Symmetry vs quid pro quo
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-10-court_N.htm
Jose Medellin raped and killed two young girls. No dispute there. However, as a Mexican citizen, he did not get the opportunity to meet with a representative of Mexico after being charged with the crime. So, like the un-Marandized person, he may get to walk on this one.
This case is confusing because, on one hand, we would like to believe that to punish a person for raping and killing young women would be a no-brainer, acceptable in any society. Having a representative of Mexico present should not have had any impact on the outcome. Symmetrically, this would imply that an American in Mexico who raped and killed two women there would (and should) suffer the same fate.
The concept of symmetry is a common one in the liberal mindset. You have money and someone else needs it? You give and they get.
The real issue, though, is quid pro quo. The heart of the issue is that various countries can have laws that are strange by our standards or legal systems that are unfair or corrupt by our standards. What we want is a quid pro quo. We want the opportunity to assist our citizens who are caught up in a legal system alien to our own on charges that would not be crimes here. So, we give that same privilege to other countries here, even in particularly heinous situations, such as this disgusting case.
The concept of quid pro quo is part of the conservative mindset. You have money and someone else needs it? For what? You give them the money and they do what they are supposed to do with it, and pay it forward, by doing good deeds for others within their means to do so, and so on.
The focus on symmetry rather than on quid pro quo is one of the most frustrating things about liberalism. Unwed and unemployed mothers get money for their children but where is the data that they spend it on the child and live up to their responsibilities in sending their children to school and in being good parents and good role models? The liberal belief in doing good for the extended group falls apart when gifts are squandered and quid pro quo is not realized.
One of DocBrain's liberal friends explains the quid pro quo as "We give them money so they won't riot." My reading of liberal diatribes and philosophy would suggest that this is not what the liberals really want their money to do, but I could be wrong. This could be all that is really under the surface. It certainly would explain the concept of "entitlement" as compared to the unused concept of "payment in advance for services you will render".
Jose Medellin raped and killed two young girls. No dispute there. However, as a Mexican citizen, he did not get the opportunity to meet with a representative of Mexico after being charged with the crime. So, like the un-Marandized person, he may get to walk on this one.
This case is confusing because, on one hand, we would like to believe that to punish a person for raping and killing young women would be a no-brainer, acceptable in any society. Having a representative of Mexico present should not have had any impact on the outcome. Symmetrically, this would imply that an American in Mexico who raped and killed two women there would (and should) suffer the same fate.
The concept of symmetry is a common one in the liberal mindset. You have money and someone else needs it? You give and they get.
The real issue, though, is quid pro quo. The heart of the issue is that various countries can have laws that are strange by our standards or legal systems that are unfair or corrupt by our standards. What we want is a quid pro quo. We want the opportunity to assist our citizens who are caught up in a legal system alien to our own on charges that would not be crimes here. So, we give that same privilege to other countries here, even in particularly heinous situations, such as this disgusting case.
The concept of quid pro quo is part of the conservative mindset. You have money and someone else needs it? For what? You give them the money and they do what they are supposed to do with it, and pay it forward, by doing good deeds for others within their means to do so, and so on.
The focus on symmetry rather than on quid pro quo is one of the most frustrating things about liberalism. Unwed and unemployed mothers get money for their children but where is the data that they spend it on the child and live up to their responsibilities in sending their children to school and in being good parents and good role models? The liberal belief in doing good for the extended group falls apart when gifts are squandered and quid pro quo is not realized.
One of DocBrain's liberal friends explains the quid pro quo as "We give them money so they won't riot." My reading of liberal diatribes and philosophy would suggest that this is not what the liberals really want their money to do, but I could be wrong. This could be all that is really under the surface. It certainly would explain the concept of "entitlement" as compared to the unused concept of "payment in advance for services you will render".
posted by DocBrain at
4:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home