October 10, 2014
I ran across this fantastic article regarding classical liberalism (the notion that people should be “free”, embraced both by progressive liberals and conservatives in America today). The article provides a thoughtful analysis, including the following:
“An idea of liberty is an essential part of the answer to that crucial unasked question [whether humans are prepared to live free]. But it is not the libertarian freedom generally voiced by today’s left and right. Surely liberation from coercion alone does not prepare us for the practice of liberal freedom. To liberate us purely to pursue our wants and wishes is to liberate our appetites and passions. But a person in the grip of appetite or passion can’t be our model of the free human being. Such a person is not someone we would trust with the exercise of great political and economic freedom.
The liberty we can truly recognize as liberty is achieved by the emancipation of the individual not just from coercion by others but also from the tyranny of his unrestrained desire.
This liberty arises when we want to do more or less what we ought to do, so that the moral law, the civil law, and our own will are largely in alignment, and choice and obligation point in the same direction. To be capable of freedom, and capable of being liberal citizens, we need to be capable of that challenging combination. And to become capable of it, we need more than the liberation of the individual from coercion. We need a certain sort of moral formation.”
The author’s suggestion is not that the government begin preparation of souls for freedom; rather, it is that the citizens should on their own begin recognizing the soul-forming functions of family, work, and religious organizations, and “sustain the space for them, and put them within the reach of as many of our fellow citizens as possible.” Without attending to our souls through family, work, and spiritual relationships, democracy gets ugly. What is the use of an election when the electorate is a mass of radically self-interested individuals?
December 16, 2013
“If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.” -1 John 4:20
It is interesting that love is connected with sight in this Biblical passage. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the Bible teaches that a human is much more than a physical, visible entity (2 Corinthians 5:4 refers to the body as a “tent”, and 1 Corinthians 6:19 refers to the body of a Christian as a “temple of the holy spirit.”). Scripture also states that God created man in His “image,” specifically in Genesis 1:26-27: “God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image’. . . [and] God created man in His own image.” However, it is highly debatable (if not entirely unlikely) that the reference to “God’s image” has much to do with the physical appearance of human beings.
The thesis of this post is that the removal of the “sight” of a second party may actually hinder one’s propensity to love someone, and that that has consequences in our political and social lives. This may seem obvious, but I am going to take it a step further than the obvious.
We know intuitively that a blind person must be able to love a person, so physical sight is not necessary to love someone. But it is surely easier to avoid loving another person if one does not have to see that person. If your community keeps homeless people relegated to a rough corner of town that you never visit, it is easier not to think of them or help them. But if you have to face homeless people every day, your conscience is more likely to be bothered and perhaps spur you to do something to love the homeless, even if only donating to a local charity or giving a few bucks to a homeless person who appears to be in need. On the other hand, one might choose to become callous toward the homeless, particularly with the aid of stereotypes and rationalizations such as “homeless people are lazy.” Accordingly, it is said that if you cannot even love those who you see (and sight should make it easier to love someone), you cannot love God, whom you cannot see (because it is presumably harder to love God, who you cannot see).
But what if you owned a small private business in a neighborhood with homeless people? I would imagine it would be even more difficult to resist a sense of sympathy to (and even responsibility for) the needs of those in the community.
Setting aside private companies, the “owners” of a publicly-traded corporation could be shareholders from all across the world. If the corporation runs nation-wide chain retail stores or restaurants, the shareholder is far removed from the faces on the ground. A corporation cannot truly love a person. The corporation exists to provide profit to its shareholders. Sure, a corporation can give money to a charitable cause, but it generally does so because it helps the corporation’s bottom line in the long run by building good will with consumers. The private small business owner is in a much better position to help those with needs in the community because the private small business owner can actually “see” the faces of the need in a real way.
Furthermore, the private small business owner sees his or her employees and is more likely to treat them in a loving manner. Grace and mercy cost a business owner no more than he or she is willing to voluntarily contribute. The shareholders of a private corporation cannot see the employees and thus will not care about them. The corporate hierarchy will provide little grace or mercy at the sacrifice of the company’s (and the shareholders’) bottom line. Employees within a corporation can still exercise some grace and mercy, but with a much greater risk. If an employee in a corporation shows mercy to a subordinate and it does not work out, the managerial employee loses his job, which is more than the comparatively negligible amount of profit lost by the corporation.
Now enter politicians.
Politicians, surviving largely on the backs of private corporations (this goes for Democrats as well as Republicans), answer these bottom-line focused entities rather than the rank and file individuals. Moreover, federal government politicians are far removed from their constituents (often by thousands of miles). If politicians need not look many of their constituents in the face for most of the year, it will be easier to forget to love them or serve their interests, just as people forget about the homeless in the bad areas of town that they never visit.
Is the link between “sight” and “love” a good reason to be suspicious of corporations and support local businesses? Is it a good reason to prefer local to state or national government?
September 10, 2013
I would really enjoy discussing the definition of legal “rights” with these people. The Boulder Rights of Nature organization in Boulder, Colorado, seeks to establish rights belonging to nature itself as a means to protecting the environment. As a legal matter, it’s difficult to see how these “rights” could be enforced, given the lack of legal standing (one generally cannot sue to enforce someone else’s rights unless one has a special relationship with the other person, and since the rights here would be asserted against property owners to prevent them from “harming” the natural beings on their own property, it is difficult to conceive who besides the property owner could have that “special relationship”).
But leaving legal standing aside, this could get interesting if it gains any traction with the media. A few years ago, I wrote on this blog that the intentional killing of any human organism (including the pre-born) should be illegal, and a reader objected that I was imposing my religious beliefs on other people. He urged that one cannot grant “personhood” to an unborn human because other people do not believe that unborn humans are “persons.” I disagreed, of course, and argued that the granting of rights and “personhood” to a human being comports with justice and also is not religious. The Boulder Rights of Nature organization helps prove my point. That organization is not “religious” as far as I can tell. If a law granting “rights” to nature (the trees and flowers) is irreligious, a law granting rights to preborn humans is not religious, either.
In that vein, I especially love this quote from BRON’s proposed draft Sustainable Rights of Nature Ordinance:
While not eliminating property ownership, these new laws seek to eliminate the authority of a property owner to destroy, or cause substantial harm to, natural communities and ecosystems that exist and depend upon that property.
Could we not draft a similar law stating, “while not eliminating a woman’s dominion over her own body, this new law seeks to eliminate the authority of a person to destroy, or cause substantial harm to, natural human organisms that exist and depend upon her body”? Are preborn humans less deserving of protection than trees? If the Sustainable Rights of Nature Ordinance is not inherently unjust, could a law preventing the intentional killing of innocent preborn humans ever be unjust?
August 13, 2013
Elysium is a thinly-veiled promotion of a rather liberal political agenda, especially with respect to immigration and healthcare reform. One can gather that quickly by watching the movie or reading the reviews of moviegoers on yahoo. But I would have enjoyed the movie anyway if it had been more complete.
Sorry to spoil the rather unoriginal and predictable plot, but here it is in all its simplicity: 150 years into the future, our planet Earth is ruined by overpopulation and poverty such that the entire earth looks like a third world country. Everyone in LA speaks Spanish and/or is Hispanic. The elite of the world (wealthy, intelligent, educated, etc.), build a huge space station called “Elysium” to, and I quote, “preserve their way of life” (though the film does little if anything to show what that “way of life” looks like; we are supposed to assume it’s ideal with whatever that might mean to us–kind of like Heaven, I suppose). Elysium has free (and perfect) healthcare in the form of body-scanning machines that can heal a person from essentially every malady short of complete death (it can even do reconstructive facial surgery and restore someone who had his face blown off by an explosive, looking good as new after the healthcare scan). To get the bodyscan, a person needs both to be on Elysium and be a citizen of Elysium. They refer to all non-citizens as “illegals,” and Jodie Foster’s character heads up a group called “Homeland Security” (yes, the metaphor is that obvious) to protect Elysium from intruders, but the dark-skinned “president” essentially undermines the Homeland Security efforts, leading Foster’s evil character to stage a coup to protect Elysium. Meanwhile, Matt Damon’s character lives on earth, gets sick, has 5 days to live, and needs to get to Elysium to get that body scan to heal himself as well as his friend’s daughter, who has leukemia.
There was potential for this movie but they didn’t explore the pertinent questions arising out of such a plotline nearly enough.
For instance, were the people on Elysium happy in their isolated (and supposedly trouble-free) world? What was life like for them? Did they at least have “first world problems“, or was this a symbolic utopia of sorts?
Was it immoral for the citizens of Elysium to build Elysium at the outset and/or to take the best and brightest from the world and stick them up in Elysium? (If so, it’s likewise immoral for America to allow the best and brightest of other nations to emmigrate to the U.S., contributing to brain-drain in third world countries, which could actually mean permitting unlimited immigration would sometimes be immoral, not benevolent).
Is the existence of Elysium itself (or the imbalance of wealth in any closed system) an instance of injustice? If it didn’t exist at all, apparently no one would have healthcare, unless the best and brightest of Elysium were somehow forced into providing healthcare to everyone everywhere (and how would we force them to do so without paying them–making them elite, the kind of elitists that we from the outset held were an example of injustice–or forcing slavery, which we also find disgusting?).
To put that last question another way, more broadly: is it unjust that Oprah owns eight homes while I only rent one (and some people are entirely homless, or living with multiple families in the same dwelling)? Is an imbalance of wealth itself an inherent injustice? Is it immoral anytime any of us earns more than the median world salary (a small number that will shock your conscience) and fails to donate the entire surplus to those below that line to even things up? Isn’t this movie saying that the general imbalance of resources and happiness between Earth and Elysium is in itself immoral (notwithstanding that everybody who helped make that movie likely lives an extravagant lifestyle, at least from a world-wide perspective)? If the movie is saying that, does it not also suggest by implication that we are a nation of hypocrites and psychopaths, but not much else?
Were there scarce health-care resources on Elysium, such that the masses on Earth would consume up the health-care “machines”, creating an underclass of the unhealthy anyway? If there was no such scarcity, why did the people on Elysium keep those machines from being delivered to earth rather than sending reproductions (or even just one or two) of these impersonal machines (which apparently did not even need maintenance or a personal expert to operate, or at least the movie did not indicate such a need)? Were the citizens of Elysium presumed to be psychopaths with nothing but contempt for all outsiders (and in fact a positive desire to harm or starve outsiders), rather than protectors of their limited goods? (Even in wealthy America, we participate in and fund global relief efforts, however effective or ineffective that may be.) If the citizens of Elysium were that evil, shouldn’t we just blow the whole edifice up rather than allow these Stalin-like creatures to continue profiting from building such machines? Or would we disapprove of forcing them to labor on our behalf here on “Earth” (the third world country)?
Additionally, as a somewhat irrelevant side note, imagine how long the wait lines would be on an overpopulated earth seeking to exploit the machines that were built only to serve an elite few rather than billions. Can the machines break from overuse? Will people harm each other to cut in line? Will the gate-keepers of the line allow their friends and family a place of privilege so that they get the best machines and spend the smallest amount of time in line? These machines are unlikely to turn the third world Earth cesspool into a utopia just through healthcare. At least, the problems of poverty and crime would still persist.
There are just way too many unanswered questions. This movie might have been an ambitious mini-series on TV, and I would love to have seen these issues explored (even if with a liberal or other agenda), but the movie fails to deliver in an intellectually-satisfying way. That’s unfortunate.
Update: It just occurred to me, this movie could be seen (ironically) as a pro-life metaphorical argument. The citizens of “earth” could be unborn humans, whereas the elites on Elysium could be people who have been born. The people on Elysium (metaphors for mothers) are entirely in control of whether the earthlings (metaphors for unborn babies) can have healthcare and live. However, the earthlings pose a threat to the comfortable way of living for those on Elysium, and the citizens of Elysium want to “preserve their way of life.” When someone from earth finally “gets through” against the will of those on Elysium (say, for example, a child of a failed abortion), that person fights with all his/her might to end the denial of life for the earthlings. In this interpretation, the movie metaphor wouldn’t even go far enough, because mothers and their unborn babies have a far more intimate (and morally obligatory) relationship than that between the citizens of Elysium and Earth.
May 7, 2010
A professor in the economics department at George Mason University has assembled a fantastic collection of quotes from central figures in American history regarding individual liberty and limited government. Many of those quotes reflect a skepticism of the character of man. While unregulated man might make evil choices, the governor with power over him is (allegedly) prone to even greater evil choices, and those choices will affect everyone. Here is a sampling of the quotes that reflect this view:
[I]nstituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States . . . would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.”
— James Madison in The Federalist
“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.”
— Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854
“We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”
— Thomas Paine
While I don’t share the view that government ought not regulate anything beyond the harm principle (the strict libertarian perspective), I share the view that man is so fallen that absolute power will always corrupt him. Thus, limited government is a necessity for all, and the best way to limit it is to decentralize it as much as possible. The greater the centralization, the greater the eventual evil.
April 3, 2010
Advocates of hate crimes legislation might do well to listen to the warnings of conservatives and libertarians alike, lest they sacrifice the freedom of speech:
Shawn Holes was in Scotland with a group of American colleagues preaching on a wide variety of topics.
“I was talking generally about Christianity and sin”, he said.
He continued: “I only talked about these other issues because I was specifically asked.
“There were homosexuals listening – around six or eight – who were kissing each other and cuddling, and asking ‘What do you think of this?’”
He responded to questions from the crowd about homosexuality. He affirmed that everyone, including homosexuals, needed to receive Christ as Saviour.
Mr Holes later commented: “It felt like a set-up by gay campaigners.”
The preacher was arrested on 18 March in Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow.
Holes was kept in a police cell overnight and then charged with “breach of the peace” on the accusation that he had used “homophobic remarks” (like those found in the Bible) that were “aggravated by religious prejudice.” He was ultimately fined £1,000 for exercising his God-given liberties his infraction.
April 1, 2010
I find this troublesome:
“What happened in our country should never happen again,” [Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner] said. “People were paid for taking enormous risks. It was a crazy way to run a financial system.” Geithner said, “It’s the government’s job … to do a better job of restraining that kind of risk-taking.”
It is? Geithner thinks that the government’s job is to restrain risk-taking? This, after the government has engaged in some of the most heinous forms of risk-taking I’ve ever seen (e.g. bailouts, nationalized healthcare). Both great wealth and great loss are generated by risk-taking. If people do not want to suffer great loss, they should not take great risks, but the decision to do so is theirs, not the government’s.
The government should restrain unfair business practices that undermine free trade, such as fraud. But that is not the same thing as preventing risk-taking. The government’s intrusion into the world of financial risk-taking is questionable at best, but I suspect it will be disastrous.
March 8, 2010
I’ll admit that I was skeptical when I went to see it several months ago. I hoped not to see a sappy, overused rags-to-riches story. What I saw was indeed a holiday-style feel-good film, but with a twist. It’s a true story of an under-educated high school kid from a bad part of town who is taken in by a family when the family mom sees the boy walking on the street on a cold night in shorts and a short-sleeved shirt. The boy is given a place to stay, and eventually tutoring, educational opportunity, and an opportunity to capitalize on his natural athletic ability (but he can’t play football unless he improves his grades so that he can be academically eligible). This Hollywood story might be unremarkable, except that it’s true, and the mother, Leigh Anne Tuohy, happens to be a white, wealthy suburban Christian woman in Memphis, Tennessee, and the boy, Michael Oher, is a black kid from the projects who didn’t know his father and whose mother’s life had been ruined by habitual drug use.
A rich white Christian helping a poor black boy reach success, just out of the goodness of her heart? Not exactly the stuff Hollywood scripts are made of. But it’s a true story, and the people who played out this drama are alive and well, because the movie ends with the 23rd overall pick of the 2009 NFL Draft. Hard to dispute the facts.
Even so, the movie is not without its critics. In fact, I remarked to a family member shortly after the movie, “I bet this movie gets criticized for being racist, for suggesting that black people can succeed if they become like white people, even though that obviously was not the message of the movie.” I described a law professor I had in law school years ago—he was a Jewish neo-Marxist that had been a member of the Black Panthers in college (no, I’m not kidding)—who decried that kind of “paternalism,” arguing that such integration erodes the valuable black culture.
Indeed, the Dallas Observer published a piece entitled The Blind Side: What Would Black People Do Without Nice White Folks?, in which the writer argued that “Blind Side the movie peddles the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of blacks who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them.” A commenter on Yahoo added, before even seeing the movie, “It’ll still probably be racist, though, because it’ll probably portray the young black boy Sandra Bullock adopts as being ‘better’ than other black people in the film in some disgustingly charming way, with all the other black people treating him badly and Sandra Bullock having to come running to his rescue.” The same commenter argued, “This is a movie about white people, for white people, that lets white people feel good about themselves.” (This movie did not make me feel good about myself, it humbled me because I find Ms. Tuohy’s actions to be so much more compassionate and loving than anything I’ve ever done.)
Turns out that such criticisms reached the ears of the movie’s director and prominent star Sandra Bullock. They had some rather positive things to say. Director John Lee Hancock remarked:
“There will always be a certain camp that will say, ‘Oh it’s paternalism; its white guilt; its another one of those stories that says an African-American can’t make it on his own.’ I think its all balderdash,” said Hancock. “Even though there is a racial component, I looked at this story as more of a discussion of haves and have-nots and nature versus nurture. This is a kid who been discarded by society, especially from an educational standpoint. And his story goes to prove what having a safe bed to sleep in, having a family unit, having loving, interested parents can do. Lo and behold, this kid who was falling through the cracks is on the dean’s list at college. It’s like a miracle, and I think that’s a far more interesting element than any racial aspect of it. Leigh Anne Tuohy didn’t stop that car to pick up that kid because he was African-American. She stopped that car to pick up that kid because he was cold.”
Sandra Bullock added:
“One of my biggest issues has always been people who use their faith and their religion as a banner but don’t do the right things, yet still go, ‘I’m a good Christian and I go to church and this is the way you should live your life,'” said Bullock. “And I’m like, you know, do not give me a lecture about how to live my life when you go to church every week but I know you are still sneaking around on your wife. And I told Leigh Anne in a live interview, one of my largest concerns getting involved with this project was that whole banner-waving thing because it scares me, and I’ve had experiences that haven’t been great with people like that. I don’t buy a lot of people who use that banner as their shield. But she was so open and honest and forthright with me I thought, wow, I’ve finally met someone who practices but doesn’t preach.”
Bullock’s next comment suggested that the Tuohy’s newfound fame has provided them fresh opportunities to impact others with the hope that they have. “I now have faith in those who say they represent a faith,” Bullock commented. “I finally met people who walk the walk.”
The kerfluffle does raise an interesting question. Let’s say that the Tuohy’s “white culture,” whatever that is, actually did have more wealthy yet responsible and philanthropic individuals than Oher’s “black culture,” whatever that is. And let’s say that the “black culture” had more child abandonment, drug use, crime, and poverty. If that were true, would it be wrong to encourage the “black culture” to be more like the “white culture” in that respect? Is the “black culture” equally valuable as the “white culture” if the “black culture” turns a blind eye to such atrocities? Not to say American “white culture” doesn’t have plenty to work on itself, or that it is the standard against which other cultures must be measured. But, as I wish I had asked my law professor, can one culture be more valuable—more right—than another? I’m inclined to say yes, and it only takes pointing a lazy finger toward Nazi and Stalinist “cultures” to demonstrate that some cultures must be erradicated, or at least radically broken and rebuilt, to rise to the level of other more valuable cultures.
