I have mentioned my other several times before in this blog ("Obama Recap", "Pro-Labor Cannibalism, A Look At The Union Food Chain", "Media and Perception", "Irrational Environmentalism"), especially her liberal beliefs¹. In the past I mentioned how she was interestingly inconsistent in those beliefs, specifically, in "Cult?", I mentioned her objections to certain health nazis and others who insisted on telling others how to behave "for their own good." I have pointed out to her a few times how inconsistent this is with her other liberal beliefs, as they seem to be founded on interference with the lives of others no less unjustified, just somewhat less obvious. (Eg. Minimum wage laws amount to telling people they can't sign the contract they wish, as we know better than they do what jobs they should and should not take -- cf "In Praise of Contracts", "When Help Hurts".) I probably shouldn't needle her in this way, as it is quite refreshing to find a liberal who actually recognizes, to some degree, the arrogance involved in at least some aspects of the political left. But then again, she is my mother, and our family has a long tradition of chiding one another^1,2.

The reason I mention my mother and her beliefs is that, once again, she has inadvertently shown signs of some incipient conservative thinking, and, in the process, provided me with a very simple, practical demonstration of the differences between right and left, especially showing the different ways the two perceive their responsibilities toward others, and how they should be fulfilled.

It happened while driving around this weekend, looking at the damage caused by the recent hurricane. As we approached a non-functional stop light, my mother complained about the cars in front of us which were stopping to allow car after car to make left turns. She complained "They think they're being nice, but look at all the problems they cause. See how backed up everything is?" I smiled and replied "Better watch out, you'll become a conservative."

And that simple statement of hers really does embody the difference between the conservative and liberal viewpoints. Both view government as a means to provide certain solutions to problems³.  Both seek to, in one way or another, improve the lot of citizens through the use of government. The difference is that conservatives see that providing consistency and regularity is beneficial to such a degree that, though it may sometimes seem harsh or heartless, it is better to remain consistent than to do the "kind" thing and produce inconsistent results.

Of course, that may be a bit too simple an explanation, as there is more to it than that. Impersonal rules are also to be preferred not only for consistency, but because of the problems possible with the arbitrary application of "compassionate" solutions, which, of necessity, cannot be applied consistently. (See "Transparency, Corruption and Reform", "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse", "Utopianism and Disaster" and "In The Most Favorable Light".) Likewise, efforts to correct "unfairness" or to provide compassionate solutions often have unexpected consequences, which can end up producing harms far in excess of their benefits.

But ignoring those, and limiting ourselves to the most basic concepts, we can still make a case for my mother's basic statement, that it is better to simply follow consistent, simple rules, rather than attempt to violate them to be kind.

The reason should be obvious. When there are simple rules, everyone comes to rely upon them being implemented consistently, and bases their actions upon them. When someone deviates form those rules, it causes inconsistencies and ruins the plans of others, based upon the expectation of consistent behavior. To apply my mother's example again, not only did the "kind" stopping to allow left hand turns back up traffic behind us, but cars approaching also had to slam on their brakes to avoid cars unexpectedly stopping ahead of them. The attempt to "be nice" had the potential to cause accidents.

Yes, this is a trivial example, but it does show why consistency is important, and how inconsistent behavior can result in many difficulties.

Let us make an even more obvious example, just to make the point even more clear. As traffic laws are relatively value-neutral, are uniform for everyone and relatively mechanistic (eg the car on the right always has right of way at four way stops, regardless of time, place or actors), they make a good example.

The rules of the road are both definite and predictable, and they are for a reason. We all rely upon those rules to avoid accidents. For example, we rely upon the fact that we can proceed at speed through a green light, or that travel in a straight line has right of way over left turns. We depend upon those rules to avoid accidents.And, unlike many other areas of life where we do not recognize the benefit in our observing the rules as well as others obedience⁴, in this case we see that we obey the rules for our own safety, and that others do the same⁵.

