(Sounds like a sci-fi/fantasy short story, but it’s not.  It’s just a short blog post.)

Something struck me that has dampened my optimism somewhat.  I was thinking about the unsurprising resistance the administration’s health care ambitions have faced of late, but it occurred to me that even if I were interested in practicing medicine, and even if all of the administration’s proposals were defeated and free-market reforms enacted in their place, I would still not have the confidence to make medicine my career choice.  It’s abundantly clear that the majority thinks the liberty of doctors to practice as they and their patients jointly see fit is subject to their approval, whether or not they choose to exercise their authority.

This is part of a larger truth.  The visible gyrations of the political sphere are like those of a chaos pendulum.  Any given snapshot of activity can appear wild, frenetic, born as they are from interaction effects of prior vectors and momentum.  And yet, there is a regularity to this motion, a predictability, if not from moment to moment, then from decade to decade.  There is a limit to the extent of the movement, and a reach in one direction will be followed by a lurch to the other.

The chaos pendulum should not be ignored, as you may find yourself lifted, or walloped, by its beams.  And indeed, this is where everyone focuses their attention.

Meanwhile, a ratchet mechanism slowly advances, and a pawl prevents its retreat.  This is the ever-expanding public sphere, which subjects more and more of private life to the authority of all.  The effect of this ratchet is essentially invisible from moment to moment, miniscule compared to the gross movements of the chaos pendulum.  But its tiny motion is nothing less than the relocation of the chaos pendulum’s center of gravity, its equilibrium position, which even if never attained for more than an instant still directs its flow.

My suspicion of late is that the ratchet is only reset by revolution. There can be pro-liberty and anti-liberty revolutions, but empirically, gradualism and entropy favor the consolidation of power in the state.  (I am also coming to believe that this is related to where the arms are.)  Perhaps a rebellion can accomplish the reclamation of liberty without the need for total revolution.  Then again, total revolution might wind up being easier as the state collapses under its own weight.

I still maintain my optimism regarding (and my assessment of the value of reclaiming) the hearts and minds of the public, and this position has been borne out repeatedly in my own life in the last few months.  But I think those hearts and minds will need to power and direct some muscle.

I worry about the future.  As for tonight, I’m going to enjoy some plum gekkeikan and dark chocolate, and watch A Day At The Races with my six- and eight-year-old sons.

In John Irving’s The Cider House Rules, Dr. Larch considers himself an abortionist out of obligation, because of the practice’s illegality. He argues with his protege Homer that his personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant as long as women are forbidden from availing themselves of abortion as an option. According to Larch, only if and when abortion was legal could Homer allow himself the luxury of personal conscience; until then, however, he expected Homer to fight for the women who came seeking deliverance. (Please note: this is not a commentary on this view of abortion — both proponents and detractors have much stronger arguments than those barely hinted at here. It’s not even a commentary on the moral stances of the characters involved.)

I homeschool my kids. Such as it is, anyhow (the more accurate term is “unschooling”). Homeschooling being a fringe activity, you run into a lot of fringe viewpoints (and you can use this site as Exhibit A), and one with a lot of currency among homeschoolers is distrust of vaccines almost on principle.  As a scientifically-minded person, this drives me nuts. Seeing otherwise reasonable folks reject one of the greatest medical achievements of the previous two centuries, endangering not only their children, but other children and adults as well, angers me greatly. However, I feel an obligation to defend their right to make that profoundly irresponsible choice from those who would allow them no choice at all. As important as vaccination is, liberty is even more important to a healthy society.

There are many things one can peaceably do with one’s own freedom. You can try to better everyone’s lot in life, or just your own. You can waste it, or what’s more, use it to convince thousands of others to waste theirs as well. But the only right one can have to sit in judgment of how another has chosen to peaceably use their freedom comes from the fact that one acknowledges their right to freedom in the first place.  The person who would say “See how he exercises his freedom when it’s granted? This is why I cannot permit him to keep it.” already believes that their desired outcomes are not only worth more than another’s, but that that fact entitles them to grant or revoke his freedom as it suits. To them I have nothing to say, as befits the chattel they take people for. I will not waste words on those who refuse to treat others as fellow humans.  I may share or dispute their moral assessment of another, but while they insist that their moral assessment is a cudgel with which they may compel their peaceable but allegedly moral inferiors, they are unworthy of pronouncing moral judgment. Against them, I will side with the miser and the wastrel. Both are the moral superior of the highwayman.