Any limitation on free speech is wrong, because, historically, guess what, it's the most offensive free speech that has been the most important, the most valuable to moving society forward." - Arvin Vohra
This is an important issue for the State! It is only when we impose manner, or opinion into law, that things get oppressive. Parents, teachers, and community leaders impact children and young adults, which inevitably makes for a polite society or a crude and crass one!
Showing posts with label ' society". Show all posts
Showing posts with label ' society". Show all posts
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Other Side to the Military Draft
The age old question about whether the individual or society has the 'upper hand" has been a question that has always been of interests to sociologists and pscyologists as well as many others. It is not resolved because the tension between individual liberty and social conformity will always remain in tension in a free society. With that in mind, how does one view the "Military Draft"?
The Military Draft is an obligation to the State to defend its foreign policy; its need to undermine rogue governments. It is a citizen's duty to uphold our nation's laws and be dependable in giving to society through one's work. A free society does not determine what one's work "should be" , but the military draft does. As I pointed out in the last post that our free society does not determine an individual's place, so, what should be our stance toward the military draft, then, as individuals?
In the '60's many dodged the draft or protested our war in VietNam. This was the individual's right to resist. Our country values the individual's right to have a conscience about particular wars and defers obligation to "conscientious objectors" because of religious conviction.
Foreign policy is not a straight forward black and white issue, but is wrought with complex issues of economic interests, and political pay-backs or positioning. It is hard to determine what is 'right or wrong" in certain instances because of such a mix of issues or concerns and sometimes a lack of information; human rights, trade, diplomacy, etc.
I don't think I'm the only American that is ill-informed about such issues, and as the world becomes more "entangled", then it becomes more complicated to unravel the strings. We live within our own interests, all of us, personally and nationally . So, we must admit that and go from there, otherwise, we will be prone to ideological views that only broaden and enrage an otherwise breachable barrier.
The Military Draft is an obligation to the State to defend its foreign policy; its need to undermine rogue governments. It is a citizen's duty to uphold our nation's laws and be dependable in giving to society through one's work. A free society does not determine what one's work "should be" , but the military draft does. As I pointed out in the last post that our free society does not determine an individual's place, so, what should be our stance toward the military draft, then, as individuals?
In the '60's many dodged the draft or protested our war in VietNam. This was the individual's right to resist. Our country values the individual's right to have a conscience about particular wars and defers obligation to "conscientious objectors" because of religious conviction.
Foreign policy is not a straight forward black and white issue, but is wrought with complex issues of economic interests, and political pay-backs or positioning. It is hard to determine what is 'right or wrong" in certain instances because of such a mix of issues or concerns and sometimes a lack of information; human rights, trade, diplomacy, etc.
I don't think I'm the only American that is ill-informed about such issues, and as the world becomes more "entangled", then it becomes more complicated to unravel the strings. We live within our own interests, all of us, personally and nationally . So, we must admit that and go from there, otherwise, we will be prone to ideological views that only broaden and enrage an otherwise breachable barrier.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
"The Gospel" and the Modern State....
What has "happened" to the "Gospel" and "The Church" in Modern society? How do we understand life, and time and text and tradition?
Much has transpired over time that makes it hard to hold to "biblical faith" or "biblical Christianity". Christians believe that history is "God"'s time/story. Westerners think in linear terms concerning their faith. There is a beginning and an end. God created the heavens and the earth and Christ is to come again. Faith is understood within the text as a developing story, God's story in Christ. Salvation was understood as "accepting" the story, and identifying with a Christian community. How faith communities understand themselves is the real issue after the Protestant Reformation.
Faith, as Protestants undestand it, is what liberty of conscience is to our Founders. Therefore, the Protestant Principle "works to fragment "faith" into diverse communities. The Roman Catholic Tradition understands itself as a political community, because it determines what each person's duty is to remain within it "graces". Such a political stance might grant crimes and punishments against the Church, but not necessarily against the nation-state, as these are seen as "spiritual" offenses. Since the West values a linear view of history, change is assumed.As America is primarily understood as a Protestant nation, how did America come to understand "Faith"?
