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".
Showing posts with label balance of power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label balance of power. Show all posts
Monday, February 28, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, February 18, 2011
A Global Move Via Healthcand Teacher's Unions
The recent judgement that Obama's healthcare plan is unconstitutional is in appeal. But, that doesn't seem to matter to those that seem to be committed to a "higher law" or "greater purpose", and that is underming State authority.
It seems to me that power grabs by centralization was NOT what was in mind of our origninal government strucuturing! The State was to be Sovereign in their own affairs. But, if the adminstration holds the States accountable to this healthcare initiative, it may just bankrupt the States. Would the Federal government step in to "fix the problem", by centralizing power? It would be a devious move and determined poiticians to attain more centralization of power and our GNP.
On the other issue that is bombarding America is the issue of teacher's and unions! Unionization is also a way to centralize government through the board of education, instead of the State being responsible, the Nation would be responsible. Would educational institutions be forced to conform to a national standardization of education? Again the minds of the young will be in the hands of the few.
Granted that sometimes standards are necessary to ensure that basice are taught and undestood in our nation. It is in the nation's interests that the population be educated.
But, will there be an attempt to unify across the boundaries of the nation-state? Would this be the first step to a "global governance" and "World Citizenship"? How and who will determine what kind of govenrment and what laws will be implemented. Hopefully, fundamentalists will not gain enough popularity to gain a foothold that would deter agreement as to globalized standards. Can gloablization be in the best intersts of the inidivual? I don't think so, because as government increases in size the more beaucratic regulation must be created to maintain "social order" and structure.
Will such a globalized govenrment have a balance of power? Will there be a world-wide election? Or will we be tehcnically, practically, or symbolically under a dictator?
The balance of power and structuring in our government was a delicate one. I don't think that such structuring would be an easy one for the globe. And really, I don't think that the purpose of our government is really what is desired, i.e. balance of power.
Hopefully, that last bastion of liberty, i.e. America will not be destroyed before we can have another election, so "the people" can protect their rights, as well, as their nation's.
It seems to me that power grabs by centralization was NOT what was in mind of our origninal government strucuturing! The State was to be Sovereign in their own affairs. But, if the adminstration holds the States accountable to this healthcare initiative, it may just bankrupt the States. Would the Federal government step in to "fix the problem", by centralizing power? It would be a devious move and determined poiticians to attain more centralization of power and our GNP.
On the other issue that is bombarding America is the issue of teacher's and unions! Unionization is also a way to centralize government through the board of education, instead of the State being responsible, the Nation would be responsible. Would educational institutions be forced to conform to a national standardization of education? Again the minds of the young will be in the hands of the few.
Granted that sometimes standards are necessary to ensure that basice are taught and undestood in our nation. It is in the nation's interests that the population be educated.
But, will there be an attempt to unify across the boundaries of the nation-state? Would this be the first step to a "global governance" and "World Citizenship"? How and who will determine what kind of govenrment and what laws will be implemented. Hopefully, fundamentalists will not gain enough popularity to gain a foothold that would deter agreement as to globalized standards. Can gloablization be in the best intersts of the inidivual? I don't think so, because as government increases in size the more beaucratic regulation must be created to maintain "social order" and structure.
Will such a globalized govenrment have a balance of power? Will there be a world-wide election? Or will we be tehcnically, practically, or symbolically under a dictator?
The balance of power and structuring in our government was a delicate one. I don't think that such structuring would be an easy one for the globe. And really, I don't think that the purpose of our government is really what is desired, i.e. balance of power.
Hopefully, that last bastion of liberty, i.e. America will not be destroyed before we can have another election, so "the people" can protect their rights, as well, as their nation's.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Because the Masses Must Be Manipulated....
The "masses must be led", as there are many ways to frame our understandings and commitments in the world. Those that do not know this, but 'bite' on one way of thinking, or are not critical about their own "bias", are prone to be manipulated. Many have opposed such manipulation by leadership or by informing those that are so naive'. Sometimes advantages are gained because of conventional wisdom and there is no ulterior motive as to power, but other times, there is a desire to have power over the masses, so power can be expanded.
Martin Luther stood against the Catholic Church because the Church was using the teaching and belief of indulgences to gain power over those that didn't have any other recourse, as they couldn't even "worship" with understanding, because they were so dependent on the Magisterium. Church teaching was a way for the Church to maintain social order, but in Luther's eyes scripture was useful for educational purposes. The Church believed that they had a justified right over the masses because "God", had ultimate right over the masses. But, "God" ended up being really, the Magisterium.
The Roman Church also resisted change when it came to scientific discoveries that undermined Aritotle's view of "First Cause" as "God". The view that the Church was the center of the universe (the right interpretor/authority), just as Man/Earth was the center of "God's purposes" was to continue to bias the masses. Science and religion became competitors for man's bias.
Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators led the "masses" down their primrose path because they held the reigns of power over information in the press. Propaganda was useful to propetiate the "right message" so that the Germans would think their purposes were above and higher than other purposes. Propaganda was accepted because there was no other way of thinking or judging about "the outsider". Information/education was only allowed within a certain 'context".And these believe that the State, or the Dictator is to determine man's bias.
Marxist ideology believes that the purposes of economic equality can only be furthered with religion's assent. Religion is the opiate of the people, and it is needed after the revolution that creates and benefits the leaders's vision of equality or morality, at the expense of everyone else. Such is the case with class warfare, as it always ends in bloodshed. Vacumns are filled by dictators that create safety out of the chaos/revolution. These people want to use conventional wisdom to their advantage by "useful language" games. Theirs is an "Economic" bias.
Abraham Lincoln created an environment where the States warred for their right of economic benefit. He filled the vacumn by enlarging the centralized State at the expense of the state's right to succeed. Centralization is a bias toward "Statism".
Individual heroes have always stood up, resisted, or lived without such manipulations. But, it takes courage to face one's own bias, and strength to continue to resist opposing forces that want to manipulate bias toward a "mass understanding" or use "mass understanding" to manipulate and control "outcomes".
Our Founding Fathers knew that divided and separated power was needed to protect against such centralized thinking and being in the world, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton). It is collective power that is not challenged that corrupts. Such have been the Nelson Mandelas, the Albert Einsteins, the Martin Luthers, the Martin Luther King, Jr.s, the Anne Franks, the Ayn Rands, the Alexander Solzhenitsyns these have discovered, resisted, stood up for, and made a difference against "collective thinking".
Martin Luther stood against the Catholic Church because the Church was using the teaching and belief of indulgences to gain power over those that didn't have any other recourse, as they couldn't even "worship" with understanding, because they were so dependent on the Magisterium. Church teaching was a way for the Church to maintain social order, but in Luther's eyes scripture was useful for educational purposes. The Church believed that they had a justified right over the masses because "God", had ultimate right over the masses. But, "God" ended up being really, the Magisterium.
The Roman Church also resisted change when it came to scientific discoveries that undermined Aritotle's view of "First Cause" as "God". The view that the Church was the center of the universe (the right interpretor/authority), just as Man/Earth was the center of "God's purposes" was to continue to bias the masses. Science and religion became competitors for man's bias.
Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators led the "masses" down their primrose path because they held the reigns of power over information in the press. Propaganda was useful to propetiate the "right message" so that the Germans would think their purposes were above and higher than other purposes. Propaganda was accepted because there was no other way of thinking or judging about "the outsider". Information/education was only allowed within a certain 'context".And these believe that the State, or the Dictator is to determine man's bias.
Marxist ideology believes that the purposes of economic equality can only be furthered with religion's assent. Religion is the opiate of the people, and it is needed after the revolution that creates and benefits the leaders's vision of equality or morality, at the expense of everyone else. Such is the case with class warfare, as it always ends in bloodshed. Vacumns are filled by dictators that create safety out of the chaos/revolution. These people want to use conventional wisdom to their advantage by "useful language" games. Theirs is an "Economic" bias.
Abraham Lincoln created an environment where the States warred for their right of economic benefit. He filled the vacumn by enlarging the centralized State at the expense of the state's right to succeed. Centralization is a bias toward "Statism".
Individual heroes have always stood up, resisted, or lived without such manipulations. But, it takes courage to face one's own bias, and strength to continue to resist opposing forces that want to manipulate bias toward a "mass understanding" or use "mass understanding" to manipulate and control "outcomes".
Our Founding Fathers knew that divided and separated power was needed to protect against such centralized thinking and being in the world, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton). It is collective power that is not challenged that corrupts. Such have been the Nelson Mandelas, the Albert Einsteins, the Martin Luthers, the Martin Luther King, Jr.s, the Anne Franks, the Ayn Rands, the Alexander Solzhenitsyns these have discovered, resisted, stood up for, and made a difference against "collective thinking".
Monday, November 1, 2010
What Would I Do?
I just got a call asking me political questions. It got me thinking....What would I do? And what do I believe?
The question made me question whether I would govern on a practical/utilitarian model or a principled/deontological model. I don't know.
Certain principles must be adhered to, if we want to protect a Constitutional government. One cannot get too practical without compromising and undermining the basics. But, what are those basics? Are they ideologically driven, or pragmatically negotiated?
