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 "voice". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "voice". Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Personal Reflection on Moral Imperatives
Someone I care about in my family is suffering from back problems. Severe pain deters him from getting about, as usual. Because of his status in the family, all members are wrangling about what their part should be. This has caused me much reflection.
Families are places of identity, comfort, pain, and even, disconnect, at times. But, family bonds go beyond normal boundaries of choice. Without an ability to choose one's family of origin, the child is bound to be formed without his conscious choice and coming to terms with his own values, until a lot later in life.
The relationships in families are important ones to develop, as they are historical and personal. But, so often in families, there is a lack of communication and appreciation of differences, which is often the case in any relationship.
Today, while talking with this person and inquiring about his condition, I encouraged him to puruse his own course, as I believe that it is important for him to maintain his dignity, especially when his dignity is being physically challenged. It is important for there to be equal respect and honor concerning his "voice". It is de-meaning and de-morallizing to not have a voice about one's life in the first place, not to mention the struggle to grapple with the "what ifs". So, my suggestion to the family is to listen carefully in the midst of great concern, to listen for his voice. Ask questions about his wishes and honor them, as this will speak to him of our love and value of him as a person, in his own right.
Perhaps, because of my upbringing, it is very important to me that there be equal representation. Everyone in the family is important and valued, but different. These differences are to be applauded, challenged, and compromised or negotiated. We will many times disagree, but the important thing is to express our love and honor, as we all want to do.
Tonight, my family will meet, but I will not be there. A nephew, who is a physician, will ask, talk and listen and hopefully be able to come to some decisions about what are the wishes and desires of this important person in our lives. I wish I could be there. I will be in spirit. And my aunt made sure that my voice was heard, as she called to inform me. I appreciate that and her.
My personal reflection on this event has made it obvious that we will all see different moral imperatives. Wouldn't it be a shame if each one of us insisted that their view was the absolute moral imperative? Wouldn't that express the epitome of moral insensitivity and ethical impropriety? And how would that express what each of us desires most to do? Wouldn't it defeat the ultimate purpose we have about this important person, to be honored and cherished? I think so.
Families are places of identity, comfort, pain, and even, disconnect, at times. But, family bonds go beyond normal boundaries of choice. Without an ability to choose one's family of origin, the child is bound to be formed without his conscious choice and coming to terms with his own values, until a lot later in life.
The relationships in families are important ones to develop, as they are historical and personal. But, so often in families, there is a lack of communication and appreciation of differences, which is often the case in any relationship.
Today, while talking with this person and inquiring about his condition, I encouraged him to puruse his own course, as I believe that it is important for him to maintain his dignity, especially when his dignity is being physically challenged. It is important for there to be equal respect and honor concerning his "voice". It is de-meaning and de-morallizing to not have a voice about one's life in the first place, not to mention the struggle to grapple with the "what ifs". So, my suggestion to the family is to listen carefully in the midst of great concern, to listen for his voice. Ask questions about his wishes and honor them, as this will speak to him of our love and value of him as a person, in his own right.
Perhaps, because of my upbringing, it is very important to me that there be equal representation. Everyone in the family is important and valued, but different. These differences are to be applauded, challenged, and compromised or negotiated. We will many times disagree, but the important thing is to express our love and honor, as we all want to do.
Tonight, my family will meet, but I will not be there. A nephew, who is a physician, will ask, talk and listen and hopefully be able to come to some decisions about what are the wishes and desires of this important person in our lives. I wish I could be there. I will be in spirit. And my aunt made sure that my voice was heard, as she called to inform me. I appreciate that and her.
My personal reflection on this event has made it obvious that we will all see different moral imperatives. Wouldn't it be a shame if each one of us insisted that their view was the absolute moral imperative? Wouldn't that express the epitome of moral insensitivity and ethical impropriety? And how would that express what each of us desires most to do? Wouldn't it defeat the ultimate purpose we have about this important person, to be honored and cherished? I think so.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Apologies, But, No Apologies
Apologies are offered to anyone that has "happened" upon this blog and been offended. I speak my personal opinion for two reasons.
The first is something I hold dear and cannot compromise. It is the value of the freedom of speech and the press!!! Without the right to speak one's mind, there is no freedom, but oppressive conformity to what is "politically correct". Political correctness subverts the ability for individuals and the populace to have information and come to conclusions themselves. I think this is a value we cannot undermine without undermining free society, itself.
The question comes as to what is appropriate. In a personal blog, I think it is appropriate and even mandantory to express what is on one's mind. And what one thinks. No one is bound to read anything that is written here, or anywhere else, as it is a way of me processing and coming to terms with values.
The other reason is just as important for me personally. I need to write my opinion, irregardless of what anyone else thinks. This is an attempt to assert myself, build courage to speak my mind, in spite of what has imposed itself upon me by environmental conditioning. Perhaps, it is an adolescent stage of "coming into my own". Or it may be a "mid-life" stage of finding my true voice. I don't know, yet. But, I hope to learn and grow in the process of exploring and come to terms with what I cannot give up. Thus, my stripping away of what seems to be extraneous. Critical thinking is necessary in this process. I may not have developed my thinking altogether, but I am trying and this is a good thing.
I believe that those that are secure in their convictions, and values, will not be offended by my "voice".
The first is something I hold dear and cannot compromise. It is the value of the freedom of speech and the press!!! Without the right to speak one's mind, there is no freedom, but oppressive conformity to what is "politically correct". Political correctness subverts the ability for individuals and the populace to have information and come to conclusions themselves. I think this is a value we cannot undermine without undermining free society, itself.
The question comes as to what is appropriate. In a personal blog, I think it is appropriate and even mandantory to express what is on one's mind. And what one thinks. No one is bound to read anything that is written here, or anywhere else, as it is a way of me processing and coming to terms with values.
The other reason is just as important for me personally. I need to write my opinion, irregardless of what anyone else thinks. This is an attempt to assert myself, build courage to speak my mind, in spite of what has imposed itself upon me by environmental conditioning. Perhaps, it is an adolescent stage of "coming into my own". Or it may be a "mid-life" stage of finding my true voice. I don't know, yet. But, I hope to learn and grow in the process of exploring and come to terms with what I cannot give up. Thus, my stripping away of what seems to be extraneous. Critical thinking is necessary in this process. I may not have developed my thinking altogether, but I am trying and this is a good thing.
I believe that those that are secure in their convictions, and values, will not be offended by my "voice".
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Power Corrupts
It has been said, "Power corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutely". Why is this so? Power gives a sense of being above the frey of "common man". Power is exillerating because one can choose and "make things happen". World events and history can be changed due to the use of power. But, history has also understood what absolute power does in any position. This is the brillance of our Founding Fathers in establishing our three branches of government. The executive branch was not considered to be the "rule of a King". The people had a voice in their government through their vote for Congressional candidates and the judicial branch has granted individual liberties to those that were persecuted or discriminated against.
It used to be believed that power was given by God and therefore, rulers ruled under the authority of God-given power. The peasant classes were to submit and deter to what "God had ordained". Heridatary power was understood to be the priviledged and empowered classes and Kings made treaties based on marriage contracts.
But, our Founders understood that all people were created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These rights were natural rights, not supernaturally given or sanctioned. Men were to recognize and respect another's right to life and liberty and their pursuit of happiness. This was the basis of our Constitution and has been the fodder of the human rights movement.
Individuals are respected in our country's very "ideals" and power is limited by "the rule of law". Therefore, I am thankful that I live in a country that respects the "rule of law" and wants to pursue justice, stand against injustice and resist those that think thier power is absolute.
It used to be believed that power was given by God and therefore, rulers ruled under the authority of God-given power. The peasant classes were to submit and deter to what "God had ordained". Heridatary power was understood to be the priviledged and empowered classes and Kings made treaties based on marriage contracts.
But, our Founders understood that all people were created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These rights were natural rights, not supernaturally given or sanctioned. Men were to recognize and respect another's right to life and liberty and their pursuit of happiness. This was the basis of our Constitution and has been the fodder of the human rights movement.
