I’m sad to see a couple of things that are happening right
now.
People who call themselves “liberal” are embracing the
no-fly list, because it’s politically convenient. It allows them to grandstand
on gun control, and apparently that’s enough for them to betray their core
values.
People who call themselves “conservatives” acknowledge that
depriving people of their gun rights without due process is wrong, but don’t go
on to acknowledge that depriving people of their right to fly without due process is also wrong. They should be calling for a repeal (at
least a drastic pairing-down) of the no-fly list, not dictating when due
process does and does not apply. (“Dictating when due process does and doesn’t
apply”…hmm. Isn’t there a word for that?)
If anyone thinks that citizens should be deprived of their rights
without due process, they should say so explicitly and explain why. But they
probably shouldn’t be calling themselves “liberal”, which connotes a principled
belief in liberty (individual rights, due process, etc.). And they probably
shouldn’t be calling themselves “conservative”, which connotes respect for the
constitution. Isn’t a “no fly list” technically a bill of attainder, which is
explicitly forbidden in the constitution?
Maybe you think the government should be constrained by
certain principles (due process, enumerated powers, prohibitions on laws against speech and religion, etc.).
Say so plainly, but you have to stick with those principles when they’re
inconvenient, not just when they help you. Maybe you think the government should
be able to do whatever seems like a good idea at the time. Once again, say so
plainly, but don’t ever appeal to “principle” when government does something
you don’t like. Appealing to a principle you don’t really believe in is deeply insincere.
Maybe I’m overthinking this. Maybe every policy opinion is chosen
ad hoc, and almost nobody feels constrained by any principle whatsoever. And I
guess that’s the part that makes me sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment