Power and the Law

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", so said Lord Acton. Our Founders found this to be so, as well. They framed our government so power could not be absolute, or at least ideally. There are always ways around the law, but those that choose to abide by our laws do so to promote order, and value the liberty our laws are to protect!

Those that are driven by power are driven because of  insatiable needs that corrupt them from governing for the "greater good" or from being "public representatives" that serve the public's interests. Power does corrupt. Power has a deadening effect on those under it. There is a sense of invincibility when one has power to wield. Therefore, power must be held by those that are self-reflective enough to know its deadening impact. Many have lost their "life" and reputations because of using their power and influence to gain absolution from the law. Fudging on one's income taxes is to be expected, everyone does it. Then, what are the laws defending? Are laws there to protect some ideal? And what is the rationale for these laws and ideals?

These are questions that concern our courts, in our present day. But, they used to concern the average citizen. People were more prone to self-evaluation back then. Religion serves the purpose of self-reflection for fear of "God's judgment", or "fitting in" with the Church club. And rightly so, for the philosophers of the past said that an "unexamined life is one not worth living".

Religion today does not serve the purpose of "examing one's life". Religion serves the end of justification of one's life or one's end. This leaves little room for self-reflection or self-examination, and religion ends up being the validation of "stoning another" or judging another based on personal conviction.

Personal conviction was the liberty of conscience our Founders granted under law. Religous conscience is valued, but was never to condone the right of judgment, as that was the place of government. Government was to protect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, nowadays, the religious fear that our nation has gone too far.

While I agree that our nation has dissolved any means of evaluating values, it isn't because Americans aren't religious/believers, but because religion and the American way of life itself has gotten in the way of "self reflection". We don't have time to do everything on our plates. We delegate to those we hardly know and suffer the consequences of unwise delegation.

We hurry to meet all our promises, which we can hardly meet, with family responsibilities and we wonder why our families suffer or deadlines go by without our meeting them. We bite off more than we can chew. We must know our strengths and weaknesses enough to know what we can handle and make our choices wisely.

Many have gotten into financial straits because they have only looked at the monthly payment, and presumed upon the future, not preparing for it. Wisdom doesn't presume upon others, but meets life with an attitude that one must take their own responsiblity, and not look to others for the hand-out, nor should we compare our standard of living with another's. Everyone doesn't have the same material blessings. So what? The question should be is the pursuit of the material what life consists of? And what are the costs of such a pursuit?. This is not to say that no one should ever have a need that can't be met and our sociel networks could help provide, but more often than not, we are taught that we need dependence on others or that we have a right to have what everyone else has. Such teaching doesn't demand self-responsible behavior. Self-responsible behavior means that society consists for the most part of self-responsible adults, and not dependent children.

All governments are not equal. This is obvious to anyone that loves liberty. Is it moral to demand immoral governments to 'obey' or comply with human rights under the hand of our government's Power? How much should we intervene into other countries and their problems? And how do we choose to get involved? Are our own interests the only protections that are deemed worthy of using power? Obviously, America is limited by resources, and time. Are these what should frame what and when we "give a hand" to those wishing for reform?. But, there are other extenuating circumstances, that make for conflicting interests. Our politicians, and ambassadors are the ones that evaluate those decisions. And our judgments from afar might not know all the facts, nor the conflicts that impinge on such decisions.

I am no expert, by any means, but it seems to me that we all have biases about where we draw our lines. Most of us are not consistant, nor are we reflective enough to know why we choose what we do, nor why we do so. All of us need to evaluate ourselves and determine how we would "lead" if givern similar circumstances and ask ourselves why we make those choices. This would reveal our underlying motivations and determine our priority of values. Then, we might understand that decisions are not "black and white" solutions, but complex problems that need creative minds to solve.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

I should have titled my last post, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Why?

As Ayn Rand stated "Ayn Rand


‎"Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
“The Moral Meaning of Capitalism,” For the New Intellectual, 98.

I believe that another's framing of your world is considered the "good" by in them and this is what makes it Bad. But, what is the Ugly?

The ugly is when our purposes are at odds and there has been no negotiation, which is oppression or tyranny. Or, there hasn't been an understanding of co-operative effort, which makes for conflict. And whenver conflict happens, there is ugliness!

Soms well meaning souls would think this an opprotunity to defy ugliness and rise above the base and senseless reality of being human.; of defying one's hopes and dreams for the "greater good" or "common will", or "God's will". These think that sacrificing oneself on the altar of another's hopes or dreams is what "love" is all about. This is what Christ did to redeem the world, after all. So, we should not begrudge the opportunity to DIE. No our lives are worthless apart from their sacrificial utility! Our lives are not valued in and of themselves. We were only born to die an untimely death for God or some public interest.

Most of the time when individuals are included in on the vision, or purpose of an organization, and one finds a place of belonging, then there will be co-operation, or a finalization of the relationship to the organization, as there are cross purposes, or conflicts of intersts. Understanding such realities is only good leadership principles.

So, I think that defining the 'good" for everyone else, becomes the bad, because it dismisses individual choice and value, and that is when things can get ugly indeed! People do not like to be pawns.

Naturalism is Just Another Name...

Naturalism is just another name for God. Naturalism claims that there is no 'open universe". Resources, whether they be the natural environmental, or social are in "short supply". So, all people are called to altruistic ends, because we all need to survive.

Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.

I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.

Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?

So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!

What Do You Do?

What do you do when someone 'knows best" or "better for you" than you do yourself? Although we all need support and 'another set of eyes" to see at times, others are not omniscient or omnipotent.Those who think this way are dangerous. These think that their understanding, the way they see things, is all there is, because they are "omnipresent". Time nor boundaries have no meaning to them, because they disregard history. These tout 'supernatural revelation", or knowledge, insight, or experience. Their experience is universal.

I do believe that history is a teacher of wisdom. It leads to understanding, but not "Truth", as we are individuals, so there is personal history. We are also citizens, so there is national history..

In coming to understand more about my own "national history", I think that it is a shame that our political leaders deem it necessary to make changes that the people have not favored. I had understood our representative republic to not only represent the people's interests in protecting national security, but also that these "leaders" were deemed worthy by the consent of the governed. Why will they not give up? Why don't they address what concerns the American people? Have we sold ourselves so far into debt that there is "no way back"? Are we headed to a new "ruling elite" that demands our service and sacrifice?

It was reported that Biden said that though the American people would "kick and scream' that there would be health reform of some kind passed. Why are we not given more information about why this is so imperative. Why are we setting aside other issues for this one? Why is this one of the greatest importance. We haven't even been given a straightforward answer about what the proposed plan would be.

On the radio, I heard that many parents were outraged over Obama's proposed "propaganda machine". They are concerned for their children, and rightly so. Why? Because Obama is calling for the children to think of ways they can serve their country. That is all well and good and many parents would oblige that "call" to service, but Obama does more than this. He calls for their allegience and service to him. This goes a little "beyond the pale", I think. And he uses celebrities to "do his service". Gullible children are given a message by those who they have seen on TV or in the movies about how they are to behave.

I am sure that the "goal" is to train children to be public servants. But, educators cannot train thier students to be public servants at the costs of "critical thinking" and academic freedom. We are a nation that believes in freedom of thought and the right to express that thought.

There has been some debate about how much freedom should be allowed on the internet. Some think that the internet is a fabulous way to distribute information and thus, empower, the people. This is a good thing, generally speaking. But, it is not so good, if it causes national security breaches or dismisses privacy laws.

What do we do? Continue to speak out against any form of propaganda or plays for public sentiment at the costs of reasoned discourse.

What should we do? I think I will leave that up to your conscience.