e. magill's Intrigue |
| Back |
Keep the Nannies out of Government: Who Dictates Good Behavior?I was listening to NPR (National Public Radio) recently and I heard a story about Humatrope, a growth hormone-based drug by Eli Lilly (makers of Prozac). The story discussed how this drug, originally indicated for the treatment of patients with Turner’s syndrome or hypopituitarism, has been approved by the FDA for use in normal, healthy children who just happen to be a little short. [1, 2]My first reaction to the story was one of shock. How can parents honestly think that giving their children a pill can make them happy? Are we a society so superficial that we believe that we are judged by our height, that there is a rash of heightism going on that we must cure by conformity? Is it possible that common usage of a drug like this will merely cause the bar to be raised on average height? Will only children of rich parents be given the opportunity to be tall enough not to be judged by a heightistic culture? Questions like this haunted my brain for weeks. I realized, however, that it would be hypocritical of me to argue that Humatrope should not be legal. It would be wrong of me to state that, because I believe the drug will have detrimental effects that go beyond the physical, the government should believe the same thing and act on that belief. After all, as an advocate of marijuana legalization, I’d have to rectify my complaints against Humatrope with people who have similar complaints against marijuana. I could say that Humatrope is analogous to fool’s gold that won’t make you happy, but I could say the same thing about marijuana. I could say that people will use Humatrope irresponsibly, but, again, I could say the same thing about marijuana. Therefore, as a libertarian, I can tell you everything that I believe to be wrong with Humatrope (and I could write quite a long rant on that subject), but I cannot condone its illegalization. They say that illegal drug users are not just hurting themselves, that the heroin addict is hurting everyone around him and people he’s never even met due to the criminal underground that manufactures his drug of choice. They also say that such blatant illegal drug use leads to violent behavior. I have my arguments against this line of thinking, but those are covered elsewhere on this site. The point I want to make here is this: if illegal drug users are hurting more than just themselves, what would happen if marijuana or heroin were regulated in the same way as Prozac? Prozac has no provable medical benefits, only questionable psychological ones, and the same could be said for marijuana. The only difference I can see between the two is that one is legal and accepted by society and the other is not. Therefore, is not the war against illegal drugs an example of our government dictating morality (and dictating it hypocritically)? Is it the job of government to do that? Does the government have the right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies? Some would say that it does, and others would say that it does not. It is my belief that our government has no vested interest in such matters. A government that exerts extreme social control is one that is based in either socialism or fascism. Our government is dictated not by these forces, but by the forces of capitalism and democracy. We practice freedom of opinion, the belief that all people have the right to think however they like as long as they don’t start acting out violently, counter to the progress of society. There is nothing illegal about belief. Therefore, our government should not be allowed to tell us what to believe. To illustrate, there has been a lot of fuss lately over the so-called “separation of church and state.” The monument of the ten commandments in an Alabama judicial building has received the most press on the subject. Here in Orlando, though, the debate has taken on the form of a city commissioner’s proclamation in support of a group called Exodus International [3]. Exodus International is a religious (Christian) institution that offers faith-based “treatment” for homosexuals who want to change their sexuality. I want to stress that they are a volunteer group and do not force their beliefs on those who don’t care to listen to them. As there is no scientific methodology for determining whether a behavior is “good” or “bad”, aside from evolutional concerns that I have no interest in debating here, then the issue of homosexual rights is an issue of individual belief. Therefore, someone who believes that homosexuality is a sin cannot automatically be called intolerant, as long as the person in question is doing nothing violent or otherwise to force his or her belief on others. Exodus International works only with willing participants and does not force its beliefs on others, so, therefore, it cannot be considered an intolerant hate group just because its tenants are unpopular. However, a person who refuses to allow such beliefs to exist or who considers such beliefs identical to the beliefs of genocidal Nazis and calls for people who have them to be shunned by society, can be called a bigot. A bigot, defined by Miriam-Webster as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices,” is someone who cannot tolerate opinions that are different from his or her own [4]. A person intolerant of a group like Exodus International, solely on the basis that the person believes the group to be wrong, is, by definition, a bigot. Vicki Vargo, the Orlando city commissioner responsible for the controversial proclamation, put it best when she said that “there are some people in the community who feel that if you disapprove of any of their conduct that you hate them and you’re a bigot, which is really childish thinking” [5]. Responding to criticism that Exodus International is a hate group, Vargo has said, “That’s not the rhetoric I’ve heard from them. It’s really an organization for the most part that is managed by people who were gay and are no longer gay. It’s not some right-wing, heterosexual, Christian or some other group [of] gay-bashers. [They have] at least some knowledge of the feelings of the gay community” [6]. Because it does not go out of its way to forcibly recruit people for “treatment,” Exodus International, a group that does not think homosexuality is a natural or beneficial practice and believes (rightfully so) that some people wish to be cured of it through them, is not a hate group. Rather, as difficult as it may be for some people to understand, people go to Exodus International voluntarily, out of a belief that Exodus International is right and willing to offer the kind of help they want. In fact, as shocking as some people might find it, Exodus International has thousands of testimonials from people who went to them and felt better afterwards. Jim Henry, a pastor at the First Baptist Church in Orlando, has been quoted as saying that homosexuals “have to find a sense of openness and not of condemnation. We have to be firm on our stand against the lifestyle, but we must look at them through the eyes of Jesus” [7]. That is not hateful or bigoted speech, nor can you consider it such just because you don’t believe in Jesus. Henry, like many others like him, is trying to be tolerant, understanding, and friendly, but doesn’t think that one has to change one’s core beliefs in order to be that way. This line of thinking does not a bigot make. Overall, this is an argument in which our government does not belong. A city commissioner has the freedom of speech to say whatever she thinks, to condemn or support any group she wishes, but our government, as a whole, should have no say in matters of faith. Make no mistakes; you don’t have to believe in God to have faith. Any moral or ethical belief is a matter of faith because there is no single blueprint for behavior on which we can all agree. Therefore, the only things with which our government has the right to interfere are things that affect the provable welfare of its people. Unfortunately, this ideal was lost long ago. Under the rules of capitalism and democracy, doesn’t the power to make moral choices reside in the people? If there are people who want to have a company like Exodus International, a company that seeks to help people and do no harm, doesn’t Exodus International deserve to exist? Can’t it even be praised for supplying a service for which there is a demand? It’s the same thing with Humatrope. If this is a drug that will be a bad thing for society, doesn’t society deserve to figure that out on its own? Which costs more, learning from a mistake or repressing the ability to make one? A government of liberty cannot condemn Eli Lilly for providing something that does no forcible harm. If Humatrope does harm, it is not the fault of Eli Lilly for providing it; it is the fault of the irresponsible moron who tried it. Regardless of who you are or how you think you can fix yourself, whether you are the parent of an abnormally short child who asks a doctor for a Humatrope pen [8], a homosexual man who believes in a Christian God and wants to change, a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, a fat guy pulling up to McDonalds and ordering a double cheeseburger, somebody easing the stress of life with a cigarette, or even a depressed college student looking to get high, don’t you deserve a chance to pursue happiness through whatever methods you see fit, as long as your pursuit doesn’t interfere with the rights of others? Aren’t we guaranteed, in this country, the right to pursue happiness? Call me crazy if you like, but I don’t think we can do that if we are constantly being told that the way we wish to pursue it is wrong, even though the only risks we are taking are personal, theoretical, religious, moral, statistical, and none of your business. (This list does not represent the entirety of my research on this subject) -e. magill, 9/15/2003 |
| Copyright ©2003 e. magill. All rights reserved. |