|
 he
first thing to do when learning to play poker is to learn the relative
value of the various hands. A straight flush is the
rarest hand,
so it beats the next rarest, four of a kind. The ranks of the hands
teach us about the laws of probability, which underlie all games
of chance. A similar process occurs elsewhere. When ideas conflict,
we can observe which ones dominate. This gives a good indication
of the underlying beliefs of the persons involved.
For instance,
you like to listen to music. Someone offers to sell you a top-of-the-line
MP3 player, which has been stolen. You decline. This shows that
to you, the value of respecting others' property is more important
than music. Both values were important to you, but you had to choose
which one was more important.
When
a woman gets to choose
Now let's see how some priorities get selected in real life. Pro-choice
advocates insist that a woman has the right to control her own body.
A woman who one of us knows was trying to become pregnant. She and
her husband had undergone infertility tests. If she became pregnant
and suddenly decided on an abortion, her husband would have no legal
say. So far, the principle that the woman gets to choose remains
intact.
But suppose
one day this woman gets her hair done at a new salon. The stylist
visits the toilet, after which he massages the woman's scalp with
his fingertips. As he talks, saliva sprays onto the woman's face
and eyes. After he finishes, he announces that he is HIV-positive.
This woman's
control over her body includes the right to an abortion with no
regard for the fetus's life or the father's wishes, but the woman
is deprived of her ability to exercise choice about having her skin
rubbed and her eyes sprayed with saliva by a stranger carrying a
fatal disease. The likelihood of contracting AIDS in this way is
tiny, but the point is this: She is given no choice. Several
persons who have heard this story saw nothing wrong. They thus revealed
that in their value systems, the rights of HIV-carriers trump a
woman's right to choose.
When
violence and harassment against women doesn't matter
Many feminists are very concerned about protecting women from sexual
harassment, which they define so broadly as to include a man
asking a fellow employee for a date, or two men telling a dirty
joke which a woman overhears. These feminists tend to support a
legal rule of always believing the alleged victim, even when there
is no corroborating evidence. "Women, don't lie" about
sexual harassment, they claim.
But most of
these same feminists remained silent, or were actively hostile,
when Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and other
women credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape, assault, and indecent
exposure; the accusations were backed by substantial supporting
evidence.
During the
impeachment case, Stanford University Law Professor Deborah
L. Rhode served as Deputy Counsel to the House Judiciary Democrats.
She claimed that President Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica
Lewinsky did not matter because it was consensual. But in 1988,
regarding allegations of Gary Hart's consensual sexual relationships,
Rhode claimed, "Womanizing degrades and objectifies women in
general … For positions involving moral leadership, these questions
are relevant."
Feminists complained
about Paula Jones using a sexual harassment lawsuit to pry into
Bill Clinton's consensual sexual activities. Yet this complaint
ignored the fact that the very law that allowed Jones's attorneys
to question Clinton was a 1994 law that Clinton had signed, a move
that they had championed.
Betty Friedan,
of the National Organization of Women, fulminated that Clarence
Thomas was unfit to serve on the Supreme Court because he had allegedly
talked dirty to Anita Hill ten years before. When Paula Jones reported
that Bill Clinton had indecently exposed himself and ordered a state
employee to perform fellatio on him, Betty Friedan responded blithely,
"What's the big deal? She wasn't killed, She wasn't harassed.
She wasn't fired."
There were
some feminists who refused to defend Clinton, but they were hardly
a majority of the most-prominent leaders of the movement. For this
majority, it is fair to ask whether the welfare of the victims of
rape and other sex crimes is less important than the perpetuation
of political power by any means necessary.
When
saving the environment isn't important
In 1970, on the first Earth Day, the environmental movement strongly
supported slowing or halting U.S. population growth. They pointed
out the obvious fact that a higher population tends to mean more
use of natural resources, and to mean more open space consumed for
housing and other human needs.
As we approach
the 31st Earth Day, on April 22, most U.S. environmental lobbies
have fallen silent about U.S. population growth. Is it because they
have read books like The
Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian Simon, and concluded that
population growth is good for society and good for the environment?
Of course not.
Is it because
U.S. population growth has slowed so much that the groups can focus
on other issues? To the contrary, the 1990s witnessed the largest
population increase in American history: 32.7 million people.
A new report
from the Center for Immigration Studies (Forsaking
Fundamentals: The Environmental Establishment Abandons U.S. Population
Stabilization, by Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck) explains
that one reason why the environmentalists lost interest in population
stabilization was:
"the
change in the source of population growth, from births by native-born
American women to immigration and births by immigrant women. In
the 1990s, immigrant-related growth was equivalent to 70 percent
of U.S. population increase. This development caused environmental
groups to lapse into silence on U.S. population policy for a variety
of reasons, including the fear that advocating immigration cuts
would alienate progressive allies; the transformation of population
and environment into global, as opposed to national, issues; and
concerns that funding might be jeopardized, since many foundation
boards include left-leaning globalists and right-leaning representatives
of multinational corporations, each with strong biases in favor
of high immigration."
There are still
some environmentalists who consider protecting the environment more
important than placating allies who want uncontrolled immigration.
Douglas LaFollette — Wisconsin's Secretary of State and namesake
of a genuine progressive — endorses the Center for Immigration
Studies's challenge to the environmental lobbies, as does former
Sen. Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day.
When
it's all right to befriend tyranny
Austria was shunned by its neighbors because it included a far-right
party in its ruling coalition. At the same time, France and Italy
retained good relations with their neighbors, despite having Communists
in their ruling coalitions. Moreover, European nations pursue trade
with terrorist, totalitarian states like Libya, Syria, and Iraq.
Apparently, tyranny is not what is objectionable, but merely one
kind of tyranny. The struggle between freedom and oppression is
thus removed from the realm of ethics and trivialized into a question
of personal preference.
General Pinochet
was arrested in Britain, despite his diplomatic passport. A Spanish
judge issued a warrant, demanding his extradition to Spain for crimes
committed when he ruled Chile, including the deaths of 3,000 dissidents.
Leftist pundits saw no problem with Britain and Spain usurping jurisdiction
over crimes committed half a world away. Perhaps they had never
forgiven Pinochet for blocking a Communist takeover in Chile. Pinochet
did eventually surrender power, leaving a democratic and prosperous
nation. Meanwhile, Fidel Castro travels the world freely and is
received warmly, despite having executed at least 15,000 dissidents
— five times more than Pinochet — and imprisoned 100,000
more, and having shown no sign of relinquishing power over his oppressed
and impoverished people. Media anger is used up on right-wing tyrants,
and media sympathy is used up on their victims, leaving no anger
for left-wing tyrants, and no sympathy for their victims.
Thus, we see
that among many of the politically correct:
- A woman's
right to control her own body is worth fighting for, but there
is something more important: the rights of HIV-carriers.
- Protecting
women from powerful men in the workplace is laudable, but there
is something more important: a political agenda.
- Protecting
the environment is admirable, but there is something more important:
permitting high levels of illegal immigration.
- Shunning
governments that include extremist elements with totalitarian
philosophies is essential, but there is something more important:
never criticizing the Left.
- Punishing
brutal dictators is a worthy goal, but there is something more
important: never criticizing existing Communist regimes.
Are there any
principles that such people would defend even if political sacrifice
were required? Or is power the ultimate value?
|
