Molon Labe!

by Boston T. Party

  So, you really believe that life begins at conception?

  Well it certainly can't begin any earlier! (laughs) And, no, it can't begin any later than fertilization. That's not an artificial demarcation, that's the most compelling scientific case. And if libertarians prize science as they claim to, then they should reevaluate their "pro-choice" position.

  An ovum or spermatozoon is mere tissue, but a fertilized ovum is not. It has 46 human chromosomes, as do you and I. That amount of genetic information has been compared by Nobel Laureate biophysicist Dr. Francis Crick to about 1,000 volumes of the Encyclopędia Britannica. The fertilized egg is not an organ of the mother, but an organism within its mother — a unique and developing human life with potential, not merely a "potential life."

  But recriminalizing abortion would cause a return of the back-alley abortionists, killing thousands of women each year.

  As Ann Coulter pointed out years ago in her book Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, that supposition requires women to make good on their threat to: (1) refuse to use birth control, and (2) when they get pregnant, engage in unsafe and illegal abortion procedures — which is a stretch if you think about it. The argument basically threatens a two-tiered irresponsibility on the part of women — political extortion of the blackest hue.

  Besides, you asked about my moral belief on abortion. I've explained it in some detail. I haven't yet explained what I would propose to do about it. Although I believe abortion, as convenient postcoital birth control, to be morally wrong, I would not seek to apply criminal penalties.

  But why not, if abortion kills what you believe to be legal persons?

  Because, if you think it through, the enforcement apparatus eventually required would be monstrous. For example, the feds would at some point have to test women for pregnancy at all border crossings, just in case they were leaving the country for an abortion. Also, any natural miscarriages —which happen fairly frequently — -would necessarily be investigated as possible homicides. That would be horrific.

  Still, wouldn't that allow parties to abortions to go unpunished?

  Unpunished criminally, but not unpunished morally.

  I don't follow.

  Well, I've never met a woman who had, for purely matters of convenience, an abortion who was fully at ease with herself over it. Similarly, I've never heard of an abortionist who seemed genuinely proud of it.

  You may be overstating the case there.

  Perhaps, but I doubt it. Me thinks the pro-choicers protest too much. It's like the quote "Nobody speaks of God more than the atheist." Deep down, I don't believe that even the very strident "pro-choice" activists are truly unconflicted about abortion. I've spoken to many such women who would not have a convenience-based abortion themselves.

  We're not talking about a tumor here. Abortion kills a defenseless and developing human life with its own unique DNA, and there is no way around that. Not by calling it a "fetus" and not by calling it a "consciousless non-person." If an abortion must be performed, then how about for some truly compelling reason such as the mother's health, versus "Damn it, I'm pregnant again!"

  What I'm saying is that the moral consequence of abortion affects those involved, even if they would not admit it. The corresponding guilt and grief will have to suffice. In a way, the wrong likely contains its own punishment. As such, it obviates any requirement for criminalization and its attendant enforcement apparatus. For example, one high-profile abortionist in Texas killed herself years ago. I think that after performing several thousand abortions, the enormity of it all finally caught up with her.

  What if there is no corresponding guilt and grief? What if there is no moral punishment?

  Then the pro-choicers and abortionists have nothing to worry about, do they? And thus, nothing to protest about, either. But they do worry; they do protest. Even the blandest of pro-life statements made from moral, and not political grounds, send them into a frenzy. Why? Because even if abortion on demand is left alone politically, to criticize it on purely moral grounds strikes a nerve. As well it should. The nerve is there for a reason. However pro-choicers try with semantic arguments, the nerve refuses to be anesthetized.

  Even though my politics do not threaten abortion, my moral views on abortion will be reviled just as if I had the unilateral power to overturn Roe v. Wade. I will not criminalize the issue. I will leave the consequences of abortion to those involved, but I will never gloss over the inherent evil. It is a needless, ugly stain on our nation.

  So, abortion is not a political issue for you?

  No. As a state governor, what could I do about it anyway? Executive and legislative politics will not overturn Roe v. Wade. It's been decided as a judicial matter, and democratic pressures are quite inert there. To even ask presidential and senatorial candidates their position is fairly pointless. Short of appointing pro-life Supreme Court Justices — which is highly unlikely these days — what could they do about it? To question congressmen on the matter is just idiotic, as the House does not confirm Supreme Court nominations.

  In short, the whole matter has been overly politicized, and should have probably been left to the States. Such would have greatly depressurized the issue, and with 50 publics and 50 legislatures addressing it we might have discovered a truly wise solution.

  But that would mean some states would have outlawed abortion.

  Yes, but many would not. If a Phoenix woman had to fly to L.A. for an abortion, then the cost and inconvenience may encourage more responsibility in the future.

  Look, I would not criminalize abortion, but I won't excuse it, either. Furthermore, there should not be a single penny of taxpayer money to fund abortions. For "pro-choice" advocates to insist on government funding I find ghastly. 93% of all abortions are publicly funded through Medicaid and other programs, and they're amazed that the pro-lifers are so upset? That their tax dollars are subsidizing elective murder? They've a right to be upset. Abortion must be defunded publicly. At once.

