Ayn Rand
If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.
C:TUI 226
This statement captures the essence of liberty, which is peace. And Rand grasps the concept that volunteerism to military duty, is correlated to self=defense and not ideological commitments, or agendas! No one likes to be co-cerced. Co-cercion demeans and demoralizes humans and treats them as commodities or of expendable value.
That means that to remain a free people we must not war along ideology (religion or politics) or independent agendas (without co-operation/negotiation). It becomes complex when there are so many agendas that clash with another's. And what about a nation's values if they conflict with another's? Will there be consensus building in determining how to go 'forward"?
Diplomacy is needed more than ever today, because the world is wrought with so many conflicts. The wars our country is involved in now, have not been declared "wars" by Congress from the beginning. Though there needed to be some response to the 9-11 incidence, was there consideration about all the reprecussions?. Self Defense is important for any entity that has separate interests or distinction. This is important to the nation-state herself! We have to maintain a "voice", otherwise, the nation-state's distinctive voice, will loose power and then, only a few will be heard. And just as the individual without any "voice", the minority position, power will win over and enslave all of us!
Showing posts with label international relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international relations. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Universalism
Universalism can be understood in various contexts. Universalism as it has been discussed lately by Bell and the evangelical, is about supernatural salvation. What "God" wants to do to reconcile people to himself. But, the naturalist believes that humans believe in myth when they are framing their realities as children. Myth is know in anthropological terms as the way people frame their cultures. While cultures are human by-products, all cultures are not equal.
Universalism is about universalizing concepts about the world. Universalism is about human rights, global intiatives, and diplomatic efforts to resolve differences. It is "international relations". But, our world is fraught with complexities that are not easily solved. People disagree about what and how to go about dealing with these differences in the world.
Not everyone formulates their particularities in a universal frame, as it makes for discomfort. Identity is threatened by the "unknowns". But, universalization of identity is understanding "the human", which is understanding the generalities of mankind. The generalities of mankind (human development) cannot be universalized to the exclusion of particularity. And this is what liberty is about. Liberty understands particularity within the context of a Constitutional government.
How much of our cultural forming identity is internalized such that it inhibits a "re-framing"? Some are not bound to change their cultural values, even when faced with the facts of science. These are people that aren't open to understand thier own conditioning. Universalizers are those that push against the conventional understandings of "traditions". These seek to change the world in thier particular ways and impact society for different outcomes.
All of us are social transformers. We might not view ourselves that way, but what we do has impact upon others, whether we understand that or not. Humans have the need to belong and these needs are met within various social contexts. There is no one defined context in free societies, as individuals are allowed to choose their context/job/role for the most part.
Universalism has to be framed respecting boundaries of identification. The nation-state being the context of individual identification. Then, diplomatic action can be taken when there are disagreements about where one's values lie. Nation-states are to uphold international laws, which protect global concerns. International law defines terror. And terror is what happens to humans whenever laws are broken, because the laws give a certain expectation or hope for order. The human brain/mind seeks to order the world and laws give the needed context for a sense of security.
Laws that are defined by tightly defined religous or poltiical regimes are confining to individuality and limit possibilities of outcome under the guise of "order". These regimes hold control over society out of 'fear". But, such order undermines human value itself, which international laws seek to uphold.
Universalism is an ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all humans. But, it cannot be found apart from proper government, which allows such liberty. The West values liberty under law, or "ordered liberty", therefore, all cultures are not equal.
Universalism is about universalizing concepts about the world. Universalism is about human rights, global intiatives, and diplomatic efforts to resolve differences. It is "international relations". But, our world is fraught with complexities that are not easily solved. People disagree about what and how to go about dealing with these differences in the world.
Not everyone formulates their particularities in a universal frame, as it makes for discomfort. Identity is threatened by the "unknowns". But, universalization of identity is understanding "the human", which is understanding the generalities of mankind. The generalities of mankind (human development) cannot be universalized to the exclusion of particularity. And this is what liberty is about. Liberty understands particularity within the context of a Constitutional government.
