Ron Paul Supporters, Get a Grip

I do not speak to all Ron Paul supporters, or even most of them. But apparently there’s an appreciable number of them who need to tone down their indignation and learn how to put their energy to more constructive uses.

Yesterday, I read a misinformed article on World Net Daily by one Burt Prelutsky about how you should always vote for the lesser of two evils in order to defeat “the various socialists, communists and liberal pinheads with a (D) after their name.” Prelutsky announced his support of Rudy Giuliani and was promptly “raked over the coals” by Ron Paul “disciples.” Prelutsky described it like this:
Ron Paul's fans wanted to assure me that they would never lower themselves to vote for a social liberal like Giuliani. I found it odd that many of them didn't seem to mind in the least lowering themselves to the gutter when sharing their opinion of Rudy and me. In fact, after I shared some of their more colorful comments with my wife, she said, "They make it sound like Giuliani is running an abortion clinic, and that you're his nurse."

This was not my first time hearing about angry emails by Ron Paul supporters lambasting someone for announcing support for another Republican Presidential hopeful. A good friend of mine worked as a law clerk at the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) this past summer. When I told him that I support Ron Paul, he said that he did not. And he seemed very little inclined to change his mind, even though he indicated a desire to vote by principle rather than power and showed little or no disagreement with Ron Paul as to the issues. His opinion was based on the massive number of scathing emails received by the HSLDA after it announced its support of Mike Huckabee. He came away from his summer work completely turned off of everything to do with Ron Paul. After I talked with him for a little while, he seemed a little more inclined to respect Ron Paul, after realizing that someone he knows and trusts and believes to be a rational thinker actually supports Ron Paul.

And as a Ron Paul supporter, I feel it my privilege and duty to tell my fellow supporters—get a grip. Whether you’re a liberal, conservative, or libertarian supporter of Ron Paul (he has all three, oddly enough), you probably have a lot of friends who look at you askance when you say you support Ron Paul. “What!” they say. “He doesn’t stand a chance. If you support him, you’ll throw your vote away. I don’t like any of the candidates running, but I have to vote for the lesser of two evils, because that’s the best thing we can do these days.”

Let me guess, when your friends—or family members—tell you this, you blow up in their faces and tell them they are unprincipled, evil, horrible, idiotic, and irrational. You sarcastically accuse them of groveling before the powerful, handing them the downfall of America on a silver platter. You cry, treason! treason! You explain to them the parade of horribles that results from their spineless approach to politics and tell them that it’s the fault of them and people like them that we’re in the downward spiral that we’re in.

Yeah right. I can just see it. You throw your relationships with your friends and family to the wind, and instead of saying, “Come, let us reason together,” you prepare for war.

People are people, whether they’re your friends or not. Organizations are run by people. And Ron Paul needs as many people behind him as he can get. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. A gentle answer turns away wrath. Most Americans have been deceived into thinking that American freedom is upheld by participating in the political wrangling between Democrats and Republicans. They need to be educated otherwise. It think the principled and the enlightened are right to be angry as they increasingly realize how many around them are unprincipled and deceived.

However, this anger will do more harm than good if it is not bridled and turned to constructive uses. Let your energy roused from anger be put to better use—find out the facts and the arguments that you will need to educate and persuade those who disagree with you. Use these facts and arguments energetically, but under your full control, as you talk with and try to explain to your friends, family, and strangers (including organizations like the HSLDA), that the freedoms and strength of America relies on a radically changed approach to politics.

Quotes and Words of the Week

The words will be ones that interest me, whether from glancing through the dictionary, or from my weekly readings, or from my paltry storehouse of words I keep in my head.

The quote will either be something that someone says or something that I read that I think is particularly noteworthy or funny.

The current quote, in context, came from a second year law student in my Constitutional Law class. The professor asked him to recite the Supreme Court decision Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) which shot down an Oklahoma statute allowing for the sterilization of "habitual criminals." The plaintiff had stolen some chickens and then committed two other armed robberies. When the professor asked the student about the case, the student immediately said, "Well, the plaintiff was stealing chickens . . . so naturally, the state wanted to sterilize him.” The entire room of eighty-five law students busted up laughing. It took a little while for the professor to return order to the chaos.

Moon Trauma

And now for something . . . completely different.

I briefly interrupt my possibly incoherent discussion of the pursuit of happiness to say four things.

First, the student in that news story should get what he got, and not go crying like a baby to his parents or some judge because he acted "suddenly and without about the consequences." Oh, does this mean every idiot who does something wrong should get off the hook if the act was done without thinking about the consequences? After all, isn't that part of what makes a bad person bad--they act according to their own good pleasure, little caring for effects and consequences?

Second, the litigiousness we see in this country is idiotic. I don't know who to blame: the lawyers? the judges? the people who bring suit? I blame judges most, but I think all three have a huge amount of blame. I was with a ton of lawstudents and attorneys the other day, and I mentioned that there were way too many law students graduating, and suggested that we might flood the market. An attorney who has been practicing for about ten years said, "Don't worry. The more attorneys there are, the more work there will be for attorneys to do." (I take this to mean that a good attorney can manufacture lawsuits for himself--any time someone asks, "can I sue about X or Y or Z," your immediate response, "OF COURSE!"

Third, the teacher was traumatized? Give me a break! Talk about serious issues.

Four, due to the state of the law, this lawsuit might implicate some complicated issues. I wonder what the plaintiff will allege . . . that his due process rights have been violated? I believe that, depending on the severity of the punishment, schools are required (by the Constitution, so says the Supreme Court) that certain steps must be taken by the school before exacting the punishment. For instance, an informal hearing may have been required, and maybe it wasn't given to the student, so he'll win. Will he claim that this is cruel and unusual punishment? He better have something good, because normally, a school can do ALMOST anything it wants with its students so long as it is rationally related to the educational purposes of the school.

The Pursuit of Happiness

What do people want? Why do people act the way they do? Are the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell good reasons to follow Christ? What is truth? What is good? I hope this post offers a perspective by which to view and answer these questions.

There is one thing all people want – maximum happiness. Happiness may not be the right word; contentment might be better, but I cannot articulate a real difference between them (at least in how I look at the two concepts).

I am convinced that everything a person does (except for unconscious behavior such as sleep talking and reflexive action) is directly related to that person’s concept of personal happiness. There are many factors that go into the bizarre range of differing human activity all geared toward the same exact goal. I think some of the most important factors are the conflict between getting immediate versus long term happiness, a person’s inherent personality (nature), a person’s environment (nurture), and a person’s “worldview.” Obviously, the short term/long term pleasure conflict and one’s “worldview” are closely related to each other and to aspects of nature and nurture.

Two examples of the short term versus long term conflict are a person who wants to lose weight but is enticed into eating a large bowl of pots-de-crème, and a Christian with his eye set generally on pleasing God, but who in some specific instances succumbs to lustful sins. If you combine personality with the long term versus short term struggle, you will notice some people with more inherent patience than others. These patient people will be more likely to give in less often to the persuasive power of “Now!” An example of pure personality as it applies to achieving happiness and affecting difference of behavior would be the difference between somebody who loved cake but disliked movies and somebody who loves movies and dislikes cake. The one will eat cake; the other will watch a movie. A person who is raised in a violent family will more likely be violent, while a person raised in a peaceful home will more likely abstain from violence. This is an example of the affect of one’s environment, his nurture. Finally, there is one’s worldview. Even if one has a personality that succumbs easily to indulging in hours of video games and television per day, a general worldview that heavily favors achieving useful tasks and eschewing wastes of time will often induce such a person to leave the couch and do more important things with his valuable time. The Apostle Peter provides a great example – before a drastic worldview change with the resurrection of Christ, he denied Jesus three times. Afterwards, he preached Christ until he got crucified for it. An urge for short term happiness, a reasonable personality, and any conceivable past environment Peter could have had would all point heavily towards saving himself from this excruciating death.

