In defending the new government-mandated light bulbs a local columnist recently wrote, after reciting the putative benefits of the new bulbs, "I am unable to understand the principles that govern today's Republican Party, but it is wrong to pander to people's ignorance or to cater to what people want to believe rather than the truth". So shocking is the arrogance of such a statement that it is hard to know where to begin comment on it, albeit that similar assertions are so common that perhaps it shouldn't be so shocking after all. To be fair, the column in question is a cut above the usual hysterical name-calling tirades with which the print and broadcast media daily confront us because at least the writer does offer some tenable arguments in favor of the usefulness and economy of the new bulbs and he does recite facts or claims in support thereof. That, at least, is to his credit.
Aside from any other objection to the columnist's words, there remains a practical one. How many people are there who consider themselves ignorant or mindless of the truth? I have never encountered such a person. So it is fair to conclude that if the purpose of the column is to persuade people to the writer's point of view and away from some incompatible alternative, he failed. Up to that point he might have been getting somewhere. Then he ended his chance of that. So what did he expect to accomplish? And this is typical of the torrents of name-calling abusive political commentary to which the American public is routinely subjected.
Beyond that, there is a simple response to the writer's conundrum. It is easy to understand Republican principles. They are found in the words 'freedom' and the 'Bill of Rights'. Even if I am one hundred percent convinced that the new bulbs are better than the old ones in economy, performance or whatnot, I refuse to cede to the writer or to the government the privilege of deciding the matter for me. The old bulbs work. If I like things the way they are, the writer can buy the new ones and leave me alone. It's a nice arrangement. On a plainer level; who the hell does he think he is anyway?
But shouldn't the government deny to a would-be consumer something which is plainly lethal, such as potassium cyanide? Should I be allowed to go into any pharmacy and buy some of that? No, and for three reasons. First, I may not know it is poisonous, second I might be buying it to murder someone and third, something like potassium cyanide is so dangerous, its lethal effects so instantaneous, that the danger of its being imbibed --- for a child, for example --- is simply too great to allow it in free circulation. The first objection can be answered with adequate informative labelling, and I submit that no reasonable person can object to the disclosure of dangers. The second applies also to hammers, cars and a lot of other items which can be used properly with reasonable precautions whereas potassium cyanide is useful only in homocide. Suffice it to say that there are items which are so dangerous that their sale or use should be restricted or prohibited altogether. One should not be allowed to sell atom bombs indiscriminately. I tend to oppose the prohibition by the government of cigarette selling but favor information dissemination. Tell the public how bad they are but don't tell me that I can't smoke if I choose to in my own home (I don't). Freedom is an ideal. One can champion the principle without having to decide every particular case in advance of the necessity for doing so. What is required after the principle is accepted is the application of human reason. Not everyone will reach the same conclusions in every case. Hence democratic government. Unfortunately all too few people evince a willingness to use the capacity to reason with which they have been endowed by their Creator.
No comments:
Post a Comment