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".

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.

Religion As a Cause of Evil

Religion is a cause of evil, because humas are the only ones that can make choices. And choices are what define moral value. The religious are pre-disposed to make assumptions, or presumptions upon the universe, and others based on their "understanding " of a text, or tradition. Choices made within a religious context,  are a limited view, while claiming universality. Free societies allow choice as these value individuals, in their own right. Religious humans are not more valued than non-religious ones. Stealing or murder is an absolute value that protects both the religous and non-religious from discrimination. The religious do not have "Divine rights".

Choice is about present realities, ideals, and values of an individual. It is about taking ownership of one's life and priorities. How can any other entity, no matter the justification make or define another's "ought"?  The present is the only way to live life to the fullest, because it is only in the present moment that choices present themselves in light of all contigencies.

Contingencies are the varibles that also allow a free universe and choice to another individual. These choices intersect at points in time and must be considered as opportunities, or distractions. The determination over how one will judge a particular choice before them is left open and not a pre-determined value. The only absolute is the absolute of liberty of conscience before the law. Individuals being equal before law, means that there is to be liberty of choice, as there is not to be co-ercion, even by a "God". Humans are indivdiual persons and must be respected as such.

So, the religious and religion define what the 'moral ought" is and set about propagating a "purpose", or "plan" that is force fed to the unsuspecting. This is a collectivist thinking. Collectives do not allow freedom of thought and opinion because the collective;s leaders might just loose their power to promote their agendas. Individuals are never respected  their own right, in a collectivist society. The individual is only a "role or function" within the "collective.  Collectivist societies serve to further "moral obligations', to the collective  under dictators, or Rulers that leave no room for independence of thought, value or purpose. Therefore, religion and the religious are a cause of evil. 

Entitlements, and Expectations.

The news is filled with the price of oil, which may go up because of the Middle East crisis. And the concern over who will be ruling these country's and if we can believe that they will consider our interests, as well as theirs. It seems like survival of the fittest, or all out "war" (using the term metphorically). Should these people have a right to "free themselves" from oppressive government?

Then the news on the housing market going down again. Where will it leave those that can't sell their house to move to take their new job? How will they afford another place to live? And will those that took advantage of loans given to those that had not proved their responsibility, rest on the shoulders of us all? And why? Because some "do-gooder" thought that a large stip-end might help the less fortunate, as always the case with "do-gooders". Does such an attitude promote entitlement mentality? Do the poor not have a right of existence, just as the politically oppressed in the Middle East?

Entitlement means that one can expect something. Entitlement means that someone else will give you whatever it is you want because you deserve it. Why would anyone think they deserve somethigt for nothing? But, then I had to quesiton myself.

I grew up with my grandfather. He has written me into his will. And even though I have not felt that I deserved it, as I was not his natural child. In fact, I wasn't even his natural grandchild. I had always been grateful to him for including me. But, this is just the problem. His inclusion of me is not based on a "felt earning of RIGHT".  My "place" in the family was tenuous, or at least that was what I "felt". Not that he has given me that impression. No, he has always welcomed me.

But, recently I was having a conversation with a couple of childhood friends, expressing my fear of being excluded and rejected by others because of my place in my grandfather's heart. They assured me that I was fearing something that I had a "right" to, as I had grown up with him.

Then, I started thinking about my feelings, and I found that I really do feel entitled, not to more, but to equal treatment, because I had a place in his home. And my constant struggle to believe that I was just as entitled and then battle with the feelings of not "being worthy or valued enough" to have equal treatment, in speciific instances.

Why do humans feel entitled? Is it our society? Should humans feel entitled to fair and equal treatment? . Where is self-responsibility and a sense that what one earns, one deserves? Don't most people believe that work will equal a salary? And just what is a "just and fair" wage?

Union discussions in Wisconsin and those that make demands that their employer cannot meet are making Wisconsin and it citizens feel resentful and/or entitled, but to different things, because there is different needs. The children and parents want the teachers to teach, while the teachers have to make their 'ends" meet and make their jobs and time worthwhile with negotiated pay. What is one to think or do? Isn't Indiana's "right to work" a fair policy? Or is there to be some standardization to equalize the playing field where no one can have more than another....