If all people want happiness, then the fact that true happiness is found in Heaven and true unhappiness is found in Hell should be a powerful incentives to follow Christ. Of course, one must believe in Christ before one can possibly follow him. And once someone comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, Hell isn’t even an option anymore, so it should, I suppose, drop out of the picture entirely. What did Peter have that weighed against immediate pleasure, nurture, and nature? He had a firm belief in Heaven; he believed that the way he would get supreme and complete happiness was to courageously stand for Christ through suffering and death.

I wonder, though, was it only a future happiness that he looked to? Also, was there no way that he could have saved his life without forfeiting his soul to Hell? Surely he could have quietly slipped off to some island or distant land where he could have remained a Christian, gone to Heaven, and avoided Hell altogether. This, I suppose, would give him the same end result – ultimate happiness in Heaven. So, was it only a future happiness that he looked to? Or did his worldview go further than a belief in a future reward? What makes different people happy? If you are familiar with The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, you know that some people feel great when you give them a gift, others when you speak a kind word to them, others when you serve them, others when you spend quality time with them, and others when you show them physical affection. These are, I think, primarily related to personality (nature), but can be heavily affected by nurture as well. However, when Peter suffered upside-down crucifiction, as already noted, he behaved against most nature and nurture – to him, because of his worldview, the supreme happiness came through this: he knew that he was serving and pleasing Christ, and that Christ was in him and that he was in Christ. He knew two things (1) he would live with Christ forever following his death, and (2) he was living with Christ each and every day, even during the time of his suffering. If this is indeed so, then Peter did not have quite as violent a present pleasure versus future pleasure conflict as we might suppose. Perhaps there was very little struggle at all.

Ultimately, I think that while the idea of future rewards and punishments can be helpful in getting a person to understand both a necessity and desire to follow Christ, the only thing that will really change a person’s life is for their present and future pleasure to be their unity with Christ.
What is truth? How is this elusive question related to doing what you want because it makes you happy? These issues get into a partial apologia of Christianity. I will put this off until my next post. What I intend to explore is this – If the ultimate goal of all men (who live now, who ever have lived, and who will ever live) is to be happy, then if by living according to Biblical principles, one most closely attains true happiness, then is this not at least circumstantial evidence that what the Bible says is true? And there is that tricky word – truth. So I will also ponder whether there is a corollary between truth and happiness. After all, if truth and happiness are completely divorced, then just because Biblical principles make you happy doesn’t mean anything as far as their truth is concerned. I also hope to get into the relation that goodness has to either or both happiness and truth.

An Incomplete Analogy

A friend, Leire Balder, responded by email to my post Against Paternalism with the following mild criticism:

Hmmm . . . not to be trouble, but there's a small hole with Mr. Cornelison's analogy. By his analogy, what we ought to be aiming for is actually complete anarchy, since that's what the animals live under. Of course, the anarchy that the animals live under is one where the
strongest survive, so it sounds like you are advocating a complete social anarchy. Given certain assumptions, like the goodness of all the people in a society and the existence of some kind of basic law of morality which all persons observed without any enforcement of those moral codes, I guess that could work . . . I think, realistically, that extreme anarchy has the same problem that any other ideal government has; humanity screws it up somewhere along the way. That said, practically, for the present, it might be nice if we could convince the legislators that big government is not the answer . . .

I will respond -- I agree that, as with almost all analogies, the analogy is not perfect. I disagree that any imperfection in Cornelison's analogy is the one criticized. However, I think that my comment following the quote showed that my initial readong of Cornelison does support anarchy, and thus does support Leire's criticism.