However, let us suppose, out of a sense of compassion, some select group was allowed to ignore stop signs, or to make left turns on red. It sounds silly, but for the sake of argument let us suppose there was a case made that allowing some group these special privileges would make the world better. (Sillier arguments have been made in the past. Just think about plans to pay teens to take advantage of free education... Once you think about the absurdity of PAYING someone to take a free gift, you will see that, while somehow "making sense" in a welfare state context, it really is quite absurd.) So, what would be the outcome of this compassion?

Well, first of all, it would likely kill a number of bystanders, as the privileged violate traffic laws, causing numerous accidents. And not only bystanders, but the supposed beneficiaries would be endangered as well. Thanks tot heir special privileges, they would be acting in ways inconsistent with expectations, resulting in harm to both themselves and others. In addition, even when they failed to do harm, the fact that one can no longer know whether any given car will obey the rules or not will result in the rules becoming absolutely useless. No one will know whether it is safe to pass through a green light, meaning every intersection will have to be treated as if there were no light. In short, by making the rules no longer universal, it would be as if the rules never existed, and the exception granted to a small group would remove any benefit for anyone.

Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it is not that absurd. We can see analogous examples throughout the modern world. When California enacted strong ADA provisions, lawyers started to hire mercenary individuals with disabilities, who would try to find stores in some way violating the ADA in order to extort massive settlements. The result? Not the better service for the disabled California expected, but a general resentment toward all disabled as potential extortionists, as well as the closure of many shops which could not afford compliance with every possible ADA rule over which suit could be filed^6,7. In other words, rather than ensuring every imaginable disability would be handled in such a way as to cause no inconvenience, it simply denied access to anyone by shutting down shops. (I suppose it is an equality of a sort, but it seems if we want that sort of equality we could simply prohibit any commerce and achieve total equality.)

I could probably go on, but I think my point has been made. Laws, for better or worse, exist to create consistent results. Even laws which do not regulate behavior in the way traffic laws do, such as laws against assault, still create regularity, both in preventing assaults, and in creating predictable results when someone violates the rules. And that regularity is, in some ways, more important than the law itself. Obviously, there is quite a benefit from the protection of individual rights, and those laws are good in themselves. But even bad laws can be beneficial, to some degree, provided they produce predictable, regular conditions. As I have said many times before, in the end, it is better to have an oppressive set of regular, predictable laws,  than even the most benevolent, enlightened ruler exercising arbitrary decisions. (See "Cranky Old Man?", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", In Praise of Slow Changes", "Predictability", "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "The High Cost Of Protection", "Pragmatism Revisited", "Expectations", "Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism", "Empathy" Threatens not "Justice" but Predictability", "Sotomayor and Empathy" and "Humor and Nightmare".)

===============================================================

1. Actually, my mother's family probably did quite a lot to shape my present beliefs. They were, at  least on her father's side, Ukranians, given to loud, passionate arguments on any topic, though no one would take the argument personally when it ended. (A trait I have since come to associate also with some of my Russian co-workers as well. On the other hand, my mother's mother was British and German, and her family was given to just as much argument, so it certainly is not an exclusively Slavic trait.) Having been exposed to such a love of argument, I am surprised how often other people take disagreement over intellectual topics as a personal affront. (See "The Angry Right and Conservatives" and "Political Polarization and Divisive Politics") Having grown up used to arguing points without being personally involved, I have perhaps a slightly more dispassionate perspective on some topics than others ("In Defense of Civil Debate"), which not only has allowed me to sometimes see the opposite side as simply mistaken rather than evil ("Misguided, Deceptive or Evil?", "Tyranny Without Tyrants", "Three Versions of Evil and the Confusion They Cause"), but it has also allowed me at times to listen to arguments against beliefs I strongly supported, and kept me from persisting in error, despite quite passionate beliefs. Had I not been so used to argument, I likely would still be the anarcho-communist I was in my teen years, or maybe the humorless, doctrinaire Objectivist I later became. Even now, looking back through my blog, I can see several times I admitted mistakes and altered my beliefs. All of which makes me quite grateful for those early exposure to argument, as it allowed me, and continues to allow me, to admit my own failings and change direction when it is needed.