Because of such quandaries, I wonder if we are judging some of our politicians, too harshly. Compromise is a necessity if one is to get anything done. Our Founders balanced power for this very reason. They wanted to protect our government from abuses of power. And such is a necessity if we continue to remain free.
What drives me and what concerns me most? What drives or concerns you most?
The question made me question whether I would govern on a practical/utilitarian model or a principled/deontological model. I don't know.
Certain principles must be adhered to, if we want to protect a Constitutional government. One cannot get too practical without compromising and undermining the basics. But, what are those basics? Are they ideologically driven, or pragmatically negotiated?
Because of such quandaries, I wonder if we are judging some of our politicians, too harshly. Compromise is a necessity if one is to get anything done. Our Founders balanced power for this very reason. They wanted to protect our government from abuses of power. And such is a necessity if we continue to remain free.
What drives me and what concerns me most? What drives or concerns you most?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
What is the Rationale?
This morning I watched an Ethics panel that consisted of many Supreme Court Judges. It got me thinking about minority rights, common sense, and public interest.
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Why Religious Liberty Is Important to Individual Conscience
Our Founding Fathers understood that religion was an important dimension to liberty. Liberty values diversity, while tradition defines to unify. The Founders did not have one interpretation as to their religious understanding, when they founded our country. But, they did understand that an appeal to natural rights was necessary for the right to dissent. Natural rights were granted by "universal order", because God was the ordainer of such rights, not the government. Their "new experiment" was a "moral government" that protected and provided for liberty against power, position and might.
"Universal order" today, underwrites social Darwinism, the power and right of the "fittest". Today, Science defines to unify, as Tradition once did. But, the basis of such unity, structures society after power and not liberty, just as it did in pre-modernity.
Liberty of conscience in regards to religion was to protect against abuse of power in the Founder's eyes. And the structuring of "moral government" was a balance of power, not power itself. The law was the "ruler" and balancer of power.
Today, those that adhere to a politicized religious conscience can do so and should, but should not enforce their position upon those that "see" things differently. The sects are alive and well, which will continue to further bring alienation of such sects from the "Mother" Church Tradition or its Jewish root. But, each and every sect is an attempt at defining religious conviction, and defining commitment. Problems arise when these convictions and commitments impinge on another's right to liberty of conscience, opinion and commitment.
We must remember that whenever one defines, one also limits and judges. And yet, definitions are necessary for understanding and maintaining "order". Our Founders defined liberty according to the Constitution. The Constitution was to protect citizens from abuses of power. And our courts are the ones that will settle disputes of definitions.
"Universal order" today, underwrites social Darwinism, the power and right of the "fittest". Today, Science defines to unify, as Tradition once did. But, the basis of such unity, structures society after power and not liberty, just as it did in pre-modernity.
Liberty of conscience in regards to religion was to protect against abuse of power in the Founder's eyes. And the structuring of "moral government" was a balance of power, not power itself. The law was the "ruler" and balancer of power.
Today, those that adhere to a politicized religious conscience can do so and should, but should not enforce their position upon those that "see" things differently. The sects are alive and well, which will continue to further bring alienation of such sects from the "Mother" Church Tradition or its Jewish root. But, each and every sect is an attempt at defining religious conviction, and defining commitment. Problems arise when these convictions and commitments impinge on another's right to liberty of conscience, opinion and commitment.
We must remember that whenever one defines, one also limits and judges. And yet, definitions are necessary for understanding and maintaining "order". Our Founders defined liberty according to the Constitution. The Constitution was to protect citizens from abuses of power. And our courts are the ones that will settle disputes of definitions.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Limited Government and a Balance of Power
"Power corrupts", we have often heard. And those that have experienced power over thier lives will agree that power corrupts and abuses those under its authority. Humans cannot control unintended consequences, this is one of the achievments of our Founding Fathers. They understood that without limited government and a balance of power, individual would live their lives under "abuses of power".
The way the Founders formed our government was by law, which protected liberty. Justice was understood as an inalienable right. This right cannot be taken or given, as it is granted by nature. It is an innate equality of human beings, in their "personhood" because of being "made in God's image".
Our country has provided for and believed in "equal opportunity". The Statue of Liberty stands for the American value of incorporation "the many'. So, our cultural value is diversity. Individual have a right to express their voice, find their place, and to be a free moral agent. These values have led many to come to our shores to find refuge.
We, as a people, must still adhere to the values of limited government and a balance of power. This means that we stand with the individual, and we defend against abuse of law and governmental co-erciveness.
"We" are the people, or the indivdual who make up our nation and protect, defend and provide for continual greatness by not maintaining a stance of silence or indifference to corruption in the areas of limitation of government and a balance of power.
The differeneces lie in how we go about understanding what our country needs at present, in today's climate that is far from our Founders. But, we must defend their basic values and not give up our Constitution!
