"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.
Showing posts with label governing bodies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label governing bodies. Show all posts
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
What Is Government?
Wiki states;
In the social sciences, the term government refers to the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, who control a state at a given time, and the manner in which their governing organizations are structured.[1][2] That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.[3]
Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making, and are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole. Their function is to enforce existing laws, legislate new ones, and arbitrate conflicts via their monopoly on violence. In some societies, this group is often a self-perpetuating or hereditary class. In other societies, such as democracies, the political roles remain, but there is frequent turnover of the people actually filling the positions.[4]
In most Western societies, there is a clear distinction between a government and the state. Public disapproval of a particular government (expressed, for example, by not re-electing an incumbent) does not necessarily represent disapproval of the state itself (i.e. of the particular framework of government). However, in some totalitarian regimes, there is not a clear distinction between the regime and the state. In fact, leaders in such regimes often attempt to deliberately blur the lines between the two, in order to conflate their own selfish interests with those of the polity.[5]
The 14th century Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun defined the government as "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself". The British philosopher-anthropologist Ernest Gellner considered Ibn Khaldun's definition to be the best in the history of political theory. For Ibn Khaldun, government should be restrained to a minimum for as a necessary evil, it is the constraint of men by other men."
Government is an arbitrator of justice. Justice can be defined as individual rights in America, as Jefferson said, the individual is the smallest minority. Civil rights seek to prevent abuses of power. Without such 'real securities" as civil rights, then, the individual is at the "mercy of a collective" and collectives tend to Statist's views in understanding and attaining particular purposes. As stated above, "......totalitarian regimes (government and STATE), there is not a clear distinction between the regime and the state. In fact, leaders in such regimes often attempt to deliberately blur the lines between the two, in order to conflate their own selfish interests with those of the polity"
Whenever groups, organization or government blur the distinction between the group's identification factors (State) and the act of governing others, then it has become totaltalitarian, or Statist. And such group identity lends itself to all kinds of atrocities; genocide, prejuidice, Us/them, social death, racism, etc.
American's identification factors are grounded in liberty. Liberty doesn't allow the lines to be blurred between government and the State. This is why whenever the ideologues reign/rule, American ideals suffer hard death blows to the "other side". And it is the basis of our culture wars.
In the social sciences, the term government refers to the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, who control a state at a given time, and the manner in which their governing organizations are structured.[1][2] That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.[3]
Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making, and are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole. Their function is to enforce existing laws, legislate new ones, and arbitrate conflicts via their monopoly on violence. In some societies, this group is often a self-perpetuating or hereditary class. In other societies, such as democracies, the political roles remain, but there is frequent turnover of the people actually filling the positions.[4]
In most Western societies, there is a clear distinction between a government and the state. Public disapproval of a particular government (expressed, for example, by not re-electing an incumbent) does not necessarily represent disapproval of the state itself (i.e. of the particular framework of government). However, in some totalitarian regimes, there is not a clear distinction between the regime and the state. In fact, leaders in such regimes often attempt to deliberately blur the lines between the two, in order to conflate their own selfish interests with those of the polity.[5]
The 14th century Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun defined the government as "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself". The British philosopher-anthropologist Ernest Gellner considered Ibn Khaldun's definition to be the best in the history of political theory. For Ibn Khaldun, government should be restrained to a minimum for as a necessary evil, it is the constraint of men by other men."
Government is an arbitrator of justice. Justice can be defined as individual rights in America, as Jefferson said, the individual is the smallest minority. Civil rights seek to prevent abuses of power. Without such 'real securities" as civil rights, then, the individual is at the "mercy of a collective" and collectives tend to Statist's views in understanding and attaining particular purposes. As stated above, "......totalitarian regimes (government and STATE), there is not a clear distinction between the regime and the state. In fact, leaders in such regimes often attempt to deliberately blur the lines between the two, in order to conflate their own selfish interests with those of the polity"
Whenever groups, organization or government blur the distinction between the group's identification factors (State) and the act of governing others, then it has become totaltalitarian, or Statist. And such group identity lends itself to all kinds of atrocities; genocide, prejuidice, Us/them, social death, racism, etc.
American's identification factors are grounded in liberty. Liberty doesn't allow the lines to be blurred between government and the State. This is why whenever the ideologues reign/rule, American ideals suffer hard death blows to the "other side". And it is the basis of our culture wars.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Naturalism is Just Another Name...
Naturalism is just another name for God. Naturalism claims that there is no 'open universe". Resources, whether they be the natural environmental, or social are in "short supply". So, all people are called to altruistic ends, because we all need to survive.
Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.
I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.
Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?
So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!
Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.
I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.
Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?
So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
