| « The Hobbit, coming to film | my 2012 ballot - Washington initiatives » |
the country club
I intend here to recount what I understand as the "country club" analogy, and then to explain deficiencies I find in its application to discussion of social interactions.
The "country club" analogy argues that the bad things in the social order are the price we must pay to live in the society. It might be expressed as "if you don't like it here why don't you move somewhere else? Oh, you still find things of value where you are? Well then, stop arguing and put up with it". In the past it has been expressed as "are you a communist? why don't you go back to Russia?"
A specific casting of the analogy applies to the proper scope of government, particularly regarding property. That casting emphasizes the notion of property rights as understood in the context of a country club, condominium association or gated community. In such cases, easements in the deed restrict one's use of the property in question: external paint colors, tending of the landscapes, limitations on business operations, parking curbside overnight, etc. The analogy holds that government law equates to such easements.
Three factors contribute to the analogy lacking helpfulness in discussing human interaction: 1) selective application, 2) failure of distinction, and 3) lack of relevance.
Selective application: No one I know happily accepts the current state of political affairs. Many of us want to make the world a better place. Should we all move elsewhere because government policy opposes our desires? Or should we invoke this analogy only when considering particular areas of government action and not others?
Failure of distinction: The analogy fails to represent key features distinguishing government and country clubs. Country club easements limit its authority, while even clearly worded constitutional provisions fail to limit the authority claimed for government. One can move to a country club with reasonable assurance of stability in the restrictions on property; government restrictions change continuously. The country club cares not for one's behavior within the property bounds; government restrictions on behavior are commonplace. Country clubs don't use one's dues to hire thugs to invade a neighboring club and steal their property, while governments wage war continuously.
Lack of relevance: invoking the analogy does not address the points of discussion. If the original discussion deals with the efficacy of single payer health care, central bank financing, or myriad other schemes, to assert that anyone who disagrees should move away constitutes a non sequitur.
This entry was posted on November 18th, 2012 at 19:50:00 by Adumbrator and is filed under prohibitions, exhortations, human nature.