The way the Founders formed our government was by law, which protected liberty. Justice was understood as an inalienable right. This right cannot be taken or given, as it is granted by nature. It is an innate equality of human beings, in their "personhood" because of being "made in God's image".
Our country has provided for and believed in "equal opportunity". The Statue of Liberty stands for the American value of incorporation "the many'. So, our cultural value is diversity. Individual have a right to express their voice, find their place, and to be a free moral agent. These values have led many to come to our shores to find refuge.
We, as a people, must still adhere to the values of limited government and a balance of power. This means that we stand with the individual, and we defend against abuse of law and governmental co-erciveness.
"We" are the people, or the indivdual who make up our nation and protect, defend and provide for continual greatness by not maintaining a stance of silence or indifference to corruption in the areas of limitation of government and a balance of power.
The differeneces lie in how we go about understanding what our country needs at present, in today's climate that is far from our Founders. But, we must defend their basic values and not give up our Constitution!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Why is Democracy the Greatest Value?
Democracy is the greatest value for human flourishing. Why is this so? There are various reasons, but the basic reason is the value of diversity.
Diversity ranges the gambit from personality, interests and talents of the individual to nation-states and their interests. But, the nation-state, cannot undermine the interests of the individual without doing disservice to civil rights. And civil rights are what our Founders promised as freedom from tyranny.
On the other hand, the nation-state is formed by the type of individuals that form "a more perfect union". Thus, character is a necesary ingredient for citizens and those in public office. Character is individual pre-disposition. As an individual matures, the weaknesses/strengths of the indvidual 's personality become tempered through various experiences or furthered 'expanded" by ulimited and unaccountable power. Those who hold "utopian dreams" or "idealized self-promotion" come to realize the limitations and corrections of reality in a real world. Life, itself teaches, tempers and trains.
In a Constitutional Republic, laws form the basis of proper behavior within a given society. The evolutionist understands the law as a tempering to "survival skills", whereas the religionist sees the law as tempering "sin". The Founders defined our nation-state's "proper behavior" by the "Constitution". The "Declaration of Independence" was only the beginning to being ruled by law and not by outside human authority.
The psychologist, sociologist or cultural anthropologist understands Constitutional government as integrated into the human psyche, as an environmental conditioning, while the religionist believes that government is the order of the universe under God. And the evolutionary "philosopher" biologist, or physicist understands government to be an evolving enterprise.
Each person is allowed their understanding in a "Constitutional democracy". The problem today is the place of power, which the tea parties are addressing. Government was never meant to give power, but to limit power. The limitation of power was to maintain the ordered structure, because whenever an individual or group usurps the right of another to information, due process, dissent, and voice, the disempowered rebels and resists. Today, unlimited power of those in our public offices are what frustrates the democratic process and what the "rebel" tea parties are resisting. Accountability of our public officials are what those in public office should never undermine ubt uphold. Transparency is a necessary character trait of those that seek public office. Our Founders never intended for power to be unaccountable whether through subversion of information, or free speech. This is where cultural diversity ends and tyranny begins.
Tyranny happens whenever power is unlimited. Today's intellegensia, political elite and the monied are those that drive policy. And "science" is what defines the intelligensia and prospers the monied. Therefore, science drives and formulates the frame of the democratic discourse. Whenever a scientific elite has unlimited power to frame the discourse, we have an abuse of power that undermines the democratic process, freedom of information and freedom of speech, because the "evolving enterprise" of science is not "natural", so much as the human and political enterprise of governing.
Diversity must be affirmed in all its demensions, whether individual personality, cultural, or scientific for the democratic process to uphold a free and open society where tyranny is maintained under the "rule of law".
The 'tea parties' are a beginning to balancing what has become tyrannical and what the Founders wanted to prevent.
Diversity ranges the gambit from personality, interests and talents of the individual to nation-states and their interests. But, the nation-state, cannot undermine the interests of the individual without doing disservice to civil rights. And civil rights are what our Founders promised as freedom from tyranny.
On the other hand, the nation-state is formed by the type of individuals that form "a more perfect union". Thus, character is a necesary ingredient for citizens and those in public office. Character is individual pre-disposition. As an individual matures, the weaknesses/strengths of the indvidual 's personality become tempered through various experiences or furthered 'expanded" by ulimited and unaccountable power. Those who hold "utopian dreams" or "idealized self-promotion" come to realize the limitations and corrections of reality in a real world. Life, itself teaches, tempers and trains.
In a Constitutional Republic, laws form the basis of proper behavior within a given society. The evolutionist understands the law as a tempering to "survival skills", whereas the religionist sees the law as tempering "sin". The Founders defined our nation-state's "proper behavior" by the "Constitution". The "Declaration of Independence" was only the beginning to being ruled by law and not by outside human authority.