Much has transpired over time that makes it hard to hold to "biblical faith" or "biblical Christianity". Christians believe that history is "God"'s time/story. Westerners think in linear terms concerning their faith. There is a beginning and an end. God created the heavens and the earth and Christ is to come again. Faith is understood within the text as a developing story, God's story in Christ. Salvation was understood as "accepting" the story, and identifying with a Christian community. How faith communities understand themselves is the real issue after the Protestant Reformation.
Faith, as Protestants undestand it, is what liberty of conscience is to our Founders. Therefore, the Protestant Principle "works to fragment "faith" into diverse communities. The Roman Catholic Tradition understands itself as a political community, because it determines what each person's duty is to remain within it "graces". Such a political stance might grant crimes and punishments against the Church, but not necessarily against the nation-state, as these are seen as "spiritual" offenses. Since the West values a linear view of history, change is assumed.As America is primarily understood as a Protestant nation, how did America come to understand "Faith"?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
People of Faith, Arise (or why faith is dangerous in a real world)
This is to be Rapture Day! Is anyone really disappointed, or fearful that they have been "left behind"? Why would people or anyone believe that one could really "know" these things? Because they have faith! Faith sanctions MANY unreasonable, foolish, and unwise thoughts, actions, convictions, and opinions! But people of Faith cannot be torn away from their "personal experience" which affirms their context!
These were "born into" a biblical worldview, where Scripture trumps every other kind of knowledge or information! Such an experience can be understood as a transformation, or coversion that makes a difference in how the "world and all that is" is understood. The denominations that affirm such experiences run the gambit from revivalists, holiness, evangelicals, pentecostals, and religious cults of all kinds. Human have religious experiences. This is a fact, but the interpretation of that experience differs. Those within social groups that sanction and affirm such experiences, have self-affirming contexts and collective identities. They can't or won't see any other view, as their view is so tightly wound around "who they know themselves to be".
The danger in such an identity is to the "self" and to the larger world. The "self" of the child raised in such a context is limited by seeking the experience, or depending on experience, or using reason to understand his preferred "worldview" which is the Bible or the Prophet. "Self" isn't understood or seen in a larger dimension than a religious/spiritual one, so "self" will never understand larger issues, problems or complexities in the world.
The larger world is endangered because such people might think that "God" desires to convert the world, and these do damage to the nation-state's sensitive diplomatic efforts. Other cultures are prone to "war" when their understanding is threatened. But, those of "Faith" don't see the danger. They only believe that "God" can do the impossible and that "God" is on their side! Such thinking and behavior is seen as disrespectful of another's interests, though "self interests" hides behind "God". Religious people don't think, they just believe and act on such belief! A dangerous stance toward the world and others.
Besides diplomacy, these can be a thorn in the side of Academics. Such people KNOW what the text means and says, they don't believe in education. They believe in the Holy Spirit as "God's trainer, teacher and friend". It becomes a spiritualized mysticism that is hard to break. Their "personal relationship" is all that matters, because they have found "The Truth" for all times and all people! This way of thinking becomes a danger to society, becasue such believe that the "biblical worldview" should be applied to all of life, which means ethics.
Biblical ethics is an ideal, but cannot be applied without leaving one's head in the sand or "at the door". Pacifists, and self-annilhilation are understood, by some, as the best way to love one's neighbor, but is not loving to oneself. Pacifism doesn't see the real world and make assessments about when the "evil" must be confronted. And self-anilhilation does nothing for the "other" in resisting what must be resisted or confronting what needs confronting. Accountability is not seen as a neccessity.
"Self" whether one's natural tendency is agressive or passive is sanctioned under the experience of "God" and not seen for what it is and equality under law should be held as accountability for the aggressive and the passive. One sees themselves as the "leader", "Prophet", or "specially annointed", while the other meekly submits to self annilhilation and hatred. It emboldens evil and it destroys justice.
Faith is not something that humans should base their lives on in the real world. The real world works in the way it works and it is best to start to understand what that is, and how that is defined. The Academy is the first place to begin, then one can approach the world, self, and the other with more amnunition than just "have faith", or "just believe".