  What about drugs, prostitution, and homosexuality? Wouldn't Christians outlaw what libertarians consider victimless crimes?

  Perhaps some would, but I personally would not. I think that both Christians and libertarians have some points to consider here.

  The thing I'd suggest to my fellow Christians is that not criminalizing certain behavior for adults does not necessarily mean or imply condoning that behavior. Laws, principles, and preferences are not synonymous. Not all pleasure is necessarily a sin, and not all sin is necessarily a crime.

  Morality and criminality are related, but they are not the same. They do not perfectly overlap, as many Christians seem to think.

  A moral code includes, as a subset, the criminal code because not everything immoral can or should be made criminal, as I explained with abortion. Absent their initiation of force, people must be allowed to go to heaven, or hell, in their own way. To dissuade such behavior, Christians should — as in the case of abortion —employ moral arguments.

  What would you suggest to your fellow libertarians?

  That there is something more important than the freedom to do what one wants, and that is the freedom to do what one ought. Just because one has the personal liberty to do something does not necessarily mean that it should be done. The "ought" is, by the way, an inner and voluntary compulsion — not a coercive third-party one. I'm talking about self-government.

  Let me explain it with a Scripture. Paul in I Corinthians 6:12 wrote, "All things are permissible for me, but not all things are profitable." Libertarians should contemplate that more often. Not all permissible things are profitable, meaning some things take more than they give — leaving the person with a net loss. Those engaged in drugs, prostitution, and homosexuality generally have shorter life expectancies. More suicides, too. They certainly suffer more illness and despair. That is statistical fact. In short, these things permissible under libertarian principles are not profitable, and thus fall outside of that which we ought to be doing.

>   Libertarianism is an excellent interpersonal code. In fact, the whole tenet of interpersonal libertarianism was encapsulated in the so-called Golden Rule by Jesus during his Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:12.

  However, libertarianism lacks much as an intrapersonal code. Libertarian ethics maintain that something is immoral solely if it involves fraud or initiation of force. While this definition certainly encompasses the criminal code, it omits much as a moral code. As fervently as libertarians may argue for the individual's implicit freedom to shoot up heroin with homosexual prostitutes — let's face it, nobody would actually raise their own children in such an environment! Nobody aspires to such a life. Just because certain behavior is properly excluded from the criminal code does not mean that it conversely deserves to be embraced, much less extolled.

  Well, if noncriminal immoral behavior should not be legislated against, then why even discuss it? It's going to occur whether some people like it or not.

  That's not quite the given you think it is. Think of it this way. While it's not against the law to be a jerk, it certainly isn't profitable. He misses out on the fine ladies and the good jobs. He isn't invited to parties. He may even die a bachelor, thus not transmitting his crude genes.

  My point is this: In any society, there are many forms of disapproval. P.J. O'Rourke once wrote about a Stockholm taxi ride where he was cut off. The cabbie scolded the offending driver, "Tsk-tsk." No kidding. Laws are merely the highest form of disapproval, and these are codifications of certain mores. Social opprobrium is expressed in many ways, from frowns to outright shunning and excommunication. Extralegal sanctions can be very effective.

  Shame and stigma work, while they work. Meaning, if a mild form of opprobrium begins to fail, then stronger measures will appear alluring. This is why Robert Bork was tempted by censorship. When shame evaporates, laws step in to fill the vacuum. If libertarians would not pooh-pooh or dismiss the idea of decency, then they might not have to worry so much about increasing numbers of laws on morality. Where values are strong, laws are unnecessary. Where values are weak, many laws are worthless because they cannot be enforced.

  In Boulder I recently saw a greasy, thoroughly pierced, young punk proudly sporting a T-shirt which read, "I don't give a fuck what you fucking think!" This was at the mall, with reading-age children present. Does anyone mean to tell me that that was the purpose of the 1st Amendment? If one intentionally behaves in public with the goal to shock and infuriate, then perhaps one should suffer its effect.

  Libertarians may have a qualm about that, given their noninitiation of force ethos.

  No doubt. But that doesn't mean that we should surrender our streets to vermin. Here's the paradox: Society cannot create or maintain decency through laws, however, we cannot allow the triumph of indecency, either. That punk at the mall should have been shouted and booed out of the building by the rest of the patrons. Short of giving him a good thrashing, severe social opprobrium is the only answer I can think of. Do this regularly and we won't have to stomach such offensiveness any longer. I'd have done it myself, but I knew that I'd have had little support.

  So, you're recommending public disapproval, yet you did nothing about the mall punk yourself? Isn't that hypocritical?

  You've missed something here. If public disapproval is mild in method — such as booing — then many people have to collectively dispense that disapproval for it to be effective. If, however, the disapproval is harsh and physical, then only one man is needed. Recall the ending scene of Dangerous Liasons where the entire opera hall shouted down Glenn Close? If the movie had had just one more scene, it would have been of her moving from London. She had been banned. That was just as effective as one guy kicking her out of town. To get a dollar's worth of effectiveness, a hundred people must chip in a penny apiece, or ten people a dime, or one man the entire buck.