Individuals are respected in our country's very "ideals" and power is limited by "the rule of law". Therefore, I am thankful that I live in a country that respects the "rule of law" and wants to pursue justice, stand against injustice and resist those that think thier power is absolute.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Men Use and Abuse
Men use God to further their own purposes. Men justify themselves by "God's will". Men use others "in the name of God" and say it is for "God's Kingdom". Slavery for God's purposes means God is a slave-holder.
God is therefore, not good, because he priviledges the few at the expense of others. God is not love, because he disregards other voices. He only hears the "right" voice.
Which "voice", you ask? Asking means there is hope that you will hear. Questions are the only "hope" for the world.
Don't cry because God doesn't hear. God has no ears.
Is God worthy? Or is he like the worst nightmare and one's worst enemy?
Oh, but you say that he has set himself against the arrogant and that it is only for discipline that one is suffering. And you are convinced that God will return to the arrogant, though they forsook him, once the arrogant repent. Isn't this giving the same advice as Job's comforters? They had all the answers, because they knew the mind of God. And they understood perfectly well, Job's "problem".
But the problem was really theirs.
God is therefore, not good, because he priviledges the few at the expense of others. God is not love, because he disregards other voices. He only hears the "right" voice.
Which "voice", you ask? Asking means there is hope that you will hear. Questions are the only "hope" for the world.
Don't cry because God doesn't hear. God has no ears.
Is God worthy? Or is he like the worst nightmare and one's worst enemy?
Oh, but you say that he has set himself against the arrogant and that it is only for discipline that one is suffering. And you are convinced that God will return to the arrogant, though they forsook him, once the arrogant repent. Isn't this giving the same advice as Job's comforters? They had all the answers, because they knew the mind of God. And they understood perfectly well, Job's "problem".
But the problem was really theirs.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Political Problems Will Always Exist
The news headlines for a few weeks have featured Iran's elections and peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Elections are a "right"in free societies. But, human rights are ignored in regimes that do not want or allow individual freedom of choice. There is a belief in Iran that the elections were rigged. Certain "kidnappings" have occurred to the ones supporting the opposition party, even though the law supports the right to voice difference. Rigged elections do not allow the "voice" to the individual or certain groups that differ in political agenda. This is not an unusual occurance, as power is hard to over-ride in these regimes, as there are no "checks and balances" as in our government.
I have become concerned recently at the large number of powerful posistions that this adminstration has "appointed" without accountability to the electorate. Is this a step to undermine our Constitutional government, as a representative republic?
This morning it was reported that Israel has offended the Palestianians with certain absolute non-negotiables, such as Israel's right to the land granted to them as a state and the right to Jerusalem. It seems that the Palestianians are forced to maintain a tribal identity, as they do not have a nation state that identifies their legitimacy. Personal identity is associated with one's nation, as well as familial culture.
I do not know the answer to this one, as there are conflicting stories about who has the right to Jerusalem and why and where boundaries should be established in maintaining borders between the two peoples. Without a country and home, the Palestianians do not have a "voice". But, terrorism and violence is not the answer or solution to resolve these tensions.
It seems that the persecuted "need" resolution of their denied identity by restitution of those who have limited their identity. This action affirms their "right to life and liberty" and their pursuit of happiness. Many countries granted that right to the Jews in granting them a nation and granting them a right to their own land. How are we to negotiate between two persecuted parties, who continue to persecute the "other"?
Rational choice has been useful in bringing about peace in many instances to conflicting countries, but generations of conflict over interests do nothing to make the way clear for "hearing" the other and compromising or negotiating. Emotions have become attached to certain "bulwarks" of conflict that make these stumbling blocks hard, if not impossible, to overcome.
The real world does not act based on compassion, goodness, and understanding, but on interests. Interests are not "right or wrong", just different. Justice is bringing about a equal hearing and coming to terms with the ultimate issue concerning conflict. Therefore, it behooves all of us to be aware of what our interests are and base our negotiation on what we are willing and unwilling to compromise.
Elections are a "right"in free societies. But, human rights are ignored in regimes that do not want or allow individual freedom of choice. There is a belief in Iran that the elections were rigged. Certain "kidnappings" have occurred to the ones supporting the opposition party, even though the law supports the right to voice difference. Rigged elections do not allow the "voice" to the individual or certain groups that differ in political agenda. This is not an unusual occurance, as power is hard to over-ride in these regimes, as there are no "checks and balances" as in our government.
I have become concerned recently at the large number of powerful posistions that this adminstration has "appointed" without accountability to the electorate. Is this a step to undermine our Constitutional government, as a representative republic?
This morning it was reported that Israel has offended the Palestianians with certain absolute non-negotiables, such as Israel's right to the land granted to them as a state and the right to Jerusalem. It seems that the Palestianians are forced to maintain a tribal identity, as they do not have a nation state that identifies their legitimacy. Personal identity is associated with one's nation, as well as familial culture.
I do not know the answer to this one, as there are conflicting stories about who has the right to Jerusalem and why and where boundaries should be established in maintaining borders between the two peoples. Without a country and home, the Palestianians do not have a "voice". But, terrorism and violence is not the answer or solution to resolve these tensions.
It seems that the persecuted "need" resolution of their denied identity by restitution of those who have limited their identity. This action affirms their "right to life and liberty" and their pursuit of happiness. Many countries granted that right to the Jews in granting them a nation and granting them a right to their own land. How are we to negotiate between two persecuted parties, who continue to persecute the "other"?
Rational choice has been useful in bringing about peace in many instances to conflicting countries, but generations of conflict over interests do nothing to make the way clear for "hearing" the other and compromising or negotiating. Emotions have become attached to certain "bulwarks" of conflict that make these stumbling blocks hard, if not impossible, to overcome.
The real world does not act based on compassion, goodness, and understanding, but on interests. Interests are not "right or wrong", just different. Justice is bringing about a equal hearing and coming to terms with the ultimate issue concerning conflict. Therefore, it behooves all of us to be aware of what our interests are and base our negotiation on what we are willing and unwilling to compromise.
Monday, April 27, 2009
What Are You Afraid Of?
I am sure that anyone who knows me, knows that I do not want to be controlled, as I value freedom. But, doesn't everyone value freedom? If we allow others the same freedom we would want, we do to them as we would want done to ourselves. This is fultilling the Golden Rule.
But, some are fearful that if they do not control others, then they will not "fulfill" their ultimate purpose(s). These have depended on others to carry out their "vision". While others are necessary to carry out any plan that is greater than "self-improvement", people have to co-operate, which means that they must believe in the "vision" and are committed to helping carry out the vision.
One of the signs of a great leader is inspiring others, not just initially, but when the going gets tough, to hang in there and not "bail out". But, leaders should always be open to new information or input from others, as those who are affected bythe vision should have a "voice" in their "life choices" and commitments. Good leaders are not offended or angry over criticism, as they desire to get a broader picture of the problem, so encouraging as many voices as possible is desired and really necessary. The more voices that are heard, the more likely problems will be alleviated.
Fear can be alleviated by information, as everyone grasps their "part" as they have committed to "vision". Our liberal democracy allows many avenues to fulfill one's duty, life purpose, or "vision". So, in our liberal democracy there should be no fear, but fear itself.
But, some are fearful that if they do not control others, then they will not "fulfill" their ultimate purpose(s). These have depended on others to carry out their "vision". While others are necessary to carry out any plan that is greater than "self-improvement", people have to co-operate, which means that they must believe in the "vision" and are committed to helping carry out the vision.
One of the signs of a great leader is inspiring others, not just initially, but when the going gets tough, to hang in there and not "bail out". But, leaders should always be open to new information or input from others, as those who are affected bythe vision should have a "voice" in their "life choices" and commitments. Good leaders are not offended or angry over criticism, as they desire to get a broader picture of the problem, so encouraging as many voices as possible is desired and really necessary. The more voices that are heard, the more likely problems will be alleviated.
Fear can be alleviated by information, as everyone grasps their "part" as they have committed to "vision". Our liberal democracy allows many avenues to fulfill one's duty, life purpose, or "vision". So, in our liberal democracy there should be no fear, but fear itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