Looking just at Cornelison, he stated that: "The Creator has made special provision in nature for the paternal government of the young; but he has made it plain that it is the proper aim of that government to secure its own early extinction by developing in the young the power of self-government. "

The rest of book shows clearly that Cornelison is no anarchist, and his analogy doesn't support anarchy. The proper end of government does not include "paternalism" which is essentially this: "Oh no, you can't do things the way you want, because you'll hurt yourself. Here, let me make that decision for you." In nature, we see paternalism when an animal raises her young. This paternalism disappears when the young reaches maturity. In nature, we also see, as Leire points out, no government that prevents the wolf from eating the rabbit. These two functions, protection from self-induced harm and protection from violent, external harm, are different, and Cornelison condemns the former while supporting the latter. This is not anarchy, but merely a philosophy of limited government.

However, in line with my comment about the government working itself out of a job, Cornelison suggests that the government begins as paternalistic and then loses its paternalistic authority. Is this really true? And when is the cut off time appropriate? There will always be young people. Oh, are we talking about a young society . . . so, for the first fifty or so years of American Independence, paternalism was fine? I don't really think this is what Cornelison was saying, and I certainly don't support governmental paternalism at any stage.

My comment suggests that the government could work itself out of a job entirely, thus conflating the two concepts of protection against self-induced harm and protection against violent, external harm. I agree with Leire that a government can never fulfill its true responsibilities to the point where people are so well educated and behaved that they would not longer need a government. There are too many problems with such a proposition. First, I don't think that it is humanly possible (humans fail, period). Second, to even achieve the result, the government would have to take over far more than I think it should (compulsory public education, compelled orthodox belief system, etc.).

Enough said.

Against Paternalism

While researching for a professor, I ran across an interesting view about the role of Governments by Isaac A. Cornelison, a late 19th century Presbyterian minister. He says in the preface of his book The Relation of Religion to Civil Government in The United States of America--A State Without a Church, but Not Without a Religion:

In a democracy, the many may not claim to be better judges of the personal interests of the one than the individual himself. They may not, therefore, compel him to act in a matter relating only to his own interest, against his own judgment, and in accordance with theirs. It may be that, in the use of his liberty, he will do himself harm; but the discipline of responsibility will tend to strengthen and elevate the man, which would be far better than that he should escape a particular harm by the surrender of his liberty and the transfer of his responsibility to others. This being the principle upon which the divine government of the world is conducted, it must be regarded as founded in the highest wisdom and benevolence, and therefore as best fitted (at least in the case of adults) to promote the welfare of mankind. The Creator has made special provision in nature for the paternal government of the young; but he has made it plain that it is the proper aim of that government to secure its own early extinction by developing in the young the power of self-government. This divine intention is manifested, with especial clearness, in the lower animal creation, for there the dam does not recognize her offpsring, or even know them as her own, after they have come to maturity.

The authority of civil government, when it interferes with the liberty of the individual, for the purpose of securing his own good, and not merely for the purpose of preventing his interference with the liberty of his fellowman, is pedagogic, fulfilling an office like that of the freedman or slave who, in ancient times, was given authority to conduct the child from the home to the school. The authority of the pedagogue over the child was legitimate and proper for a time, but when he had delivered the child to the teacher his authority ceased. The fulfilment of the function of his office was the very thing which brought his authority to an end. (preface iv-v)

Oddly enough, our government, as it seeks to do better, gets increasingly larger, trying to do more and more for us. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the general view of a good government was one that accomplishes itself out of a job?

A Working Title

In an erstwhile era, I spent a lot of time on a J.R.R. Tolkien-inspired forum board called Minas Tirith, and in those days, I was often abrupt and rude, especially when confronting what I thought pure imbecility. When I posted, the phrase "asinine fatuity" from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity often came to mind (though I usually refrained from using it). I was, at times, downright vituperative.

My purpose here is to be mildly vituperative at best (at worst?) as I discuss, or merely present, various things that interest me from obscure 19th century writings (which I will do in my next post) to Germany's current human-rights offending approach to home-schooling (which I may do at a later date).

The title is merely a working title, and may change.