The tragic and the criminal

In an earlier post, I wrote about two opposing views of the nature of man. (Well, okay, I talked about someone talking about someone else writing about it. But you get the idea.)

Another dichotomy I've noticed is one of the differences between (modern) liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to eliminate the tragic. Conservatives want to eliminate the criminal. (And yes, I'm painting with a broad brush here.)

Health care coverage is an excellent example of this. It's tragic that, in this country, there are people who don't have adequate health care coverage. Liberals aim for 100% coverage in the hopes of eliminating tragedies. Conservatives are against any government-run health care coverage because they consider it criminal to steal money from some to pay for the health care of others. Similarly, they're against treating health care as a right, because they consider it criminal to enslave doctors in the service of others.

Gun control is another example. It's tragic when some teenager gets killed, even if that teenager was in the midst of committing a crime. It's entirely possible that said teenager, once out of jail, might have reformed himself and become a shining example of a productive member of society. Liberals want to avoid tragedies such as these by getting rid of all guns. On the other hand, if said teenager had killed his victim in the commission of his crime, that would have been criminal. Conservatives want to eliminate criminal acts such as these by guaranteeing that the innocent have the right to defend themselves.

For me the basic difference between the tragic and the criminal is intent. It's tragic when a child develops cancer and dies, but the cancer was not the malicious intent of another individual. It's criminal when someone puts a gun to that child's head and pulls the trigger, as the act is the malicious intent of another.