Gaddafi

I am fascinated by the view that justice can only be done via courtroom proceedings.

No doubt that is a good rule of thumb. But it in no way approximates an absolute truth.

Take the statement,"the Yankees are better than the Red Sox." It may be true in the broader context, yet will often be untrue in the specific context. The Yankees have won more baseball titles than the Red Sox and in many years will have a better record than the Beantowners. But then there will be the anomalies: for example, a year when the Red Sox win the World Series.

When it comes to justice, the only real question should be "Did that person get what he deserved?" Or, in other words, "Did that person do that of which he was accused?" Anything else is little more than a procedural safeguard intended to ensure the correct answer to those two questions.

So, as much as it unnerves me that Colonel Gaddafi was brutalized and killed by his captors, I am not devoted enough to procedural niceties to insist that an injustice has been done. Using assassination to eliminate political dissent, that may be an injustice. Slaughtering your own people in response to their opposition to your policies, that may be an injustice. Killing an oppressive tyrant who rapaciously and ruthlessly imposed his government on the people through violence and terror, that is not an injustice.

When the punishment fits the crime, the only thing left to ask is whether or not one can make a plausible argument that the accused did not commit the crime. If the answer is no, then a courtroom is little more than form. Perhaps not gratuitous, but certainly not necessary.

So please forgive me if I find there to be nothing disturbing about Gaddafi's killing at the hands of a Libyan mob. The man had it coming. Justice has been served.

Growing Up

I don't think many people ever really grow up.

Sure, physically we reach maturity. Most people even reach a certain intellectual adulthood. But most folks never get out of emotional and social adolescence.

In a democractic republic with universal adult suffrage, that is a recipe for disaster. As the people lose the ability to balance their checkbooks and make prudent fiscal decisions and generally behave as responsible adults, so goes the country.

My generation may well be the first generation of Americans ever (certainly since the Great Depression) to leave its successors a nation that is in worse condition than the one our predecessors left to us. Public debt has ballooned, in large part due to our inane tendency to try solving every problem by spending money on it. Our military is the functional world police force. The economy is increasingly reliant upon externalities, leaving us vulnerable to forces beyond our control.

Spending more money cannot save us. Saving more money cannot save us. Making more money cannot save us. Using what we have prudently and efficiently and learning to be content with what we have may be our only hope. But that is increasingly unlikely in a world where people believe access to the internet to be an inalienable and basic human right. How reassuring to know that my ability to blog is apparently as important to life as my access to proper nutrition.

Children want to have it all. In that regard, I don't see much difference between a child and the average American adult.

Charity Begins at Home

Flowing from a selfless love for fellow man, deeply rooted in Christian tradition, charity is reflected in taking a personal interest in the well-being of our neighbors. It requires hands on participation, getting down into the muck to help the guttersnipe lift himself up.

Charity does not enable bad habits or unproductive lifestyle choices. It does not feed sloth and indifference, nor does it encourage irresponsible behavior.

Charity cannot be accomplished through a nameless, faceless bureaucracy. Compassion is at the very heart of charity and a bureaucracy is incapable of compassion. Government run "charity" is little more than a copout, an attempt on the part of the complacent to delegate a messy task that requires getting uncomfortable, that requires getting to know smelly, squalid, filthy little poor people. Expecting the government to do our charity for us is like putting a child up for adoption because we don't like changing diapers.

The society that tries to tax its way to charity accomplishes little more than building a wall between the well-to-do and the huddled masses. It creates a false sense of compassion among the mainstream and a destructive sense of entitlement among the indigent.

Perhaps ironically, if America tries to empower the government to control our charitable mechanisms, we the people may lose interest in being charitable ourselves.

So do not talk to me of the need for government intervention. Do not ask me to support taxing anyone so that we can hire more bureaucrats to oversee entitlements, welfare or otherwise. Instead, let's talk about how we can encourage those who have been blessed to share with those who struggle. Instead of filing the paperwork and cutting through redtape in order to empower someone else to do it for us, let's talk about developing real communities.

Without community, charity is meaningless. Giving someone charity while permitting them to remain outside of community is more like a guilt-offering than charity.

When Society is Run by Children Who Cheat at Games

Beware the society that becomes acclimated to following the rules only when it is convenient to do so.

All games have certain rules. Rules, generally speaking, are meant to address certain eventualities. When one of those eventualities occurs, the rule is followed and the system is preserved. Discard the rules, and the result is Calvinball: an absurd amalgam of ad hoc decisions which defy predictability.

One of the basic lessons that non-sociopathic children learn is that rules are meant to be followed. If you want to get dessert, you have to eat your dinner. If you want to go outside and play, you have to clean up your room. You cannot collect 200 dollars unless you pass GO.

Childhood games are the basic building blocks of social skills. Through play, children learn how to respect the wants, desires, needs, and feelings of others. The child who fails in putting these blocks together will end up being either 1) a narcissist or 2) an unlikable cad.

The law is little more than rules. It tells us what should be done, what may be done, and what must not be done.

Sometimes, we want something but the law acts as an impediment. A civilzed adult would recognize that it is his misfortune if the rules prevent him from achieving his goal. A petulant child changes the rules on the spot.

In the law, there are prescribed mechanisms for changing the law (rules regarding rules). We actually allow for players to change the rules in the middle of the game. However, we do not allow them to change the rules in the middle of their turn. News laws must be promulgated prior to their implementation; certain parties must agree to the change.

The politician or bureaucrat who violates the rules regarding rules is little better than the spoiled brat who does not care one whit about his fellow citizens. Perhaps what he does is supported in theory by the majority, but the violation of principle degrades the entire body politic and weakens the fragile adhesives that bond human society.

Don't like the law? Go ahead, change it. But do it properly.