Today's world leave one with a quandary about what to do and how to thnk in "global ways". Doesn't globalism dissolve identficaton and personal boundaries? These are questions about Sovereignty.
Sovereignty is about boundaries, and the "rule of law". Laws describe crime and courts convict those that haven't respected the boundaries that protect the social order. Countries respect another country's right to differ, as we allow diplomatic immunity to those that might trangress one nation's laws, that aren't especially important in another country.
I think about Hirshi Ayan Ali, who has escaped Somalia and an arranged marriage, to find herself in the Netherlands getting an education and a sear on Parliament. When it was finally found ou that her citizenship was based on deception, then the Dutch had to investigate the right of her citizenship. In the end, she was allowed citizenship on the basis that her deception was not considered deception in Somalia! Hirshi's understanding when she filled out the form for citizenship was interpreted by her reference point, Somalian tradition.
It has just been pointed out that when an artificial identity is imposed, without the person coming to terms with their identity themselves, that there is resistance. Such a case could be made with the European Union and how difficult it was in the first place to bring about a unity, to see countries revert back to their identifying natonalities!!!
One wonders what this might mean in global affairs that have to do with business interests, national security and individual rights. Corporations now have rights to personhood, which might mean that individuals aren't considered any more a person, than a corporation....national security is of interest if one believes that nation states should and do have various interests to protect....but that isn't the frame in today's post-modern culture, where anything and everything s up for grabs.
I believe that there must be a prioritizingof values, before one can make a choice about what to do in a particular situation. Human rights is a universal, but is the United Nations to supercede the nation-state and its right to self-defense? Self-defense is a natural right! And must be protected...if we want to maintain civilization itself! Otherwise, groups of all kinds make for a cloudy future for defense of liberty, as equality will be imposed, not sought as a natural right by individuals!!!
Showing posts with label nation states. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nation states. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Groups Are Powerful Forces That Undermine Our Liberty
I am concerned over our liberties, because groups have framed and formed their arguments which have political persuasion and power. This is the basis of our culture wars, and will be the demise of our rationality as a nation!
It was known that the Germans used experiments on the Jews, as they dismissed the Jew as worthy of "life". This is the case now for the Jew concerning Islam!
Gay rights activists seek to put their "tolerance messages" in our classrooms and religious groups seek to claim their rights, as well.
We are a diverse nation that was based on the principle of individual liberties. No one person had more power before the law, than any other. Now, groups demand tolerance, where our nation becomes a quadmire of differences of opinion and values of commitment. Groups have more power than individual voices. This should not be, unless tolerance gives us no right to judge or make determinations of any kind...about one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
We need to dissolve powerful lobbyists and make a way back to the local, where voices are known, heard and understood, rather than enlarging to global interests and concerns that devalue our nation and demean our values of liberty!
It was known that the Germans used experiments on the Jews, as they dismissed the Jew as worthy of "life". This is the case now for the Jew concerning Islam!
Gay rights activists seek to put their "tolerance messages" in our classrooms and religious groups seek to claim their rights, as well.
We are a diverse nation that was based on the principle of individual liberties. No one person had more power before the law, than any other. Now, groups demand tolerance, where our nation becomes a quadmire of differences of opinion and values of commitment. Groups have more power than individual voices. This should not be, unless tolerance gives us no right to judge or make determinations of any kind...about one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
We need to dissolve powerful lobbyists and make a way back to the local, where voices are known, heard and understood, rather than enlarging to global interests and concerns that devalue our nation and demean our values of liberty!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Let's Don't Give Up the Ship!
America is unique among nations, as we have no aristocracy, at least in principle. The Founding Fathers were aristocratic as to education, but they defined a nation by her laws, and principle, not by unaccountable power. So, we must not give up the ship today, in our pursuit of a "better tomorrow".
Today, on conservative networks, there was talk and critcism of the mainline press, because they have not held to the same standards in judgeing the President's trip to Ireland during a natural disater in our nation. In lieu of Katrina, many criticized Bush for acting in a compassionate matter. There was also a lack of response to a environmental disaster a year of so ago, in the Gulf that brought horrendous loss of income to many, but the Feds weren't too quick to jump aboard to decide what to do. We had international offers of help from what I remember, but none was taken...as I remember. Yet, the media didn't criticize until it became hard to ignore.
The free press is necessary to a free society, to hold govenrment accountable to the people by informing them. The media also holds the power to manipulate the facts according to those in power, so they can continue their power game and neglect their duties to govern. Let's not give up the ship for accountability for government, or leadership. No one is above embibing on the headiness of power and the Founders knew it!
The Justice Department is acting in some cases like a Global investigator, instead of the protector of the Constitution and defender of the American people and their freedoms. Global economic policy drives everything today, so we cannot deny the power that that holds over our corporations, but when government doesn't know who they are supposed to defend, it becomes confusing quite quickly. One wants to be able to trust that their govenrment is acting with our national interest in mind, but all beauracracies become too big to control and mistakes are made without knowledge because of a lack of interaction between powers. Separation and divided power does not mean that there is no accountability between the branches of government or that States don't have interests that must be considered!
Today, the conservative and liberals are at war, and that is in our own nation. Perhaps, it is just as the Civil War, when there was a disagreement about how to "go forward" concerning the slave issue. The South had to have workers to defend their economic survival. But, the north took the "moral high road" and desired to free slaves.
Some people see the slave issue as a "front" to manipulate around State rights and get a more centralized govenrment. Is this what is happening today? We see that "social justice" promotes similar values about the "poor", for the "moral high rollers", but this time they use Scripture, instead of expanding upon the principle of Scripture. The real issue is globalization, not "social justice". That is a distraction to appeal to man's "higher nature", while those with the real power increase their power base, and maintain control of more and more of the power structures. Isn't this one reason why our govenrment wanted to "own" portions of our major companies...?
Let's don't give up the ship, when America is in trouble. Let's pitch in and help where we can!!!
Today, on conservative networks, there was talk and critcism of the mainline press, because they have not held to the same standards in judgeing the President's trip to Ireland during a natural disater in our nation. In lieu of Katrina, many criticized Bush for acting in a compassionate matter. There was also a lack of response to a environmental disaster a year of so ago, in the Gulf that brought horrendous loss of income to many, but the Feds weren't too quick to jump aboard to decide what to do. We had international offers of help from what I remember, but none was taken...as I remember. Yet, the media didn't criticize until it became hard to ignore.
The free press is necessary to a free society, to hold govenrment accountable to the people by informing them. The media also holds the power to manipulate the facts according to those in power, so they can continue their power game and neglect their duties to govern. Let's not give up the ship for accountability for government, or leadership. No one is above embibing on the headiness of power and the Founders knew it!
The Justice Department is acting in some cases like a Global investigator, instead of the protector of the Constitution and defender of the American people and their freedoms. Global economic policy drives everything today, so we cannot deny the power that that holds over our corporations, but when government doesn't know who they are supposed to defend, it becomes confusing quite quickly. One wants to be able to trust that their govenrment is acting with our national interest in mind, but all beauracracies become too big to control and mistakes are made without knowledge because of a lack of interaction between powers. Separation and divided power does not mean that there is no accountability between the branches of government or that States don't have interests that must be considered!
Today, the conservative and liberals are at war, and that is in our own nation. Perhaps, it is just as the Civil War, when there was a disagreement about how to "go forward" concerning the slave issue. The South had to have workers to defend their economic survival. But, the north took the "moral high road" and desired to free slaves.
Some people see the slave issue as a "front" to manipulate around State rights and get a more centralized govenrment. Is this what is happening today? We see that "social justice" promotes similar values about the "poor", for the "moral high rollers", but this time they use Scripture, instead of expanding upon the principle of Scripture. The real issue is globalization, not "social justice". That is a distraction to appeal to man's "higher nature", while those with the real power increase their power base, and maintain control of more and more of the power structures. Isn't this one reason why our govenrment wanted to "own" portions of our major companies...?
Let's don't give up the ship, when America is in trouble. Let's pitch in and help where we can!!!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Addendum to the Nation State
Nation States do not have any rights that their citizens don't give it voluntarily. The difference in a free society is the voluntary nature of it citizens participation. But, for a society to remain free, and continue to represent its people, " the citizen" must involve themselves!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The New Racists and The Not So New Agenda
Power is how people gain position, and control over others. But, power was not absolute in American government, as power was to be balanced. There are checks and balances that were to prevent grabs for power. But, people have devious ways to influence others through use of emotion, and sway their opinion, move their action and grab the power from them deviously. Such are the "New Racists".
This morning I was listening to a program where a man called in and insisted that the new immigration legislation is motivated by racism. When questioned about how he came to that conclusion, he said that it was obviously based on the white power that asserted control over those of "color". Isn't that racism? This man's conclusion and thinking were based solely on race, not on the value of the argument of citizen rights versus human rights.