How much of our cultural forming identity is internalized such that it inhibits a "re-framing"? Some are not bound to change their cultural values, even when faced with the facts of science. These are people that aren't open to understand thier own conditioning. Universalizers are those that push against the conventional understandings of "traditions". These seek to change the world in thier particular ways and impact society for different outcomes.
All of us are social transformers. We might not view ourselves that way, but what we do has impact upon others, whether we understand that or not. Humans have the need to belong and these needs are met within various social contexts. There is no one defined context in free societies, as individuals are allowed to choose their context/job/role for the most part.
Universalism has to be framed respecting boundaries of identification. The nation-state being the context of individual identification. Then, diplomatic action can be taken when there are disagreements about where one's values lie. Nation-states are to uphold international laws, which protect global concerns. International law defines terror. And terror is what happens to humans whenever laws are broken, because the laws give a certain expectation or hope for order. The human brain/mind seeks to order the world and laws give the needed context for a sense of security.
Laws that are defined by tightly defined religous or poltiical regimes are confining to individuality and limit possibilities of outcome under the guise of "order". These regimes hold control over society out of 'fear". But, such order undermines human value itself, which international laws seek to uphold.
Universalism is an ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all humans. But, it cannot be found apart from proper government, which allows such liberty. The West values liberty under law, or "ordered liberty", therefore, all cultures are not equal.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Dis-Solving American Identity
Multiculturalism is based on the local and the specified. It is an individualized understanding of groupish identification factors. Multiculturalism's values are not "value free". Multiculturalism makes no "judgements" because prejuidice is the ultimate "sin". Multiculturalism is devoid of reason's "judgment" because of 'imperialistic and post-colonial paradigms of "meaning".
Although I wholeheartedly agree with our 13th and 14th Amendements to the Constitution, as to slavery, I do not think that subverting American ideals in the name of multiculturalism is to be the epitome of "unification of the world". The globalist would disagree. And the globalist is a postmodern in the ultimate sense of the word.
If postmodernism "rules", then there is no leadership, because leadership is based on direction, decision and commitment. Unfortunately, those in the halls of academia have led us down the postmodern paradigm, because of understanding the value of context. Understanding context is an important demension of understanding the whole, but is not the whole. Postmodernism bases their commitment to the local and communal aspects of the world. And I think the evangelical has been duped by the academic community in accepting the 'whole of postmodernism in the name of pragmatic good, but dissolved of universal value.
The universal's that our Founders affirmed of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be upheld for each individual conscience. The individual in our society was held supreme, as he was made in God's image and had inalienable rights. But, with the acceptance of evolutionary thinking applied to the social sciences, and history itself, the Academy became culprits of multicultrualism, and postmodernity, for the sake of these universal ethical ideals.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding context, locality, or individuality, but these values do not affirm the values that should fulfill a leadership role and function. Leaders evaluate, analyze, and cultivate an understanding of the best of 'what is". Decisions leaders make are based on analytical, and strategic ways of understanding the world. The multicultural and postmodern way of understanding the world is an emphathetic way of understanding the world.
A world leader cannot lead unless these styles of understanding are all implemented. We cannot tell Israel to "do what she will" with Iran; not speak forthrightly to Iran about human rights; and ignore the democratic process of voters rights, without undermining democratic ideals and our Founders values as understood in the Constitution.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with our 13th and 14th Amendements to the Constitution, as to slavery, I do not think that subverting American ideals in the name of multiculturalism is to be the epitome of "unification of the world". The globalist would disagree. And the globalist is a postmodern in the ultimate sense of the word.
If postmodernism "rules", then there is no leadership, because leadership is based on direction, decision and commitment. Unfortunately, those in the halls of academia have led us down the postmodern paradigm, because of understanding the value of context. Understanding context is an important demension of understanding the whole, but is not the whole. Postmodernism bases their commitment to the local and communal aspects of the world. And I think the evangelical has been duped by the academic community in accepting the 'whole of postmodernism in the name of pragmatic good, but dissolved of universal value.
