Law, Legislation and Liberty - Policy Creation – Correct Perspective - Government as Educator not Regulator

Law, Legislation and Liberty - Policy Creation – Correct Perspective - Government as Educator not Regulator

When you read any piece of legislation, legislation being the practical expression of policy, the language is always directive by authority. The fundamental view in structuring law has government as the authority and the population to obey or suffer the consequences. This is an errant perspective as it assumes us subordinate to government; a) when the opposite is supposed to be true b) when our charter extends us autonomy as a basic human right. If you believe as I do, that we exist as sovereign beings and liberty is a right of our humanity as opposed to something the state grants us, this authoritarian stance of the government is very offensive. The government should be issuing directions as opposed to edicts.

Government has an important role as a mediator, or, through the law, to provide the effective interaction of the citizenry – the government has no meaningful role in personal choice, especially when personal choices made are benign to the rest of the populous. Government has an important role as a protector from outside threats; it has no role in protecting us from ourselves - saves to the provision of non-biased & reliable information for us to choose with. When thinking about the policy the thrust needs to be, how do we facilitate human action as it originates from the individual, as opposed to how do we control people; Canadians are a collection of individuals as opposed to a group of people, so in providing choice to a well-informed populous, we move decision making closer to the point of action and inherent in exercising choice is ownership, and in ownership is responsibility; a more responsible and actuated population emerges.   

Rather than having a drug policy that enforces a moral code against the altered state, have a drug policy that informs the public of the risks and benefits of all substance use. In the early 1970s, 70% of the adult population smoked, now about 15% do. Cigarettes are still legal, however, by informing the public, the government effected a cultural shift that moved smoking from an action of status to one of a fool. When people see the skull and crossbones on a container they know the contents are poison – rationale people avoid eating the contents. The Canadian landscape has literally millions of dangers, the government is unable to put handrails on every cliff in Canada, and it relies on parents to teach their children to avoid walking off cliffs. People have the capacity to manage their own lives, and government policy should extend them as full a breath of action as possible. 

With law – less is more. In Canada we are over-governed, increasingly our personal lives are governed. This is the case because the government to often is trying to manage personal matters, the government has trouble with managing slow-moving, large and sturdy infrastructure, so it should stay away from micro-managing Canadian’s personal lives by regulating every possible aspect of life. Since my parent's day, there has been an insidious escalation into our private lives, we have become in many ways a totalitarian state – if one measures the breadth of government involvement in our personal lives juxtaposed against any other point in history.            

Law, Legislation and Liberty Policy Creation – Correct Perspective - Morality

Law, Legislation and Liberty Policy Creation – Correct Perspective - Morality

If you begin the process of making policy with a skewed perspective, the policy will be skewed. If you begin policy making from the perspective of what should be, rather than what is, you will get a skewed policy. Religious morality is founded on the assertions of people in the context of their metaphysical contemplations rather than fact, whether they believe in God or Christ, Mahmoud, polytheist or some variation on a given theme. The challenge with the irrationality of religion being mixed with policy is that people are busy effecting control over the populous rather than managing societal outcomes.  Religious morality came into being to manage human interface in a beneficial manner, morality is in no way created to stop the behaviour, but rather to effect societal outcomes – as a person subjecting themselves to theocratic rigour one has the right to ignore outcome, one involved in the governance process must hold outcome as paramount.    

To assert religious belief as irrational is accurate, in that, the notion of faith absent tangible proof is irrational as a result of the assertion being unsubstantiated. This is, in no way an affirmation of atheism, but rather, a criticism of the misapplication of religious morality in governance which results in outcomes that contradict the basic premises of the Christian faith (in the Canadian context) and conflict with the enlightenment / secular ideals as they are want to find expression in a free and democratic society. There needs to be a detachment from religious belief in the policy creation process to ensure rational policy that meets the requirements of society at large.

