There is always much of interest at Volokh Conspiracy, though much of it isn't so gripping if you ain't a lawyer. The first is PETA's attempt to have whales freed from Sea World under the XIII Amendment (no slavery). The comments include a mention that the amendment was likely drafted by whale-oil light, and a wonderful extension that notes if the orcas are persons, then so are the sea-creatures they killed, so orcas should be incarcerated, and Sea World is rather ideal for it. Fun stuff.
The second is a bit more disconcerting. A lefty blogger declares that if OWS doesn't "work" - not sure what he means by that, but it seems to be a pretty considerable restructuring of society - then perhaps mandatory participation in government-assigned social media groups would be beneficial. The idea seems to be that making people interact with others unlike themselves in race and orientation to solve problems will create a better citizen and be good for us all. His commenters seem to think this is a fine idea, which is rather chilling that such an idea doesn't immediately set off warning bells.
I hardly need to point out to this audience the possible problems that might arise from this, but I thought a few words might be in order. The word "mandatory" should always wake one up and cause one to examine the proposal with narrowed gaze. Mandatory means, ultimately, once the refusal to pay increasing fines and contempt of court charges are taken into account, that we will put you in jail for not doing this. It's worth keeping in mind. Government should make some things mandatory, but we should be clear about exactly what, and why. Secondly, I think I sense the liberal fantasy of "if you would just be open minded and not be stupid and a bigot, you would come over to our POV" behind this idea. The idea that being exposed to a diverse group would be good for us and make us better citizens ultimately rests on that. That people could be exposed to diverse (read liberal) POV's, and know some minority citizens pretty well, yet not essentially agree with them seems not to occur to the writer. The assumption seems quite strong that we who disagree just haven't really thought about it much.
I understand that type of bias because that is pretty much what I think of liberals. But I try to guard against it, and make sure that I've got some specific evidence to put forward every time I make such a claim. I might ultimately just be rationalising and deluding myself, but I at least make some attempt to find evidence.
I'm reading Chesterton's The Ball and the Cross. He describes Jerusalem and its layers of peoples in irreconcilable conflict despite being in intimate contact.
ReplyDeleteThe combination of presumption ("mandatory social groups") and shocking ignorance about how people actually interact would be hilarious if we weren't afflicted with people who might actually try it. Not at the Federal level--not yet--but on campus.
Make that _The New Jerusalem_
ReplyDelete"mandatory participation in government-assigned social media groups"
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the government may assign to social groups (clubs, businesses, etc.) any person whom it wishes is well-established in US law. It is called "civil rights," "forces busing," and "affirmative action."
I think OWS already is "working" in the interesting sense of providing its participants with sharp lessons in the unfair distribution of labor and rewards, the difficulty of achieving consensus without tradition and authority, the moral hazard of offering free meals to an open population, and the role of civilization in basic sanitation.
ReplyDeleteMy husband and I received similar lessons in our youth while living in a commune. They last a lifetime.
Thanks for the amazing and detailed information.
ReplyDeleteClick here to know more education loan UAE