Roused from slumber Canada's only living paleo-con, the esteemed Kevin Grace has donned the robes of the patriarchs and, with an irony I can only admire and never hope to match, taken me to task for suggesting socons don't belong in government
The state has inflicted its beliefs on me from the day I was born. And Jay Currie has no problem with that, so long as people like him are in charge. Currie is determined to make a murderer of me: of babies in the womb and Serbs, Iraqis and other lesser breeds outside it.
I am not predisposed to take political guidance from those whose preferred response to any problem is Lenin’s—"Kill them"—but who am I to "inflict" my sissified morality on Übermenschen like Jay Currie?
Trembling in the face of Grace's invective, an invective I fulsomely admire
, I have to say that I would rather not have him in charge either. The difference, of course, is I would prefer to ensure that the state is minimized in every respect whereas Grace implies it would be a good thing for his folks to be in charge.
The philosophical difference is basic - I deeply believe that politicians use the state for ends which I am quite certain I disagree with but, rather than switching out one set of politicians for another, I would like to restrict the scope of the activities the state engages in. In particular, I would prefer that the state not make choices which can responsibly be left to individuals.
Reducing the scope of the state will reduce the scope of the mischief politicians can get up to. To take asimple example: I am inclined to think the state should get out of the marriage business. Leave it to the churches and whatever other institutions decide to get involved. What that would mean is that there would no longer be a registry of marriages maintained by the state. And there would no longer be any state sanctioned rules about who can or cannot be married. Thus ends the same sex marriage issue which seems to drive socons so very crazy.
Applied generally the test would be, is there any compelling reason why the state should be involved in activity "x"? This would quickly lead to the decriminalization of virtually every so called vice, the elimination of state required prescriptions, an end to most subsidies and a generally shrinking of the sphere of the state's activity.
At the moment Grace objects to the state making him, indirectly, a baby killer by his lights. Fine, get the state out of the business of sanctioning or providing any medical procedure. If we want the state to somehow fund medical care then it might set up a genuine insurance scheme and, to protect the poor, waive the premiums for those poor.
I am no happier with much of what the state does in my name than Grace is. But replacing one bunch of politicians with another is really not addressing why the state has become so intrusive. The solution is to look seriously at fixing the machine rather than replacing the operators.