I remember back in the 90's, when I was in Scouting, there was a big to-do about girls trying to join the Boy Scouts. I remember thinking, "Why would a girl want to join the Boy Scouts instead of the Girl Scouts? It's the Boy Scouts for crying out loud!" As a young lad, I was already aware of common sense and liberty. I knew that the BSA was a private organization, so they should be able to do whatever they wanted. If they didn't want girls in, they shouldn't have to let girls in. And as a boy, I didn't want to have anything to do with the Girl Scouts. It just didn't make sense, even with their delicious, succulent cookies! I was a boy!
I believe in maximizing and enhancing liberty whenever possible. Politically, this results in my desire for a very small government, for example. If you want to have blue hair in high school, your school shouldn't suspend you. If you want to paint your house bright yellow, you shouldn't be arrested or fined. If you want to eat at Taco Cabana instead of Taco Bueno, you should be allowed to do that.
Where we must curtail liberty is where it conflicts with the liberty of others. If I want to set my neighbor's lawn on fire for not returning my lawn mower, I should not be allowed to do that. If I want to take your car because it's nicer than my car, I should not be allowed to do that. A lot of this falls under the term "common sense", which is something that seems to be emigrating from the US.
Where liberty is curtailed by definition is in organizations. You don't try to make the Democratic National Committee have Republicans on their board. You don't require a Muslim mosque hold Jewish services. You couldn't get the KKK to allow black members if you tried! That's because none of these examples make sense, and it would curtail the liberty of the members of the organization. The DNC is specifically set up to tend to the needs and ideologies of Democrats. A Muslim mosque would be defiled by a Jewish service. The KKK is a pro-white organization.
Which brings us back to the BSA. Everyone who joins knows what the BSA is and what it stands for. Changing it would make it something else entirely. If the BSA leadership decides they want to change a policy that goes against its members' wishes, they will likely fail and keep the policy as is. If they want to change a policy that is in line with its members' wishes, they will succeed and change the policy. If the members want a change in policy, they will likely succeed, and the BSA leadership will change the policy or be replaced. If you're thinking, "Hmm. This sounds a little familiar." It's because it's basically how our government works. We vote in Congressmen, Presidents, Governors, and the like to make changes to policies that we want. If they stop doing things in accordance to our wishes, we have the opportunity to communicate that to them or vote them out.
If the BSA wants to make the change to allow gays to join, I hope they run that by their members because I'm not so sure they're on board. The BSA has every right to refuse their membership, however. It is a private organization that can determine with whom it associates. And gays have every right to start their own gay-friendly organization that refuses membership to heterosexuals. I would support that. Why? Because that maximizes the liberties of all. If we start dictating what private organizations do and don't do, liberty will be lost.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
For further reading, Wikipedia has a good article about some of these topics. Check it out here.
No comments:
Post a Comment