From a reader:
Mr. Golberg,
You said:
“Some species are worth preserving more than others.” Foremost among the galaxy of questions this statement raises is: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Me: For those who don’t know, that means “who watches the watchmen” or “who will protect is from the protectors” or something like that. I am not a huge fan of this sort of argument. Jack Valenti used to pound the table with well-crafted indignation whenever anybody suggested that maybe Hollywood shouldn’t produce quite so much smut: “Who’s to decide!?” and “Who’s is to judge!?” which is just a variation of this point. The quick answer: people open to rational arguments and notions of decency and good citizenship. Hollywood used to have quite a few of those people. It still has some. But fewer and fewer.
I’m not saying the concern is invalid. Obviously, it goes to the heart of our constitutional order. But it’s also often sort of a cop out. First of all, people are making these judgments everyday. We empower law enforcement to act on them. That’s why they’re written into law. The Endangered Species Act, imperfect though it may be, makes these sorts of judgments. Parents enforce these cultural norms. If your kid kills ants with a magnifying glass, you shrug. If your kid kills a cat, you’re worried he may become a serial killer.
Whenever I hear variants of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes I wonder where this sort of objection can’t be made outside bull sessions on the glories of anarchy. Who is going to decide whether grownups can have sex with children? Who is going to decide what is animal cruelty? Who will protect us from the protectors who decide what is murder?
The short answer, in a democratic society, is ultimately “the rest of us.”