old views, and replace them with a more libertarian perspective.

I just wanted to let you know that it is this premise that I disagree with you on. I don't think that leftists are bad people, or that they are stupid. I just think that when a person says, "I think that the government should do such and such thing," it is no different from saying, "I think that people should do such and such thing, and that those who disagree with me should be forced, on pain of imprisonment, to agree with me."

Because I believe quite firmly that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I think that the only proper use of social violence is in response to someone using or attempting to use violence against another person, and thus, we can only justify a 'night watchman' state.

What do you think?

Scott
St. Cloud, MN

 
Dear Scott,

Auntie Pinko shares some common ground with you. I, too, believe that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And (probably like you,) I believe there are a few thousand or so laws in our vast convoluted codes at various levels that we would never miss if they were repealed.

However, unlike you, I am old and cynical- or perhaps I have just had more opportunity to observe human nature in action. Because while I firmly believe that most people have a strong streak of warm-hearted willingness to help one another, and the wish to live by something resembling a "Do As You Would Be Done By" standard of public behavior, I also firmly believe that we all (yes, even Auntie Pinko!) have a self-interested, acquisitive, insensitive streak.

Civilization was made possible by the formation of human societies, and human societies were made possible by the institution of law. Law is, fundamentally, the idea that the group (or State) has the right to enforce individual members' adherence to the standards it believes will promote the group (or State's) well-being. Even the Founders of our Republic, the very ones who set the standards of "life, liberty, etc.," acknowledged the need for law in the structure of our Constitution.

If you look at the very earliest "law" codes of which we have a record, they're remarkably simple and concise compared to the complicated, highly-detailed body of law we deal with in modern America. Even the very finely detailed and graded law of the Talmud, one of the oldest law systems on earth, can't hold a candle to the average county or municipality's code of laws. Surely, surely, we could go back to those simpler "Do As You Would Be Done By" times and dispense with what many have called "the nanny state?"

Don't we wish. The problem with the libertarian ideal, Scott, is that in a highly complex modern society, someone is always living downstream. Or downwind. Or within earshot. And their notions of the bare minimum in laws required to keep a society livable are very likely to be different than yours. Or Auntie Pinko's, for that matter. And so our huge and complex system of laws, and the expensive and ponderous machinery needed to implement and enforce them, is based on the need to reconcile those differences.

The hope of all lawmakers and law enforcers should be to enable every individual to exercise the maximum possible freedom and personal liberty that also ensures the freedom and personal liberty of their neighbors. In other words, your freedom to build a tannery on your riverside property and dispose of the waste materials in the river should not interfere with my freedom as a riverside property owner downstream to enjoy a clean and unpolluted river.

So each and every one of us, each and every day, is "coerced" to do many things we probably wouldn't do if the law didn't make us. This coercion can range from the overt and authoritarian (if I decide to see how many oncoming cars I can play "chicken" with on the highway, the police will forcibly restrain me,) to the extremely subtle and imperceptible (if I decide to feed my family steak tonight, the government will attempt to ensure that I don't pass along a dangerous bacterial infection by inspecting and certifying the meat even before I buy it.)

Some group of humans (State) claims jurisdiction over just about every habitable square foot of the earth's surface, Scott. Meaning that wherever you live, if you are in contact with other human beings, they will attempt to enforce their beliefs of what constitutes appropriate social behavior upon you. Now, you can probably circumvent this, up to a point, if you select an extremely undesirable or remote location and choose to live in isolation from other human beings. At least, until members of whatever State lays claim to jurisdiction over that chunk of ground decide they want to move in next door.

But wherever you live, the conditions of civilization require that the group create, inflict, and enforce "laws." And the complexity of those laws, and the cost of maintaining and enforcing them, will be directly related to the complexity of that group, and the level of economic and social advantage to which they aspire. Given these realities, Scott, Auntie Pinko has decided that the ideals of the Democratic Party (see last week's column for details,) make for a more comfortable, equitable, and, yes, non-violent civilization than the mixture of unregulated capitalism and social Darwinism that appears to be the current GOP ideal. Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: mail@democraticunderground.com, and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.