The Parental Paradox

It is a precept of American governance that parents shall be afforded the right to raise their children according to their own values. It is also a precept of American governance that society as a whole has a vested interest in preventing parents from raising their children in a manner contrary to the consensus view of what is proper. These two precepts can be contradictory.

In practice, the consensus view takes precedence, at least in cases where the violation of consensus is considered extreme. In those cases, parents whose values do not conform to the consensus view often find their right to raise their children according to their own values infringed. In order to reclaim that right, they must conform to the consensus view, in which case they become, in effect, unpaid surrogate parents of society’s children.

Indeed, all parents who conform to the consensus view, willingly or not, are providing a free service to society by raising society’s children in accordance with society’s values. Most parents are only too happy to raise the children they’ve produced, but should society be taking free advantage of that eagerness? Should parents be paid a stipend for the service they provide? If so, then it would follow that they should be licensed and monitored to ensure that they continue to conform to consensus opinion on child rearing, or else forfeit their stipend and their parenting privileges.

This is not a personally-held belief for me, it just popped into my head suddenly. My inclination is to find it extreme and even repugnant, but it’s not exactly trivial to get around, logically, so I may be forced to accept the idea. I’ll have to think on it some more….

One World Utopia

There is a lot of talk in this day and age about a “One World” government, and the overtones are generally utopian. As much as I admire the sentiment, I find the concept of a One World government to be naive — at least at present.

It sounds wonderful, of course. The implication is that everything would fall nicely into place for all the peoples of the world, who would adopt the ways of the Enlightened West, naturally. But what makes anyone think that this One World government would be a free and democratic one? Look around the world today and show me a truly free and democratic society. I am aware of none. There are several relatively liberal oligarchies, mostly in the West, but that is all they really are: government by the elite. What makes anyone think it would be any different just because we bring more people under the umbrella of “Western Democracy”? It is fallacious to suggest that it would. Indeed, it would likely be even less desirable, with the opinions (and votes!) of rather less “enlightened” peoples having influence over that system. A One World government would be a boat that you would dare not rock, lest you offend an opinion that was better represented than your own, and its representatives silence you — and then where would you run to?

We have all been in a situation where we were made to feel embarrassed in a room full of people, and as much as we wanted to run away, circumstances prevented it; imagine that feeling on a cosmic scale, and imagine the feeling was not shame, but fear. That would not be freedom, it would be oppression. But my fear is not speculative; there are real examples of the dangers of the removal of choice…

When the vital organs of civilization become centralized, choices become amalgamated. Have you ever boycotted something? For example: a business you suspected of employing sweatshop labor, or a media outlet that refused to present your point of view? If you have, and especially if you’ve made a habit of it, you may have noticed that such gestures have become increasingly hollow and symbolic. They do not have any real impact, even if you organize a “mass” boycott on the Internet. The reason for this trend is amalgamation: any alternatives you choose are likely owned or controlled (the difference is effectively rhetorical) by the same elites behind the curtain. Under a One World government of the collectivist utopian type generally espoused, vital organs like media and manufacturing would likely be centrally controlled. To whom would you turn when the One Media presented only the opinion of the majority and you weren’t a member of it? When the One Manufacturer produced shoddy goods? The only way to avoid this would be to conform always to the majority view and to accept always whatever was offered to you — but what kind of freedom is that? It is no kind.

Expand these relatively tolerable examples to include areas of life where a lack of choice would mean an intolerable level of unhappiness for those with dissenting views, and what you’ve got is a world where perhaps billions of people yearn for some other world to inhabit, but have no means of escaping this one. Again, you cannot simply posit the suggestion that your One World utopia will be all peaches and cream for everyone, because we know full well that it will not be. Not even places like Sweden or Switzerland, which are held up as shining examples of secular liberal democracies, can make that claim. To assume that billions upon billions of people could achieve tomorrow what a few tens of millions cannot achieve today is simply naive.

Nationalism certainly has its problems, but the solution cannot be to remove choice. Ideally, we would have a de facto One World government, where all the nations of the world had achieved an equitable level of freedom and tolerance. The most reasonable way to achieve that, as I see it, is to maintain a “marketplace of ideas” and, in particular, of governments. Out of this competition (which is not a four-letter word) one day will arise truly free “utopias” out of the pseudo-democracies which are the best that we have been able to achieve thus far. Just as the current world trend is to become more like these “least worst” examples, so too will people push their governments to become like the utopias; when enough of them have done so, then we can begin talking about erasing borders. To do so beforehand is simply too dangerous; having reached only the halfway point (if you will), we have no way of knowing whether a One World government would continue onwards towards utopia, or backslide into oppression on a global scale. That is a boat we would certainly not want to rock.

The United Nations and the “Problem of Darfur”

Tonight I watched FRONTLINE: On Our Watch, on PBS. It didn’t teach me anything new, but it did something just as good: it focused my thoughts in a new way. It raised a question in my mind, one also not new to me, but made newly relevant: Just what is the point of the United Nations, exactly, if not this?

The UN describes itself as being dedicated to global peace and human rights, and is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the world’s governments as being the preeminent organization of its kind and the go-to authority on such issues. The “war” in Darfur appears perfectly suited to UN intervention. If the UN were both willing and able to intervene in Darfur, then it would have done so by now (and by “intervene” I mean “end the genocide” — a seemingly trivial task for a global authority dedicated to doing just that sort of thing). Therefore, the UN is either unwilling, unable, or both. Which presents us with what I’ll call the “Problem of Darfur,” an adaptation of Epicurus’ “Problem of Evil”:

1. If the United Nations is willing but not able to intervene in Darfur, then we must question its relevance.
2. If it is able but not willing, then we must question its purpose.
3. If it is neither willing nor able, then we must question its future.

In case #1, we should be discussing ways to strengthen the UN. In case #2, we should be discussing ways to refocus the UN. In case #3, we should be discussing ways to replace the UN.

I tend to think that the UN is strong enough already — too strong, even. It is allowed great influence over the governments of the world and is given monies by them, making it quite powerful indeed; it just doesn’t appear to be giving a very good return for those allowances. Given the will, the UN could presumably do just about anything. For me, that is the real question: Does the UN have the will to live up to its own charter? The evidence suggests that it does not. Therefore, I think it is time for the member nations to reexamine the UN, decide what its purpose is to be, and refocus on that purpose. Everything else is superfluous cruft and must be chipped away, discarded and forgotten.

Let’s get back to the world peace thing, shall we? Darfur is waiting, still….