Brave new world
There are serious talks in Slovenia about not allowing minors under 16 in night clubs. They want to make it a misdemeanor. Naturally, I am upset. Not because I think it’s a good idea to have 15 year olds in night clubs. There are probably better places for them to frequent, places where they could be safer and get better education for future life.
That’s not a reason good enough to criminalize behavior, though. It’s not a choice the government should be allowed to make, instead of that person, instead of the parents. A person at 15 is allowed to work, take part in most court procedures, perform routine asset management and finally, that person is also allowed to choose who to have sex with (age of consent being 15 in Slovenia) and can also decide for an abortion, without parental supervision. We deem the person capable of making all those choices, to make a living for him or herself, but we place limits on how these people are allowed to spend their free time. Firstly, it’s woefully inconsistent not to allow the young to make the choice for themselves. Secondly, if anyone is entitled to have a say in this matter, it’s the parents. If parents allow it, it’s their choice, a choice they should be allowed to make, as there is no detrimental effect on the life of their children or others in the society.
Why do I care though? Is it really so important when such a small part of our freedom is taken away from a relatively small part of the population, with some decent reasons to support that choice? I care because this is not a choice for the better. It limits one’s freedom, while that freedom has no harmful effects on other people. I also care, because it sets another dangerous precedent which clearly says, the state knows better, the state is smarter than you and therefore the state can make the choice for you. The state is not only telling the 15 year old it knows what’s better for him, but also makes a choice for that individual’s parents. The state is making a choice, which essentially means, we take away your freedom so we can govern you more easily. Since it’s under the guise of protecting our young ones the people are inclined to let it happen more easily. Controlling the population with good intentions is even more dangerous than controlling them with fear and hatred, as it’s easier to disguise. And history has taught us, once the control is established, the intentions never stay good.
That’s not a reason good enough to criminalize behavior, though. It’s not a choice the government should be allowed to make, instead of that person, instead of the parents. A person at 15 is allowed to work, take part in most court procedures, perform routine asset management and finally, that person is also allowed to choose who to have sex with (age of consent being 15 in Slovenia) and can also decide for an abortion, without parental supervision. We deem the person capable of making all those choices, to make a living for him or herself, but we place limits on how these people are allowed to spend their free time. Firstly, it’s woefully inconsistent not to allow the young to make the choice for themselves. Secondly, if anyone is entitled to have a say in this matter, it’s the parents. If parents allow it, it’s their choice, a choice they should be allowed to make, as there is no detrimental effect on the life of their children or others in the society.
Why do I care though? Is it really so important when such a small part of our freedom is taken away from a relatively small part of the population, with some decent reasons to support that choice? I care because this is not a choice for the better. It limits one’s freedom, while that freedom has no harmful effects on other people. I also care, because it sets another dangerous precedent which clearly says, the state knows better, the state is smarter than you and therefore the state can make the choice for you. The state is not only telling the 15 year old it knows what’s better for him, but also makes a choice for that individual’s parents. The state is making a choice, which essentially means, we take away your freedom so we can govern you more easily. Since it’s under the guise of protecting our young ones the people are inclined to let it happen more easily. Controlling the population with good intentions is even more dangerous than controlling them with fear and hatred, as it’s easier to disguise. And history has taught us, once the control is established, the intentions never stay good.
posted by Sergej at 11:33 AM
7 Comments:
'I also care, because it sets another dangerous precedent which clearly says, the state knows better, the state is smarter than you and therefore the state can make the choice for you.'
Not the state, the mayority. Remember, we had a conversation on this topic a while ago: how democracy can lead to mayority ruling over minorities?
Now, you and I may not agree with such behaviour by this government and parliament which came into being precisely because the mayority voted for them, but it shows what can happen if we believe, that there exists some common good and that that common good can be defined, or even imposed, by one segment of society unto another.
In this case some people think curtailing some freedoms serves the common good: no more tragedies like Lipa.
@jin: 1) majority of the ones who voted, not the majority per se (btw)
2) it does not follow from the statement that "if we believe that there exists some common good that can be defined" that it is right to prohibit/censure/repressively regulate deviations from it. To be more concrete: if we define 'healthy eating/food' as a common good (and I think we can agree on that), that does not mean that we (regardless of being legitimately voted for by the majority -- 'democracy' and 'liberal society' are two separate concepts) are entitled to penalise those who do not eat healthily or even don't want to. If the harm only selves, not others, it is outside the legitimate scope of the state intervention. Thus spoke Mill. :)
Anonymous,
I am not making this up, but some time ago in Sweden (speaking of crazy socialist ideas even I am ashamed of) there was a proposla to penalise parents of fat children; all in the name of their good health. Unfortunatelly I don't have any link to that, but it showed from the libertarian perspective (it was a libertarian site I read it on) what can happen if we have a colcectivist mentality which thinks itself fit to judge how people should live.
'1) majority of the ones who voted, not the majority per se (btw)'
You are ofcourse right about that.
Yes, democracy and liberal deomcracy are two different things, I agree completely. I was just saying what can come out of democracy - 'tyrany of the majority.' It is liberal or lets say modern form of democracy, which is based on a belief that individual rights ought to be protected. It is a belief, nothing more or less. There can come a time when the number of such believers fades and through democratic process we get a bunch of intolerant jerks (of any ideological color or religion) who will impose upon us (even if we still have the right to vote) their vievs on the world.
The religious right in the US comes to my mind. No wonder the fathers of the US wanted separation of religion and state.
...which makes the distinction between the democracy (a form) and liberalism (content) even more important. Only liberalism (and I'm talking Mill's, or political liberalism, not this neoliberal stuff) can guarantee that the individual rights are not trumped by the collective (community, majority). Democracy by itself doesn't guarantee us a "good" content. But, we seem to be on the page regarding this.
As to Sweden, don't tell me about it. :) They have all kinds of weird communitarian laws there - e.g. they have fairly recently criminalised the prostitute's customers. What many people fail to see is that criminal law is a blunt instrument, not able to deal with such delicate social problems and, anyways, should not be used as a prima ratio, but ultima ratio (remember this one?). Apart from the effectivess argument, there is, then, a strong normative argument against it...Why is it happening then? Because it's the easiest thing to do, and gives the politicians the air of "doing something" (re-election here we come).
Anyway, good to see there is still some right-minded people around. :)
on the "same" page...
Sorry about the typos.
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
While I agree with pretty much everything you've said as a comment here I'd just like to clarify that I undersatnd your "right-minded" comment in sense of right as in closer to the truth, but not in sense of right, as political right winged. Political right can infringe on liberty just as often as the political left can in my experience.
Absolutely, Sergej. That goes without saying. Right-minded in the sense of "being on the right track", right as in good, correct, well-meaning etc. Some might say "normal" as well.
Whether we are any closer to the "truth", I can't say, but it's "getting there" that counts. In any case, in the sphere of civilisation and good governance, one could argue that it's not so much the "truth" we are after (the discovering of what "is"), but the making of what "ought" to be. :)
Miss Anonymous ;-)
Keep doing the good work.
Post a Comment
<< Home