TWO LIBERALS & A LIBERTARIAN

Conservatives understand how almost every political, economical, and moral conversation ends when liberals and conservatives disagree.

Liberals tend to want more government, more laws, believing more laws will always solve the world’s problems.

Libertarians? We want less of all the above. Less government, fewer laws, fewer problems, and lately? A few less liberals racing to a snarky judgment wouldn’t hurt, either.

Since I’m aware that liberals and conservatives may use the exact same words and phrases, but mean two entirely different things, let me clarify that last bit. I don’t want liberals—as in those who are liberal—to disappear into thin air or wish them harm in any way. I happen to have friends who are liberal and a few family members, too. I love them dearly. We stay friends, and a loving family, by never discussing anything of national importance.

I love them enough to be fine with that arrangement. And they obviously feel the same way about me.

What I would love to see less of, is not the person, but the strange way how every road leads to that one final destination, that inevitable judgement, how every debate ends in that same accusation.

It happens almost every time.

I’m sure you can all guess what word I’m talking about. If not, read on and I’ll get there.

Just before leaving for my mini-vacation, I was tagged teamed by a couple liberal friends. I won’t judge their earnestness in wanting to fix the world’s problems so we can all live happily ever after. I believe, despite the debate leading to the inevitable conclusion mentioned above (where all roads end. Yes, that one word accusation meant to deride further discussion), I believe they want this country to be a better place.

We agreed on almost everything except the means, of how to go about making a better future regarding our shared desire to put a complete stop to something the three of us, as well as most Americans, find repulsive: gender discrimination.

So, our topic was gender discrimination. All three of us find it abominable. All three of us want it stopped.

So we all want the same goal. We have common ground. That’s a great start, right?

We simply have different ideas on how to achieve that goal.

And that’s where the discussion kept going south.

As liberals, they want government to step in and put a stop to it by enacting even more laws. I expected that. I’ve run into it before.

But I, leaning past some conservative beliefs and straight into libertarian territory, didn’t agree. We already have laws on the books that make discrimination based on gender a crime. I can’t be refused a job or a service based on my gender. I’m mostly satisfied with those laws, since I don’t believe any new law can accomplish a better result, despite the results being light years away from perfect.

Hamilton said it best…when talking about the Government using it’s authority of the laws and FORCE to obtain every outcome, and when the people begin getting used to Government forcing its will upon the people, then we trade that in for our liberty:

The instrument by which it [government] must act are either the AUTHORITY of the laws or FORCE. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty!

Alexander Hamilton
Tully, No. 3 — 1794

What I’m not satisfied with is the naïveté in which some people think that a new law will automatically fix everything—especially when some laws can make things worse. And, I’m not too thrilled with how by demanding more laws, many people think their responsibility to society ends there.

The more such laws I’ve seen, the greater the divide becomes between the American people. Why? Because laws don’t change a person’s mentality or heart. Some laws are no more than a mask, a bandaid, a way to make things appear better on the surface, while beneath is a roiling sea of resentment when a person is forced, by law, to go against their beliefs.

Let’s be clear about this one thing: I believe most people are good. I believe those who feel forced, by law, to be nice to another human being, are just a drop in the bucket. And the rest of that bucket is filled with good, kind people who want to pass on a better world to their children.

We always have that one mean kid in each classroom, that one jerk at the office. Seems in any large setting, there’s that one who harbors prejudices, lashing out in various ways.

While a law designed to protect a person based on gender may compel a person to behave in public, or rather give the impression he’s falling in line, he’s tormented on the inside, day and night, his resentment builds until one day? Yep, he goes to his job at whatever restaurant employs him, and he serves his first of many spit-wad burgers to some unsuspecting female.

So I’ve asked myself repeatedly: Could there be a better way? Can a person’s lifelong way of bigoted thinking change?

I believe the answer is a resounding yes.

But it requires participation from everyone, or most everyone.

Is that too much to expect?

It is our country, after all. Shouldn’t we actively participate in shaping it? Making it better for our children?

When an anti-discrimination law passes to protect women, it doesn’t change the heart condition that causes the problem. What it does, in many cases, is cause the resentment to boil. Forcing someone with hate in their hearts to play nice with the people they hate (or face punishment for their crimes), makes the situation fester.

They may play nice on the outside because the law rightly demands it, but it fosters passive-aggressive behavior that can make life far worse, leaving the victims uncertain, causing some people to never quite feel comfortable or confident in many environments outside of their home.

Why? Because if my server at a restaurant despises women, I can’t exactly place my order and ask him to please hold the big wad of spit or whatever other nasty he may dream up to mix in my food. I don’t know him. I don’t know if he’s a bigot. So, I don’t know to be watchful for his passive-aggressive behavior, which means I have to constantly be on the lookout for it from everyone.

That’s not a comfortable way to live. It can also make a person see bigotry where it doesn’t exist.

If I’m facing a complicated surgery and have no idea if the man standing over me with scalpel in hand despises me or thinks less of me based on my gender, how can I feel confident he will give me the same level of care as anyone else?

If my boss passes me up for a promotion, and I feel I deserved said promotion, I’m left wondering: Is it because I’m female? Is my boss a closet bigot? And sadly, I may never know the answer to that.

Because, laws become the mask all bigots wear. Laws disguise all the bigots as nice smiling people. We don’t know who hired us against their will. And that’s why laws are not enough.

We don’t know if that smiling face serving dinner at our favorite restaurant is smiling because he is happy to be of service, or if he’s hiding behind that smile, waiting for me to take a bite of whatever nasty he hid in my food.

With more and more laws passed designed to protect certain “classes” of people, I’m seeing a growing cancer of anger, resentment, and more meltdowns in the past decade or so, more than in all the previous years of my life combined. More mass shootings. More road rage incidents. More talk of discrimination.

We simply have no idea if some apparent slight or mishap was a mistake, or done out of a deep seated hatred. It leaves us feeling edgy. It makes us see bigots everywhere, and bigotry, even in situations where it doesn’t exist.

I gave the example to my liberal friends regarding constantly changing societal norms, and an entrenchment in the past, with some people either too scared or too angry to move forward.

Instead of using gender discrimination laws for this example, I mentioned that one day eating meat might be outlawed. I mentioned how older generations of mostly good people could be judged harshly by a society that may one day decide that eating meat is barbaric and cruel to animals. Hence, anyone who dined on the flesh of animals—meaning almost all people of the generations who came before them—are to be judged as barbaric animals.

Now, imagine a majority passing a law stating eating meat, fish, poultry is now illegal.

But let’s pretend for a moment that we mostly all agree that killing an animal and eating its flesh is wrong (she writes, as she takes another bite of her burger).

Now imagine the outrage of those who’ve dined on meat their entire lives and their “not about to change now” outrage. Imagine the churning inside. Their resentment. Their anger when the government steps in and passes the “anti-meat consumption bill.”

So I suggested that with laws like this bringing out the worst in people, why not let society, itself, be a major force in what changes opinions, since the opinions are the real problem.

If opinions are changed, the biases challenged, we eventually may evolve as a people to the point where such laws are no longer needed.

If one day the majority of people came to the conclusion that eating meat was a crime against animals, could a conscientious society get the message out? Would the animals be saved?

If those who bucked against popular opinion sat down at a restaurant and ordered a meat burger, and watched those around them recoil. Watched as parents shielded their children’s eyes and those seated nearest them moved to another table?

That’s were introspection starts.

Introspection is where long held beliefs and opinions are examined for their merit. It’s the first step to true change.

I believe society has an obligation to root out bigotry, and change the attitudes that formed it.

This type of introspection rarely happens to the more stubborn individuals when laws are passed and people are forced to go against their core beliefs, regardless of how bigoted and wrong those beliefs may be.

Real change is much more likely to happen when the offending party is exposed to the negative reactions of others.

How many more trips will Bob make to his favorite diner to order a meat burger when the reaction he gets from everyone around him sets him ill at ease?

So let’s switch the topic from meat, fish, and poultry, back to gender discrimination. And apply the same reasoning.

Isn’t it better to win people over by giving them reason for introspection, rather than never truly winning them over and having to force them to go against their grain? Can’t we change their grain, instead? Wouldn’t that be better for all of us? It would certainly be better for their children, since bigotry is often learned in the home.

Societies over the ages have used this exact technique. Societal pressure can change the world.

When the errant child in class realizes he has lost all his friends due to his mean behavior, and desperately wants a friend? He learns he must play nice. When he becomes desperate enough to want to win his friends back, he must first exercise introspection to realize why no one invites him to play during recess.

It’s why spouses across America give their mate the silent treatment. Because it works. The mate, uncomfortable with the silence and sometimes not knowing the reason for being ignored, turns to introspection (or runs to the nearest florist or candy store. But, whatever.)

Laws alone are not working. We’ve grown lazy as a people, expecting the government to step in and fix every problem, when it is government that causes many of those problems, and makes other problems worse by imposing laws that lead to passive-aggressive behavior, without society’s backing.

As Americans, we once believed in self-government. We were founded on that principle. Maybe it’s time to try it again.

Maybe?

The principle of self-government cannot be violated with impunity. The individual’s right to it is sacred – regardless of class, caste, race, color, sex or any other accident or incident of birth.

Susan B. Anthony

As for the ending of my tag team debate, one of my liberal friends was apparently incensed enough to publish a blog about her view of the exchange.

When she’d asked if I’d want a law made specifically for me, one making it illegal for anyone to discriminate against me, I thought about it for a moment and came to the conclusion that I would not. Personally, I want to know who the bigots are so I can avoid them.

I don’t want to be left wondering if my being passed up for one promotion after another at work was due to my boss being a closet bigot, that he only hired me because he had no choice, that no matter how hard I worked, I’d never get that promotion. I’d rather work for someone who has confidence in me and would give me a fair chance to prove my worth.

I wouldn’t want someone forced to serve me against their will, because I’m not fond of the idea of having loogies in my sandwich, when mayonnaise is a much more appealing option. I’d prefer the person serving my food to have as much respect for me as anyone else.

I’d want to know if the doctor about to remove my appendix doesn’t harbor a strong hatred for me. I’d prefer my surgeon genuinely cared about my well-being.

By pointing out the fallacies in many of these laws, how certain laws only fix things on the surface, leading to passive-aggressive behavior that hurts unsuspecting people…

By explaining that the laws we have now that were designed to protect certain people from discrimination, also leaves us vulnerable to closet bigots, and that new laws would just give us more of the same…

By suggesting that real change can’t be forced by law but needs to come from introspection, and that it’s our duty as a society to bring about that introspection…

I was painted as a racist.

Yep. There’s that word. The one meant to deride any further discussion.

“RACIST“

Why? Because we didn’t agree on a means to bring gender discrimination to a quick death?

Because I don’t see how any new laws could make it better?

Because I pointed out how laws designed to protect certain classes of people can make them a victim to passive-aggressive behavior?

Because, I personally prefer to know who the true bigots are so I can avoid them? Or alert all my friends and family so they, too, can avoid their businesses?

So, the journey ended on the same road, at the same destination where it always ends in these debates. Only it didn’t just end there…

Yes, I was deemed racist for believing social pressure may do better at combatting gender discrimination, than by simply adding more laws to the ones we already have. And my liberal friends believe only new laws will fix the problem.

Apparently, to a liberal, almost any disagreement makes me a racist. How did my liberal friend come to the conclusion I am a racist based on a discussion about gender?

By liberal subterfuge.

Apparently, when debating with liberals, pointing out how gender-discrimination laws don’t always work as intended, how such laws can have some serious negative ramifications for females, and my belief that social pressure may be the key to changing that, it must REALLY mean I am against all anti-discrimination laws.

All this after I’d maintained a firm stance against gender discrimination.

It was quite a leap. Even for a pair of liberals.

While our debate was about gender discrimination, her blog magically transformed our discussion to “racial discrimination.” Racial discrimination does, after all, make for a much more powerful liberal blog. And, for much more outrage from the readers.

But it gets even better (she writes, shaking her head.) The crowning glory came when, despite our actual debate not being about race, and with my stance always that the discrimination we had actually discussed (gender discrimination) was wrong, my liberal friend posited in her blog something so outrageous I had to go back and read it again to ensure I wasn’t just seeing things.

Her blog stated clearly that her conservative friend believes it’s every bigot’s right to refuse service to a black person.

Talk about taking big leaps!?!

But I’m sure the readers ate it up and grew an even bigger hatred for the “conservative friend” the article was about.

Language like that makes for a lot of controversy.

It also makes for “fake news.” But, whatever.

Since I knew the debate would likely end in that “racist” accusation anyway—even without discussing race—I wasn’t shocked I’d end up painted as a racist; rather, just disappointed, as the conclusion my liberal friend drew was printed in black and white at the end of her article: liberals and conservatives cannot be friends.

On a side note, the post our debate started over? It was about liberals and conservatives finding common ground.

Ironic…no?

Content like this is only made possible by contributions from readers like you. If everyone who enjoys our website helps fund it, we can expand and improve our coverage further. Plus you’ll get exclusive accsess to Family-Only original content and some free stuff! Join the RightWay Family today by donating @ patreon below:  From this link below you can join a monthly patron tier, or make a custom donation of your choice to support The RightWay.
https://www.patreon.com/join/TheRightWay?