Theocracy? Secular liberty? Something else? Why not all of ’em?

By David McElroy · August 1, 2011

In Egypt, there’s a lot of conflict right now about what is going to take the place of the previous dictatorship. There’s a new constitution, but the real question is whether the Muslim majority will find a way to impose conservative religious rule. And for those who believe so passionately in democracy, shouldn’t that be good enough if it’s what the majority want?

It would be entirely too easy to just write about the (completely expected) irony of westerners believing that the people of Egypt wanted a secular free state — the way we understand it — when they were in the streets opposing Hosni Mubarak, only to see them impose another form of repressive rule. But that’s sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, so I’m going in another direction.

I’m going to suggest that those demanding a strict Islamic nation should be able to have their way. That might surprise you until I add that they should be able to set up their city/state/enclave and the people who want different systems should be able to set up somewhere else.

People be able to set up their own independent enclaves, whether those enclaves are based on the ideas of Islam, Christianity, anarchy, Jeffersonian democracy, drug culture or Walt Disney. To prevent them from going on their own — as long as they own the land — is to enslave them.

The problem is that people wanting different systems are all spread amongst each other — and everybody believes he should be able to impose his version of utopia on everyone else. It’s a no-win situation unless you happen to be in the majority — in which case you can simply impose your will on everyone else. And how exactly is a dictatorship of the majority any better than a dictatorship of some minority or other, at least if you happen to be one of those who’s not in the dictatorship in either case?

The idea that huge territories are unified under one system and must be ruled in the same way is a remnant of the day when it was considered acceptable for nations to intentionally build empires. Today, we pretend that we don’t believe in empires — that we believe in freedom — but if you insist that one system has to rule everyone in Egypt (or all of North America or just California or Alabama), you’re defining an arbitrary empire and imposing your will on others.

Nation-states are nothing but coercive forces that rule territory defined by imaginary lines on maps. There’s no logical reason for the boundaries. There’s no moral reason why this spot of ground should be Georgia and that spot a few feet away should be Florida. And there’s no reason that all of what we know as Egypt today should be ruled by one system, either religious or secular.

I don’t want to live in a theocracy, either an Islamic one or a Christian one. But some people do want that, and they should be able to do it without my permission (or your permission) and without them trying to force their system on me.

We could start by letting groups buy up entire areas and designate them — under some charter or other agreement — as something existing apart from the laws of the broader country around it. The only requirement would have to be that people are allowed to leave if they want to.

Somehow, we have to get past the notion that there’s One True Way that should (and has any moral right to) rule over all people. Until people have legitimate choices about which system to live under, the alleged freedom of a democratic state is pretty meaningless in the long run, whether it’s Egypt or America.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts