Querkiness

I'm sorry I missed last night's NAACP/LULAC forum.  The KDH report was worthless.  and I don't think Dan Kott was able to capture any video.

But on a different subject....

If you follow this blog, you will have to put up with occasional quirkiness.  No more than once a month, I hope, but today's is one of those posts.

I'm reading C.V. Wedgewood's monograph on Oliver Cromwell.  (It's short, but not very useful unless you already know a lot about the subject.)  One of Cromwell's opinions that Dame Veronica highlights is (paraphrasing, now) that it is unjust and unwise to deprive a man of his natural liberty because you suspect he will abuse it; rather you should wait until he does abuse it, and judge him then.

This is interesting now because it transcends most of the political divisions people currently think are important.  Republicans and Democrats, Tea Partyers, Libertarians and Socialists all have advocates on either side of this question.

The issue in Cromwell's time was whether individuals should be allowed to worship God according to their own inclinations.  That this question has been largely settled in our own times doesn't dilute the principle.  If  I'm allowed to make my own decision on something as important as religion, why should I be restricted in any economic or social activities?  If I transgress the law, you can punish me later.

The answer is in consequences.  It's well to assume that people will do the right thing, and that there is punishment for those who do not; but who will take care of the consequences?  For example, if a builder puts up 4-plexes in an area zoned for single-family buildings, is it sufficient to fine the builder after the fact?  The 4-family units are still there.  If I put a fireworks factory in my garage, what good does it do to fine me after it blows up?  My neighbor's house still burned down.

At any level of government, it is one of the most important responsibilities of the governors to balance the "natural rights" of the governed so that liberty is maximized and consequences are minimized.  That's one reason I think the next City Council election is important.  Where do you think the candidates you favor  see the balance?  Do they even see that there is a balance?