Op-Eds

Individual Identity: “Born-This-Wayism” is a Reactionary Cul-de-Sac

2 Comments

Rainbow Brolly -- RGBtock

Is Rachel Dolezal “really” black? The question is reasonable, if a little bit over-hyped from all sides. Reading (and occasionally participating in) a number of discussions about it, I’ve been surprised at the answers people come up with. Here’s mine:

Who cares? Dolezal’s self-identification as an “African-American,” no matter how strange some may find it, only picks my pocket or breaks my leg (as Thomas Jefferson put it concerning other people’s religious beliefs) to the extent that political government either oppresses, or hands out privileges to, people based on their personal self-identification.

I don’t blame Dolezal for that oppression or those privileges, so I’m perfectly content to politely respect her racial/cultural identification. If she says she’s “African-American,” so do I.

That’s not to say that getting rid of government interference would instantly change everyone’s opinions … but as I’ve written before, libertarianism is the only political philosophy that allows everyone to answer “yes” to the question “can we all get along?”

Coming on the heels of Caitlyn Jenner’s “coming out party,” the subject of Rachel Dolezal in particular and trans-racialism in general does shed needed light on the dangers of “born-this-wayism.”

During the long struggle against legal discrimination versus gay men and lesbians, much of the black civil rights community dismissed comparisons between that struggle and theirs. Race and sexual orientation, they said, just weren’t the same thing.

Ditto some “third wave” feminists versus trans-women. There’s still plenty of argument about whether feminist conferences should be open to trans-women; being transgender, some say, does not make one a woman.

And now some supporters of equal rights for trans people reject “transracial” Rachel Dolezal on the same grounds.

Tactically, the claim that one is “born this way,” rather than “choosing” to be, gay, transgender or transracial, has its benefits. And in the first two cases, while the science may not be completely settled, it does seem to at least tend toward agreement.

Strategically and morally, though, “born-this-wayism” is a dangerous trap. Each successful struggle for freedom, or even for basic equality before the law, is followed by a reactionary impulse. We’ve got ours, Jack (or Jackie) … and you aren’t us.

Part of that is due to the government interference I mention above. The “benefits,” like special anti-discrimination protections or even “affirmative action” set-asides, are treated like a fixed pie. If someone new horns in, everyone else’s slice gets smaller. Which, of course, is yet another good reason for getting government out of the matter.

Another part, though, seems to be the mistaken belief that freedom is a similarly fixed pie; that if I get more freedom, you get less. That isn’t so — more freedom for any of us means more freedom for all of us — but it’s a natural fear.

So, again: Is Rachel Dolezal “really” black?

If she says “yes,” why should anyone else have a problem with that? And why should it matter to anyone whether she was “born that way” or “chose” it?

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Time to Give Taxpayers a (Prison) Break

2 Comments

RGBStock.com Prison Photo

Daniel Webster was from New England, but one of his most famous quotes merits recognizing him as an honorary Floridian: “Every man’s life, liberty, and property are in danger when the Legislature is in session.”

In special session last week, Florida’s House and Senate negotiators agreed on a $2.3 billion budget for the state’s Department of Corrections (“State law makers pump up prisons budget,” News Service of Florida, June 11). That’s about $115 — or about 14 hours at minimum wage — from every man, woman and child in Florida. That’s more than I pay Netflix for unlimited access to re-runs of “Orange is the New Black.” And all for the ignoble purpose of keeping people in cages.

Except no, not really.

$1.3 million of the new spending is earmarked for “computer software upgrades.” Apparently 9,000 corrections officers don’t have email accounts. Do I hear the world’s smallest violin playing in the distance? To me, the real scandal is that there are more than 9,000 corrections officers in Florida.

Millions — probably tens, maybe even hundreds of millions — more go to politically connected corporations operating “privatized” prisons for profit at taxpayer expense. If you thought you saw their lobbyists skulking around Tallahassee last week, you probably did.

Florida doesn’t need more money for its prisons. It needs fewer prisons, and fewer prisoners. The same is true for every other state. And there are easy ways to get there.

One of the easiest ways would be for those legislators to get together and repeal all the state laws against victimless “crimes” — drugs, gambling, sex work, etc. If they can’t bring themselves to stop trying to run everyone else’s lives, the rest of us should pitch in. Cops should start ignoring those “crimes” in favor of real ones. Prosecutors should stop wasting taxpayer money on prosecuting them. Juries should refuse to convict.

Even where real crimes — like theft, for example — are involved, non-violent offenders shouldn’t receive food, housing and medical care at taxpayer expense.  Nor should surplus corrections personnel. Furlough the latter and let them get real jobs in the productive sector. Put the former on probation or electronically enforced “house arrest” so that they can pay their own bills, as well as restitution to their victims.

It’s time for “corrections” reform, with a view toward ultimately abolishing prisons entirely. And that means less, not more, taxpayer money.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Don’t Let Transgender be the New Black

Leave a comment
Another Yin-Yang-Yuan BiggestWholeButterfly Tr...
TransGender-Symbol (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Sometimes large social and cultural changes roll out slowly, often at the expense of individual rights. Other times they roll out quickly, to the discomfort of those of us who are set in our ways. Gender identity seems to be taking the latter course.

The ability to physically reshape our  gender appearance and genitalia has been around for decades, popping up now and again as a controversial news topic, from  Christine Jorgenson in the 1950s to Deirdre McCloskey in the 1990s. But in this second decade of the 21st century, it’s become a topic of daily interest, from Chaz Bono to Laverne Cox to Caitlyn Jenner to Fallon Fox.

Look, I get it: I’m nearly 50 years old. I can remember when overt racism was considered normal and tolerable, even if it was on its way out. When I was a teen, homosexuality was widely considered immoral and a social stigma. Those two things are passing into history. I think — at least I hope — that a decade from now, or even sooner, transsexuals will find themselves well down that same path to social acceptance.

But right now, some people remain uncomfortable with the whole thing. There’s going to be a period over which old ways of doing things only grudgingly give way to more comfortably and lovingly seeing ourselves and others.

That should not be the case where the state is concerned, though. The use of legal force to impede — or advance — social change is always a bad idea. Transgender people should not be forced to march through Selma in order to claim equal treatment under the law.

As always, the libertarian approach is most fit for getting us through this transition period. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy which allows everyone to answer “yes” to the question “can we all get along?”

If you want to believe that Caitlyn Jenner is still Bruce Jenner, and insist on referring to her as him, well, you’re entitled to your opinion … right up to the point where you claim a right to impose that opinion by force.

And the same applies to me.

I can’t force you call her Caitlyn, and I wouldn’t want to if I could. Nor should you be able to get a politician to tell her which restroom she can use, who she can marry, or what box she has to check next to “sex” on a form.

The last thing any of us needs is another multi-decade round of identity politics, complete with legally enforced discrimination, de facto ghettoization and vexatious litigation. All we need to do is not aggress against others. Time and mutual respect will take care of everything else.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY