|
June 20, 2005
Isn't tyranny impolite too?
Am I too polite? Now that I've spent what seemed like an inordinate amount of time proving the stupidity of the San Francisco pit bull owner whose conduct is now endangering the rights of other dog owners, I have more questions. Other bloggers (Doug Petch is a good example) had no problem acknowledging immediately something that was so painfully tedious for me. Why? Might it be that I don't want to concede that some people are stupid because I fear the implications? Or is it because polite society deems it rude to call a stupid person stupid? My goal was not to label or insult this hapless woman, but to make a connection between stupidity and tyranny -- and I'm now realizing that the same principle which prevents polite people (a category into which I try to fit) from calling people stupid might also lead to the mistake of promoting a tyrannical form of egalitarianism. By that I mean that instead of treating everyone as equally intelligent, the legal system increasingly treats everyone as equally stupid. And yes, there is a difference; it's called respecting people's intelligence. We're all supposed to know that dogs can bite, guns can shoot, and you can get AIDS from screwing. Respecting other people's intelligence is a good form of egalitarianism; degrading them by treating them like morons is tyrannical egalitarianism. (Likewise, allowing all people their freedom is a good form of egalitarianism, while imprisoning or enslaving all people equally is bad. A good thing to remember, lest equality be at war with freedom.) Few of us would deem it insulting to assume that people are supposed to know how to read, and I haven't yet heard anyone condemn street signs and books as "elitist" for daring to make this assumption. Those who cannot read are simply at a disadvantage, and that's all there is to it. Were this society truly run by phony egalitarianism, why, we'd be getting rid of street signs and removing books from schools to eradicate any advantage possessed by the literate. But I'm worried when I see law schools proclaiming that Starbucks is exploiting law students who spend too much on coffee. It's one thing to treat morons like morons, but law students are supposed to be intelligent young people. If any group of people should be assumed to be intelligent, theirs should be. So what the hell is going on? If the tyranny of the stupid is threatening to engulf and devour otherwise intelligent people, then I'd say we're all in trouble. Did that sound too harsh? Should I have said we're all "at risk"? posted by Eric on 06.20.05 at 12:59 PM
Comments
Quite true. Jesus was not a socialist, not a Communist. He said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's -- not to become Caesar, nor to make Caesar into God. He said to give of your own wealth to the poor -- not to have Caesar take wealth by force from those richer than you and give it to the poor, or to bureaucrats. He said to give food to the hungry and water to the thirsty -- not to starve them to death and then call it a "mercy death". "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Would any Socialist Gospeler believe what Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24, in Mark 13? How many of them even believe in the Trinity? Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 21, 2005 02:06 AM "To ruin those who possess something is not to come to the aid of those who possess nothing; it is only to render misery general." "'Equality of rights' could all too easily be converted into an equality in violating rights -- by that I mean, into a common war on all that is rare, strange, or privileged, on the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, and on the wealth of creative power and mastery -- today the concept of 'greatness' entails being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being capable of being different, standing alone...." Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 21, 2005 02:20 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
From mourners to suspects overnight. Who knew?
Educating Diplomats soft spot for crocs? "I Bet The NY Times will jump on this" "slaughter" committed by "high caliber" "automatics" Balancing the polls Despite "dog overpopulation," there's a puppy shortage Squeezing Iran First they came for our elephants.... Hillary's favorite opponent?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I once got into a similiar discussion in a comment thread about a month ago. My opponent was arguing that contract law should be lenient in order to take into account that some people are stupid enough to sign contracts that they don't understand. He said that it was unChristian of me to feel no mercy for such fools. But then again, I don't recall the Beatitudes ever including "Blessed are the stupid, for they shall be cared for by the nanny state."