The universal's that our Founders affirmed of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be upheld for each individual conscience. The individual in our society was held supreme, as he was made in God's image and had inalienable rights. But, with the acceptance of evolutionary thinking applied to the social sciences, and history itself, the Academy became culprits of multicultrualism, and postmodernity, for the sake of these universal ethical ideals.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding context, locality, or individuality, but these values do not affirm the values that should fulfill a leadership role and function. Leaders evaluate, analyze, and cultivate an understanding of the best of 'what is". Decisions leaders make are based on analytical, and strategic ways of understanding the world. The multicultural and postmodern way of understanding the world is an emphathetic way of understanding the world.
A world leader cannot lead unless these styles of understanding are all implemented. We cannot tell Israel to "do what she will" with Iran; not speak forthrightly to Iran about human rights; and ignore the democratic process of voters rights, without undermining democratic ideals and our Founders values as understood in the Constitution.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Human Rights, Individual Freedom and Social Order
Globalism is not an option in today's world. The question facing the world is where are the boundaries to lie? Do nation states have a right to exist as separate entities? Does every human deserve respect and be given dignity, irregardless of behavior or culture? These are the questions of internationalism, internationalizing Nation States, and the "rule of law". I know I do not have the answers, and probably don't understand all the questions, but it is one that interests me and that I think is of utmost importance for all concerned to address. I am learning.
People are concerned today about relgious freedom, in a world that is wondering about radicalizers of faith traditions. Do humans, no matter their faith practice, deserve "equal protection under the law"? Or does their undermining of the "social order" deny them such protections? Civilized society believes that criminals are to be given a right to trial, but are not given freedom without investigation. The question becomes national security versus international law and human rights. Which is of utmost importance? And how do we know what is of utmost importance?
People are also concerned about how the "rule of law" applies in international relations where it concerns economics. Where do business interests usurp culture? Or does business "do business" within a cultural paradigm? How does business "do business" with those who do not adhere to the same cultural standards when it comes to the "rules", 'traditions", and the formal laws of different nation states? What are the responsibilities of citiziens to protect national security and national interests, at the costs of business interests? And do all nations deserve equal opportunity in regards to information that would possibly be used in a dangerous way? Are citizens granted more protection than anyone else?
These are questions that educated persons (and even, those that are in the learning curve) will disagree on, so it becomes a matter of conviction and commitment to the "most important and imperative" need to address. Needs of people will always conflict with different interests and goals. One must assess where they find the most fulfillment, in a world that is "imperfect" and will not become a Utopian "ideal".
People are concerned today about relgious freedom, in a world that is wondering about radicalizers of faith traditions. Do humans, no matter their faith practice, deserve "equal protection under the law"? Or does their undermining of the "social order" deny them such protections? Civilized society believes that criminals are to be given a right to trial, but are not given freedom without investigation. The question becomes national security versus international law and human rights. Which is of utmost importance? And how do we know what is of utmost importance?
People are also concerned about how the "rule of law" applies in international relations where it concerns economics. Where do business interests usurp culture? Or does business "do business" within a cultural paradigm? How does business "do business" with those who do not adhere to the same cultural standards when it comes to the "rules", 'traditions", and the formal laws of different nation states? What are the responsibilities of citiziens to protect national security and national interests, at the costs of business interests? And do all nations deserve equal opportunity in regards to information that would possibly be used in a dangerous way? Are citizens granted more protection than anyone else?
These are questions that educated persons (and even, those that are in the learning curve) will disagree on, so it becomes a matter of conviction and commitment to the "most important and imperative" need to address. Needs of people will always conflict with different interests and goals. One must assess where they find the most fulfillment, in a world that is "imperfect" and will not become a Utopian "ideal".
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Abraham Lincoln's Impact on My Thoughts
Today was my friend's birthday, and so, we decided to visit the National Portrait Gallery, where they have special exhibit honoring Abraham Lincoln.
As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".
His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.
I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?
These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?
There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.
I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.
As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".
His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.
I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?
These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?
There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.
I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
