Why is it that when busy-bodies want to control you, they always claim they are doing it “for the children?” Well, that’s just a silly question. Obviously, it’s because this is quite possibly the most powerful argument in history. Every bureaucratic scold holds it in reverence because he knows that nothing can resist it. All other forms of human persuasion — logic, reason, facts — are powerless against it. Every bureaucrat knows that if you want to get the support of the people, then you only have to find a way to make your issue “for the children” and you prevail. After all, you don’t hate children, do you?
Many have fallen before the power of this argument. The great unwashed tremble in fear of their bureaucrats, least they evoke the power of this dreaded argument. And now, the powers that be have unleashed their Kraken on Lewis Greenberg, a St. Louis artist who created a sculpture park in commemoration of the Holocaust out of his front yard. Greenberg has been sentenced to 20 days in jail for his landscaping decisions.
But what about property rights, asks the novice? Does Greenberg not own his property? Assuming he has not signed a private agreement — perhaps as part of a private neighborhood homeowners association — that such a thing as a front yard sculpture park can’t be erected, isn’t a property owner allowed to do with his property as he pleases? And if not, can you really say that he owns it? In the conspicuous absence of other supporting arguments, city officials went right for the big guns on this one, saying they “only want Greenberg to make his yard safe in a neighborhood full of young children.” Think of the children!
What about freedom of expression? Don’t citizens have a First Amendment right of free speech? Isn’t art a form of speech, and therefore protected under the constitution? Silly neophyte! Didn’t you know that you lose your First Amendment rights the moment there is even the possibility that someone could be offended? Some people don’t consider Greenberg’s Holocaust commemoration ”art.” To them it is an “eyesore” that “is lowering their property values.” On top of that, there are pointy sticks that could potentially impale some poor innocent child who engaged in trespassing on private property. Do you want children to be impaled?
In what appears to be a feud that goes beyond one man’s interpretation of the Holocaust, neighbors of Greenberg have tried everything to get him to remove the structures. When talking to Greenberg didn’t work, neighbors started calling the police on him. When the police department said that “the role of the city is to establish minimum standards, not to interpret individual expressions,” neighbors petitioned for a social worker “to determine whether he was fit to continue to live alone” in an attempt to get him committed. When the social worker declared Greenberg “mentally competent,” they pulled out the argument of last resort. If not for us, do it for the children!
Perhaps twenty days in prison is a small price to pay for the terrible danger Greenberg has unleashed on the children of this world. The rest of us should be happy that there are kind bureaucrats who care so deeply for the children that they are willing to set aside property rights and First Amendment rights and put someone away for the crime of erecting sculpture on private property. As obedient citizens, we can only hope that when we grow old ourselves and proceed to make questionable landscaping decisions there will be such a benevolent neighborhood association with the backing of law enforcement ready to put us in jail or a mental institution, whichever is politically more expedient. We can rejoice that we finally have the power to jail our neighbors who indulge in gaudy concrete gnomes and plastic lawn animals. We can sympathize with the city prosecutor who lamented that, “there is only so much we can do. We can’t take a bulldozer to the property.” But it’s possible that even he underestimates the sheer awesomeness of “for the children.” Even bulldozing the property is not beyond the power of this argument. He’s just not trying hard enough. Does he hate children?
