Henry David Thoreau and Government
by Anonymous at 10/11/2004 10:44:00 AM
Also in On the Duty of Civil Disobedience :
" Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads."
But some do think that the Government should educate, should provide health care, should equalize incomes, should set wages, should take care of the poor, should take care of the homeless, etc. All of these represent government restrictions on the liberty of individuals to make their own choices Instead the Government decides what kind of education ( human secularist with leftist indoctrination), what kind and amount of health care (Kerry's plan will reduce consumer choice because he will use the government to run others out of business - he said as much in the debate folks) , and how we will deal with with social issues of poverty or inequality. These all represent the reduction of choices and therefore a reduction of freedom for individuals and the ability to use their own consciences in dealing with social problems.
The intentions in all of these actions are for "the public good", but an empirical study of the results reveals that the effects do not mirror the intentions. These are all presented as "solutions" to the public, but every "solution" has a cost and not always in monetary terms- in other words these solutions are really trade-offs. This is because the world is made up of complex interactions of constraints. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Categorical solutions dismiss the underlying reality of trade-offs, and that incremental solutions need to be used. An optimal solution will leave many needs unmet because we have limited resources. A certain degree of social ill must be expected if not accepted because the there is a point of diminishing returns. To use an example from Thomas Sowell - Perfect justice requires all 100 passengers on a sinking ship with 40 life preservers to go into the water without one. Is Justice always more important than lives? It is a trade off. Given the constraints of time, knowledge and resources it is very likely that a "optimal" solution for society would involve trade-offs that would leave some areas of a society "imperfect" by the dictates of some peoples conscience.
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? "
"the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other"
"Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow"
These statements by Thoreau are implicit recognitions of the trade-offs inherent in personal liberty vs. Government and the benefits it brings to society and the individual. In this essay Thoreau is merely describing what trade-offs he finds acceptable as dictated by his particular version of conscience, and he is not describing disobedience as a categorical moral good. That someone should use it in this way to justify imposing their own values on others by violence simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of why we have the American system in the first place.
" Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads."
But some do think that the Government should educate, should provide health care, should equalize incomes, should set wages, should take care of the poor, should take care of the homeless, etc. All of these represent government restrictions on the liberty of individuals to make their own choices Instead the Government decides what kind of education ( human secularist with leftist indoctrination), what kind and amount of health care (Kerry's plan will reduce consumer choice because he will use the government to run others out of business - he said as much in the debate folks) , and how we will deal with with social issues of poverty or inequality. These all represent the reduction of choices and therefore a reduction of freedom for individuals and the ability to use their own consciences in dealing with social problems.
The intentions in all of these actions are for "the public good", but an empirical study of the results reveals that the effects do not mirror the intentions. These are all presented as "solutions" to the public, but every "solution" has a cost and not always in monetary terms- in other words these solutions are really trade-offs. This is because the world is made up of complex interactions of constraints. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Categorical solutions dismiss the underlying reality of trade-offs, and that incremental solutions need to be used. An optimal solution will leave many needs unmet because we have limited resources. A certain degree of social ill must be expected if not accepted because the there is a point of diminishing returns. To use an example from Thomas Sowell - Perfect justice requires all 100 passengers on a sinking ship with 40 life preservers to go into the water without one. Is Justice always more important than lives? It is a trade off. Given the constraints of time, knowledge and resources it is very likely that a "optimal" solution for society would involve trade-offs that would leave some areas of a society "imperfect" by the dictates of some peoples conscience.
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? "
"the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other"
"Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow"
These statements by Thoreau are implicit recognitions of the trade-offs inherent in personal liberty vs. Government and the benefits it brings to society and the individual. In this essay Thoreau is merely describing what trade-offs he finds acceptable as dictated by his particular version of conscience, and he is not describing disobedience as a categorical moral good. That someone should use it in this way to justify imposing their own values on others by violence simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of why we have the American system in the first place.
» Post a Comment