Sigh. I really like Steven Den Beste, but his manifesto on behalf of being atheist and humanist is disappointing. I am an unabashed conservative, which has large overlaps with liberal (in the Hayek sense) and libertarian philosophies. I believe in freedom. It's a fundamental tenet of my religion (LDS). I am fearful for this country because of the rise of big government, and I agree with much of what Steven writes, even this: "I therefore oppose any case where a single overriding moral force comes to dominate the political system. I fully oppose the idea of any state religion."

However, I don't "strongly support the legal firewall between government and religion which is in the First Amendment." First, the "wall" is not in the Constitution. It was originally Jefferson's term, but wasn't part of our jurisprudence before the 1940s. Second, this concept is used more to stifle freedom than to protect it, and especially to stifle tolerance. Part of living in a diverse, pluralistic society is being tolerant of other people's expressions of faith and appreciating them for the good they do in society. What we have now is a de facto atheistic state anti-religion, which allows those who take easy offense to veto everyone else. My view is that public expressions of faith are free speech, even when they are made by public servants and officials. The only limits I would impose is that all such expressions must be allowed, not only those of a predominant religion, and that they must be positive--no "Death to Israel" speeches in a classroom, for example. The last will be tricky to get right without intruding on political discussion but I think it could be handled by time, place and manner regulations. The main idea is that we don't get the world as we would like it, so if we're offended, hurt, chilled, etc., "Get over it." Learn to appreciate the common virtues in our heritages, but allow the differences, so long as they don't conflict with democratic principles. Insensitivity isn't the problem, oversensitivity is. Religious persecution is against the First Amendment.

Steven writes:

True freedom is only possible when I have the freedom to make stupid mistakes, and where the consequences of doing so arise only from the direct consequences of my mistake and not from externally-imposed legal sanctions. And it means that I must be free to offend those around me, for if I cannot then I am free, but only to do things my neighbors don't condemn. And such freedom is illusion.

I don't want anyone forcing me to think and act in certain ways solely "for my own good". I want the right to make my own decisions about what's good for me, even if it turns out I'm wrong. I want the right to hold an opinion even if most of those around me disagree with it.

It is better to be free than to be correct.

True freedom. There's a hymn we Mormons sing:

Know this, that ev'ry soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be;

For this eternal truth is giv'n:
That God will force no man to heav'n.

He'll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love, and light,

In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.


Freedom and reason make us men;
Take these away, what are we then?

Mere animals, and just as well
The beasts may think of heav'n or hell.

May we no more our pow'rs abuse,
But ways of truth and goodness choose;

Our God is pleased when we improve
His grace and seek his perfect love.

Then there is this:

And it came to pass that Cain took one of his brothers� daughters to wife, and they loved Satan more than God.


And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.

And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.

And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.

And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.


And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.

The Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5: 28-33

So I wonder, how free was Cain? How free was Lot, living in Sodom and Gomorrah? What about our right to the pursuit of happiness? It has been my experience that I am more free when I follow my principles because when I do things that I believe are wrong, they seem to get a hold on me that limits my sense of freedom. I don't drink alcohol, but I don't need to do so to know that it harms many people and deprives them of their freedom. The question arises, how can we say we believe in freedom when we tolerate all kinds of things that deprive people of it? Are drug addicts free? Prostitutes? Alcoholics? People crippled by alcoholism, fetal alcohol syndrome, or being hit by drunk drivers?

Steven says that we must be free to make our own mistakes, and I generally agree, but I don't believe the argument that only the ones who make the mistakes are affected by them. No one but a drinker is affected by his drinking? No one but a mother on crack is harmed by her addiction? No one but the infected are affected by AIDS or contagions? I suppose the counter argument would be that we shouldn't pass the costs on to society, but then what does that do to our freedom to live in a civil, safe society?


Steven: "I am no anarchist. I believe that there must be a system of laws, and that the purpose of the law is to maintain the peaceful and successful operation of the society. But I take a very practical view of law, and strongly dispute the idea that law is an extension of morality. I believe that acts should be made illegal because they threaten the fabric of the society, not because they are considered evil or because the majority disapprove of them." The problem here is what that fabric is and what it consists of. As I have written before, a liberal democracy cannot endure unless the citizens recognize and fulfill certain duties, such as self-reliance, becoming educated, working, honoring and obeying the law, rearing and teaching children, being informed and voting. I'm sure that many of these seem onerous, even violations of personal freedom. I suppose that some laws are made because the majority disapproves of the acts prohibited. A lot of zoning law is based that very principle. So is nuisance law. Here's the definition of "public nuisance":

unlawfully doing any act or omitting to perform any duty, which act or omission:

(a) annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of three or more persons;

(b) offends public decency;

(c) unlawfully interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct, or renders dangerous for passage, any lake, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway;

This is common law of long standing similar laws exist in most, if not all, states. It's interesting to note that Utah statutes specifically provide that irrigation canals and ditches and agriculture are NOT public nuisances, no matter how dangerous or offensive they may be.


The fabric of society means different things to different people. I'm sure that the people of New York City think that fabric was strengthened by Rudy Giuliani's "broken windows theory" enforcement policies, even though many considered them overly intrusive on personal liberties. Why do people want to get out of ghettos? How free are they? Why do some people hate sprawl?

