David, the last thing you need to worry about is my sliding into statism because the TSA may have reduced its statism by a notch and I approve of it.
If some day a robber who shoots people in his robberies switches to tying them up instead, I’ll still be thinking that’s better and the people are better off than being dead.
The income tax “argument” you present doesn’t hold water. More coercion is worse than less coercion. Is that so difficult to understand? A 40% tax rate is worse than a 20% rate and better than a 90% rate, even if all of them are evil in origin and practice by being coerced.
If we are to argue in terms of evil as a guide to our approvals and disapprovals of human actions, we are very quickly going to founder on many problems of defining what’s evil and what isn’t. However, on those grounds, I’d say that the lesser of two evils is indeed still evil, but it’s less evil. What’s the problem with approving that an evil-doer has chosen the lesser of two evils? It doesn’t mean we approve of the evil. If a drunk cut his consumption from a quart a day to 10 ounces a day, both being evil by his own standard, would you be indifferent to his progress?
If instead we argue in terms of rights, I’d say that there are greater and lesser violations of rights. The TSA violates rights all the time. If it puts in a policy that lessens the rights it violates (without its ramifications causing even worse rights violations in the future), why should we not approve of it?
Half a loaf is better than none. Clarification: Half a right is better than no right at all. The “loaf” in this saying is a GOOD, as you say. It’s not evil, and that’s exactly what I meant. It’s better to be able to walk around a prison yard every day than be in solitary confinement with no light. The good is “exercising in light in an unconfined way.”
11:47 am on October 21, 2012