These were "born into" a biblical worldview, where Scripture trumps every other kind of knowledge or information! Such an experience can be understood as a transformation, or coversion that makes a difference in how the "world and all that is" is understood. The denominations that affirm such experiences run the gambit from revivalists, holiness, evangelicals, pentecostals, and religious cults of all kinds. Human have religious experiences. This is a fact, but the interpretation of that experience differs. Those within social groups that sanction and affirm such experiences, have self-affirming contexts and collective identities. They can't or won't see any other view, as their view is so tightly wound around "who they know themselves to be".
The danger in such an identity is to the "self" and to the larger world. The "self" of the child raised in such a context is limited by seeking the experience, or depending on experience, or using reason to understand his preferred "worldview" which is the Bible or the Prophet. "Self" isn't understood or seen in a larger dimension than a religious/spiritual one, so "self" will never understand larger issues, problems or complexities in the world.
The larger world is endangered because such people might think that "God" desires to convert the world, and these do damage to the nation-state's sensitive diplomatic efforts. Other cultures are prone to "war" when their understanding is threatened. But, those of "Faith" don't see the danger. They only believe that "God" can do the impossible and that "God" is on their side! Such thinking and behavior is seen as disrespectful of another's interests, though "self interests" hides behind "God". Religious people don't think, they just believe and act on such belief! A dangerous stance toward the world and others.
Besides diplomacy, these can be a thorn in the side of Academics. Such people KNOW what the text means and says, they don't believe in education. They believe in the Holy Spirit as "God's trainer, teacher and friend". It becomes a spiritualized mysticism that is hard to break. Their "personal relationship" is all that matters, because they have found "The Truth" for all times and all people! This way of thinking becomes a danger to society, becasue such believe that the "biblical worldview" should be applied to all of life, which means ethics.
Biblical ethics is an ideal, but cannot be applied without leaving one's head in the sand or "at the door". Pacifists, and self-annilhilation are understood, by some, as the best way to love one's neighbor, but is not loving to oneself. Pacifism doesn't see the real world and make assessments about when the "evil" must be confronted. And self-anilhilation does nothing for the "other" in resisting what must be resisted or confronting what needs confronting. Accountability is not seen as a neccessity.
"Self" whether one's natural tendency is agressive or passive is sanctioned under the experience of "God" and not seen for what it is and equality under law should be held as accountability for the aggressive and the passive. One sees themselves as the "leader", "Prophet", or "specially annointed", while the other meekly submits to self annilhilation and hatred. It emboldens evil and it destroys justice.
Faith is not something that humans should base their lives on in the real world. The real world works in the way it works and it is best to start to understand what that is, and how that is defined. The Academy is the first place to begin, then one can approach the world, self, and the other with more amnunition than just "have faith", or "just believe".
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Self-Ownership, Libertariansim and Christianity
In a discussion with a friend today, I began to think that the issue of self-ownership, which is a principle of liberty, and libertariansim is at odds with conservative Christian thinking. But self-ownership underwrites the principle of individuality, which is of primary importance if we want to defend private property!
Self-ownership is at odds to Christian thinking because "we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus"...."we are no longer our own", 'we are bondservants", etc. etc. God "owns" the indivdiual in Church terms, at least the consecrated ones (Present your bodies as a living sacrifice"). This is athema to the principle of self-governance, and self-ownership and choice. But it is not in opposition to those who believe that humans are to steward the earth and be responsible for it.
The Founders and the Enlightenment believed that we should own private property That people should be rewarded for their labors. No longer was there to be a ruling class that owned all the property, but men could create their own wealth by choosing how they would steward their gifts and talents. The individual mattered when it came to their personal decision about how to live their life and provide for their family.
The individual mattered when it came to issues of justice. Justice is defined within contexts, but is the basis of law. Law is to limit and to define boundaries around appropriate behavior in given contexts. When people respect the law, then there are no victims of crime. Crime is disregarding the law, or boundaries around entities that are supposed to remain separated. The individual being the smallest segment of society, so said Thomas Jefferson. In our country we value the 'personal' or the private, because we value the individual and diversity of opinion. We are freethinkers in America, at least at the Founding.
Today, America has become defined by evangelicalism, which is a broad based "heart" experience of "personal relationship" with the Transcendent. The problem is that the foundation of such a movement was fundamentalism, which was resistant to the Academy, and learning itself outside the context of Scripture. Scripture was "God's infallible and inspired Word" which was to guide and guard all of life. What began in our Founders eyes as an experiment of justice and liberty, became defined by a Text that didn't allow for free thinking. Science was viewed as a threat to such a book, because of evolution, and the dismissal of the creation account.
Now, we see our political climate wrought with wars and rumors of wars over whether the definition of the text should be socialized, i.e. humanitarian endeavors, or spiritualized, i.e. guiding life and the political process. It is disheartening to say the least that Americans cannot enjoy the liberties we have in our diversity. But, when things are seen as "God's rightful rule", then, it can become a little uncomfortable!
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that might threaten the fundamentalists because it allows or risks, which might be in opposition to what is considered "God's Command" (The Divine Command Theory). Liberty for such people makes for anxiety because they are so zealous to see "God's Kingdom" come to pass, or bringing in the Kingdom.
Though libertarianism could become libertinism, it doesn't have to, as such a philosophy allows for respect and dignity to diverse views in the public square. Such respect should be the environment of civility and an ability to reason for what American's policy should be about and for....and that calls for self-governance most of all, because of respecting the "other" while disagreeing.
I have hope for America that her people will be grateful for liberty and practice it in their interaction with others, believing (for those that believe) that God can see and know the heart of man and it is only his right to make the judgements ultimately, and for those who feel overly responsible to remember that it was a diverse group of men that created our "Republic", so we don't all have to see things in the same way.
Self-ownership is at odds to Christian thinking because "we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus"...."we are no longer our own", 'we are bondservants", etc. etc. God "owns" the indivdiual in Church terms, at least the consecrated ones (Present your bodies as a living sacrifice"). This is athema to the principle of self-governance, and self-ownership and choice. But it is not in opposition to those who believe that humans are to steward the earth and be responsible for it.
The Founders and the Enlightenment believed that we should own private property That people should be rewarded for their labors. No longer was there to be a ruling class that owned all the property, but men could create their own wealth by choosing how they would steward their gifts and talents. The individual mattered when it came to their personal decision about how to live their life and provide for their family.
The individual mattered when it came to issues of justice. Justice is defined within contexts, but is the basis of law. Law is to limit and to define boundaries around appropriate behavior in given contexts. When people respect the law, then there are no victims of crime. Crime is disregarding the law, or boundaries around entities that are supposed to remain separated. The individual being the smallest segment of society, so said Thomas Jefferson. In our country we value the 'personal' or the private, because we value the individual and diversity of opinion. We are freethinkers in America, at least at the Founding.
Today, America has become defined by evangelicalism, which is a broad based "heart" experience of "personal relationship" with the Transcendent. The problem is that the foundation of such a movement was fundamentalism, which was resistant to the Academy, and learning itself outside the context of Scripture. Scripture was "God's infallible and inspired Word" which was to guide and guard all of life. What began in our Founders eyes as an experiment of justice and liberty, became defined by a Text that didn't allow for free thinking. Science was viewed as a threat to such a book, because of evolution, and the dismissal of the creation account.
Now, we see our political climate wrought with wars and rumors of wars over whether the definition of the text should be socialized, i.e. humanitarian endeavors, or spiritualized, i.e. guiding life and the political process. It is disheartening to say the least that Americans cannot enjoy the liberties we have in our diversity. But, when things are seen as "God's rightful rule", then, it can become a little uncomfortable!
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that might threaten the fundamentalists because it allows or risks, which might be in opposition to what is considered "God's Command" (The Divine Command Theory). Liberty for such people makes for anxiety because they are so zealous to see "God's Kingdom" come to pass, or bringing in the Kingdom.
