Today, is the 10th anniversary of our nation's face to face encounter with terrorism. It was a human Tragedy, but it was also an act of War! How do we see it today, and how will it affect our views in the future? These are questions I'm sure many have on their minds and hearts today!
Terror is an act that is taken against another's Sovereignty. Sovereignty has to do with the right to rule. And the right to rule has to do with government. Our nation values self-government as our ideal, as it protects the values of liberty and conscience. This is the reason why we value human rights, as an ideal.
Humans form societies, and our Founding Fathers created our country to be founded on a basic understanding of "self government". The individual was to rule, not be ruled or dominated by another. Our government was the first to undermine the 'Divine Right of Kings", where government's officials were "granted the right" or "annointed" to rule by "God". Our nation was formed by men that used higher education and human reason to form the rules, or laws that were to govern society. These laws protected individual rights. Reason was unique in man and was the foundation of "conscience".
Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9-11, do we see the need for more government, or less, than our Founders understood to be legitimate? How much is too much, when our nation looks toward a future? Is the future to be determined by government officials, or individual citizens? Are we to be "a people", or a government? Civic responsibility is the responsibility of all of us in a free and open society. "The people" should have the right to their own sovereignty, otherwise, governemnt will not seek legitamacy. The consent of the governed is the only way to protect against intrusive and invasive corruptions of power!
Showing posts with label consent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consent. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Balance of Power, Corporate Interests, Unions, and Justice
...the outcome of both market fundamentalism and anarchism, if applied universally, is identical. The anarchists associate with the oppressed, the market fundamentalists with the oppressors. But by eliminating the state, both remove such restraints as prevent the strong from crushing the weak. Ours is not a choice between government and no government. It is a choice between government and the mafia." George Monbiat
Government wasn't intended to bring about justice, but prevent injustice. Those that petition their government for a redress of grievances are seeking justice from our courts. Ideally, our courts weren't to defend "justice", as our government's "checks and balances" were to prevent abuses of power.
James Madison viewed government as horizonally protecting or balancing of power among the braches of the Federal government (executive, legislative and judicial), while the vertical relationship was to be no less a balance of power.
Today many are seeking to uphold the Tenth Amendment, where States have the right to nullify the Federal government. Indiana's "Right to Work" was one such attempt to give "the people" a choice about whether the worker should be granted protection by "collective bargaining", that leaves the States at the mercy of teachers and thier union contracts.
Collective bargaining is a hierarchal form of governing, and without realizing it, the worker is less able to control his "outcome" than if he went about negotiating the terms himself. Collective bargaining has an intial appeal, as it grants "protections" and advances interests. But, once the unions are entrenched, the worker becomes, again a pawn of others . Collectivity does nothing to enhance industry, creativity, and self-governance. And it does nothing to protect the corporation from manipulations from the worker. And honest job requires an honest wage, and those terms should be negotiated terms, in a free society. Corporatons, nor the Union has a right to impose their terms upon the individual, without consent!
So, while I don't believe that anarchy is the means to further "good government", neither is collective bargaining. The individual must deal with his company himself, and the company should have the decency to negotiate the terms of the contract with the full knowledge and consent of those employed.
Government wasn't intended to bring about justice, but prevent injustice. Those that petition their government for a redress of grievances are seeking justice from our courts. Ideally, our courts weren't to defend "justice", as our government's "checks and balances" were to prevent abuses of power.
James Madison viewed government as horizonally protecting or balancing of power among the braches of the Federal government (executive, legislative and judicial), while the vertical relationship was to be no less a balance of power.
Today many are seeking to uphold the Tenth Amendment, where States have the right to nullify the Federal government. Indiana's "Right to Work" was one such attempt to give "the people" a choice about whether the worker should be granted protection by "collective bargaining", that leaves the States at the mercy of teachers and thier union contracts.
Collective bargaining is a hierarchal form of governing, and without realizing it, the worker is less able to control his "outcome" than if he went about negotiating the terms himself. Collective bargaining has an intial appeal, as it grants "protections" and advances interests. But, once the unions are entrenched, the worker becomes, again a pawn of others . Collectivity does nothing to enhance industry, creativity, and self-governance. And it does nothing to protect the corporation from manipulations from the worker. And honest job requires an honest wage, and those terms should be negotiated terms, in a free society. Corporatons, nor the Union has a right to impose their terms upon the individual, without consent!
So, while I don't believe that anarchy is the means to further "good government", neither is collective bargaining. The individual must deal with his company himself, and the company should have the decency to negotiate the terms of the contract with the full knowledge and consent of those employed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
