(click on ads for more details)

Cabarets, Children, and Collectivism

by Corey Cagle

After reading the Metro section of Friday’s Courier-Journal, I am deeply concerned about two seemingly unrelated events which, in fact, share a common premise. The first of these events is the Aldermen’s proposed cabaret laws. I am constantly taken aback by the audacity of modern politicians (both Democrat and Republican) who think they have the Divine Right of Kings to interfere in the private business of mutually consenting adults. If young ladies choose to take off their clothes and dance for men who choose to pay for the privilege, who is harmed by their actions?

The president of the Board of Aldermen, Steve Magre, was quoted as saying that some dancers engage in “lewd, immoral, and obscene entertainment.” I must ask, “Lewd, immoral, and obscene by whose standards?” I’m sure that Mr. Magre would invoke Vox Populi and claim that these are the community’s standards; however, they are obviously not the standards of the owners of gentleman’s clubs, nor of the girls employed there, nor of their patrons. Are these individuals not as much a part of the community as the ultra-religious who do share Mr. Magre’s opinion? Does the Board of Aldermen believe they have the right to enforce their morality and values on those who do not share them?

The second issue which troubles me is the much-lauded “Community for Successful Youth” project. While this kind of warm, fuzzy, feel-good program is sure to be a hit with fans of Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village, it offends my Libertarian sensibilities. Particularly offensive is the project’s motto: “The success of every child is the responsibility of every adult.” This kind of communitarian bromide would not have been out of place in Soviet Russia or Red China, but it is vastly inappropriate in a free country. The article goes on to say that the program will have to overcome “the fear many adults have about intervening in the lives of someone else’s child.” I find it quite interesting that the author chose the word “fear.” “Respect” would have been far more appropriate.

I’m certain that many of you are now wondering what possible connection I could find between these two events, as I did say they share a common premise. That premise is collectivism. Collectivism is the philosophy that the group, or collective, must be put ahead of the individual. Alderman Magre operates on this premise implicitly by pushing for laws that limit personal freedom for the “common good,” while Rebecca Jackson states this premise explicitly in her project’s motto. If young people are going to develop good character, and if lawmakers are going to learn their proper limits, then they must learn to operate on a different premise, specifically that of individualism. It is only individualism that can give birth to the self-responsibility and personal liberty that are the hallmark of the American Republic.

(Editor’s note:  Just because we may think something is immoral, for example, nude dancing, does not mean we should want it to be made illegal, and just because we may think something is right, for example, helping other people’s children, does not mean it should be mandatory. If we don’t want a nude club in the area, there are many things we can do without resorting to force.  First, we should not support the club with our money.  If it is not profitable, it will not last long.  Second, we can picket the club, post photos of the patrons on the internet, and so forth, all without bringing in the long arm of the law.  Similarly, there are many things we can do to help children without using force.  We can coach a team, lead a scout group, donate to a scholarship fund, and befriend neighborhood children, for example, again without bringing in the long arm of the law.  The use of government force must be greatly restricted if we are to live in harmony with other people who have views that may be very different from our own.  If we are willing to impose our views on others by force, we can expect that they will also try to impose their views on us by force, such as forcing the boy scouts to accept gay leaders, for example.  If we really believe in the wisdom of our positions, we should use persuasion to try to convince others, but we should not resort to force except to defend life, liberty and property.)