Loganberry's Meme

loganberrybunny posted this interesting meme:
What one position do you hold, or what one belief do you have, that you feel others would be most surprised about if they were only told your overall leanings? (As an example, you might be a hardline conservative who supports unilateral nuclear disarmament. That sort of thing.)

This is an interesting meme. I didn't really follow it as written, because I'm not sure that my political beliefs can be neatly categorized, and because there's more than one point where things get involved, and apparent contradictions appear. Here's what I came up with, and I invite others to play along.


I'm convinced that the Confederates were constitutionally correct in seceding. Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly grant a right to dissolve (or preserve) the Union to the Federal government - it can only be, therefore, a right reserved to each State. Despite that, I'm glad that Lincoln saved the Union, and I believe that he acted correctly in so doing, despite the terrible cost. More than anything, this is reflective of my misgivings about the limitations of a written constitution, and isn't really inconsistent considered in the scope of my overall beliefs.

*****

Despite the fact that I think rules of warfare are counterproductive (they make war more palatable by lessening its horror to bystanders, although not necessarily the overall suffering of the participants; and more likely by limiting the risks to the weaker side), I'm regretful for the burning of German cities during WWII - it ought not to have been done, even in retaliation. That's largely because I see the World Wars as a type of civil war, I think. I have much the same reaction to Sherman's March to the Sea during our civil war.

It's worth noting that I have no such regrets about the even harsher treatment of Japan. I pity the individual Japanese caught up in the catastrophe (most of whom were probably perfectly decent people), but the obliteration of their cities and the deliberate infliction of mass suffering upon those same people I regard with reassurance that we were able to manage that when needed. We even invented a completely new class of weapon to do the job.

The difference, I think, is that I view a civil war as a different, limited type of war. The goal of civil war is not to destroy or even subjugate the enemy, but to get them to stop acting in a manner that threatens society. There is a balance that must be considered in civil war - there is no such balance in ordinary war. Again, I don't see my position as inconsistent considered from the overall scope of my beliefs.

*****

On the whole, I reject the idea that government should concern itself with individual morals. E.g, a government might properly act against prostitution when it threatens public health, but not because the majority are opposed to prostitution. Even then, the least restrictive path should be chosen - licensing and health inspections, as opposed to outright bans. The same applies to gambling, drugs, etc.

That position is consistent with the idea that government should protect each against all. Government exists that we all might enjoy our lives and property in reasonable security. That security should extend to foreign threats, to threats from individuals within society, and to threats from the tyranny of the majority. If I want to drive my car down the street at 100mph, the government has a legitimate interest in preventing this. If I want to advocate offensive points of view, the government has a legitimate interest in making sure that I'm free to do this.

Where I find inconsistency with my beliefs is that I'm strongly in favour of laws against animal cruelty. It's hard to justify such laws on any basis except a moral one, which leaves me in a position of wanting to impose majority morals on that minority which feels that cruelty is acceptable. If I try to rationalize animals as being lesser members of society, hence entitled to protection while being denied rights (analogous to children or the mentally incompetent), I run into the problem of eating animals (to which I'm not opposed).

There's a definite conflict of beliefs here. I could pretend that my views on the proper role of government need more thought, but I really don't think that's going to lead to an internally consistent resolution. There's an odd spot in my belief system.