Racism is a strong identifier, as one cannot help what ethnic identity they are born. But, civil rights has been useful for the left to assert minority issues for any human rights issue.
I believe that the historical context of the civil right movement was in its abuse of power over a segment of our own society. Our constitution granted liberties to their citizens and citizens were defined by locale of birth. Those that came to our shores as immigrants had certain requirements to become citizens. Even to have the right to work, an immigrant must get a green card. America identified itself by those who were by birth or legal means "one of us".
But, today, it is assumed that anyone who desires to reside in this country deserves that right. And if by chance one of these is of color, then there is no limit to the outrage and outcry of "injustice" based on "racial equality". And yet, it has little to do with racial equality, but with being a part of our nation, under the "rule of law".
Racism is the means of a "new agenda", the globlists agenda, that will undermine our nation's Sovereignty and undermine citizen rights. Do not be surprised when those that come to your door asking for papers, do so not to prove American citizenship, but a "World Citizen", who really has no rights, because we will live under the "New Aristocracy".
This morning I was listening to a program where a man called in and insisted that the new immigration legislation is motivated by racism. When questioned about how he came to that conclusion, he said that it was obviously based on the white power that asserted control over those of "color". Isn't that racism? This man's conclusion and thinking were based solely on race, not on the value of the argument of citizen rights versus human rights.
Racism is a strong identifier, as one cannot help what ethnic identity they are born. But, civil rights has been useful for the left to assert minority issues for any human rights issue.
I believe that the historical context of the civil right movement was in its abuse of power over a segment of our own society. Our constitution granted liberties to their citizens and citizens were defined by locale of birth. Those that came to our shores as immigrants had certain requirements to become citizens. Even to have the right to work, an immigrant must get a green card. America identified itself by those who were by birth or legal means "one of us".
But, today, it is assumed that anyone who desires to reside in this country deserves that right. And if by chance one of these is of color, then there is no limit to the outrage and outcry of "injustice" based on "racial equality". And yet, it has little to do with racial equality, but with being a part of our nation, under the "rule of law".
Racism is the means of a "new agenda", the globlists agenda, that will undermine our nation's Sovereignty and undermine citizen rights. Do not be surprised when those that come to your door asking for papers, do so not to prove American citizenship, but a "World Citizen", who really has no rights, because we will live under the "New Aristocracy".
"Human" and the Citizen
Much has been "thrown out" on the radio and T.V. concerning the recent immigration problem. The discussion, I think, can be boiled down to two views on what it means to be a "person", or "human" versus a citizen.
Humans are by nature social animals. A Dateline special illustrated how individuals have "herd mentalities". In an elevator where Dateline employees were told to turn with their backs to the elevator door, everyone in the "studies" mimiced the "group". People do not question, for the most part.
But, today's crisis forefronts the problem of what it means to be human! Americans are identified with certain liberties that are defined and protected by our Constitution. And lately, it seems that our government has not been forthcoming in protecting our literal boundaries, which has caused a crisis in our identified boundaries. Civil liberties have been for the most part understood to be for those that live within certain geographical borders.
Boundaries are identifiers of persons. These are various complexions of an individual's social world. And some believe that all individuals deserve rights under "natural law", these are the "humanists" and globalists. The "human" is what defines the individual. Others believe that societies construct individuals with their particular laws, which maintain distinctions and underlie a person's "real identity". These believe that the various social groups define the individual, as to identity.
The problem, as I understand it, is can a "human" be a person, as persons need social contexts to define themselves. Or do they? Does an individual understand himself apart from social groups? I think that they can. Humans are reasonable animals. We seek to rationalize our existance. This is the way we cope and understand the world.
America has understood itself to be a nation ruled by law. The Constitution defined our 'union", and protected its citizens rights. But, a Constitutional government is representative of its people. The people (identified as Americans) are warring over their right to exist apart from invasion from outsiders. These outsiders threaten society through their crime and a dissolution of boundaries which breeds fear and anxiety over their "identified way of life".
Therefore, the 'human' is the lowest denominator for identification purposes. Citizens understand themselves in more definitive ways. And those that live in civilized Western societies understand themselves as a person in his own right. Americans come to understand themselves apart from the former contexts of identification, but may choose to become identified to these social groups for other reasons.
All humans are social animals, but the social animal is not civilized without society's impact. And society's impact is not an ultimate value, as the individual himself needs to develop beyond the dependent stage on society. The individuals allowed such liberty come to understand themselves and their own values apart from the greater whole, and can come to find their own place for themselves.
