It would be a good idea to start with a few examples to illustrate my point.
A couple of years ago, when I just discovered that the seemingly unusual beliefs that I held in high school were actually represented by the never-mentioned-by-any-of-my-teachers philosophy of libertarianism, my cousin and I were discussing marijuana legalization.
"If one could get it in a drug store for the price of cigarettes, no one would have to steal, rob, or kill to get money to pay for it, and a great majority of the violence on our streets would disappear," I told her.
"Yeah, you might be right," she replied hesitantly.
"And think of the increase in prison space for real criminals when the 70 percent currently in there for drug crimes are cleared out. Fewer violent criminals released to make room for pot smokers. Do you agree?"
"Sort of."
"And the brand-name drugs would be safer than street drugs. And less government to collect our taxes. And there'll probably be a sales tax on drugs which means other, more immoral taxes could be cut. Well?"
"Yeah, I guess you're right."
"So," I again put the question to her, "do you agree that pot should be legal?"
"Well, I don't know."
"Why? What don't you know? Why should pot not be legal?"
"Well, I just think smoking pot is disgusting." I would rather have received a kick to the crotch than such a selfish-sounding and uninformed answer.
More recently, I was engaged in a conversation with a couple of friends, when the topic turned to tacky things people do with their cars. One of them inquired as to whatever happened to those purple lights that a few people used to put under the bottom of their cars that, at night, made the car look as if it was gliding on a purple cloud.
"Oh, those," I replied. "There's actually a law now - I don't know whether federal or state - that banned those lights."
"Good," said the other friend. "Those things were ugly."
"You buttmunch!" I exclaimed, almost spilling my beer. "Do you mean it's good that there's a law banning something you think is ugly?"
So my friend, who's pretty much as libertarian-minded as myself, answered, "No, there shouldn't be a law. If people want to put lights under their cars, they should be able to. I just think those lights are ugly."
I think my point is clear. Too often do people make important decisions (i.e., voting) that affect others (i.e., pot smokers or people who put ugly purple lights under their cars) based on nothing more than their personal preference for a color or smell. If a ballot question came up, my cousin (who shall remain nameless to protect her politically-ignorant identity) would keep a medically harmless, nay, potentially beneficial drug like marijuana illegal just because she doesn't like the way it smells.
In case I sound too preachy, there are indeed a few good reasons for keeping marijuana and other drugs illegal. Second-hand smoke, children growing up with pot-smoking parents, other drugs that may stimulate violence - all reasons with which I disagree, but only after having carefully considered them. Something simply being disgusting, however, is a reason not even worthy of minor consideration. It is often a last-ditch appeal, made after all of the other debatable reasons in support of a certain position have been refuted. Using my cousin's logic, she would have to be locked up for using tons of hairspray, just Ôcos many people don't like how it smells.
This problem is more pervasive than one would think. My libertarian-minded friend most likely would not vote to ban those purple car lights. Still, his first reaction to my bringing up the law was not, "What?! First they tell us what to do with our bodies, and now our cars!?," but rather, "Good. I think those things were ugly." I think. Think what? That the lights might be a significant source of public or environmental danger? No. Just that they were ugly. That's no reason to pass any law whatsoever.
Yet, now that I think about it, I am more and more tempted to take back my calling him a buttmunch (for a few seconds, I really meant it). Reacting to something being ugly or disgusting takes a lot less thought (indeed, no thought) than acknowledging it as disgusting or ugly, but upholding people's right to engage in whatever it may be. Take the extreme example of fascism. When one watches television and sees a documentary on neo-Nazi skinheads, what first comes to mind? Most likely, the first (the very first) thing one thinks is, "That vile Nazi scum - I'd like to kick all their asses," and not, "They have a right to speak, despite their vileness."
It is, in fact, with great difficulty that people acknowledge others' right to voice differing opinions or partake in unpopular activities. Many, in fact, fail to acknowledge that right at all. That explains the "No free speech for fascists" movement. Here I am in no way condoning that movement. Its mostly leftist purveyors should, at one point, put aside the fascists' poisonous rhetoric and think of the fact that theirs is often no less poisonous. Yet for many, the gut instinct of "No free speech for fascists" seems to overwhelm their better judgement.
As the writer of this column, I do not mean to put myself above everyone else and wholly dissociate myself from irrational impulses based on my own, personal, individual beliefs. I, too, find the smell of marijuana disgusting. I think purple lights under cars are really tacky. And, I laughed uproariously at the scene from Blues Brothers in which Dan Aykroyd's and John Belushi's car forces a bunch of Nazi marchers off a bridge. I also think that asparagus is disgusting and that pink lawn flamingoes (yes, I've seen quite a few) are tacky. If, however, either asparagus or lawn flamingoes come under attack, I'll defend them the same way I do legalized marijuana, purple car lights, and the Nazis' right to speak.
The worst thing to do now is simply to say, "Oh well, just don't install those lights." "Just don't smoke pot." "Just don't attend a Nazi rally." Often when I argue against governmental interference, people tell me, "Why are you so upset? You don't smoke pot." Yup. I don't smoke pot. I'm not a Nazi. I'm also not a homosexual, a native of Chechnya, or an avid user of pornography. Does that mean that I should automatically support archaic sodomy laws, Russia's brutal treatment of Chechnya, or infringement on people's right to watch videos of consenting adults having sex? Distancing oneself from an activity in order to continue ignoring (or supporting) its forced suppression only creates far more harmful divisions than already exist in our increasingly polarizing society.
I know I only gave two examples to illustrate my point, but I (and, I bet, most everyone else) can think of countless others. I often have discussed the flag-burning issue with friends and family - and am asked, "Would you ever burn a flag?" or told, "I just think it's offensive." There's that word again: just. People's only reason for thinking and/or voing the way they do. Well, in countless First Amendment cases, the Supreme Court has made clear that punishable speech has to be obscene, libelous, or harmful in some way - and not simply "offensive."
People who complain about the quality of American education often mention that Americans are not as interested in politics as people in other countries. I believe voting (or merely basing one's beliefs) according to what one feels - while claiming that they really do think that way - is part of America's regrettable trend of misinformed politics. Few people, indeed, think sufficiently about the issues; therefore, politicians feel no need to talk concretely while campaigning, and instead run on bumper sticker slogans. And the people who vote for these empty politicians (or don't vote at all) then complain that nothing happens in Washington. To sum it all up: THINK. THINK, DAMMIT, THINK! Or else, Nameless Cousin, take down those lawn flamingoes before the police do - and start flushing that hairspray down the toilet.