Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

November 11, 2009

Must Catholics witness to Life?

As we prepared to execute the DC Sniper (which is a misnomer, since only one of the murders actually happened within the District), a debate about capital punishment and the Culture of Life. I addressed the issue of the sniper in my essay published Monday in the Examiner, so I will now address the larger question.

The question is this, must one always avoid taking the life of another if that other poses a mortal threat. This question touches on many moral questions, from whether an ectopic pregnancy may be actively aborted, to whether preventative sterilization may be used (either by surgery or chemical birth control) when the pregnancy will lead to either danger to the woman or economic danger for the family, to whether one may execute a criminal who presents a mortal danger to other inmates or to himself, to whether war is ever just, to whether one may shoot an armed assailant who is posing an immediate danger to a schoolyard full of children. Add to this the question of whether one may use deadly force to repel an assassination or attempted coup (especially if doing so could lead to a murderous tyranny) and the similar question of whether people can arm themselves to defend their own lives (or their property) or have armed agents to do so. Even the arming of the Swiss Guard which protects the Pope raises the identical question.

It seems that in most, if not all of these cases, the Pro-Life office in the United States and in the Vatican is consistently coming up with no as an answer, although it has not yet taken the step of disarming the Swiss Guard, which is telling.

How this question is answered depends upon both the ground rules one sets. If you use the witness of scripture and the early Church, clearly it is better not to resist. This does not end the argument, however. Under pure (meaning non-theistic) natural law reasoning, one need not insist on resistance, indeed, in some occasions one must use deadly force to protect innocent life.

One may martyr one’s self as a free and faith filled choice. One does not have the right to make this choice for others, whether one is in a pluralistic society or even an entirely Catholic one. Martyrdom is an individual decision. It cannot morally be imposed upon another. Catholic hospitals treat non-Catholics. The logic of my argument is that, if an abortion or sterilization is necessary to prevent physical harm to the mother, this cannot be imposed. While we can encourage the mother to witness to life, we cannot demand that she do so or rig the game so such witness is her only choice (regardless of whether she is Catholic or not).

We certainly cannot require such witness to be mandated by law. This is the worst type of coercion, yet tragically it seems that some in the Church are seeking just that. Those voices do not speak for me or the vast majority of Catholics. While they may validly encourage individual witness and seek a society where such witness is no longer necessary, they cannot make the enactment of what would be a moral tyranny part of the Church’s political agenda. This is not because of relativism or to become popular in society, but because mandating the witness of another is an inherently evil act. This is why many are comparing some in the Church (and the Evangelical right), quite justly, to the Taliban.

Posted by MichaelBindner at 06:34 AM | Comments (3)

October 27, 2009

What Brain Laws Would You Make?

In my quest for neuroscience blogs, I found this brainstormed list (by neuroscientists) of future brain laws as elicited by a neurofuturist:

  • Explicit right to cognitive liberty, brain privacy
  • Bans discrimination in hiring based on neuroimaging profile
  • Bans all local, state 'drug vaccine' programs
  • Bans 'neuroprofiling' for travel and attendance at public events
  • Subsidizes accelerated learning with neuroenablement technologies
  • Legalizes use of neuroenablers
  • Bans denial of health coverage based on neuroprofile
  • Bans cosmetic memory erasure

Does Bureau of Labor Statistics have job-outlook information for neurofuturism?

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 07:49 PM | Comments (1)

February 08, 2009

Sunday Roundup from the Post

So much to talk about this weekend.

In the Early Sunday edition, Dan Egggen talks about how Bush White House Staffers, particularly Dick Cheney, are speaking out about the President's policies. While it is understandable that Bush's GOPeons would want to hit back after Obama's inaugral address, they should remember that some of them are at risk for prosecution for war crimes relating to the torture of detainees and in general ignoring the Geneva Convention.

Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt of AEI weigh in favoring an expansion of the F-22 program, which may be shut down this year, as part of the stimulus package (a bit late of them if you ask me, since they are currently voting on final passage). These suggestions would make sense if the F-22 was at all vulnerable. Recent experience has shown that the F-15 has not yet been ecliplsed, raising the question of whether the F-35 will be needed at all.
It would be better if the stimulus of the aerospace industry were directed not to the purchase of unneeded weapons, but toward an expansion of the civilian space program.

Closer to home, Bill Press writes about the closing of his radio outlet, OBAMA 1260 AM, alledging some right wing conspiracy to shut down liberal talk radio. As one who would like to break into progressive talk radio, I would favor a return of the equal time rule. However, I marvel how he fails to mention at all the existence of a thriving African American progressive talk radio community. A blind spot perhaps?

Finally, Rakesh Khurana and Andy Zelleke write about executive pay. The authors analyze the problem correctly, but offer no new solutions. Here is one - move toward not only employee-ownership but also employee control and workplace democracy (with pay one of those things put up to a vote). I gaurantee that if we go down that road, the culture of the CEO will collapse and business will once gain serve the shareholders, the customers, the employees and the public.