Humans are by nature social animals. A Dateline special illustrated how individuals have "herd mentalities". In an elevator where Dateline employees were told to turn with their backs to the elevator door, everyone in the "studies" mimiced the "group". People do not question, for the most part.
But, today's crisis forefronts the problem of what it means to be human! Americans are identified with certain liberties that are defined and protected by our Constitution. And lately, it seems that our government has not been forthcoming in protecting our literal boundaries, which has caused a crisis in our identified boundaries. Civil liberties have been for the most part understood to be for those that live within certain geographical borders.
Boundaries are identifiers of persons. These are various complexions of an individual's social world. And some believe that all individuals deserve rights under "natural law", these are the "humanists" and globalists. The "human" is what defines the individual. Others believe that societies construct individuals with their particular laws, which maintain distinctions and underlie a person's "real identity". These believe that the various social groups define the individual, as to identity.
The problem, as I understand it, is can a "human" be a person, as persons need social contexts to define themselves. Or do they? Does an individual understand himself apart from social groups? I think that they can. Humans are reasonable animals. We seek to rationalize our existance. This is the way we cope and understand the world.
America has understood itself to be a nation ruled by law. The Constitution defined our 'union", and protected its citizens rights. But, a Constitutional government is representative of its people. The people (identified as Americans) are warring over their right to exist apart from invasion from outsiders. These outsiders threaten society through their crime and a dissolution of boundaries which breeds fear and anxiety over their "identified way of life".
Therefore, the 'human' is the lowest denominator for identification purposes. Citizens understand themselves in more definitive ways. And those that live in civilized Western societies understand themselves as a person in his own right. Americans come to understand themselves apart from the former contexts of identification, but may choose to become identified to these social groups for other reasons.
All humans are social animals, but the social animal is not civilized without society's impact. And society's impact is not an ultimate value, as the individual himself needs to develop beyond the dependent stage on society. The individuals allowed such liberty come to understand themselves and their own values apart from the greater whole, and can come to find their own place for themselves.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Distinctions MUST Remain Clear
I was doing some reading on inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. This is what I found under my Google search and Answers.com:
Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural rights and legal rights.
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.[1]
The social contract is where the government over a particular person derives it power or authority. Americans understand that government is granted power by the person's consent. We are a nation that is ruled by laws that protect individual liberties, which are defined by our Bill of Rights.
Some have thought that this does disservice to international concerns, such as human rights. This is not necessarily so, as specified laws protect a particular nation-state, providing its definitions of custom, norms and "morals".
America has protected itself by understanding the dangers of uniting political and religious agenda. Jefferson's separation of Church and State was to prevent such authoritarial ideology. Jefferson believed in inalienable rights, that were based on natural rights, while Madision understood that the social contract was to be upheld by the rights of citizens within a particular nation state.
Distinctions about these two issues must remain clear, otherwise, we dissolve boundaries of civil rights, and social norm and custom which help to create identification to the people who live within a country's borders.
Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural rights and legal rights.
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.[1]
The social contract is where the government over a particular person derives it power or authority. Americans understand that government is granted power by the person's consent. We are a nation that is ruled by laws that protect individual liberties, which are defined by our Bill of Rights.
Some have thought that this does disservice to international concerns, such as human rights. This is not necessarily so, as specified laws protect a particular nation-state, providing its definitions of custom, norms and "morals".
America has protected itself by understanding the dangers of uniting political and religious agenda. Jefferson's separation of Church and State was to prevent such authoritarial ideology. Jefferson believed in inalienable rights, that were based on natural rights, while Madision understood that the social contract was to be upheld by the rights of citizens within a particular nation state.
Distinctions about these two issues must remain clear, otherwise, we dissolve boundaries of civil rights, and social norm and custom which help to create identification to the people who live within a country's borders.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Israel and the Nuclear Summit
It is reported that Israel will not be represented at the nuclear summit here in Washington. What would be the possible reasons?
My speculation is that Israel understands the danger of total nuclear disarmament. These people have experienced what it was like to not have a way to protect their own. They were the ones who suffered under the "Nationalism" of Nazi Germany. They do not want to propitiate that scenario again, by trusting in the "better natures" of mankind, especially of authoritarian regimes that are accountable to no one.
History has proven that man's better nature is not forthcoming when there are no checks and balances. And nation states are a good way for power to be negotiated. Diverse interests should be confirmed as ways of negotiating around differences concerning self interests and security. And nation states can protect by regulating their 'enemies' through sanctions. This is the way that nation states have protected themselves for the last 50 some odd years, with nuclear weapons.