Though libertarianism could become libertinism, it doesn't have to, as such a philosophy allows for respect and dignity to diverse views in the public square. Such respect should be the environment of civility and an ability to reason for what American's policy should be about and for....and that calls for self-governance most of all, because of respecting the "other" while disagreeing.
I have hope for America that her people will be grateful for liberty and practice it in their interaction with others, believing (for those that believe) that God can see and know the heart of man and it is only his right to make the judgements ultimately, and for those who feel overly responsible to remember that it was a diverse group of men that created our "Republic", so we don't all have to see things in the same way.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
American Values In a Global Climate
Plato said that one had to be dead if there was no more war. I agree, as men are always going to be self-interested, whether they recognize it or not. Even one's ideas about "God" are "self interested" claims, because this is how we define ourselves. People all define themselves by the groups that hold to their values, some knowing that this is a chosen value, while others less so.
Tonight, we watched "Black Hawk Down". Our military went into Somalia and fought against horrendous odds bravely and many were lost. One comment I will never forget was made by one of the Somalian warriors to a prisoner. He told the prisoner that irregardless of America's desire to promote democracy through gunfire, as a means to negotiation; Somalians believe that gunfire IS negotiation. Victory is only declared when their side has won against those that desire to change their culture. That was a sobering comment and made me wonder why we attempt to change these types of cultures.
The young men who represented our military were holding to their ideals of life and liberty and willing to fight to see that all people live free. This is the American ideal and they were defending not just their country's values, but protected each of their "buddies". They would not leave anyone behind, as they believed in the value of each indiviudal life! Their courage was amazing.
One wonders why we were in Somalia in the first place. Why were our men used in an environment that didn't seem to matter? Power does not seem to understand or value the costs to those that it holds under its command. It is an unusual person that understands and values the "little man" enough to not take lightly sending our men into harm's way. Our military are committed to serve any command, so it is imperative that our men in uniform be valued as to their life. They are fighting for our liberty.
When humanitarian aid is confiscated, why do Americans think that it is obligatory to follow up? Are we loyal to U.N. demands, and not our own Sovereignty? Or does American have some vested interest that the common American is unaware of?
The movie portrayed that hunger creates hostilities between rivalling groups. So, is preventing hunger a means to create peace? Then, what about the dictators or the corruption in society that makes it impossible to claim "the humane"? These cultures are not prone to change, unless they are killed or their power is taken from them.
The honor code of Westpoint claims that fighting for the "right" is not tolerating those that are corrupt or are corrupting influences in a society! One "hero" at the end said that he was asked whether he sought to be a hero and he said that one doesn't seek to be a hero, that becoming a hero happens. Becoming a hero is the result of duty! It is doing one's job in the military.
Tonight, we watched "Black Hawk Down". Our military went into Somalia and fought against horrendous odds bravely and many were lost. One comment I will never forget was made by one of the Somalian warriors to a prisoner. He told the prisoner that irregardless of America's desire to promote democracy through gunfire, as a means to negotiation; Somalians believe that gunfire IS negotiation. Victory is only declared when their side has won against those that desire to change their culture. That was a sobering comment and made me wonder why we attempt to change these types of cultures.
The young men who represented our military were holding to their ideals of life and liberty and willing to fight to see that all people live free. This is the American ideal and they were defending not just their country's values, but protected each of their "buddies". They would not leave anyone behind, as they believed in the value of each indiviudal life! Their courage was amazing.
One wonders why we were in Somalia in the first place. Why were our men used in an environment that didn't seem to matter? Power does not seem to understand or value the costs to those that it holds under its command. It is an unusual person that understands and values the "little man" enough to not take lightly sending our men into harm's way. Our military are committed to serve any command, so it is imperative that our men in uniform be valued as to their life. They are fighting for our liberty.
When humanitarian aid is confiscated, why do Americans think that it is obligatory to follow up? Are we loyal to U.N. demands, and not our own Sovereignty? Or does American have some vested interest that the common American is unaware of?
The movie portrayed that hunger creates hostilities between rivalling groups. So, is preventing hunger a means to create peace? Then, what about the dictators or the corruption in society that makes it impossible to claim "the humane"? These cultures are not prone to change, unless they are killed or their power is taken from them.
