Midget, Midget, Midget, Midget, Midget....

Yes, those who shout and holler for governement to use its coercive instruments in their favor come in all ages, colors, shapes, and sizes. According to Jennifer Maloney of Newsday.com, "Little People of America, at its annual conference in Brooklyn this week, has called for the Federal Communications Commission to ban the use of the word "midget" on broadcast TV." Yes we may now add "midget" to George Carlin's infamous list of 7 naughty words the utterance of which ensures punishment from the federal government. It pains me to see our lawful lexicon reduced because of the ever so delicate sensibilities of a few though it must be stressed that certainly not all of our smaller comrades support this measure. Well, here's a hodge-podge words and phrases that offend me. Hark, I submit my grievances:

-social justice
-living Constitution
-cap and trade
-family values
-stimulus
-living wage
-price gouging
-spreading the wealth
-green jobs
-private-public partnerships
-predatory lending
-neoliberal agenda
-paradox of saving

These words and phrases tick me off because they're typically used to justify legalized acts of aggressive coercion by the state. Where's my reprieve???

Now I'm positive that living as a dwarf entails many many agonizing and humiliating experiences, surely. However, this hardly vindicates the right of government to therefore forcibly silence someone who uses the word "midget" because it inexorably contradicts the principle of "freedom of speech." "Freedom of speech" is actually an extension of the right to liberty, the moral principle which sanctions the freedom of every individual to express his thoughts and beliefs, free, that is, from physically coercive suppression or the threat of such suppression. The goodness and practicality of recognizing this moral principle is easily understood by imagining a "society" that was either hostile or ambivalent towards it. If individuals could not guide their lives by their own independent judgment, they would perish. It may be countered that some people refuse to guide their lives in accordance with reason and that, therefore, it is morally permissible to submit them to coercion if such coercion is motivated by a desire to force the irrational to act rationally. This argument certainly sounds seductive given that so much of our socio-economic problems exist as a result of a deficit of rational people. Nevertheless, the "coercion for rationality's sake" argument commits a crucial error.

The dilemma of the argument is that one cannot force another to be rational. Rationality is the voluntary acceptance of the fact that reason is the only appropriate means with which to achieve the end of possessing knowledge. Rationality cannot be imposed upon another because of the fact identified by the axiom of free will which states that each and every (non-physiologically inhibited) human being is capable of fully controlling all of his thoughts and is capable of making decisions. The denier of free will, the determinist, in order to be consistent with his determinism must concede that his advocacy of determinism is determined as well. Thus, if his endorsement of determinism is determined how does he know that determinism makes a true claim instead of a false one? His advocacy of it, according to determinism, occurs without his control, regardless if its true or not. As N.L. Geisler writes,

"A determinist must contend that both he and the nondeterminist are determined to believe what they believe. Yet the determinist attempts to convince the nondeterminist that determinism is true and thus ought to be believed. However, on the basis of pure determinism "ought" has no meaning. For "ought" means "could have and should have done otherwise." But this is impossible according to determinism. A way around this objection is for the determinist to argue that he was determined to say that one ought to accept his view. However, his opponent can respond by saying that he was determined to accept a contrary view. Thus determinism cannot eliminate an opposing position. This allows the possibility for a free will position."

At least in regards to free will, we have all witnessed through perception countless opportunities where alternative courses of action have existed and that we were capable of pursuing one among others. Thus, we may conclude that free will exists because the contradiction of "the free will axiom is true" is false.

The specific reason why one cannot forcibly deposit rationality into another is that the acceptance of rationality is a mental task stemming from an act of free will. Rationality is a mentality. Though it may be true that "Socrates is mortal," I cannot coerce another into knowing its true. Since a man controls his thoughts and choices, the exclusivity of his control means no one else may do so. A man cannot both control and not control his thoughts and choices simultaneously and in the same respect. Thus, I cannot control another in such a way so as to make him become rational. We may like for people to be rational, to be respectful and refrain from calling dwarfs "midgets." However, it would be erroneous to assert that we could make them rational by instituting force against them.

Moreover, being called a pejorative term does not suspend the recipient's mind. Dwarfs do not have their right's violated, their freedom of action reduced or removed because another calls them a name. And effectively dealing with the offense of calling another a "midget" would entail criticism and social ostracism, not coercion, as we see with the use of the infamous "N" word which, as a result of increased critical scrutiny, has been reduced to usage with an entirely different connotation.