Why Freedom of Religion is Unnecessary, Part Two

It’s amusing to watch these Catholics and other assorted religious spokesmen talk about possibly being forced to pay for contraception for employees, usually with absurd hyperbole, as if Western Civilization is going to come to an end if they’re forced to make a choice “against their conscience.” Why are we here? Why are we at the point where these people say: “It’s okay to force us to provide a service for others against our will – we’ll only draw the line when it conflicts with our sacred religious belief?” It’s against their conscience to be forced to pay for condoms, but it’s okay otherwise? Isn’t anyone outraged that the government is forcing you to do … anything whatsoever?

Needless to say, there are plenty of us who feel it is against our conscience to have a government force us to purchase certain things, regulate our business and trade, and tell us how we have to compensate our employees. And since a surefire way to get a legislative favor in this country is to have a lobby, particularly one around a sacred belief, I want to know when a savvy group of libertarians is going to get together and create a religion whose tenets say as much. Catholics get exemptions for birth control, Native Americans get to use drugs, and Muslims get to avoid associating with people with dogs or alcohol. So why not a religion with a libertarian view on economic policy? “Yes, it is against our moral conscience for you to dictate that we must pay a minimum wage, or provide health care, or that you can slap tariffs or other taxes and regulations on our trade. Where is our exemption?”

In America, it would probably work. This is how ridiculous the game has become. An intellectual argument, a defense of liberty using reason, is worth nothing, but as soon as you invoke a fairy tale from the Bronze Age, everyone scrambles to step on eggshells and hand out legislative favors at the expense of someone else. It’s disgusting. As I said before, we should be defending liberty for its own sake, because it is moral. Dividing it up into little tidbits like “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” is redundant and counterproductive.

Why Freedom of Religion is Unnecessary

Many people are upset about the debate over whether employers (including Catholic institutions) should have to pay for contraceptives as part of their employee health plans. This violates their freedom of religion, they say, especially Catholics who are morally opposed to birth control. The outcry has been impressive, and resulted in the Obama administration issuing waivers (surprise!) to appease the Catholic voters and once again prop up its monstrous, clumsy, and absurd intervention into the free market.

What I want to know is, why should Catholics get a pass? Why should anyone? More to the point, why is it that we’re only motivated to fight for freedom when it benefits us; in particular, our sacred beliefs? Freedom alone, by itself, is a worthy cause (the worthy cause), and the entire point of freedom is that it is to be applied across the board, not selectively. Standing up for freedom of religion misses the bigger picture – we should be standing up for freedom, period.

Are Catholics, because they have a religious belief, more worthy of freedom than the employers who are being forced to conform to the health care mandate? Is that how America works? When you gather a big enough group together and complain a lot, you get a special exemption and can remain free, while everyone else doesn’t? The sad truth is that yes, this is exactly how America works today.

The term “freedom of religion” is a redundant phrase. The right to practice your religion as you see fit is subsumed by your general right to liberty, as a free individual. No one should be able to infringe upon that, particularly not the government, but not because “freedom of religion is sacred” or your belief grants you some special privilege. Your right should not be infringed for the same reason that an employer’s right to provide whatever health care service he wants (or none at all) should not be infringed: Because we are all free individuals with the exact same right to liberty. It would be a beautiful thing if we would stand up and defend that principle in whole, rather than nitpicking which freedoms we want to keep for ourselves or our special interest groups.

Imposing Gay Marriage

When news came of the ban on gay marriage being struck down in California, the opponents of freedom predictably all said the same thing: Liberal activists have “forced” gay marriage on the people of California, who voted that they didn’t want it in their state. From the way they put it, you would think these judges just passed a decree forcing every single person to marry someone of the same sex. There is only one group of people who are forcing (literally) their views onto others here, and they are anyone and everyone who thinks it’s acceptable to prevent others from getting married.

“Oh, we voted for it,” they say, as if mob rule grants them some sort of legitimacy. Some things are not votable issues. Majorities do not determine right or wrong. Might does not make right. One look at the history of mankind reveals that what is commonly accepted by majorities is quite often wrong, even barbarous. A society that is pure democracy is just as evil as a dictatorship – majorities have no more right to rule than a dictator. Only a society based on certain principles such as freedom are moral. These principles are above reproach, and above the whims of voters.