The psychologist, sociologist or cultural anthropologist understands Constitutional government as integrated into the human psyche, as an environmental conditioning, while the religionist believes that government is the order of the universe under God. And the evolutionary "philosopher" biologist, or physicist understands government to be an evolving enterprise.
Each person is allowed their understanding in a "Constitutional democracy". The problem today is the place of power, which the tea parties are addressing. Government was never meant to give power, but to limit power. The limitation of power was to maintain the ordered structure, because whenever an individual or group usurps the right of another to information, due process, dissent, and voice, the disempowered rebels and resists. Today, unlimited power of those in our public offices are what frustrates the democratic process and what the "rebel" tea parties are resisting. Accountability of our public officials are what those in public office should never undermine ubt uphold. Transparency is a necessary character trait of those that seek public office. Our Founders never intended for power to be unaccountable whether through subversion of information, or free speech. This is where cultural diversity ends and tyranny begins.
Tyranny happens whenever power is unlimited. Today's intellegensia, political elite and the monied are those that drive policy. And "science" is what defines the intelligensia and prospers the monied. Therefore, science drives and formulates the frame of the democratic discourse. Whenever a scientific elite has unlimited power to frame the discourse, we have an abuse of power that undermines the democratic process, freedom of information and freedom of speech, because the "evolving enterprise" of science is not "natural", so much as the human and political enterprise of governing.
Diversity must be affirmed in all its demensions, whether individual personality, cultural, or scientific for the democratic process to uphold a free and open society where tyranny is maintained under the "rule of law".
The 'tea parties' are a beginning to balancing what has become tyrannical and what the Founders wanted to prevent.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A Side Note About Healthcare,
I heard last night and forgot to add, that the Healthcare plan is written in "conceptual language", according to Fox News. This legislation should be in legislative language, or legal language, so that later on down the road, those in power cannot interpret the legislation in the way they want, giving them an advantage and a lack of accountability.
Since our country is ruled by law, the way the law reads is cumbersome because it maintains an accountability to what it was to enforce. Whenever legalist use "open ended" language, then the courts have to determine how the law is to be enforced.
If legislation is done too tightly, then it leaves little room for negotiating real life conflicts with the market. But, if it is left too open ended, there is little use for it, except for those "in the know" to use it for their own ends.
Since our country is ruled by law, the way the law reads is cumbersome because it maintains an accountability to what it was to enforce. Whenever legalist use "open ended" language, then the courts have to determine how the law is to be enforced.
If legislation is done too tightly, then it leaves little room for negotiating real life conflicts with the market. But, if it is left too open ended, there is little use for it, except for those "in the know" to use it for their own ends.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The U.N. Talk and Obama's Vision
I listened to Obama talk at the U.N. on radio and T.V. And I was impressed with his commitment to serve and represent American interests. But, he called for all nations to step forward in helping America fulfill the responsibility toward many social issues. I was glad that we were not going to be footing the whole bill.
Although he gave a great speech and many were positive in their reviews, I am a little wary of Lybian and Iranian interests. They did not seem to be interested in applauding our president during his speech, although Kadafi did acknowledge Obama's speech when he took the "stage".
I just wonder how much power can be distributed to the likes of these and still hold to democratic ideals? It doesn't seem that those who do not give their own countries a democratic type of government would lend an ear to ideals of "life and liberty".
China seemed from some accounts of their people to be open to taking a center stage place in the power re-distribution. America isn't to be the super-power anymore? Is this because we owe so many people and are really a "slave nation" today? But, the rhetoric was strongly focused toward a unified "one world".
On NPR there was a program taking calls to get feed-back worldwide on the speeches. One lady asked who would be making the ultimate decisions concerning a nation if a "one world governemt came into being. This is an important question, as it reveals that power will not be broad-based. The commentator answered that, of course, the decisions would be made by the
monied". Will the "monied" be a nation, like China, or will the "monied" be a group of people? These are pertinent questions in understanding what we can expect in the future in regards to our very "way of life".
I imagine there is little we can do globally, but we can do something nationally and I hope we will. The "Tea Parties" are a start and I think that if enough people raise their voices, then certainly someone will hear. We must try and not give up hope for our nation's recovery.
I will wait now and see if Obama does what he says for Amercian interests. And how much he upholds the values of human freedom and dignity to choose our own destinies. This is mandantory if we are to live in the future as free people.
Although he gave a great speech and many were positive in their reviews, I am a little wary of Lybian and Iranian interests. They did not seem to be interested in applauding our president during his speech, although Kadafi did acknowledge Obama's speech when he took the "stage".