The honor code of Westpoint claims that fighting for the "right" is not tolerating those that are corrupt or are corrupting influences in a society! One "hero" at the end said that he was asked whether he sought to be a hero and he said that one doesn't seek to be a hero, that becoming a hero happens. Becoming a hero is the result of duty! It is doing one's job in the military.
Westpoint's Honor Code
Westpoint's honor code says, "We don't lie, cheat, or steal. And we don't tolerate those who do"!!! I respect this standard, as it maintains an order in society that values each equally.
Whenever we lie, cheat or steal, we do dishonor others by taking away another's expectation of rightful "life" and "liberty". These are values that protect our free society and protect justice, and we must not naively trust those who do not hold these standards. Those that do not adhere to these values are those that are not 'Westernized". We believe in the "rule of law".
Some cultures believe that lying, cheating and stealing is justified because of "honor" of "God", or one's family! These cultures speak a particular ethical language which ignores a universal standard of inclusion of diversity or individual rights. You must speak their particular cultural language to be valued and "in" the "honor" crowd... These are often religious cultures and these are based on "group think". Conformity is the "standard" that defines one's life, not liberty. It is the culture of children, whose parents determine what their child will and will not do or be. It is the "Nanny State" in political terms. Adults, who are free, should outgrow such confining and conforming "traditions" and come to understand their own personal preferences and values.
I respect our "men in uniform" because they value and respect our "social order" which values liberty and justice above all other values. Individuals matter in American understanding and culture. I value that as all Americans should!
Whenever we lie, cheat or steal, we do dishonor others by taking away another's expectation of rightful "life" and "liberty". These are values that protect our free society and protect justice, and we must not naively trust those who do not hold these standards. Those that do not adhere to these values are those that are not 'Westernized". We believe in the "rule of law".
Some cultures believe that lying, cheating and stealing is justified because of "honor" of "God", or one's family! These cultures speak a particular ethical language which ignores a universal standard of inclusion of diversity or individual rights. You must speak their particular cultural language to be valued and "in" the "honor" crowd... These are often religious cultures and these are based on "group think". Conformity is the "standard" that defines one's life, not liberty. It is the culture of children, whose parents determine what their child will and will not do or be. It is the "Nanny State" in political terms. Adults, who are free, should outgrow such confining and conforming "traditions" and come to understand their own personal preferences and values.
I respect our "men in uniform" because they value and respect our "social order" which values liberty and justice above all other values. Individuals matter in American understanding and culture. I value that as all Americans should!
Friday, April 29, 2011
In Light of Facism.....
In light of my other posts on Facism, I started thinking about how groups define themselves. Distinction makes for significance, importance, value, or some other defining characteristic. This is especially necessary when there has been a humiliation of some kind. Many scholars think that Hitler's rise to power was because of the German humiliation in WWI. Individual's within the group choose to associate with a particular group because of its value to them. I think this is how Relgions have developed by their group identifications and answers to the "Big Questions". The answers to these questions are assimulated into their personal views, values and understanding. And it makes them find significance before "Someone" that is not grounded in reality, as theirs is a lack of political power. But, it is no less true of political ideologies, as in Hitler's Germany.
Facism is an authoritarian governance based on such identification, and those in power control the resources of those within their group. All religious cults define and act in such ways, too. Early Christianity assimulated mystery cultish thinking and understanding; "sanctifying" the pagan to produce a "new Christian culture" that was maintained by the Church's theological commitments to these belief systems.
Facism seeks to identify its superiority in some way, usually with the nation-state and to prevent the moral decay of the nation. Such is what we see on the "Right" in their defense of the Christian Nation. But, it is no less true of theocratic governments such as the Taliban.
On the other side, is the left, who supports a redistribution of wealth and Marxist revolutionary ideology. While the Facists holds a "capitalistic veneer", Marxism is repulsed by the "elite". They want a level playing field. Some political scientists believe that Facism is the last resort of corporations to hold on 'to the ship", when corporatism is sinking. The compromise of private corporate power and government power is deadly for individual liberty.