As for those like Bill O’Reilly who say that since the Constitution doesn’t grant people the right to marry: They’re absolutely right. There is no amendment that grants anyone the right to get married. But then again, the Constitution also doesn’t grant people the right to buy a house, or go skydiving, or start a business, or walk their dog, or get a college degree, or a billion other things. Those like O’Reilly (and Rick Santorum, who has made similar arguments) come across as woefully ignorant about the Constitution here. It is not a document that says: “Here is a list of the things the government will let you do.” Such a thing would be practically impossible, in any case. The First Amendment doesn’t even “grant” people the right to free speech, religion, assembly, press, or redress of grievances – it simply ensures that the government can’t take them away. The rights are already there, already ours. To the O’Reillys and Santorums and the rest: Check the Ninth Amendment. I know it’s convenient for statists to ignore it, because its very purpose is to prevent them from making this absurd argument, that you have to be “granted” something by the government before you can do it. Conservatives usually despise that sort of idea – at least until their social views turn them into hypocrites.

Incredulous Cavemen

I hear a certain “argument” for the existence of God thrown about casually and almost ubiquitously. Richard Dawkins calls it the argument from personal incredulity. I call it the caveman’s last stand. Either way, it goes like this: “It is crazy to think that all this came about by natural laws and blind forces. Just insane. Take one look around at all the wonder and complexity and astonishing things in our universe and you must conclude that God exists.”

In other words, the theist can’t personally think up an explanation for what he sees (like a caveman spotting the eruption of a volcano), so he simply throws up his hands and says that God’s magic did it. It should be needless to say that this is not an argument, but apparently it is very needful to elaborate after all.

What you personally find to be amazing/astonishing/beautiful/complex/mind-boggling does not tell us anything about reality – it merely tells us your opinion about reality. Personally, I find the idea of time dilation astounding. Literally insane. Certainly more outlandish and miraculous than some of the supposed “miracles” the theists explain to us. Who could possibly conceive that a moving clock ticks more slowly than a stationary one? Who, that is, besides Einstein, when he explained to us why it is so. A truth doesn’t have to be magical to be stranger than fiction.

The fact that time dilation is incredible (in my opinion) does not mean that it is supernatural or comes from God. To call something “miraculous” we need a frame of reference. For example, if an elephant sprouted wings and flew we might cry miracle, because we have a frame of reference: We know certain things about biology, physics, chemistry, the conservation of energy, etc., that tell us such a thing would be incredible, to say the least. (It is important to note that even this extraordinary elephant would not necessarily be magical – it would rather mean that we would start looking for better explanations. The fact that time slows down the more quickly you move seems – seems, to me – more incredible than a flying elephant, but we don’t look to magic to explain time dilation. As Einstein himself said: “Is it any more strange to assume that moving clocks slow down than to assume that they don’t?”)

Likewise, if these theists have a frame of reference when they make these kinds of statements, they should reveal it to the rest of us. If there are twenty other universes full of wonders like ours, and they all required a god to come about, then perhaps they would have something of merit. Until then, their argument is no more sophisticated than the caveman who witnessed that volcano erupting and said: “I cannot comprehend such a thing, so therefore it was caused by my god.”

O’Reilly, Stossel, and Drugs

Whenever John Stossel tries to explain the merits of drug legalization to Bill O’Reilly, it’s always interested to listen to the latter ultimately resort to the argument of the Reverend Lovejoy’s wife on The Simpsons: “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” Yes, now it’s prescription painkillers that are rampaging through the streets, and the bodies are stacking up. We must save America from this “epidemic” of Oxycontin. Of course, O’Reilly never bothers to point out that sitting on the couch eating junk food is far more dangerous than shooting heroin, dealing crack, and smoking meth put together. I would like to see some stats on the leading causes of death in American in the No Spin Zone – and watch O’Reilly try to blather his alarmist nonsense after he discovers where “Overdose from Prescription Medication” is on the list.

