Does Dissent Make Us Weaker?
The short answer to the question, “Does dissent make us weaker?” is no. But, the issue is far more complex than the short answer implies.
For one thing, just how far should Americans be able to go in exercising their right to dissent? That is, just where do their rights stop? Or do they? A popular saying holds that they stop at the end of the next person’s nose. And, judging from the never ending stream of demands that assault us every day, it appears that everything on our personal or collective wish lists has now become a right, without limit, including the right to say almost anything we want, to anyone, at any time.
And, although taking money from others by force or at gunpoint, or by embezzling it from one’s employer, may be a crime, how many people condone appropriating someone else’s dollars through taxation? Probably everyone, to some degree. But, isn’t that the problem? That is, the degree?
Too often, in matters of taxation, right and wrong depend on who has the power to tax or whose ox is being gored. So, if we feel our tax laws are unfair and confiscatory, should our right to dissent include refusing to pay them?
Another aspect of the question, “Does dissent make us weaker?” is the matter of where and when we have the right to dissent. Although our cherished right of “free speech” may guarantee us the right to speak out about issues, that doesn’t guarantee the right to do so everywhere and anywhere. There appears to be a lot of confusion about this. Many Americans seem to have the idea that their right to dissent obligates others to provide them with a forum for expressing their views, such as on radio and TV broadcasts. In fact, you may have the right to dissent, but you normally have to provide your own soapbox.
Do students have an unrestricted right to use vile language toward others, including teachers, on school grounds? Our confusion about whether there can or should be any limits on the right to dissent is vividly demonstrated by the fact that vulgar language is acceptable in some settings, such as the movies and on TV, but is unacceptable in churches and public meetings. And, although our right to dissent may include being able to curse teachers in school, prayer is considered unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the right to dissent goes beyond words. It is also interpreted as including such things as how people dress and look or such actions as burning the American flag. Some is acceptable, some not.
In the final analysis, the right to dissent is really more about self-control than it is about laws or regulation or the Constitution. You may have, or think you have, the right to say or do whatever you please, but that doesn’t always mean you should, law or no law.Dissent is an important and necessary escape valve for society, but that doesn’t mean the right to do so should be unrestricted. And, although dissent in general may not make us weaker, unbridled dissent can, especially in times of war.
The problem is recognizing when it becomes treasonous or actionable (i.e., lawsuit). As with pornography, we may not be able to define dissent, but we generally know it when we see it. Dissent may not make us weaker, and sometimes it’s a little like taking medicine: we may hate the taste, but it’s good for us - however, that doesn’t mean it should be unlimited.
© 2007 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Are We Schizo or What?
The Supreme Court has held that abortion is a constitutional right; however, that right has caused a great deal of confusion in our society. It is legal to abort a fetus at almost any stage of its development, including mere moments before the infant is born (“partial birth abortion”), but it is homicide if the fetus is killed, say, by a gunshot wound in the mother’s stomach. However, it is not murder for a mother to terminate her own pregnancy at the same stage of development for purely personal reasons. So, for some purposes, the law recognizes the same fetus as a living person, for others it does not.
Tobacco is a legal product and is heavily taxed by the same government that has subsidized tobacco farmers for decades. Both the Federal and state governments tax cigarettes, ostensibly to offset health care costs incurred by smokers or to establish programs designed to discourage young people from smoking. Then they use the money for other purposes, often completely unrelated to tobacco use. If the product is so bad, why not just make it illegal? The obvious answer is that there is just too much money in it for the government and our politicos. So, the