|
By the way, I used to hang- out on the Libertarian thread, as the resident conservative. Every so often, some guy, recently returned from Amsterdam, would come on and spout off about how "freedom works", still excited by the legal availability of drugs and brothels. I would chuckle, reminded of fellow travelers who would take short trips to the Soviet Union or China and come back spouting off about socialist paradises, even during incidents like the Ukrainian famine or the Cultural Revolution. They would get mad. I would point out that even a cursory search showed research exists questioning the prudence of these liberalization policies, and that the jury was, at least, still out on whether it was harmless or quite socially dangerous. They would get madder. But what no one could ever grasp was that it would not matter if the Netherlands could successfully legalize vice, without the spread of baneful consequences, because all things are not equal, and it might very well be that the consequences would differ in the United States. We are not in a position to reduce the number of variables and fully control for them, there are no laboratory conditions. That is why states and localities are supposed to make policy as much as possible, because local circumstances differ. So do temporal circumstances. That is why, for example, pointing out the positive effects of immigration at the turn of the century, or making an emotional appeal to those of us whose great- grandparents came through Ellis Island, is not an argument stopper. Different times, different problems. Things usually become matters of controversy because the argument cuts very close, and there is a lot of surmise involved. There is a fairly widespread consensus on free- trade, and even the protectionists now talk about "free and fair trade", using barriers only in defense. There is a widespread consensus that racism is intellectually bankrupt and morally wrong, as there is a greater diversity within "races" than between them, and it is best to treat people as individuals. In instances like this, one might talk about "common sense", although that was not always so. Otherwise, few matters of public policy are easily resolved by common sense. |