O’Reilly later had the temerity to state that Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs because he is blinded by ideology to the unintended consequences of doing so. Yes, someone is blind to unintended consequences. When opponents of drug legalization talk about the negative impact of such a move (and there are some, of course), they conveniently or ignorantly leave out the negative impact already caused by prohibition. Criminalizing drugs drives them to the black market where they are many times more expensive, causing people to rob and steal to afford them, and making a profit margin so outlandish that we have cartels with private armies and enough pull to whack judges and buy off police forces. Answer me this: How many rich people in Hollywood steal to afford their cocaine? How many doctors who use opiates rob to fund their habit? The answer is both cases is ZERO. When you can afford your drugs, you don’t need to resort to actual crimes (or at least, not nearly as much) to use them.

The unintended consequences of prohibition (besides the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted and overflowing prisons), what those like O’Reilly never point out, is the massive increase in crime, the creation of street gangs, the turf wars, the drive-by shootings. Kids would die of overdoses if drugs were legalized, you say? Kids are already dying, right now, every day, because of the crime created by prohibition.

We can’t make drug-users rich so they can afford their drugs, but we can do the opposite: Reduce the price of drugs so they’re not so prohibitive, so they don’t encourage robbery, so they don’t enable cartels. And the way you do that is by legalizing them.

Gay Marriage and Polygamy

The other day I heard Rick Santorum make the most infamous slippery-slope argument against gay marriage: If we let people marry someone of the same sex, then we’d have no legal ground to prevent someone from marrying multiple individuals, and voila, polygamy would be legal! Oh God! We have to save the children from the polygamists!

I have yet to hear a good argument for why polygamy should be illegal in the first place. For something to be deemed a crime, shouldn’t there be … I don’t know … someone being victimized? We’ve all heard of cases of polygamists sects engaging in child abuse and statutory rape; these are clear examples of victimization, and should be persecuted as such. But these crimes have nothing to do with polygamy itself. child abusers and statutory rapists also exist among traditional marriages. They are criminals. Most polygamists, like most traditional married people, are not. Consenting adults who want to engage in polygamy should be free to do so – more to the point, they should be left alone. It’s not for us or anyone else to decide how they define their marriage or anything else in their personal lives.

Oh, I’m so ignorant, it might be said. Some of these polygamists have five wives and twenty-five kids, so the government ends up paying for them. Again, it is not necessary that a polygamist makes irresponsible decisions and has kids they can’t afford to support. This is separate from the act of polygamy itself. Plenty of people in traditional marriages are getting money to help support their kids – this doesn’t mean that traditional marriage is at fault.

Opponents use the same argument against drug legalization: If drugs are legalized and more people use drugs, the government will have to support addict bums who lay around all day. But the answer is simple for a libertarian. The government shouldn’t be taking care of anyone, whether drug addicts or additional kids. In America, no one should be forced to pay the bills of others.

So yes, if that’s the best busybody politicians can come up with , go for it. Yes indeed, you should be leaving the polygamists alone just as you should be leaving gay men and women alone. Wow, what a novel concept, huh? What a radical idea that is – to leave people alone.

The Shadow of Sodom

Even if you don’t like homosexuality, is it really worth so much vehemence? Is it really necessary to use mob rule to have it outlawed? It can’t really be because of the story of Sodom, can it? I’ve heard lots of Christians point this out as the customary warning against homosexuals, but I wonder how many of them have actually read that wonderful tale. The Sodomites were not simply gay – they were gay gang-rapists. Is this what Christians imagine when they put so much effort into condemning homosexuality? Mobs of gay gang-rapists roaming the streets, knocking on their doors and demanding they send out their sons, husbands, and brothers?

But even more than His followers, why should God Himself care so much about homosexuality? Are we supposed to take the Bible stories seriously? The Bible condemns homosexuality … but it also condemns eating shellfish. Jesus was far harsher in his criticism of hypocrites than homosexuals. Why aren’t Christian crusaders out there participating in campaigns against hypocrisy? Why should they tolerate those filthy hypocrites getting married? Why don’t the presidential nominees state their position on the Defense of Non-Hypocritical Marriage Act?

I’ve heard some Christians say that homosexuality is clearly wrong because “Nature” shows that a man and a woman are supposed to be together. This is absurd. Nature shows no such thing. Homosexuality exists in nature, yes, but even more telling asexual reproduction exists in nature! The vast majority of life on the planet reproduces by mitosis. You could say that for human beings to procreate, they need a male and a female, sure. But that is hardly the point, is it? After all, it’s not as if homosexuals are trying to procreate with each other. you might say that nature demands a single man and a woman to raise a child, but that isn’t true either. Monogamy, the nuclear family, or the practice of a male and a female raising their children is definitely not the norm among animals. It wasn’t even the norm for the vast majority of mankind’s history. But anyway, since when did Christians start pleading to “Nature” as a standard? Not even those of us who believe in evolution would use what happens in the natural world as a model for human behavior.

But for whatever arbitrary reason you choose to criticize homosexuality, can’t you simply stop at the criticism? Can’t you at least accept that in a free society, you’re not going to like some of the things other people do? Why do you have to take it to the next level and attempt to legislate against gay Americans? Why must you try so hard to get a majority behind you to stamp out a minority’s rights?

Presidents and Gay Marriage

It’s election year, which means it’s time for the current crop of presidential candidates to declare how fervently they’re going to defend “traditional” marriage. Aren’t we incredibly lucky to have politicians who are so willing to trample on the rights of a minority to defend a majority’s distaste over something that they don’t like? Isn’t America great, when you can rule over others because there are more of you?

Gay marriage is a non-issue, transformed into an issue by busybodies who believe that they have the right, through the strength of a mob, to tell strangers what they can do in their private lives. Criticizing gay marriage is one thing – every free individual has a right to criticize, preach against, boycott, rally, whatever. But these moralizers in America today have gone much further than that. For some reason, they have decided that they should be able to vote to decide whether it’s permissible for others to get married. Their reason? Marriage is a hallowed tradition, an ancient custom so integral to society that it should not be tampered with. I even heard Rick Santorum explain that marriage isn’t a right, that it’s something granted to the people by the government for a specific reason. Oh, thank you, dear master, for telling us what we can and can’t do!

All of the proponents of the “traditional-marriage” idea should wake up to a reality: You don’t own marriage, and you don’t own society. No one does. You have no right to presume that others must conform to your ideas because you think that they’re “best for society.” American society belongs to gays, transvestites, and transgenders just as equally as it belongs to Christians, Republicans and Muslims. We are a nation of individuals, not a nation of special interest groups demanding that others cater to us. Society is what each individual makes of it.

In any case, only Ron Paul has it right: No one, straight or gay or in between, should need permission from the government to get married. It’s a private contract between individuals; it’s no one else’s business. Personally, if I were a gay American, I’d tell the “traditional-marriage” crowd to take their antiquated ceremony and shove it. But it shouldn’t be my decision to make, nor should it be up to Rick Santorum or Barack Obama or any politician, or a majority, or a society at large – it should be up to free individuals to decide.

Free-Market Military

One over-simplification that free-market defenders often make is that the government can’t do anything well, and the liberal response is often what I heard Alan Colmes say the other night: “The government runs the military well – wouldn’t you agree?” (There is an implication that anyone stating that the military is not run well would be treading on the dangerous ground of insulting our troops or diminishing their efforts.)

First of all, nearly all free-market defenders and libertarians, those who assert that government monopolies are invariably insufficient, still believe that the military is one thing that the government should absolutely be doing. I’ve never heard anyone say that we should privatize the military. So this point falls flat – and ditto with those who crow about government “successes” in the market, such as when they point out that government investment led to the Internet. The Internet was developed with military technology; again, something that government should be doing. And what the Internet is today was created by free people and the market, not by government loans and programs.

But as far as the government actually running the military efficiently, a distinction needs to be made here. The military is not government monopoly in the standard sense. Number one, the military effectively “competes” in a free market of its own: the world stage of foreign militaries. A state military has to constantly work to keep up or surpass rivals. This helps prevent the complacency and lack of innovation that are the hallmarks of monopolies. Number two, its technology comes from the free market; private firms compete for military contracts. And number three, the military employs force, something the market does not do. And there is a reason: Using legitimized force is pretty much all the government is good for and good at. Whether it is for policemen, a court system, or the military, this is a government’s role.

This is not to say, however, that I agree with the premise that a government-run military is automatically run the best it could be run. Our military establishment is full of bureaucracies and inefficiencies. For example, we still have thirty thousand troops in Germany and Japan (and many other locations), places where they simply aren’t needed. Furthermore, there is every indication that private (mercenary) armies can be effective and efficient. They do exist, and they perform well. (As an example, the private army of Executive Outcomes was hired to battle a vastly larger force of rebels in Liberia when the UN wouldn’t intercede, and mopped them up.) Personally, I would like to see more private armies for hire in the world – if nothing else, it would give people choices in taking action when governments refuse to.

Regardless, the market of military is much different from the markets in which the government has a true monopoly, such as with the post office, the DMV, public education, etc. Look at how these institutions are doing. The narrative should not be “the government screws up everything.” It should be: “Government enforced and/or funded monopolies screw up everything.” And the US military doesn’t qualify for that category.

Fair Sharing

The idea that wealthy people should contribute a “fair share” is becoming ubiquitous nowadays. This morning a news anchor asked a Congresswoman what her idea of a “fair share” was, apparently trying to illustrate to her the point that this is an ephemeral concept; even lawmakers rarely give a definitive answer. This particular lawmaker did, however: She suggested an increase to 45% and 49% for the wealthiest Americans, a somewhat modest rate (in comparison to some) to ensure that they’re paying their “debt” to everyone else.

I think the point was lost in translation. Why should it be 45% or 49% or anything? Are we to run the tax code on the whim of a politician? Decide what is morally correct by committees of people in Congress? Even worse – let a majority determine what is just? The meaning of “fair” is not something that can be picked and chosen by human caprice. A tax rate does not become fair simply because people vote for it. The concept of “fair” is determined by reality; human beings can only discover it. In this case, it is simple: Impose a flat tax that is the same for every American citizen, with no loopholes or breaks or credits for anyone, whether family farms or corporations. And how do you determine the rate? By first enacting a proper government whose only role is to protect liberties (i.e., with armed forces, police, and courts). When you’ve done that, the tax rate is exactly and precisely how much you need to run that government, and no more. Voila: You have a tax rate that is determined by objective principle rather than the false legitimacy of a majority.

Critics are correct: The system we have now is completely unfair. But they have it backwards; it is unfairly biased against the wealthy, not the poor. The fact that people are poor is not because the government doesn’t help them enough. It helps them from the cradle to the grave! It gives them anything they need! if you can’t pay your bills in this country, there is no lack of government programs to transfer money from the pockets of others to you.

Furthermore, the problems of the “poor” are definitely not the fault of wealthy Americans. The rick owe us nothing. If anything, we owe them! Let’s talk about the “share” contributed by the wealthy. They create all the jobs. They give us all the products that we use to make our lives better and easier. They create wealth and whole new sectors of the market. They save people time and money by competition and cost-cutting. They already pay far more of the share of the government’s tax revenue than the rest of us. And to top it all off, they give far more money to charity than everyone else. Our entire way of life, including every single advance and amenity that we take for granted, is based around what billionaires and corporations have created for us.

So tell me, when was the last time a lower-or middle-class American did any of that? Tell me when a construction worker or janitor or sales clerk made that kind of contribution to society as a whole? Maybe the “poor” ought to be contributing more. Maybe middle-class Americans ought to be paying a “fairer” share.

But that wouldn’t be right. No one wants that. No one deserves special privileges or breaks. Take a small flat tax rate from everyone, rich or poor, and call it quits. Remove politicians, majorities, and busybodies completely from the business of deciding “fairness” based on opinion. That would be fair.