The death of individual liberty is the point in Facism, as Fascists seek to allign socialism with corportatism. The collective hides behind a capitalistic facade. But, it is no less true of religious zealotry, such as the Taliban that seeks to allign the religous with political power.
I think the "Culture Wars" are about what America is to look like in the future. Is it going to be the defense of corporatism alligned with government power? Religious zealatry alligned with political power? or Socialsim alligned with political power? Instead of looking back and protecting the foundations of our society, we seek "a better way", which ends up underming what America has always stood for; individual liberty in his pursuit of Life and Happiness!
Facism is an authoritarian governance based on such identification, and those in power control the resources of those within their group. All religious cults define and act in such ways, too. Early Christianity assimulated mystery cultish thinking and understanding; "sanctifying" the pagan to produce a "new Christian culture" that was maintained by the Church's theological commitments to these belief systems.
Facism seeks to identify its superiority in some way, usually with the nation-state and to prevent the moral decay of the nation. Such is what we see on the "Right" in their defense of the Christian Nation. But, it is no less true of theocratic governments such as the Taliban.
On the other side, is the left, who supports a redistribution of wealth and Marxist revolutionary ideology. While the Facists holds a "capitalistic veneer", Marxism is repulsed by the "elite". They want a level playing field. Some political scientists believe that Facism is the last resort of corporations to hold on 'to the ship", when corporatism is sinking. The compromise of private corporate power and government power is deadly for individual liberty.
The death of individual liberty is the point in Facism, as Fascists seek to allign socialism with corportatism. The collective hides behind a capitalistic facade. But, it is no less true of religious zealotry, such as the Taliban that seeks to allign the religous with political power.
I think the "Culture Wars" are about what America is to look like in the future. Is it going to be the defense of corporatism alligned with government power? Religious zealatry alligned with political power? or Socialsim alligned with political power? Instead of looking back and protecting the foundations of our society, we seek "a better way", which ends up underming what America has always stood for; individual liberty in his pursuit of Life and Happiness!
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The More I Think About Morality
The more I think about morality, I have to believe that the moral absolute is the granting of "life" to another. What does this mean?
Is "life" just its physical properties? If so, we shouldn't allow " living wills". We should demand that another's physical life be determined by our own assumptions, without their consent. We know what is right for another person, and they are wrong, if they do not submit to our demands.
What is wrong with this? Moral demands of this kind is considered tyrannical, to those that also value liberty. Liberty allows for tolerance toward differences of value and prioritize the value of choice, itself. Without choice, there is an underming of morality, as morality is about our behavior in society. And society should value individual rights to "ownership" of their person, and property. Without such guaruntees, there is no liberty, therefore, we have no "life", only a "life", as defined by another, as a robot.
So, government is necessary to protect rights, as rights protect liberty, otherwise, we are dissolved before the most empowered and will be limited as to our "life". Limitation of "life" is certainly not one's personal pursuit of happiness, but another's. Society should be protected from intrusions into these private spaces of "self-determining" choices, as long as they are not impinging on another's "life". As the saying goes, "moral busybodies" need to "get a life"!
Is "life" just its physical properties? If so, we shouldn't allow " living wills". We should demand that another's physical life be determined by our own assumptions, without their consent. We know what is right for another person, and they are wrong, if they do not submit to our demands.
What is wrong with this? Moral demands of this kind is considered tyrannical, to those that also value liberty. Liberty allows for tolerance toward differences of value and prioritize the value of choice, itself. Without choice, there is an underming of morality, as morality is about our behavior in society. And society should value individual rights to "ownership" of their person, and property. Without such guaruntees, there is no liberty, therefore, we have no "life", only a "life", as defined by another, as a robot.
So, government is necessary to protect rights, as rights protect liberty, otherwise, we are dissolved before the most empowered and will be limited as to our "life". Limitation of "life" is certainly not one's personal pursuit of happiness, but another's. Society should be protected from intrusions into these private spaces of "self-determining" choices, as long as they are not impinging on another's "life". As the saying goes, "moral busybodies" need to "get a life"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
