The 2014 issue with Brendan Eich highlights the contradiction in the positions of those who favor a large intrusive government, but then object to some intrusive policy, and those who support it, when they view that policy as hurting a group of people to which they belong, or are sympathetic to.
Brendan Eich stepped down as the CEO of Mozilla after just a couple of weeks when it was discovered that he was one among many contributors supporting California's Proposition 8 (ban of same-sex marriage), back in 2008 —
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247281/Mozilla_employees_call_for_CEO_s_resignation
https://archive.is/qou57
Many comments critical of Eich were made in the media, and a number of Mozilla employees used Twitter to voice their disagreement with the appointment of Eich as CEO of Mozilla.
Consider this quote dated March 27, 2014 from Paula Le Dieu, who was then a senior Director at Mozilla --
http://archiville.org/2014/03/27/mozilla-and-i/
https://archive.is/wGB0F
I am an employee of the Mozilla Foundation. My colleagues at the Foundation and the broader community we support are an extraordinary group of people aligned around a mission for an open and inclusive web. We work tirelessly to create the conditions for everyone to thrive in an age defined by the web. My colleagues spend their lives actively and vocally advocating for open, inclusive societies through the web.
I can’t walk away from these people nor the cause I share with them nor the potential for Mozilla to once again be known as the champion to all but neither can I continue to earn my living from Mozilla while it is seen to exclude and alienate anyone. So as of today, I am on unpaid leave. Hardly a brave act but one that I can take that doesn’t break my heart at the thought of permanently severing my connection to an organisation that I hope will very soon find its way back to the core values that I hold so dear. I will continue to work next to my colleagues for an open, inclusive web, continue to help Mozilla through these difficult days but I will do so as a volunteer for as long as I can.
Note this sentence from the quote above —
'... but neither can I continue to earn my living from Mozilla while it is seen to exclude and alienate anyone.'
How many people besides Paula Le Dieu can't tell that the actions of a particular individual don't define an organization that individual may belong to. If the Mozilla organization doesn't want to be seen to exclude anyone, then the organization shouldn't exclude anyone (they might start with not excluding Brendan Eich).
But notice the long list of extremely popular government policies that are specifically designed to hurt some number of people, with the intent that there will be a net benefit to the population.
It rings pretty hollow for people to attack someone for supposedly 'excluding and alienating' others (a common refrain), while at the same time ignoring, or supporting, so much of popular policy that has the same effect.
Right or wrong, California's Proposition 8 is just another example of the widely accepted notion that government can penalize one group of people, as long as there is some vague pretext of helping someone.
When Religious believers express their opposition to same-sex marriage, they often speak in terms of preventing a cultural norm that supports society through family formation, from being turned into something that will encourage a lifestyle that undermines that value. Right or wrong, their stated goal is most often phrased to prevent harm, not discriminate.
And just to name a few other examples that follow this same line of thinking, consider Social Security, Medicare, progressive income taxes, drug prohibitions, etc. — all of these policies hurt some group of people.
Would anyone really try to argue that progressive income taxes help everyone, for example?
Certainly some would make the claim that wealthy people receive more benefit from government than those less well off, and so the wealthy should pay a higher tax rate, and not just a higher total amount — but if it's true that the wealthy receive a greater benefit from government, this unfairness should be eliminated, not simply adjusted for in a sloppy way with a tax penalty.
And would anyone really try to argue that Social Security helps everyone, for example?
Notice that Social Security already hurts a majority of people, in that the majority of current recipients would be better off had their contributions simply been put in bank CDs —
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/05/03/part1/GarrettRhine.pdf
And even if Social Security didn't perform badly, it would still hurt the people that could better manage their savings without the intrusion of a forced government Ponzi scheme.
And here's an issue that really drives the point home, that the vast majority support the principle that a majority can restrict the freedoms of all of society, if there's some supposed benefit, even if some people are certainly harmed — the ban on organ sales.
The fundamental principle underlying the popular support for a ban on an organ market is perfectly consistent with what appears to be the position of opponents of gay marriage (and maybe Brendan Eich's).
The particulars of the two issues are completely different, but the underlying principle is the same — many argue that since they cannot see any obvious benefit to an open market for organs (or whatever), that it is appropriate to have government enforce a complete prohibition on that activity, denying every individual the right to make the choice, however well informed they may be.
So, the position many advocate, actively hurts those people that are capable of using an organ market effectively — especially those in desperate need of a transplant.
Without knowing those who take these kinds of positions, it's impossible to question their motives — one must assume they're convinced that any benefits from the freedoms or rights they are attempting to eliminate would be overwhelmed by negative consequences, and that they are not trying to discriminate against those who would benefit — but that's exactly the argument religious conservatives often make in opposition to gay marriage. They claim many more people would be harmed by gay marriage than would be helped.
So the point here isn't to attempt to give some kind of defense of Brendan Eich (or any other opponent of gay marriage), but to point out that it's hypocritical to support a government ban on one activity based on a supposed net negative result, while at the same time criticizing others for doing so.
To put it simply, if you support government action that violates the rights of others by initiating force against them (for whatever reason), expect government to do the same to you, and accept it without complaint.
Regarding marriage, the fairest course of action would be to simply eliminate all laws that make a distinction regarding marriage. It's primarily a religious tradition, and so the government shouldn't be regulating it.
From that point of view, supporting a ban on same-sex marriage may actually be the best course, because it helps to limit the number of people taking advantage of a law that by definition is intended to make a distinction that 'excludes and alienates', as Paula Le Dieu put it. Of course, that's the whole point — those who want to be in a same-sex marriage are not upset because current laws 'exclude and alienate', they're upset because the law 'excludes and alienates' them. Obviously, if the law didn't provide some special privilege, no one would care.
And note that the popular support for a total prohibition of organ sales, when compared with other popular policies, is an especially dramatic example of public hypocrisy regarding the harm caused by various government policies, since the limited supply of organ donors actually KILLS people. One certainly can't make even a remotely similar claim about prohibiting same-sex marriage.
It really is laughingly ridiculous that people would attack someone based on the notion that a policy they advocate 'excludes' some group of people. 'Excludes' people? You have got to be kidding — of course, the intent is to hurt some number of people, with the hope that there will be a net benefit to the population — all popular social welfare policies (especially those supported by so-called progressives) share this feature.
If you can't (or won't) argue from a strict concept of individual rights — that individuals have a right to exist free from coercion — then you do not have a consistent basis for attacking any policy, and you certainly can't attack a policy because it violates someone's rights, when violating rights is central to your vision of what government should be doing.
Violating individual rights, however irrational, is perfectly consistent with the modern day view of democracy — which in popular usage is just a euphemism for majority rule. The founders of the United States knew that a pure democracy is in no way consistent with freedom — as evidenced by one of the main features of the U.S. Constitution: its identification of general principles that cannot legitimately be subject to a vote, and to establish branches of government that would be difficult for a majority to capture, and that would check each other to make change difficult (which also makes the often heard complaints about grid-lock in government especially ridiculous).
Regarding organ donations, here is an interesting piece from Virginia Postrel, who donated one of her kidneys to a friend —
http://vpostrel.com/articles/here-s-looking-at-you-kidney
She also makes some good points here regarding the harm done by not allowing payments to organ donors —
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/with-functioning-kidneys-for-all/307587/
No comments:
Post a Comment