We could go live like the Unabomer and nobody would care. Look how long it took to catch him. He could have grown pot and smoked it, and, as long as he didn't try to sell it or drive under it's influence, he would never have gotten any attention. He'd still be up in Montana, if he hadn't submitted his manifestos to the world. But if he'd lived in a subdivision, there'd have been hell to pay. So, I suppose, if you want real freedom, be a hermit. All others have to respect other peoples' opinions, whether they agree with them or not.

It is said that my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, but merely swinging at someone without hitting him may be assault, a civil tort. We don't allow lewd behavior in public, or disorderly conduct. We don't allow planting burning crosses on other people's property, or even one's own. We don't allow inciting to riot or even carrying a loaded weapon in a motor vehice. There's a big fight in Utah right now over whether public schools, courthouses and churches have the right to prohibit guns on their premises. The list goes on and on. Basically it is all about what kind of society we want to live in. We all have entered into a social contract, under which we agree to limit our freedoms in exchange for certain protections and services. The question is how much of other people's freedoms do we have to allow before our expectations from society are violated. Every political issue and legal issue seems to boil down to that. It is not as simple as saying that ". . . the single most basic right we have, and the true measure of whether our freedom is real or illusion, is the right to scandalize the neighbors. (As long, that is, as that's the only harm done.) We, as citizens, must tolerate scandalous behavior by our neighbors as the price of our own liberty." As long as that's the only harm done. There's the rub. It seems pretty difficult to find something that scandalizes others that doesn't do some harm as well, such as affecting property values, or even placing them in fear. It seems to me that we all have different views of what our rights are, and they often conflict. I think I know what Steven means. There was an article in the Salt Lake papers a while back about a woman who did her flower gardening in a bikini, which led to calls to the cops, who came, saw, and did nothing, but I'm sure it'd be different if she'd been stark naked. And she'd be as mad as Carrie Nation if her neighbors began peeking through her fences while she was sunbathing au naturelle in the backyard.

Everything is a balancing act, and if personal liberty trumps everything, we may end up polarized and alienated, and that we don't have a society worth living in anymore. Ask some of those survivors from the WTC and Pentagon, or the families of those who died, whether our open and free society is an unalloyed blessing. We find ourselves demanding that we be protected but we don't want the FBI looking at us, let alone asking us questions. Look at the pictures of the 9/11 hijackers and try to persuade me that we have to waste our time searching all passengers instead of engaging in some amount of racial profiling with apologies to the innocent.

I think when it comes down to specifics, Steven and I would come down on the same side about 95% of the time. The same applies to Glenn Reynolds. But there are some matters where I differ strongly, because I see them tearing the fabric of society right down the middle. I also notice that a lot of people who demand academic freedom and first amendment rights, aren't willing to reciprocate. They call criticism censorship and find backdoor ways to control other people's freedoms. That's how I view radical elitist environmentalists, and expect the law to back them up. They preach moral relativism to forgive Arab terrorism and human rights abuses, but compare Pat Robertson, whom I don't admire a bit, to the Taliban and George Bush, whom I do, to Adolf Hitler. Generally Steven and Glenn and other intelligent libertarians (or classic liberals) don't make that mistake, but when enough people do, we find our liberties being destroyed in the name of freedom!

The privacy issue is one of my pet peeves. I remember reading a post from a woman, in an online discussion about how evil police surveillance cameras are, writing that she likes to wear lowcut dresses but is unnerved by the thought of being ogled by cops back at the station house. Apparently the droolers she can see aren't as bad as the ones she can only imagine. I hope she doesn't use chatrooms online. We want them to connect the dots but not to know where they are, and especially not to teach computers to connect them.

Steven's essay would be fine if he had stopped there, but he defends NAMBLA and gay marriage. Glenn proclaims his highminded support for gay rights and opposition to the war on drugs. None of these will lead us to a stronger, more free society in my opinion. In some ways these positions remind me of the opposition to war in Iraq, which demands more proof but won't settle for anything short of Saddam launching nukes or providing them to al Qaeda. By the time we realize that NAMBLA is doing actual harm to our society, it will be too late for a lot of young men and their grieving parents.

Being a parent has made me see the "victimless crimes" argument as patently absurd. I suppose Glenn won't be upset or bothered if his daughter gets some ssd, or becomes addicted, but I hope he would. I would also hope that when he is my age and missing having those kids around the house, he will feel it when she aborts one of his grandchildren. (I hope none of this happens to her or to him. I'm just illustrating that nothing any of us does affects only consenting adults.)

We're all entitled to our opinions, but let's not forget that emotional damage is damage nonetheless, and that it can be keener than a knife wound. Life forces us to deal with consequences far worse than most of what the laws can do to us, and citing individual rights and privacy isn't much comfort.


Addendum: Trends like this libertarian one tend to go one way. The people who are demanding 'tolerance' today, won't be too willing to grant it in return in the future, as the history of 1960s radicals, feminists and other activist groups shows. Once they achieve power, they use it against anyone who disagrees with them. Sort of like the, er, Bolsheviks. And it takes a hard landing to restore things.