  I would have initiated or joined in the booing the punk out of the mall —I'd have chipped in my penny or dime — if a supportive atmosphere had existed, but it didn't. Everyone was skittering away from this punk. I was on my own, so I would have had to spend the full dollar. Had I said anything to him he would have just used his favorite word on me in front of my wife, and I'd have squashed him like the cockroach he was.

  Here's the irony: he would have had legal protection, not me. Somehow, that's insane. After decades of tolerance for depravity, we have boxed ourselves into a very smelly corner. One man cannot do anything — even though he knows he could, and a dozen people will not do anything —even though they know they should. As the band Rush sang in A Farewell to Kings, "Will they read of us with sadness, for the seeds that we let grow?"

  Getting back to the original thread of discussion, drugs, prostitution, pornography, promiscuity, and homosexuality are not healthy things, and will — if left unchecked by social opprobrium — curdle and destroy a society. Is this not obvious? Libertarians must face some things.

  Such as?

  That there are social realities more poignant than economic ones. That a free society cannot dispense with civic virtue and public morality. That decadence will lead to depravity, and vulgarity to obscenity. That free market exchanges of depravity will degenerate the entire culture. That industries made from the same will result in eventual social destruction. That a healthy community is more than a simple conglomeration of hedonists. That unconstrained personal expression is not the sine qua non of liberty. That libertarianism cannot become a suicide pact with decent public order. That even though you may not partake in pornography, homosexuality, or drugs — you will be greatly affected by those who do. That we foolishly ignore these "negative externalities" only at our own peril.

  Montesquieu was right when he insisted that the primary prerequisite of any democracy was public virtue.

  Now you sound like a Stoic.

  (laughs) So I'm the Zeno of Wyoming, eh? I think of it as simple realism. Even secular scholars are understanding these things. Robert Bork wrote in Slouching Towards Gomorrah that "Unconstrained human nature will seek degeneracy often enough to create a disorderly, hedonistic, and dangerous society."

  Libertarians could stand to embrace a bit of Stoicism, actually. It would help to balance their predominant Epicureanism.

  If you don't approve of drugs, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, then don't partake of them — leaving others free to do so. Just like an offensive TV program—don't watch.

  That's like saying "If you don't like the smog, don't breathe." You're ignoring their pervasive nature. Madonna can isolate herself from the Amish, but 12 year-old Amish girls can't isolate themselves from Madonna. And the Amish have a right to be upset about that. Culture is the social air we all must breathe, and the pollution has become toxic. You've the right to foul your own nest, but not the public air. We used to completely understand this. In my father's day, when he went out in public he could expect others to be well-dressed and polite. Others could expect that of him. One didn't assume the right to foul the public experience. Having a lousy day? Fine, keep it to yourself. You had no right to soil the day of a perfect stranger, and vice versa.

  Seems impossibly quaint today, eh? Politely ask some kid to turn down his boombox or quit slapping his skateboard around while you're on the phone, and he'll promptly tell you to "Fuck off!" How did we get to this point? Penuria hominem. A shortage of men — through subsidized fatherlessness — but that's another topic.

  Look, a high skank quotient indicates a society's soon demise. We know this from history. It's something that many atheist libertarians don't want to discuss. They cannot offer one example of a brazenly bacchanalian society simultaneously enjoying law and order. There is an indisputable correlation between indecency and crime. Go to any sleazy part of town anywhere in the world and see if you feel safe. The very idea is absurd. "Come inside for the live-sex show! Oh, sir, you dropped your wallet!"

  There is a correlation, if not causality, between good ethics and decency, and that's something atheist libertarians sh
ould not ignore. Christians should not be castigated by libertarians for calling something degenerate and socially destructive, any more than libertarians should be chastised by Christians for refusing to employ criminal sanctions on what is truly noncriminal behavior. They are much more in agreement than they realize, if they'd only ponder the issue from each other's perspective.

  Christians confuse a criminal code to fully envelop the moral code, while libertarians confuse a moral code to fully envelop the criminal code. That is the most simple way I can put it.

  Hmmm. Interesting. Please elaborate on that.

  OK, let me explain it another way. Imagine a circle. It contains all offensive behavior, from public profanity to murder. But, there are several levels of offensiveness. The circle comprises three rings. The outer ring is merely rude behavior, which is randomly punished by mild disapproval in the form of folkways. The next ring is indecent behavior, which is generally punished by robust disapproval in the form of mores. The inner circle is criminal behavior, which is universally punished by stringent disapproval — laws.

  Christians would mistakenly outlaw rude and indecent behavior, causing the criminal code to fully envelop the moral code. This surrogate enforcement through the police is a symptom of a lazy and cowardly people. I know many Christians and some of them are just plain weak and gutless — people who would first call the police over a loud party or a barking dog next door rather than simply go talk to their neighbor.

  Many libertarians, on the other hand, mistakenly believe that if something is not criminal, then it can't be immoral because there was no coercion. I think that this, too, is a copout. I know many devout libertarians and many of them hide behind their politics because they simply don't have the courage to call decadence for what it obviously is.