Posted by MichaelBindner at 01:26 PM | Comments (0)

January 08, 2009

Midnight Bombing, Midnight Regulations

Jon Stewart reports (2:23 min into the video) on Israel getting its bombing of Gaza in before the end of the Bush Administration (h/t Paul Gessing).

This "midnight bombing" is similar to the "midnight regulations" phenomenon, where regulatory agencies rush to get their regulations put into practice before the end of a presidential terms.

Jerry Brito and Veronique de Rugy at Mercatus Center have found that this is a recurrent issue at the end of each presidential cycle:

...at the end of a term, the president has not only the ability, but an incentive to use these resources to try to push through policy changes. Howell and Mayer explain that midnight regulation occurs when "political uncertainty shifts to political certitude." During the last 100 days of his administration, a president knows exactly who will succeed him, as well as the new president's policy positions, legislative priorities, and the level of partisan support the new president will enjoy with the new Congress. The sitting president has every incentive to promulgate last-minute rules and regulations to deftly extend his influence beyond the day he leaves office. (p. 4)

Once a rule has been established it is hard to get it removed, says Brito and de Rugy's report (p. 6). These rules may be worse than average because of the lack of accountability of the outgoing leadership (p. 7-8) and the reduced review (a rush to regulation means less review by the OIRA, part of the Office and Management and Budget, p.13).

Several solutions are available, according to the Mercatus report, including making it easier to remove the midnight regulations, setting dollar-amount regulatory caps per agency (a "budget" so to speak), or limiting the total number of regulations that are put up for review (p.18-19).

Coming back to the issue of midnight bombing, or midnight baby-fighting rings, as Stewart facetiously suggests, and considering the pivotal role the US government plays internationally, I'm led to wonder why so many bad acts/actors wish to express themselves in the period of no consequences. Has the US government taken too much responsibility for the conduct of the world (and the trivial back home)? Does this overweening authority cause folks to want to act out like incorrigible teenagers? Alternatively, do such openings provide the mechanism for normal political steam-letting in any system of authority?

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 11:48 AM | Comments (0)

October 15, 2008

Ghostwriting

Ghostwriting -- the practice of one person writing that which appears under another's byline -- is a fact of life in Washington, in politics, and in other areas of public life. It is now widely acknowledged that Jack Kennedy's Pulitzer-winning "Profiles in Courage" was in fact largely written by Ted Sorenson. I myself have ghostwritten for others and have even had someone else write under my own byline. Many others on FreeLiberal.com no doubt can say the same.

Much intellectual energy was devoted earlier this year to sussing out who wrote what when under Congressman Ron Paul's name, particularly back in the early 1990's. The Washington Post as recently as last month revisited the issue by publishing an investigative report on who helped ghostwrite Paul's 2008 bestseller "The Revolution: A Manifesto."

But that was then, and that was Ron Paul, the quintessential outsider. Now, it is apparently again impolitic to broach the issue of political ghostwriting, particularly when it comes to presumptive President Barack Obama.

Jack Cashill, a reporter for WorldNetDaily, has made the case that the chief ghostwriter for Obama's 1995 book "Dreams From My Father" was none other than Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers. Cashill builds his case by using the famous authorship software QSUM, Cashill's own textual analysis of "Dreams" and Ayers' "Fugitive Days," as well as other circumstantial evidence. (E.g., 1995 was also the year that Ayers placed Obama in charge of $50 million in grant money and launched Obama's political career in his living room.)

Is there a better candidate out there for Obama's ghostwriter? Who? Some would tell us Obama is above such political conventions as ghostwriting and his authorship should not be questioned. I don't buy it.

Posted by JamesPlummer at 02:31 PM | Comments (1)

October 12, 2008

KDR's Weekend Notes: The Bailout, International Drug Approval, Transpartisan Book, and 2 New Blogs

1. Mercatus Center's Russ Roberts taped comments on the bailout over at reason.tv. How can we get Russ on every major news show to say these words over and over?

2. Jim Turner and Lawry Chickering have a new book out about transpartisanship, "Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life." Available at Amazon. I will be posting thoughts about the book in the coming days. I am interested to see if the "transpartisan" framework is substantially stronger than other conceptions of political organization, or if it can be used to create better political outcomes. A cursory read suggests that their offering is valuable, yet it asks more questions than it answers. I encourage readers to get the book so we can have a conversation about it.

3. George Mason professor Dan Klein has a YouTube video on denationalization of drug approval. The basic idea is: why increase the cost of pharmaceuticals through multiple, costly national processes? Don't the Europeans know what they are doing, or is the FDA the only agency that has any credibility? A better question: Is the FDA as good as its counterparts in Europe and Japan?

4. Michael Ostrolenk's new site is up at michaeldostrolenk.com. Michael is at the center of so many projects, the site should be a good place to plug into a lot of what is happening in medicine, national security, etc.

5. I cleaned up my kitchen table today and found a postcard from the Independent Institute. Their new blog is up at: http://www.independent.org/blog/. We can assume it will be excellent per everything else they do.

Posted by KevinRollins at 06:54 PM | Comments (1)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog