Ah, society. A word often used in conjunction with defenses of the imposition of the will of the majority via governmental force. A word woven into the concept of the social contract, itself a construct intended to justify the imposition of the will of some upon others via governmental force.
We, the lovers of liberty, cannot, however, dismiss society merely because it is (mis)used to infringe on liberty. We can and should be able to talk about society. Understanding the aggregate views, mores, preferences and desires of a community and the ways and directions in which they change are fundamental to any discussion about liberty, government and public policy. We absolutely should be concerned with and interested in what society is.
Unfortunately, some corrupt the intellectual pursuit of figuring out what society is into application of government force that’s expressed as society should, as in society should behave in certain ways or engage in certain activities. Since individuals within our society (presumably) have free will and cannot be relied on to conform to a specific set of conclusions as to what society “is,” government is used to force behavior.
Government, however, is not society. Government, in a free society, is a means by which society maintains its structure, not a tool with which to shape and modify society. Government also lags society. Broad-based legislative changes (e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964) are typically an expression of popular will, and as such are a reflection of what society wants. Rare is the transformative law that gets passed that substantially contradicts societal sentiment, and yes, that includes Obamacare. Those of us who are paying attention know that the Affordable Care Act was a mess from the get-go, and that addressing the issues that it purports to would require a diametrically opposed approach, but it’s clear that American society has embraced redistributionism, also known as gimme stuff. The backlash against ACA, as reflected by the 2010 and 2014 mid-term elections, also demonstrates that government lags society. In this case, society didn’t like ACA once it got enacted, and this resulted in a change in the composition of our government.
But, that’s an aside. The issue at hand is the desire that some have to proactively effect societal change via government force. When someone says society should, he is declaring that his own belief set is both different and more valid than that held by society in the aggregate. If one’s belief set aligns with the societal aggregate, one has no reason to call for action and change. But if one’s belief set leads to a call for aggregate action, well, the only way to ensure that will happen is by force, aka government.
In contrast, someone who laments the current state of society with respect to a particular issue, desires change, but doesn’t wish to force it, would opine in the form it would be better, nice, more beneficial if society wasÉ Change would be effected by persuasion rather than legislation, and society would come along willingly or not at all.
Is this all semantic masturbation? If you think so, if you think that saying society should doesn’t include an aspect of coercion against people’s wishes, take a moment to contemplate your own mindset and motives. Are you conflating society with government? Do you want politicians to change things so they align better with your own views? If so, there’s nothing wrong with that. Most of us desire legislative changes, most of us feel that things would be better with certain legislative changes, and most of us have solid and rational reasons for wanting them. Just recognize that you’re advocating for government action, not societal change.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters