This I Believe

and why.

It occurred to me today that my readers have a really good idea what I DON’T believe, but I’ve never stated affirmatively what I DO believe. How did I become the example of Wokeness y’all know and occasionally feel a vague lack of hatred toward?

1. I believe that all disputes must be resolved by referring to concrete facts. Facts are tangible and observable. Facts are never conclusions. That is, one may say “the trial record states that Defendant stabbed Decedent 16 times in the torso with a butcher knife. Decedent was standing and talking to Defendant immediately before Defendant stabbed her. Decedent died from blood loss caused by the multiple stab wounds inflicted by Defendant.” Those are facts. “Defendant murdered Decedent” is a conclusion drawn from those facts, but it isn’t fact until all the other things have been proven. So, my first belief is “always start with the facts.”

2. I believe in the rule of law. That is, I believe that a functioning polity should regulate itself by through rules adopted by a properly elected legislature or legislative body. Those rules have specific meanings, and must be followed by the people entrusted with enforcing the written laws. The enforcers cannot change the law on their own and may only interpret those laws in ways that follow the intent of the law. The enforcers must follow laws they don’t like until the legislature changes those laws.

3. Being rich, powerful, or well-connected is not a reason to excuse illegal behavior. Stealing with a fountain pen is every bit as bad as robbing with a gun.

4. Banning something doesn’t make people stop doing it; it only gives the state the power to fine or imprison the people who continue to do the banned thing. Murder has always been illegal but we still have 20,000 or so every year in this country.

5. If the populace isn’t willing to pay for prosecuting people who continue to do the banned thing, then the law needs to be changed to repeal the ban. If too many people within the population continue doing the banned thing, then the law needs to change and the ban should be repealed. See, “Drugs, War On.”

6. The law should focus its prohibitions only on those things that actually harm large numbers of people and there should be a direct connection between the prohibition and the harm prohibited. Banning drunk driving is immediately connected to preventing the harm of serious car wrecks caused by drunk drivers. There really is no other way to solve this problem other than aggressive prosecution of drunk drivers. By contrast, prohibiting gay people from adopting children does almost nothing to reduce child abuse because the overwhelming majority of child abuse is ordinary beatings by the kid’s natural parents.¹

I believe a lot of other things that are better described as tastes or opinions and that don’t affect my views on public policy. I think every English speaker should know Shakespeare. I think every student in American schools should study Latin for two years and should graduate high school fluent in English, Spanish, and with a decent command of either French or German. I think any university that offers a degree in ‘Advertising’ should lose its accreditation and be forced to refund every dime of tuition it collected since offering such a worthless degree. I believe in the ironclad requirement of sending written thank you notes for every gift and invitation. I believe in strict punctuality. I believe everyone should understand their family’s religion and only reject it if said background is obviously foolish or toxic.

None of those things in that last paragraph should ever have the force of law, except the bit about Latin, and modern languages. That one I stick with.

1. See here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/254893/child-abuse-in-the-us-by-perpetrator-relationship/?srsltid=AfmBOor-dDXoSSZGeEPKWhAPo8XUczYs_DxExXtsH-VCIyHgXN1vvBe6. The person most likely to abuse kids are the kids own mothers.