I just wonder how much power can be distributed to the likes of these and still hold to democratic ideals? It doesn't seem that those who do not give their own countries a democratic type of government would lend an ear to ideals of "life and liberty".
China seemed from some accounts of their people to be open to taking a center stage place in the power re-distribution. America isn't to be the super-power anymore? Is this because we owe so many people and are really a "slave nation" today? But, the rhetoric was strongly focused toward a unified "one world".
On NPR there was a program taking calls to get feed-back worldwide on the speeches. One lady asked who would be making the ultimate decisions concerning a nation if a "one world governemt came into being. This is an important question, as it reveals that power will not be broad-based. The commentator answered that, of course, the decisions would be made by the
monied". Will the "monied" be a nation, like China, or will the "monied" be a group of people? These are pertinent questions in understanding what we can expect in the future in regards to our very "way of life".
I imagine there is little we can do globally, but we can do something nationally and I hope we will. The "Tea Parties" are a start and I think that if enough people raise their voices, then certainly someone will hear. We must try and not give up hope for our nation's recovery.
I will wait now and see if Obama does what he says for Amercian interests. And how much he upholds the values of human freedom and dignity to choose our own destinies. This is mandantory if we are to live in the future as free people.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Religion Set Itself Apart
Religion is man's attempt to to 'be special" and not just the result of evolutionary "process". Human beings have always attempted to "set themsevles apart" for some "special purpose".
The human need to "be special" could come from many factors, but we all need to be valued in one way or another, unless life itself is devalued by one's culture. What "inspired" people to create a "more meaningful experience" than barbarianism? Some would want to believe that is is because of "god".
"God" has been useful to create meaning to life, give priority of value, and bring about an 'order'. But, these functons of "god" have been based on different authorial sources. The Calvinist based his understanding on supernaturalism or revelatory texts, while the naturalist, liberal, or Catholic bases his understanding on natural law, order and structure, which is based on reason.
The Founders understood man's need for order and structure, but also understood the need for a freedom to express diversity. Diversity or difference is not applauded in caste, or aristocratic systems of government, as these are controlled by the "ruling elite", where change itself is understood in negative ways. Change can happen in a democracy or representative republic by the people's vote, lobbyist, courts, and public dissent through the press, or demonstration.
Religion does not value the individual for the most part, as it affirms conformity, and is threatened by dissent, and questions. Religion, in this sense, is an aristocracy, whether one believes that "God" rules, the cleric/priest, the text, or the congregation. An individual is at the whim of whatever "authority is affirmed".
The human need to "be special" could come from many factors, but we all need to be valued in one way or another, unless life itself is devalued by one's culture. What "inspired" people to create a "more meaningful experience" than barbarianism? Some would want to believe that is is because of "god".
"God" has been useful to create meaning to life, give priority of value, and bring about an 'order'. But, these functons of "god" have been based on different authorial sources. The Calvinist based his understanding on supernaturalism or revelatory texts, while the naturalist, liberal, or Catholic bases his understanding on natural law, order and structure, which is based on reason.
The Founders understood man's need for order and structure, but also understood the need for a freedom to express diversity. Diversity or difference is not applauded in caste, or aristocratic systems of government, as these are controlled by the "ruling elite", where change itself is understood in negative ways. Change can happen in a democracy or representative republic by the people's vote, lobbyist, courts, and public dissent through the press, or demonstration.
Religion does not value the individual for the most part, as it affirms conformity, and is threatened by dissent, and questions. Religion, in this sense, is an aristocracy, whether one believes that "God" rules, the cleric/priest, the text, or the congregation. An individual is at the whim of whatever "authority is affirmed".
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King in Governmental Form
In last post, Jesus was understood as the "legislative branch" as he fulfilled the law, by doing the law. But, Jesus was also representative of the judicial branch as he interpreted the law against the Jewish religious leaders. He never denied being a Jew, as he even preached in the synagogue. He did not come to set up a "new religion or religious order". Jesus was a universalizer of the law in understanding the full intent and meaning of the law.
Not only was he the prophet and priest, but also, the King. He was understood to be God. The executive branch, the President, is not King, as his position is balance by the "others". Balance of power brings true humility as it understands its dependence on the "other" branch. In this sense, there is no sovereignty. Only the law in its defense of the Constitution (the President), it interpretation (the judiary) and its legislation and representation (Congress). Our form of government, in this sense, is the most "", philosophically.
As to sovereignty, this form of government protects individual rights, as this government believes in the universal of the individual, as equal before the law. Justice defends and protects the indivdual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, while Law is upheld by our government, sovereignty is understood in individual terms.
Not only was he the prophet and priest, but also, the King. He was understood to be God. The executive branch, the President, is not King, as his position is balance by the "others". Balance of power brings true humility as it understands its dependence on the "other" branch. In this sense, there is no sovereignty. Only the law in its defense of the Constitution (the President), it interpretation (the judiary) and its legislation and representation (Congress). Our form of government, in this sense, is the most "", philosophically.
As to sovereignty, this form of government protects individual rights, as this government believes in the universal of the individual, as equal before the law. Justice defends and protects the indivdual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, while Law is upheld by our government, sovereignty is understood in individual terms.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Balance of Power in American Government
I was thinking the other morning about the recent abuses of power in our government.
Bush used the executive branch to subvert the judicial branch in carrying out or not carrying out the law (depending on how one interprets the law).The judicial branch is to interpret law and render it justness in specific cases.
At Guatanomo Bay, it was unclear what the law required as to "international law" and human rights issues versus our national security and our own laws concerning jurisprudence. And it seemd as if Bush didn't care what the courts would say about it. All being said, most think that irregardless of "standing", these prisoners deserved humane treatment. But, in more discussion of this issue, more became concerned about humane treatment when it came to other issues of "investigation" and national security. These are not easily decided, as they cross the divide over humanity's "right", irregardless of citizenship, or whether one's own right as a nation deserves protection and the "criminal" has given up his "right" of protection under the law. Even in our everyday world, our country demands at arrest the criminal to be "read his rights" to defense, etc. But, is this only a "citizen's right"? Immigration policy has been discussed in this domain. Where do the requirements of justice over-ride one's duty to country? And where does duty to country actualize justice?
We cannot apply justice where we do not live. We can theorize about how justice would behave, but we cannot be just in such situations unless we are the lawyers in international courts. But, justice does demand a underlying frame, which is in our Constitution.
On the other hand, the recent "bail out money" has implications also about our government's balance of power to the executive branch in this adminstration. Congress represents the legislative branch where laws are made or determined in application. Congress must understand their responsibility to the public in the way they handle the public's monies. Certian ideologies do not distinguish very largely between the public and private domains in this area. These think of public monies as "one big pot" where we all can vie for public monies. These are the ones who sometimes mis-use the system in their greedy desire for "hand-outs".
Public monies come from private hands that have worked hard and long hours to give back to their government for its protection. Those who do not look on these hard-working people as anything but pinions to be a useful means of enslavement to the government's outrageous appetite have no regard for the individual worker, whether professional or blue collar.
It is too easy for government to be looked upon as a "nanny state' where it soon becomes a "co-depedent"state, where the State becomes the "Hero" and those in government use their positions to enlarge their own lives.
Abuse of power is only the result of unaccountability to the public or those that are "paying the bills". Congress should remain balance between our two party system and allow both voices a hearing in Congressional chambers. Otherwise, we are doomed to be a One Party State, under a One Party Dictator.
Bush used the executive branch to subvert the judicial branch in carrying out or not carrying out the law (depending on how one interprets the law).The judicial branch is to interpret law and render it justness in specific cases.
At Guatanomo Bay, it was unclear what the law required as to "international law" and human rights issues versus our national security and our own laws concerning jurisprudence. And it seemd as if Bush didn't care what the courts would say about it. All being said, most think that irregardless of "standing", these prisoners deserved humane treatment. But, in more discussion of this issue, more became concerned about humane treatment when it came to other issues of "investigation" and national security. These are not easily decided, as they cross the divide over humanity's "right", irregardless of citizenship, or whether one's own right as a nation deserves protection and the "criminal" has given up his "right" of protection under the law. Even in our everyday world, our country demands at arrest the criminal to be "read his rights" to defense, etc. But, is this only a "citizen's right"? Immigration policy has been discussed in this domain. Where do the requirements of justice over-ride one's duty to country? And where does duty to country actualize justice?
We cannot apply justice where we do not live. We can theorize about how justice would behave, but we cannot be just in such situations unless we are the lawyers in international courts. But, justice does demand a underlying frame, which is in our Constitution.
On the other hand, the recent "bail out money" has implications also about our government's balance of power to the executive branch in this adminstration. Congress represents the legislative branch where laws are made or determined in application. Congress must understand their responsibility to the public in the way they handle the public's monies. Certian ideologies do not distinguish very largely between the public and private domains in this area. These think of public monies as "one big pot" where we all can vie for public monies. These are the ones who sometimes mis-use the system in their greedy desire for "hand-outs".
Public monies come from private hands that have worked hard and long hours to give back to their government for its protection. Those who do not look on these hard-working people as anything but pinions to be a useful means of enslavement to the government's outrageous appetite have no regard for the individual worker, whether professional or blue collar.
It is too easy for government to be looked upon as a "nanny state' where it soon becomes a "co-depedent"state, where the State becomes the "Hero" and those in government use their positions to enlarge their own lives.
Abuse of power is only the result of unaccountability to the public or those that are "paying the bills". Congress should remain balance between our two party system and allow both voices a hearing in Congressional chambers. Otherwise, we are doomed to be a One Party State, under a One Party Dictator.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
George Will's Editorial and Legislative Power
This morning's paper had a nice editorial by George Will entitled, "Bail-out Erases Constitutional Boundaries . In it, Mr. Will is calling for Congress to subsist from giving power to the executive branch.
Our Founding Fathers divided power amongst three branches that should not "over-ride" the other. This was what a lot of "hoopla" was about over Bush's abuses at Guatanamo Bay.
The Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) should be considered unconstitutional, as it gives $700 billion to the executive branch to "do as it will", without accountability. This is, in effect legislation, as the executive branch is not dependent on Congress to approve their choices. Congressional leadership is accountable to their constituencies, but the executive branch weilds power for 4 years, without recourse, as long as there is no reason for impeachment.
Americans do not believe in arbitrary power.So, whatever the executive branch determines to do with the $700 billion, they have power of enforcement, and/or sanction, which should be disturbing to the American public. It seems that the Democratically led Congress has given leeway for the executive branch to have this right and power over the people.
The State then has Sovereignty over the sovereignty of the people and the individual American. We have been known as a government that has been "for and by the people". Now, I'm afraid that the government represents their own interests, in the name of the people and for the "people's "good", which limits how the individual can choose their own good.
Our Founding Fathers divided power amongst three branches that should not "over-ride" the other. This was what a lot of "hoopla" was about over Bush's abuses at Guatanamo Bay.
The Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) should be considered unconstitutional, as it gives $700 billion to the executive branch to "do as it will", without accountability. This is, in effect legislation, as the executive branch is not dependent on Congress to approve their choices. Congressional leadership is accountable to their constituencies, but the executive branch weilds power for 4 years, without recourse, as long as there is no reason for impeachment.
Americans do not believe in arbitrary power.So, whatever the executive branch determines to do with the $700 billion, they have power of enforcement, and/or sanction, which should be disturbing to the American public. It seems that the Democratically led Congress has given leeway for the executive branch to have this right and power over the people.
The State then has Sovereignty over the sovereignty of the people and the individual American. We have been known as a government that has been "for and by the people". Now, I'm afraid that the government represents their own interests, in the name of the people and for the "people's "good", which limits how the individual can choose their own good.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Honor Our Values; Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
In today's editorial, the writer commends Obama to "pursue truth, and soon", concerning Guantanamo prison.
I value Obama's declaration to hold to the U.S. Army Field Manuel's methods of interrogation. There should never be an abuse of power like we have heard about at Guantanamo prison. Obama wants to make public what can rightly be revealed. This is good news, for it is only when due process, the rule of law, humane interrogation, privacy and governmental openness that we are all protected, otherwise, we are doome to suffer under those whose arrogance undermines our liberties.
The CATO institute held a panel discussion about these abuses a year ago this past December. Not only was there abusive treatment of prisoners, but there was an arrogant disregard to our government's balance of power, which the justice department was outraged over...
We have an orderly process that requires us to consider the other as important as ourselves. Not only is this a religious ideal, and an important ideal to guide our nation, but it is also important in business practices.
Business in the U.S. has driven all of our interests, hindering building trust, and friendship, which has driven foreign policy. While the free market has benefitted our nation, have we lost much more than we have gained?
I am hoping that the change we have seen in our nation's history with the election of an African American will stand for the future of our American values being upheld. Obama has committed to honor our values "not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."
I value Obama's declaration to hold to the U.S. Army Field Manuel's methods of interrogation. There should never be an abuse of power like we have heard about at Guantanamo prison. Obama wants to make public what can rightly be revealed. This is good news, for it is only when due process, the rule of law, humane interrogation, privacy and governmental openness that we are all protected, otherwise, we are doome to suffer under those whose arrogance undermines our liberties.
The CATO institute held a panel discussion about these abuses a year ago this past December. Not only was there abusive treatment of prisoners, but there was an arrogant disregard to our government's balance of power, which the justice department was outraged over...
We have an orderly process that requires us to consider the other as important as ourselves. Not only is this a religious ideal, and an important ideal to guide our nation, but it is also important in business practices.
Business in the U.S. has driven all of our interests, hindering building trust, and friendship, which has driven foreign policy. While the free market has benefitted our nation, have we lost much more than we have gained?
I am hoping that the change we have seen in our nation's history with the election of an African American will stand for the future of our American values being upheld. Obama has committed to honor our values "not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
