Enforcing ‘Constructive Behavioral Change’

A group of college presidents has sparked debate by signing a petition urging the drinking age be lowered to 18, the legally recognized age of adulthood. They argue that “twenty-one is not working” because it has “not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.”

Several groups are opposing this campaign, among them Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The president of MADD complains that “it is deeply disappointing to me that many of our education leaders would support an initiative without doing their homework on the underlying research and science.” She and others deny that “studies did not conclusively show a benefit to raising the drinking age [to 21].”

Leave aside for now the factual claims of either side and consider the nature of the debate itself. On one side is a group arguing that current laws do not “work”, citing only empirical studies as evidence for their position. On the other side is a group arguing that current laws should be left alone, citing only empirical studies as evidence for their position. In fact, both sides have the same motive (reducing drinking), but only differ on what the “research” tells us is the best way to achieve it.

This debate offers a good example of a fundamental error being committed in nearly all public policy discussions today. In general, the process proceeds as follows:

1. Determine desired behavior of populace.
2. Conduct various studies in order to determine what government restrictions might bring about such a “constructive behavioral change”.
3. Vote to decide which method seems to be the best bet.
4. In a few years, repeat.

There is a glaring problem in the above: the question of whether the government is justified in using its power to bring about “constructive behavioral change” is never raised. It is simply taken as a given that what is determined in step 1 is legitimate so long as there is enough public or legislative support.

In short, there is no discussion of rights. Does a 20-year-old have the right to drink beer? Does an 18-year-old have such a right? Given that they are adults, is the State justified in forbidding them to exercise their own judgment about whether to drink? These are the questions that those debating this issue should ask. But such questions would likely strike advocates of either position as bizarre – there are no rights under consideration here, only desired behaviors.

To see the problem with this approach, suppose for a moment that the Founding Fathers had used it when developing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Should we have the right to free speech? Well, that would depend on what speech the public desires to hear or read–thus, some studies would have to be conducted to see what the effects of allowing any given type of speech are, and whether such speech is “constructive.” Should there be a law preventing unwarranted government search and seizure of private property? Who could say–there hadn’t been conclusive research to determine the effects of that kind of policy.

Thankfully, the Founders approached law in an entirely different way: as a matter of principle. They proposed that government be instituted in order to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the basis of fundamental principles of human nature, not as the result of a series of studies. When principles like individual rights are thrown aside, anything goes. When “constructive behavioral change” becomes the guiding standard of government policy, there is no room left for considerations of freedom.

If we want to see a principled approach to government and law, we must start by challenging the assumption that public desire for behavioral change trumps the rights of the individual.

Mixed Economy, Decisively Bad Results

The Wall Street Journal recently ran an excellent editorial examining the bad business and corruption that arises “when you combine private profit with government power.” Created by an act of Congress in 1938, Fannie Mae is a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) that owns or guarantees nearly one half of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. Many of these mortgages were purchased in bulk from Countrywide Financial, the firm that made multitudinous bad loans to individuals unable to repay them, fueling the subprime mortgage meltdown. Its former CEO also reportedly secured so-called “sweetheart” loans for Fannie Mae executives and US senators. Thanks to a $10 billion accounting scandal, a decades-long lack of managerial accountability and massive exposure to the subprime mortgage market, Fannie Mae is now at the brink of failure. And thanks to a now explicit government guarantee, Fannie Mae is likely to become the next recipient of a taxpayer-funded bailout. What caused this mess?

The author blames what he calls “crony capitalism,” a term long used to criticize the shady dealings of businessmen and government officials. These types collude to manipulate laws and regulations that allow a company to make greater financial gains in exchange for rewards disreputably doled out to the officials who make such modifications possible. “Crony capitalism,” which implies a below-the-radar cooperation between government and business, is actually an oxymoron. While cronyism is a non-capitalist phenomenon that undercuts free market operations, capitalism is precisely the social system that prohibits government intervention in those markets. As Ayn Rand explained, government simply has no business doing business. (For more on the nature of capitalism, see here and here).

But, if capitalism did not create the Fannie Mae disaster, what did?

Taking a cue from Ayn Rand, it should be clear we do not live in a capitalist society but rather in a mixed economy comprising elements of both a free market and government control. As capitalism is the system of freedom and rights, it cannot be mixed with socialism and remain free any more than food can be mixed with poison and remain nutritious. Quasi-governmental entities like Fannie Mae are a manifestation of the poison of socialism in our society. In a free market, Fannie Mae would have crumpled under its own ineptitude and corruption long ago. But in a mixed economy, a few cronies in Congress is all it takes to secure the taxpayer-funded bailout that will keep Fannie afloat until its next crisis.

It is not capitalism that we should blame for today’s headlines, but rather the destructiveness caused by government interference in the economy. If these problems are ever to be resolved, the markets must be liberated from the poisonous mixed economics of phony capitalism.

Uncle Sam Is Not a Nanny

The New York Times reports that in a recent speech, Randi Weingarten, the new President of the American Federation of Teachers, offered her “new vision for schools in the 21st century”.

“[I]magine a federal law that promoted community schools — schools that serve the neediest children by bringing together under one roof all the services and activities they and their families need?”

“Imagine schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities and homework assistance,” she said. “And suppose the schools included child care and dental, medical and counseling clinics.”

Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama echoes this sentiment: “These children are our children… [i]t’s time we understood that their education is our responsibility.”

By “our”, Obama can only mean the State, acting as agent of public opinion. On this view, children belong to us all collectively, and so the State is responsible for every child’s development. Weingarten and Obama want us to imagine a new, expanded government school system where the State serves as nursemaid, parent, teacher, babysitter, recreation coordinator, counselor, dentist, doctor, and who knows what else.

Is Obama right? Is it part of Uncle Sam’s job to play wet nurse to American children?

Of course not. Children are the responsibility of their parents. Parents are responsible for supporting their children and making the judgments necessary to raise them properly.

There is no rational argument for the belief that child-rearing is a proper government function. A government exists to protect the rights of its citizens (including the rights of children whose parents cause them demonstrable harm). The state has no moral authority to implement its conception of proper child-rearing—and certainly not at the expense of people who do not volunteer to fund such efforts.

A non-profit organization is free to try to secure donations to provide these services, and those who wish to support it can do so. If Ms. Weingarten and Mr. Obama want to provide poor families with comprehensive child-raising services, they should start a charity, not pass a federal law.

All Plants are Created Equal?

Put down that salad! Have you considered the dignity of the vegetables you’re about to crush into easily-digestible pieces? Have you no concern for their inherent worth as living beings? Have you made sure to carefully justify the moral necessity of harming those plants for your own ends?

Those are the topics recently under serious consideration by a Swiss governmental ethics panel. Their conclusion? Plants do indeed possess “inherent worth” and must be protected “for their own sake” from human destruction. The report, replete with sympathy-evoking photos of beautiful, dignified flowers on every page, can be found (here).

The disastrous consequences of an idea like “plant rights” are easy to imagine. Put aside for now the human need to eat plants for sustenance, which would presumably be allowed by the panel given a proper application for an eating license citing an approved moral justification to feed oneself. Consider all the less-necessitated ways we use plants for our ends. How could you justify “decapitating” (the panel’s word) a beautiful rose for such a superficial human occasion as Valentines Day? Imagine the outrage of mowing one’s lawn, which amounts to severing the bodies of thousands of individuals for purely aesthetic reasons.

Clearly, this idea of respecting the “inherent worth” of plant life is utterly incompatible with human life. This raises an important question – how did a panel of Ph.D.’s, the most educated members of society, reach such an absurd conclusion after extensive and highly complex discussion?

The answer lies in the flawed view of morality accepted throughout modern academia. In their report, the panelists profess a “biocentric” view of morality which holds that ethical questions pertain to all living things. However, it is important to note that the only living things the panel is urging to exercise moral restraint are human beings – they aren’t demanding that bears consider the dignity of salmon before snatching them from the river, nor that mosquitoes observe the inherent worth of their fellow creatures before sucking their blood.

This double standard is a crucial clue to the mistake of the moral philosophy that underpins faulty ideas like animal “rights”, and now, plant “rights”. Any rational idea of morality necessarily applies only to things that have the capacity to conceive of and exercise moral choices. The reason it sounds strange to think of a rock, flower, or groundhog as moral or immoral is because such entities are incapable of thinking about or making the kinds of choices morality involves. Only one kind of being is – human beings.

Only in the works of Ayn Rand can one find a fully rational view of morality, one that shows why ideas like “plant rights” are as absurd as they sound.