Science has produced other alternatives for the Pentagon in our own country, but those countries that insist on building their nuclear arsenals cannot be dismissed or ignored without national security being compromised, even though the 'ideal world" would hold "peace and goodwill" toward all. This is not the real world, but the "idealized ideology" of Marx, where all nations are equal and all people are living at peace. The problem with Marxism is that there is no limit on government control. Do we want to be at the mercy of those whose arrogance through government control holds no limit? Liberty will suffer. This is what globalism will do.
My speculation is that Israel understands the danger of total nuclear disarmament. These people have experienced what it was like to not have a way to protect their own. They were the ones who suffered under the "Nationalism" of Nazi Germany. They do not want to propitiate that scenario again, by trusting in the "better natures" of mankind, especially of authoritarian regimes that are accountable to no one.
History has proven that man's better nature is not forthcoming when there are no checks and balances. And nation states are a good way for power to be negotiated. Diverse interests should be confirmed as ways of negotiating around differences concerning self interests and security. And nation states can protect by regulating their 'enemies' through sanctions. This is the way that nation states have protected themselves for the last 50 some odd years, with nuclear weapons.
Science has produced other alternatives for the Pentagon in our own country, but those countries that insist on building their nuclear arsenals cannot be dismissed or ignored without national security being compromised, even though the 'ideal world" would hold "peace and goodwill" toward all. This is not the real world, but the "idealized ideology" of Marx, where all nations are equal and all people are living at peace. The problem with Marxism is that there is no limit on government control. Do we want to be at the mercy of those whose arrogance through government control holds no limit? Liberty will suffer. This is what globalism will do.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Origins Are Difficult But Are Necessary Means of Identification
Origins are difficult for most subjects and peoples. Some people find that geneology is of uptmost importance because one's pedigree shows one's roots. And roots show connection. Connection is about belonging. Instead of looking at one's individual geneology, others look to one's historical context, whether that be a specific nation or religion. Men seek to understand where and how they belong.
Family connections are useful for identifiers. As the child grows to understand and expand in his knowledge, the child comes to choose where he will belong. Will he remain within his familial context, or will he find a different "place" of belonging?
Some find their identity in their religion. These have committed because of "conversion experiences", or cultural upbringing. Religious identification are a means of coming to terms with one's need to "belong".
Still, others find meaning in their discipline of choice. These have a passion to know in depth and understand a certain subject of knowledge. These also have a "fraternity" of sorts.
Every human alive needs to belong, as only in belonging is there a sense of "being". Humans define themselves according to their greatest values. And these values define where one's commitment will be in vocation.
Belonging to a defined group also affirms certain beliefs, which are the chosen group's identifying boundary markers. These define the person's understanding of themselves within the group, as well as defining what is the expected behavior that represents the group's ideals.
Democracy does not have specified boundary markers. Democracy lends itself to various ways of group identification. Therefore, the individual is free to choose the path of his own values.
Belief, belonging and behavior all are "sign posts" that help the individual to function within a framework. All are needful for the individual to find meaning and purpose.
Some unfortunate souls are under the compulsion of others to define themselves by other's definitions. It is only in a democracy that one can fulfill one's dreams without compulsion from the outside, but from passion within.
Family connections are useful for identifiers. As the child grows to understand and expand in his knowledge, the child comes to choose where he will belong. Will he remain within his familial context, or will he find a different "place" of belonging?
Some find their identity in their religion. These have committed because of "conversion experiences", or cultural upbringing. Religious identification are a means of coming to terms with one's need to "belong".
Still, others find meaning in their discipline of choice. These have a passion to know in depth and understand a certain subject of knowledge. These also have a "fraternity" of sorts.
Every human alive needs to belong, as only in belonging is there a sense of "being". Humans define themselves according to their greatest values. And these values define where one's commitment will be in vocation.
Belonging to a defined group also affirms certain beliefs, which are the chosen group's identifying boundary markers. These define the person's understanding of themselves within the group, as well as defining what is the expected behavior that represents the group's ideals.
Democracy does not have specified boundary markers. Democracy lends itself to various ways of group identification. Therefore, the individual is free to choose the path of his own values.
Belief, belonging and behavior all are "sign posts" that help the individual to function within a framework. All are needful for the individual to find meaning and purpose.
Some unfortunate souls are under the compulsion of others to define themselves by other's definitions. It is only in a democracy that one can fulfill one's dreams without compulsion from the outside, but from passion within.
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
