Sunday, May 06, 2007

WHY BANNING HUMAN NATURE DOESN'T WORK


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Sam Smith

We managed to get through the first two hundred years of America with
less than half as many laws as we now seem to feel necessary. There is,
however, little evidence that the contemporary prohibitionary glut has
done us much good. Instead, during our most recent period, American
culture, empire and communities began disintegrating and our economy
increasingly shifted from actually making things to merely marketing and
betting on them.

Although many long for a saner America of yesteryear, with the exception
of the absurdly masochistic war on terror, few associate our numerous
crises with the manic efforts to prevent them. We have come to accept
the false notion that one can improve life by prevention rather than by
creation, by banning people rather than joining with them, and by
building sterile walls rather than functioning communities.

There are many reasons for this change, with one of the least apparent
being the tendency of federal, state and local legislatures to meet a
far great proportion of the year than was once the case. But there is
also the problem that eventually one just runs out of useful things to
ban.

I have suggested, for example, that Washington adopt as its motto, "DC:
Where Life Is A Moving Violation" because hardly anything can go astray
here without some publicity-addicted councilmember suggesting a new law
to prevent or require something.

One of the ways to get us back into the habit of passing only such laws
as really work would be to adopt the principle that whenever you find a
significant number of normally law abiding citizens violating a law, you
not only change the law, you adopt some form of their misbehavior as
public policy.

This principle is widely adaptable, covering such matters as pot
smoking, prostitution, double parking, illegal apartments and bored
students misbehaving in the classroom.

In each case the violators are on to something. For example, despite the
best efforts of the prohibitionists, it is becoming increasingly
apparent that marijuana can help the medical profession and its patients
in a number of important ways. Legalized prostitution is clearly
healthier for all concerned than the prohibited version. Bored students
are largely the result of boring teachers keeping them in boring
positions for too long.

Double parking is one of the best indicators of a well working urban
business community and also provides encouragement for other drivers to
use public transportation. For example, we have a commercial street in
our neighborhood that is regularly double-parked, mostly with impunity.
In fact, a thriving Korean buffet that offers uniformed officials a
discount regularly has police cars, ambulances and even fire engines
double parked outside its doors. No one other than the parking enforcers
seem to think this is a bad thing.

Similarly, illegal apartments mainly define the need for a change in
zoning codes. Los Angeles has some 40,000 of them; they are one of the
cheapest and most effective forms of smart growth, not to mention the
fact that they add diversity to a neighborhood and help the elderly and
non-rich pay their mortgages.

Mind you, I'm not making a libertarian - or any sort of political -
argument here. Rather I'm suggesting that viewing one's laws through the
lens of culture and behavior will lead to much better results than blind
faith in the law. In other words, we need more anthropologists and
psychologists in our legislatures and fewer lawyers.

Of course, we are far from an such enlightenment as recent events in my
fair city have illustrated. For example, when one youngster became the
accidental victim of a club shooting in which she was not the target, a
priggish city councilmember immediately called for prohibitions that
would have severely damaged Washington's unique and wonderful tradition
of providing places where pre-drinking teens can go for live music.

Of course, as with other things, not everyone gets prohibited the same
way. For example, in the case of the DC Madam, a power hungry US
Attorney is pressing charges against a woman accused of providing
through her business sexual services to thousands of local men, some of
them holding prominent positions in government and elsewhere. None of
these men are being prosecuted, however.

Not a single major women's group has commented on this discrimination
and, in fact, the city's elite is quite upset with the idea that the
male perps in their midst should be exposed. It is perfectly all right
for a non-elite madam go to jail but not, god forbid, for responsible
members of the establishment. It is even okay to arrest lower class
johns who tackily hit the streets to pick up a partner. But we're
talking about gentile relationships by the men in key leadership
positions. That's a whole other matter.

An example of this hypocrisy is this blog comment by journalism
professor Jeff Jarvis:

"Is it really the proper duty of ABC News to look up the phone numbers
of the alleged Washington madam’s clients to expose them? Is that
journalism? Is that news? Is that their proper role? Oh, it’s certainly
gossip. It’s entertainment. . . But news that affects our lives? Oh,
come now. . . . Where will this escalation end? Will CBS be forced to
hunt down foot-fetishistic cross-dressing boy-loving porn-downloading
judges or football players or anchors and get a CSI out of it?
Seriously, I wonder about the propriety of ABC News taking this active
role in helping the reputed Madam out her clients to save her skin."

Jarvis is engaging in the long-standing tradition of the press covering
up the misbehavior of its sources. As I put it once, "Part of the
mythology of Washington is what might be called the Jim Lehrer Illusion,
which is to say that all people in the capital do is sit around and
rationally debate policy alternatives. In fact, Washington politics is
also heavily driven by cowardice, blackmail, deceit, fear, loyalty to
old buddies and even older bodies, cooptation, corruption, sex, and just
plain crime. Journalists who pretend otherwise either don't understand
what is going on or are covering for someone."

In the best of all worlds, neither the DC Madam nor her clients would be
indicted, but it is corrupt, sexist and hypocritical to demand that she
bear all the burden while her thousands of clients not only go free but
have their names kept secret.

And that, Congressmember or Councilmember, does not mean passing yet
another law to make sure that everyone goes to jail. It means having the
humility not to consider oneself the first in human history capable of
effectively banning purchased sex. It means learning how to work with,
around and in behalf of human nature rather than as its sworn enemy
based on some presumed but unverified personal superiority.

Besides, I think the DC Madam may have your telephone number.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

No comments: