Power and the Law

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", so said Lord Acton. Our Founders found this to be so, as well. They framed our government so power could not be absolute, or at least ideally. There are always ways around the law, but those that choose to abide by our laws do so to promote order, and value the liberty our laws are to protect!

Those that are driven by power are driven because of  insatiable needs that corrupt them from governing for the "greater good" or from being "public representatives" that serve the public's interests. Power does corrupt. Power has a deadening effect on those under it. There is a sense of invincibility when one has power to wield. Therefore, power must be held by those that are self-reflective enough to know its deadening impact. Many have lost their "life" and reputations because of using their power and influence to gain absolution from the law. Fudging on one's income taxes is to be expected, everyone does it. Then, what are the laws defending? Are laws there to protect some ideal? And what is the rationale for these laws and ideals?

These are questions that concern our courts, in our present day. But, they used to concern the average citizen. People were more prone to self-evaluation back then. Religion serves the purpose of self-reflection for fear of "God's judgment", or "fitting in" with the Church club. And rightly so, for the philosophers of the past said that an "unexamined life is one not worth living".

Religion today does not serve the purpose of "examing one's life". Religion serves the end of justification of one's life or one's end. This leaves little room for self-reflection or self-examination, and religion ends up being the validation of "stoning another" or judging another based on personal conviction.

Personal conviction was the liberty of conscience our Founders granted under law. Religous conscience is valued, but was never to condone the right of judgment, as that was the place of government. Government was to protect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, nowadays, the religious fear that our nation has gone too far.

While I agree that our nation has dissolved any means of evaluating values, it isn't because Americans aren't religious/believers, but because religion and the American way of life itself has gotten in the way of "self reflection". We don't have time to do everything on our plates. We delegate to those we hardly know and suffer the consequences of unwise delegation.

We hurry to meet all our promises, which we can hardly meet, with family responsibilities and we wonder why our families suffer or deadlines go by without our meeting them. We bite off more than we can chew. We must know our strengths and weaknesses enough to know what we can handle and make our choices wisely.

Many have gotten into financial straits because they have only looked at the monthly payment, and presumed upon the future, not preparing for it. Wisdom doesn't presume upon others, but meets life with an attitude that one must take their own responsiblity, and not look to others for the hand-out, nor should we compare our standard of living with another's. Everyone doesn't have the same material blessings. So what? The question should be is the pursuit of the material what life consists of? And what are the costs of such a pursuit?. This is not to say that no one should ever have a need that can't be met and our sociel networks could help provide, but more often than not, we are taught that we need dependence on others or that we have a right to have what everyone else has. Such teaching doesn't demand self-responsible behavior. Self-responsible behavior means that society consists for the most part of self-responsible adults, and not dependent children.

All governments are not equal. This is obvious to anyone that loves liberty. Is it moral to demand immoral governments to 'obey' or comply with human rights under the hand of our government's Power? How much should we intervene into other countries and their problems? And how do we choose to get involved? Are our own interests the only protections that are deemed worthy of using power? Obviously, America is limited by resources, and time. Are these what should frame what and when we "give a hand" to those wishing for reform?. But, there are other extenuating circumstances, that make for conflicting interests. Our politicians, and ambassadors are the ones that evaluate those decisions. And our judgments from afar might not know all the facts, nor the conflicts that impinge on such decisions.

I am no expert, by any means, but it seems to me that we all have biases about where we draw our lines. Most of us are not consistant, nor are we reflective enough to know why we choose what we do, nor why we do so. All of us need to evaluate ourselves and determine how we would "lead" if givern similar circumstances and ask ourselves why we make those choices. This would reveal our underlying motivations and determine our priority of values. Then, we might understand that decisions are not "black and white" solutions, but complex problems that need creative minds to solve.

Value and the Market

Something I read just recently just didn't sit well with me. The article stated that some things are valueless apart from the market.

While this is true in an economic system, it is not always the case for the individual and a choice of value. For instance, a family "heirloom", might not be a heirloom in the market, but it is to the family or a specific family member. So, market value is not always absolute. Nor is the market always the priority for choices of value.

Sometimes there are more important priorities than attaining success or the highest salary. I am NOT saying that seeking a higher salary or attaining the highest salary that one can is immoral or wrong. But, what one chooses to value cannot be determined by a system, necessarily.

The problem become when such attainments are sought at "any costs". Then, such comples systems can cause  unintentional outcomes that are horrendously immoral. And this is when one's choice of value imposes itself upon another's life.

The prevention of such unintentional outcomes would be prevented if the "rule of law" was upheld and those within such schemes would not cooperate when they found immoral practices, decisions or commitments.  But, the choice to stand against such systems brings costs that many don't want to pay. And then, those that have the unfortunate circumstances to be associated with such people have to pay the price!

Which Is It? Balancing Power or Abuse of Power

What is the difference in the balance or power or abuse of power?

The balancing of power is a horozonal view based upon separate functions, but equal distribution of power. Balncing power means that the separate branches of government are protected from conflicts of interest. Jefferson moved the Supreme Court from the Capitol building for this very reason. Balncing power is about democracy, and human rights, while abuse of power doesn't maintain that power is equally distributed. Power just is. And  unchecked power, or power without any limits makes for the "abuse of power".

Abuse of power is about hierarchal view of organizational structuring of society, or government. Such is the  Republican form of government that America was founded upon. The principle of leadership, that is
representative. We are a government "by and for the people".

Power is about money, position, influence, information, and knowledge. And such aspects of power are useful to protect the individual from those that might be unscrupulous in their use of power. Power can be represented by groups or an indivdual. But, groups that have collective influence, inside information and money, are the foudations of corrupt government. Corrupt government do not represent "the people", but themselves, in insider trading, protecting each other's backs and outright pay-offs and bribery.

In America, we have laws that protect "the little guy" from such corruption. Our very form of government is the "rule of law". We are  "a people" that is ruled by law and not a King/Divine. And the law is equally binding on every individual. It is what protects all of our interests, when we value "the rule of law" and its protections, because the law is to balance power and prevent "abuse of power".

Irrational Faith and a Reasoned Frame

Some believe in irrational faith. These believe that our actions 'prove" the validity of our faith, not by reason, itself,, but within the framework of an archetype. Reason is not "rational", or understood, except within a certain "paradigm". Such thinking is not 'universal' but culture specific.

Culture is an environment that adheres to certain standards, beliefs, norms, and values. Religious cultures are framed by religious authorities, inspired texts, doctrines, or 'accepted' moral models. These do not allow liberty because of their specific framing/paradigm. Reason in this sense is not 'free' to understand anything apart from the "affirmed culture" or accepted norm. Science, as well as religion frames understanding by accepted "rules" of understanding nature, or society. The difference, is that science is open to new information, at least in theory. Religion is not as open.

America believes that religious freedom is about individual conscience. The individual is free to choose where they will or will not associate. American values are determined  by the "rule of law" defined in our Constitution. And our Constitution respects and protects individual liberty from government intrusion, but does it protect from "irrational faith' claims? This is what our nation faces in  "irrational faith"s demand for equal protections under our Constitutional government. Equality under law means that irregardless of one's faith or lack thereof, there must be protections under law. Therefore, our nation is just.

Irrational faith is about speicified behavior, and beliefs that motivate such behavior. It cannot be reasoned with because of its commitment to the paradigm of choice. Defensiveness is the stance to "outside" attempts to re-frame one's life. Knowledge itself can be threatening because it brings cognitive challenges to one's chosen paradigm. Defensiveness to change protects "identity" itself.

"Life" is lived within these cultural frames, without realizing or reflecting on why these frames have any power to continue over one's life. Reasoned framing of life conflicts with foundational understandings about life and is too threatening to one's identity to "let go", or escape. Science, too attempts to understand 'new information' based upon past "frames" (accepted theories). But, whenever the paradigm shifts in scienctific understanding, there is also resistance. Science attempts to evaluate nature upon foundational physical/mathmatical undestandings.

I believe our brains  encapsulate our memories. And memories are about emotions, as much as experience itself. The "feeling" of belonging to family, tribe or nation is too "human" to dismiss lightly. Our self-understanding is dependent on such connections and networking. A re-framing of one's identity is what happens whenever one discovers that their frame has lost "meaning" or significance for/to "self", as "self" is defined by these  frames of reference. A re-defining of scientific understanding also challenges science's "identity", as science is a "culture", too.

Irrational believers don't stop to consider these aspects of "framing one's reality", because they are too "committed to their cause", thinking that the radical nature of their commitment confirms the "truth" of their irrational claims. And this kind of thinking thinks that everyone should believe and commit as they do, otherwise, there is "no faith".

Irrational faith is a limited way of thinking and being in the world. And it hinders "peace", because it limits diversity.

Rights and Relationship

This morning while talking with a friend, I realized that if we base our nation's values on individual rights, then the homosexual has the right to a civil marriage. Some find that this does not dissolve the issue between the Church's "place" in society, but still allows the homosexual person to have "citizen" rights. This view defines a separation between Church and State in a definate way.

Others believe that allowing homosexual marriage, will affect our society in such a way that it will "conform society" , which is the Church's job. I wonder which is of most importance; separation of Church and State and individual rights, or a re-definition to our understanding of the Church's place in society, in regards to "forming society's" future.

On the other hand, if we don't base our nation's values on individual freedom, then where does that leave the young Muslim girl? Does this young girl have a right to develop differently than her parent's religious tradition? Is tradition important in the development of children? in society? And what of a young adult's maturation? Don't humans develop apart from the definitions of cultural standards? This is an important part of growing to maturity, in evaluation of one's ultimate values and convictions.

So, will individual rights have to be defined more specifically than is granted in our Constitution? These issues have always confounded lawyers, professors, philosophers....So, I am not about to "solve' the problem :)! But, it is of uptmost importance.

But, these issues define our society. And whenever the laws define our society differently than what we have been used to, we have to change. This happened during the civil rights movement. I wonder how the definitions will affect our future?

Both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses.

Should States have a right to define these issues, themselves? If so, how will that aleviate people from "doing what they want" and going across State lines? Should the decision be decided as a nation? So, that we can enforce these issues under the "rule of law", irregardless of State? Then where do cultural differences lie?

Whatever the Supreme Courts decision will be, we, the people, will have to abide by it. And that will ultimately be played out in our courts, in various cases.

Let's Get Ugly

Ugly is only understood by some standard. And standards are defined by whatever "standard" the culture agrees upon. This is a cultural "norm". And cultural norms help to maintain social order. Social order is good for society's functioning, so that people can live in "peace".

Our nation of laws provide the standards that represent good leadership, as leaders should obey the law. And the law protects us from "invasions" of different kinds; invasions of privacy (identity), invasions of property (trespassing), for example. We are a people that believe in "equality under law". Therefore, we "trust" that others will respect the law and not trespass, but acknowledge and accept the social contract.

Some, though use the law to their advantage. These are ugly people. They lack character because they do invade, but in a "legal way". I do not respect, nor should anyone else respect such leadership.

Those who do evil should be held accountable by any means available, as they should learn that these invasions are never to be overlooked, but learned from. Power does not affirm others in lawlessness.

But, just as those who use the law for their advantage, those who revolutionize also do. These are the ones who have made history in challenging the status quo. The revolutionary understand that there is a higher principle that must be maintained, otherwise others will suffer under invasions of the ugly. These are the rights of individual liberties that protect invasions of personhood.

A gentler and kinder way, is the way of reform. Reformers work within the system to make it change, without upsetting the whole social order.

One must decide whether the ugly is worth fighting, forsaking, or furthering in a different way. The choice and decision must be a personal commitment of value and vision, as one will pay a cost, whichever way one chooses to change evil into good.