2. My mother is also one of the reasons I so often argue that we need to step back, stop seeing the left as enemies, and instead see them as people, as our fellow citizens, as our family and friends, and instead of fighting them begin persuading them of their errors. Yes, there may be a few on the left who are actual villains of some kind, intent on knowingly doing harm, or at least benefiting themselves without thought of the harm they do, but for the most part,t he left is made up of people much like ourselves, open (and closed) to argument to the same degree as we are, and more amenable to persuasion than abuse. We need only look at the number of nominal leftists who supported Reagan to see how a proper approach can sway those we now choose to see as implacable foes. And so I continue to argue from time to time ("Misguided, Deceptive or Evil?", "Enemies Into Villains", "Rethinking My Earlier Position") that we must be more like Reagan and less like the most acerbic firebrands of talk radio. When he chuckled at the foolish beliefs of the left, he won far more support than the most biting criticism of the most brilliant right wing commentator.

3. Of course, some conservatives have adopted the counter-productive "necessary evil" line, but that is the wrong approach. ("Some Libertarian Analogies", "What Happened?", "Third Party Problems", "Why I am a Republican", "Reconsidering My Earlier Justifications of the Death Penalty") Government is a tool, and as such is not evil. Just because it can be abused does not make something evil. ("The Overwhelming Exception") For example, painkillers can be used to poison someone, but that does not make them evil, simply capable of abuse. Similarly, government is a tool which can be used improperly, and which in recent years has rarely been properly used. Still, that does not make it a "necessary evil", but rather an often misused tool.

4.  See "In Praise of Contracts" and "A Rational Approach to Punishment" for a discussion of similar topics. In general we tend to see laws as restricting or benefiting us. Many restrictions on businesses, for example, we see as being to our benefit, while laws interfering with things we wish to do are seen as harming us. Traffic laws are one of the few areas where we recognize that it is beneficial to all parties to obey the law. Ideally, all laws would be of the same nature, that is, we would recognize that laws against theft, fraud and force are beneficial for all involved. But, because we have laws designed ostensibly to benefit certain interests, enforce certain types of class envy and otherwise apply unevenly, we rarely recognize that laws benefit all involved. (See also "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government" and "Negative and Positive Rights".)

5. There is a small area of exception in speed limits. But that is mostly because we believe speed limits, in some cases, are applied for reasons other than safety, be it the Carter-era reduction of highway speed limits for environmental/energy reasons, or the arbitrary low speed limits in rural speed traps, we believe the speed limits are not applied in many cases to ensure safety and so do not obey them. (We can see this well in the cases where the speed limits do seem sensible, such as on winding mountain roads, where drivers do tend to obey the speed limits.) But, other than speed limits, drivers generally obey traffic rules quite consistently and without complaints.

6. There is also the general problem when such suits occur, the increased lack of respect for lawyers. I admit to having a dislike for lawyers which is probably excessive, in part from having spent a year in law school. Still, even I can admit that we think worse of lawyers than they deserve, mostly because of a small number of highly unethical, opportunists in the profession. However, laws such as the California ADA laws (or their food labeling laws which created similar mercenary opportunities) make such unethical actions profitable, and do no favor to lawyers who behave in more upstanding ways.

7. There is a similar problem with affirmative action laws and the like, with the laws creating questions in the mind of both the majority and minorities whether any given minority professional is qualified or there due to his race. Laws supposedly helping minorities end up increasing the impression of minority incompetence, while creating doubts among the minority itself. (See "Disturbing Entertainment, Ethnic Quotas and Distorted Views of Pop Culture - A Potpourri of Post Topics", "With Good Intentions", "When Help Hurts" )

=========================================================================

POSTSCRIPT

Having written this post, I just realized why the left so loves the play Antigone, and why they are so obsessed with portraying Creon as a proto-fascist. Funny how even in their entertainment the left tends to rankle at consistent laws.