As an aside, a comment on the Christian moral perspective. Metaphysical contemplation has inherent the reality that it must start where human knowledge ends, the Christian moral perspective evolves from the views and general understanding of people who, in many cases, lived in excess of 2000 thousand years ago. The assumption that order is preexisting, as opposed to realizing the universe is in a state of flux, assumes that all creatures and things were the product of a single Genesis and are fixed when the world indicates differently. Assuming a fixed point of origin provides a reference point, but creates a distortion in perception, as the “fixed point of origin” occurred in a state of flux. The beginning and the end are unknown and unknowable, and are the place of metaphysical contemplation; assumptions that distort this reality serve to confound thought, distort progress and generally limit humanity. The ardent adherence to orthodoxy ofttimes generates an immoral circumstance; one would think that in our modern society “orthodoxy” as it relates to any religion & government policy would have folded, it does linger, however, so we have to work to ensure that the negative outcomes generated by orthodoxy get remedied and the positive preserved.

Moral Relativism is a term normally murmured as a pejorative; I, on the other hand, see moral relativism as a philosophy that permits “traditional believes” to provide direction while allowing people’s conduct to evolve with advancements in knowledge and technology. When one permits the “reexamination” of moral tenets, an examination undertaken with the desired outcomes of the “founders” of a given m oral complex in mind – one can begin to expand the human endeavour and achieve the worthwhile “societal” outcomes we all desire. One is also permitted to examine an issue absent prejudice, to really examine an issue from a place of reason. Many of (y)our most vexing challenges – even in modern Canada – paths to a solution are blocked by the inappropriate adherence to “outmoded” moral perspectives. Rather than taking a public health perspective, a populist perspective or just the most efficient solution perspective, we are locked in a repeat of bad policy the attempts to adhere to a single moral perspective with outcomes that marginalize and effect grossly immoral outcomes on our most vulnerable.

If it is your goal, as it is mine, to have whole and well-adjusted family units – which is the underlying desire of much of the religion-based moral complex, then build a policy that addresses that goal – rather than directing resources to block “vice” for example. Prostitution will occur, it is contrary to the aforementioned goal, however, by directing resources to stop it you starve the governance energy to support a family or what some may term as the more “wholesome” aspects of life. It is necessary at times to “ignore” behaviour to address the root causes of the behaviour you're want to correct or redirect. The public health perspective on prostitution brings people in the “trade” into the ambit of health professionals, people who can offer a way to a different life should a different life be desired. In the process of “fighting” vice, we marginalize and alienate people drawn to the “trade”, oft times by unfortunate circumstances. There is a paradox that exists in developing policy – the ardent adherence to moral orthodoxy often leads to a damaging outcome. It is the ardent adherence to the institutionalized Christian moral perspective with respect to the altered state that has us “warring” against our own people in the realm of drug policy; even when it was our very drug policy that has imposed illness on a given individual.  

The correct basis in thought for good policy has firstly, the desire to find the best overall outcome founded on science and fact, and secondly, the willingness to expose policy execution to honest, rigorous post-application assessment. Only by establishing indicators, benchmarks and milestones based on a clear set of metrics can we ensure the policy is doing what it is intended to do.          

Morality is far too idiosyncratic for government to manage; morality belongs squarely in civil society. Any given person’s moral perspective evolves, most often absent conscious thought, from their family and their family’s religious practice or the absence of religious practice.  So you may disagree with a person’s actions, fear for their sole – so speak to that person; you may enlighten them to another perspective. I should emphasize that this commentary is in no way an attack on any given religious perspective. The challenge arises when institutional credibility rides on dogma challenged by substantiated fact and government authority is appropriated to further dogma. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, all we need for a reason to prevail is to accept another’s truth to be as valid as our own. It is critical, however, that government policy generates neutrality in the public square. A child should be the able to start down any street with a given moral perspective and level of awareness and emerge out the other end unchanged, save a parent’s chosen direction.