But in any event, The Blind Side really attempts no such cultural commentary. It’s just a true story of a rich white Christian woman coming to the aid of a homeless black kid, and the resulting interracial family. Had that kid been white, the critics would have no basis for labeling the movie “racist.” So in an odd way, the critics would apparently prefer either that (a) rich white Christian ladies not help black kids, but to stick to their own kind, or (b) the stories of rich white Christian ladies helping black kids not be told, because they might foster (perhaps accurate) stereotypes about blacks, or (c) that stories that challenge (perhaps inaccurate) stereotypes about rich white Christians not be told. None of the critics make any effort to demonstrate that a large segment (but not all) of the black community is not afflicted with the problems depicted in the film. But the critics would rather rest comfortably in willful blindness of the truth than be forced to admit the less-than-politically-correct problem.
December 29, 2009
An interesting post on the blog of a South African discusses what people mean when they assert that they have a right to believe what they want:
[C]an anyone actually believe something just because they want to? Go on, try it. Pick some belief at random, something silly which you never really took seriously before, and will yourself to believe it…
I doubt you had any more success than I did.
What we can claim is the right to express and practice our beliefs, whatever they happen to be, to the extent that our actions do not infringe on the rights of others.
It is these other rights which concern me most. Attempts to defend a belief which cannot be limited may infringe on a few of them, for example:
Freedom of expression: False beliefs can generally only be maintained by ignorance. If someone has the “right” to believe something then that necessarily means that we must loose the right to argue with them about it.
Equality: Many beliefs are discriminatory. So often the so called “right to believe” is used to justify acts of discrimination in all their various forms.
In conclusion, We need to stop assuming we can control belief and let free expression take care of defending rational beliefs and gradually dismantling the irrational ones.
I agree that many people misuse the term “right to believe” just as they misuse the phrase “stop forcing your beliefs on me.” No one can really be forced to believe anything, although certainly propaganda and brain-washing do exist. Some are better at guarding their minds than others. Still, people generally use these phrases more as nifty sound-bites than intelligent arguments.
That said, after reflection, I do believe one can choose to believe things. One may not be able to choose to believe a fact in the abstract, especially something we know is wrong. No matter how much I close my eyes and insist to myself that Catalina Island does not exist, I cannot do so because I’ve been there and know that it does. However, consider a situation where a friend claims to have visited an unnamed island in the South Pacific where there are beautiful mountains and waterfalls. Depending on my friend’s propensity to tell the truth or exaggerate, I can make a rational choice whether to believe him or not. In court, we ask juries to decide which testimony they believe based on the evidence. Sometimes that requires a very difficult decision, but a decision nonetheless.
Even so, the right to decide what one believes does not in itself require action or inaction by any other private individual. If I speak falsehood and deceive others into false beliefs, the correct course is not to limit the expression of false beliefs, but to respond with truthful ones (this is what the above post is getting at in the conclusion). In America, that’s the whole point to the First Amendment:
If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
Now, with respect to freedom to follow one’s beliefs through actions, we have a much more difficult question. I think there should not be a bald right to act on one’s beliefs however one sees fit. You’ve got to have more. When a bald right to act on one’s beliefs is respected, we get ridiculous statements like the following:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
Come again? We have a right to define our own concept of the universe? And that right is supposed to be respected by law? Of course, that’s nonsense. The law will not permit me to define my concept of the universe if my concept of the universe claims that law does not exist. Anarchy is not among my liberties. There is no right to define one’s existence. The Supreme Court was out to lunch in that statement, as the dissent noted:
A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a “liberty” in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example — which entire societies of reasonable people disagree with — intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially “protected” by the Constitution.
As argued in the dissent, a government may make choices that intrude on the liberty to act upon one’s beliefs. But when it does, the question is not whether it may intrude on such actions in the abstract, but whether the particular intrusion is just. That will be a matter of politics. But it makes no sense, in the public discourse aspect of the process, to assert that a law should be changed because it infringes on someone’s right to practice their beliefs. The kind of belief and the kind of intrusion must be considered on their own.
Incidentally, to address the discrimination argument in the post, I’m going to disagree with the proposition that “acts of discrimination” are inherently a bad thing. Lots of discrimination is beneficial. We discriminate against minors when we do not allow them to drive. We discriminate against those who commit crimes by throwing them in jail. The question is not whether a law is discriminatory, but whether it is rationally discriminatory. And of course, that will draw some really heated debates, hence the current climate of politics and the media.