Should and Must
Many commenters, of diverse backgrounds and political leanings, have talked about the importance of being responsible, polite and respectful when we engage in our right to speak freely. I certainly agree that such behavior is desirable, and that it would be wonderful if all people tried to follow that standard. Many people though seem to think that beyond this being a good idea, something that people should do, it is something that they must do, and therefore it should be illegal to do otherwise.
They want to turn a perfectly reasonable should, into a must.
This behavior is hardly uncommon; everyone from the liberal left to the social conservatives has shoulds that they passionately feel need to be musts. Only Libertarians seem to be an exception, and I expect that if they ever had any significant power they also would discover that they had beliefs that required legal enforcement.
This, probably entirely natural impulse, is best signified by the phrase ‘there outa be a law.’ While a very common impulse, it is not one we can treat lightly.
I think people often fail to understand the fundamental difference between a ‘should’ and a ‘must.’ Shoulds exist in the realm of persuasion through debate, social costs, and even economic impact. Violating society’s norms in the realm of shoulds can have real consequences, but consequences that can be born if one has a strong enough belief. Other shoulds, are controversial and a lively debate takes place on whether or not they are a ‘should’ at all. Violating these has consequences only from a limited group. However widely or narrowly a should is held though, the penalties imposed from violating it can only justly be exacted by exercising one’s own rights. As a simple example, if someone violates my notions of proper behavior, how a person should act, by being boorish, I can refuse to associate with them. If many people agree with me that this person is a boor, they will have a lonely life.
A must on the other hand exists in the realm of violence. It is not subject to persuasion by reason, but by force or threat of force. In a lawful society, this force is typically exercised by governmental power. When you change a should into a must, you are expressly advocating government violence to enforce that must. There are of course many things that we indeed hold to be musts. Not murdering people is a must. Not stealing is a must. There are also many things that have become a must, which perhaps do not belong in that category. In the context of recent events, I hold the European laws against holocaust denials as a very reasonable should that has been mistakenly turned into must. Doubtless nearly everyone can think of an example of their own of a law that falls into this category. Just as it seems to be a universal desire to turn one’s own shoulds into musts, there is a universal desire not to be bound by another’s shoulds.
I hold that advocating violence to enforce one’s beliefs is a very dangerous ground to walk on. While there are obvious norms that a society is required to enforce if it is to function, these are generally far more minimal than most people are willing to accept.