Money and its meaning is a complex issue. One thing is for sure, one cannot take money lightly, because money signifies something of value. Entitlements must have to do with expectations. But, just because someone has expectations, doesn't mean that everyone will agree that those expectations are valid ones. Ones that need to be considered as "just' or fair.

 TheTea Partiers are tired of the taxpayer picking up the tab for items that were not represented by their representatives on the campaign trail. The taxpayer feels entitled to equal representation as corporate interests or the Union bosses seem to have a special place at the table to our Representatives. The expectation in our society that we will not be politically oppressed, because of some "Big Whig" taking over and demanding that our hard-earned money be their "pork barrell"!

I think false expectations should be faced, not supported and encouraged, otherwise we enable the poor in their state and their expectations of a "hand-out". I don't think this is good for society or for the poor. And I think that political oppression needs accountability to "the people". Otherwise, those that abuse power will trample our expectations of a fair and just system under their feet and they won't even look back!

Economic and political justice are on the forefront of headline news. Both are volitile issues that must be addressed if the world is not to "go up in smoke" with another atomic bomb.

Religious Identity

Religious identity is a coping mechanism. The reason I say this is because "God" is to over-intend, or cause "what is". This comforts those whose lives are in social, or poltical contexts that don't give them voice, or right to "self identify", as to "self identity". There is comfort in these cases in numbers, or, at least not being alone. ("God is with you..."). "God" is viewed as the "end all" solution to every problem or concern.


Besides being a coping mechanism, or giving a "reason to hope" beyond this world, there is the need to defend one's "Self", to make oneself "win" or appear "better than" another, whch is is the attempt to buttress an undeveloped "Ego", or "Self". This is done through various "works of service". These are seen or viewed by others in the religious community, as well as the "religious self", as "performances" that validate ones' existence. And such performances justify one's claims to "truth". Virtue is not about one's essential being, but one's "kind of being". It is as if, one has to "earn" or justify one's existance.

There is a difference between "essence of being" and "kind of being" And the differnece is in one's value judgements. When a community defines what is expected, or "ought to be", then one's performance is based on the "kind of individual" and whether that individual meets expectations. Standardizations are ways that groups define and stamp a person with "Recommended", or "Unrecommended". All groups must evaluate people based on their particular values, otherwise, the group dissolves its cohesiveness.

On the other hand, the "essence of being" is one's very innate nature, in gifting , interests and value. There is no "defined outside source, at least in a free society. One can become whatever one will. This virtue is not a value judgment about performance, but,  Being itself. This view of innatedness, is an "essential foundation", as to the value of the human being, apart from definitions, and performance.

Religious identity is "caught up" with how to define oneself 'correctly', because such efforts are "life and death", heaven and hell, or truth or falsehood, as it pertains to "eternal things" And eternal things are more important and valuable than the real world. The religious don't enter into"what is of life", but seek to define life, before they enter it. And sometimes cease to live or enter life at all!! And many times the religious obstruct those that are trying to "enter life" and Be, as to their essestial natures, thinking that they protect and defend "the true faith". All the while, they are invading spaces that are not their to invade!

Humans and Need

My grandchildren came to spend the night last night. Our youngest is almost 7 months old. She is a delightful child, but can be very demanding when she knows what she wants. This got me thinking about human behavior.

Last night, I attempted to sleep, but our youngest woke up several times. Each time I met the need and put her back down to sleep. Her needs were necessities to her comfort, a bottle or a clean diaper. It would be ludacrous for anyone to think that I "knew better than she" about her needs. Suppose I took that assumption. I thought she needed to learn a lesson about being so demanding and I refused to meet her needs. What would have happened?

We can only surmise, but would she eventually fall asleep from exhaustion due to crying out from hunger or discomfort? Would it build trust that her needs would be met the next time she felt the hunger pains or the need for a dry diaper? Would I have a different analysis if she were 4 instead of 7 months? What about adults that are emotionally 7 month old? Do I handle them the same way I do my grand-daughter? How much should be taken into consideration in dealing with another human being? Shouldn't aduts become self-aware about their emotional needs, so that these can be acknowledged and then, it would become easier to negotiate relationship?

I think not understanding the hidden desires or needs, so often leads to miscommunication between adults. These needs come from deep longings of the heart, not upfront "facts". These needs may not even be known to the person, themself, and certainly not the person who interacts with them. Adult humans have ways to meet the needs they fear will not be met, and so often it is not a straighforward way. These needs could be "met" throught self-destructive behaviors, such as self-denial, or addictions. And the needs can also be met by some form of manipulation.

Manipulation has its own problems, besides being a demnad, it is also a denial to mutually beneficial relationship. And it undercuts the basis of a healthy trust in relating to the other.

My granddaughter is building trust about the world. Will the world be seen as a "good place" or will it be seen as primarily a bad place. This balck and white childish view is compounded by the way one understands the world through religion, as well. Sometimes these images can be self-defeating because of the stark contrast of "bad versus good". When one is trained to see in black and white, the world doesn't fit and this lack of understanding can lead to simplistic solutions that undercut real problems, and don't meet and address the real needs..

It is hard enought to communicate with healthey individuals, that have had stable backgrounds, because all humans seek their own self-interest, even when it looks like alturism. (there is some kind of "pay-off" that subverts the "costs" upfront). But, when self-interest is submerged under "altruistic concern" or religious "care", it becomes doubly hard to communicate, negotiate and come to terms in the relationship. The manipulator has a lot to loose, at least in their eyes. And they can scape-goat anyone that stands in their way.

What Are The Pros and Cons to American Government?

Because I have been thinking along the lines of American government, political philosophy, human development, and religion, I will attempt to "think through" in this post what would be the pros and cons to our form of government.

Our government allows for each individual to have rights before the law. One citizen is not know to "theoretically" have "special privileges". We are "equal before the law" The. Power to be a moral agent, independent from co-ercive power, whether government or religion.  And this has its benefits because we are allowed liberty in our choices and values. "Self" can be developed in many ways. And "self rule" was the ideal of our Founding Fathers.

But, what is the downfull of such a government? Because each individual is allowed the freedom "to be" and "to do", there is not over-riding or over-arching narrative, other than liberty. Liberty is an important value, but it also can be damning if it undermines societal foundations or institutions. These insitutions are the framing of societal values. And societal values affect developing children within a society.

Family is the child's first frame of reference for every physical and emotional need being met, as well as societal values being transferred. Because our society has valued liberty and the pursuit of "gold" we have a society that has the value of work, prosperity, and human choice in vocation. These values are good ones, but have left the family stressed as to meeting all its obligations to the child.

The child is left with the sense that his value to and in society is dependent on his ability to find a successful career and make money. The endless cycle in pursuit of the "American Dream" has left the family struggling to find its identity and the child is left with the "leftovers".

The emotional needs of the child are of ultimate importance to meet, otherwise the child is not secure and will make the attempt to find security in ways that might be destructive. Obessession to be sucessful is just as much a driven and compulsive need to find acceptance and value, and deaden the pain of a negative "self",  as the drug-addict driven to deaden his pain by using his drug of choice. An individual's choice of drug has as many faces as America has allowed liberties of choice.

So, while American government allows for the individual to "find himself" and to develop to his full potential on his own terms, America's values of family are not as important in our cultural values, except in conservative religious contexts.

Conserivative religious contexts, while good in defense of family values, have other obstacles to overcome. Their bias or prejuidice toward social problems in the family leaves them with little to draw compassion from their hearts, unless they happen to be compelled through thier own drivenness to be the "hero" to a particular family. While heroes are needed, if "self" finds their value and sense of self only within that context, it becomes an unhealthy one. "Self" must independent enough to evaluate reasonably what is of proirity and importance in a given situation. Religion can hinder such ;self assessment, because of it deadening affirmation of "what one believes or what one does", giving a doubly strong resitance to honest self assessment.

Maybe all humans are bent toward these tendencies to heroism, where the "self" is idealized and applauded by an attempt to cover over the deficiencies of one's past childhood memories of "self".

America has the ability to give room for diversity, but it allso allows enough room for denying values that might just be the foundations of society and a healthy functioning "Self".