“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose–that it may violate property instead of protecting it – then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”
~ Frédéric Bastiat, The Law (1850)`
Soooooo, President Obama has issued an edict that all federally funded public schools must support any “transgender” child who wants to use the bathroom of their choice or risk losing federal bribe money. I would like to say that I am shocked, but I’m not. This is actually a predictable output from the government of a society that has given up on self-governance based on natural laws, individual self-control and now relies on the state to define all aspects of human interaction.
Listen – I do believe in individual choice. I actually could care less about a person who decided that even though they have a penis, they really want to be manly looking Kate Upton – but I am concerned about fake “transgenders”, simple perverts who now see this as a free pass to waltz into a public restroom and take a few upskirt shots of pre-pubescent girls – or worse. When considering President Obama’s edict, it occurs to me that we are talking about kids here. We are talking about allowing a child to make a decision about gender and sexuality at a stage of such intellectual and biological immaturity where we won’t even allow them to decide how many ice cream cones to eat, much less how to “identify.” Something tells me that this last one says more about the maturity of the parents of such a child than it does the children themselves.
But putting my opinion of the modern state of parenting aside, there is a more significant issue at play here and it is this: if the government wants to create a new class of people for whom they want to create a new set of “rights”, will that class not have to be defined? Will there not have to be some sort of legal definition of “transgendered” other than how someone feels on a particular day? The fact is that while biology is permanent, emotional states are not (just ask Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner).
Think about it: If we pass a law that says it is illegal to do X, then we have to define what “X” is. We then have to codify every possible situation where “X” exists, what can be done to it, with it and when. That definition becomes pliable as it works its way through the judicial system and each court determines what the meaning if “X” is in this particular individual interaction. The permutations and combinations are mind boggling but the end result is that in prosecuting this process, the power of choice is shifted from the individual to the government.
Can you imagine having to certify or have a license to be heterosexual, homosexual, transgendered or “pan-sexual”? If a biological male is arrested for taking a few naked snaps of a female minor child in a dressing room and they claim in their defense that they “identify” as “transgendered”, would they not be expected to prove that in court? Taken to its logical endpoint, that is where this goes in a society that relies on laws and regulations to maintain social order. If on claims to be straight, gay or “other” and relies on the government for their “rights”, one should expect to have to legally prove just how straight, gay or “other” they are and for how long.
This is also an example of how a system of governance that relies solely on laws to maintain social order will eventually collapse under its own weight.
There are two types of individual control, external and internal.
External controls are laws and regulations. They are documented definitions of legal behavior that have consequences within the legal system. While they may have some effect as a deterrent and some would argue that defined punishments ranging from a parking ticket to capital punishment are such deterrents, there is no doubt that these deterrents do not stop the infractions from happening. Every day there are illegally parked vehicles and there unfortunately are also murders.
Internal controls are individual values, mores and standards that determine how one person relates to the next. For example, my internal controls – based on my Judeo-Christian beliefs – prevent me from going over to my neighbor’s house when he is at work, kicking down his door and taking his TV for myself. I also know it is a crime to do so as there are laws that define it as such, but if he is gone and there is no other entity present to enforce that external control, the only thing stopping me is me – my conscience that informs me what is right and what is wrong.
There is a reason our Constitution is rooted in immutable, transcendent Natural Laws. Government by fad or whim is by definition an arbitrary and capricious government. Arbitrary and capricious government can stand through only one means – totalitarianism. Am I saying that “transgendered” individuals choosing a bathroom leads to totalitarian government? No, at least not by itself – but it does put forces at play that will be used to get us there.
Perhaps we are just living in a bad Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, specifically episode #117. Broadcast in the fifth season, in which the crew of the Enterprise encounters the J’naii, a race without gender. Can’t wait to see the next iterations of protest signs saying “We Are All J’naii Now!”