by Alex Fidel
The fundamental problem with most discriminatory laws is that their foundations are in group rights, otherwise known as ‘collectivism.’
Laws based on collectivism have no baseline rule of law; rights are given arbitrarily based on what group you belong to (i.e. groups based on race, color, religion, sexual preference, income, political views, etc.). This also implies that rights come from men, which is clearly not the case. Rights come from our existence as humans, and are not delegated by the will of any man. Collectivism implies that an authority exists to designate which rights you have (most of which have nothing to do with freedom). Without a baseline rule of law, the tyranny of the majority generally decides what rights certain groups of people can have. Examples include Soviet Russia (groups based on income and political views) or the Jim Crow South (groups based on race/color).
Individual rights have a baseline rule of law, such as the freedom of speech or the right to contract, which applies to all humans equally, regardless of what group you belong to. It also gives authority the purpose of protecting these rights, not designating them. It cannot take them away, because the rights exist whether there is a charter for them or not. You have rights, because you exist as a human. You can’t have more or less rights based on some group you belong to. Examples include United States (which was perfected when slavery was abolished and the 14th Amendment insured equal protection).
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a law based on group rights. It tells individual humans they have different rights because they are homosexual, and anyone with a brain knows that homosexuality is not a choice. It does not meticulously judge each individual person by their merit and ability to perform various tasks necessary to their employment condition. You could have a gay Rambo and he’d be denied.
If the military were a 100% private entity, this would not be the case, because anyone can go to another firm looking for a job (would you want to work for a homophobe anyways?). But since this is the case of government, and government has a legal monopoly on force, they aren’t supposed to discriminate based on some group you may or may not belong to.
DADT restricts speech for only certain people who belong to an arbitrary group. I could openly say I’m a libertarian, and that could irk someone who doesn’t like libertarians. But free speech protects offensive speech, as long as it is not accompanied by violence. If anything, homophobes (or libertyphobes) should recieve penalties based on merit, because they’d be straying from the task at hand which is a term of their employment. Now if they were penalized for being homophobes, that’d be wrong; freedom is a two-way street, as long as there is no violence. Now if a gay member of the military was to sexually harass someone, that should be penalized in the same way if a straight guy were to harass a female member of the military (and vice-versa). Individual rights and equal protection also implies that punishment shouldn’t differ based on groups either (such as politicians getting away with tax evasion).
Haven’t we always been taught that we always don’t end up working with people we don’t like? DADT reverses that age old idea. What if there was a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy for people who whistle abnoxiously when not doing important work-related tasks (such as during lunch or in the parking lot), and talked about his hobby of whistling openly to some people? In any private sector job, it would be stupid to report that to your boss. You should ignore it and focus on your job is what he or she would say. But in the military, what you do in your private life and choose to express to people (in whatever context) could get you fired, simply because some other member can’t get over an arbitrary fact and focus on their job. I think people’s rational self-interest will take over and realize if they focus on such absurd things like the sexual orientation of their colleagues, that it will endanger them in the battlefield. I think they’d be more concerned with staying alive on the battlefield.
Besides, does being gay automatically make you a sexual abuser? That logic seems absurd. If someone does, they (once again) shouldn’t be punished for the gay part, they should be punished for the fact that they initiated force upon another individual, same as if a guy did it to a girl.
Your probably thinking ‘why should Alex care about DADT, because it won’t affect him.’ True, true. It won’t affect me, because I’m straight and will never ever join the military (not even for draft). But I care because 1) I’m not selfish and 2) I can better protect my own individual liberties by protecting others’. Here’s a few examples: when Woodrow Wilson instituted the income tax, the promise was that only the rich would pay taxes, and even then it wouldn’t be that high. At the end of his presidency everyone was paying taxes (and a lot of them, too). By putting people into groups and deciding who does or does not have property rights, you leave it up to man to make decisions. The Founding Fathers understood that men are flawed, so you need to limit their power, and protect the basic rights of the individual. This is known as mission creep.
It can also work in the way where one guy can legislate collectivism from a faith-based way. People of faith will think it’s OK because it doesn’t affect them. But their guy won’t be in power forever, and the next guy will have that power structure to implement anti-faith laws. Both sides would be wrong; the authority should stay out of faith one way or the other.
Same works for DADT. Woodrow Wilson segregated the military based on skin color. The power structure implied by DADT could easily make way for a re-segregation of the military if the wrong guy got a policy making position. And be weary of the ‘common good’ argument that is made, a lot of bad things are done in the name of the ‘common good,’ no matter how well-intended. Getting rid of DADT would limit the power of the government to make policy based on groups, which would prevent the chances of such an injustice like racial segregation from happening in the military again.
We should really think twice about how it might eventually affect us if we support policy that affects people in different groups. We should support protection of individual rights, not arbitrarily designating ‘rights’ based on groups.
I think Ron Paul puts it best when he says–paraphrasing–”individual rights are the biggest enemy to racism.” It is true. Racism is a form of collectivism/group judgement, which is the antithesis to liberty.
So let’s repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and stop legislating people into groups. Rather, judge people based on the content of their character. And all this coming from a straight guy who wouldn’t even join the military in a time of draft, let alone volunteer.
“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
-Barry Goldwater*
*Harvey Milk supported Barry Goldwater for president in 1964