In each culture, people organize
their lives around ideas held by that culture to be
true beyond question. In the United States, for
example, we have gravitated toward popular notions of
liberty, democracy, family, entrepreneurship, and so
forth. Sharing such general concepts, we fall
into the habit of assuming that our specific notions
about them are universally accepted as well. In
fact, however, there is much variation in perception
from person to person, from group to group, and from
generation to generation. To an American of the
early 19th century, democracy meant
participation in government by educated caucasian men
of property, but today it implies participation by
adult citizens of both sexes, all ethnic backgrounds,
all educational and economic levels. Similarly,
liberty suggests significantly different
things to liberal individualists, conservative
traditionalists, socialists, and capitalists.
Following
are some questions confronting us in today's world,
questions for which each of us might have very
different answers despite some common general
assumptions. How would you answer them?
These questions are
developed more fully below. I invite your
thoughts and comments about them, as well as about
any similar issues which may occur to you.
With
the demise of AT&T's message board feature,
e-mail is now the preferred medium for expressing
your thoughts. If response is sufficient, I
will initiate a "MAIL BAG" area where
feedback messages will be posted (with senders'
permission). To facilitate this effort and to
indicate that your remarks are for publication,
please include the word "mailbag" in the
Subject line of your e-mail.
|
|
Recent events have made
it clear that modern technology in the hands
of men with medieval minds is not a good
idea. Allowing such a situation to arise is
roughly equivalent to handing a four-year-old a
hammer and telling him to go entertain his baby
sister. Many would argue, though, that
"the genie is now out of the bottle and cannot
be put back in."
- What
realistic measures could satisfactorily
minimize the threat of mass destruction /
death / terror, perpetrated by radical groups
or individuals who consider themselves
responsible to no one but their own cause /
god?
- What
effects would those measures have on your
personal liberty, and would those effects be
acceptable to you?
- Bonus
question: Does it make any difference
if the people with modern weapons and
medieval attitudes happen to call themselves
a "Coalition" or a
"Militia" instead of "al
Qaeda"? Why / Why not?
|
|
Constitutional
representative democracy has become widely
regarded as the most agreeable system of government
yet devised. The "one-man-one-vote"
principle has strong popular appeal, and history
warns us that excluding various groups from the
political process can have crippling effects.
However, government by the people cannot work well
unless the people are well informed and act with good
intention toward all. Indeed, democracy is a
fragile entity which can be weakened by ignorance,
destabilized by narrow interest, and consumed by
unrestrained greed.
From the councils of
ancient Athens to the founding of our own republic,
therefore, there have been attempts to give
preference to the opinions of the wisest in
democratic society. Unfortunately, these
schemes have typically used wealth or land ownership
as indicators of wisdom, and experience has shown
that association to be all too frequently and
disastrously in error.
- What
measures could be taken to ensure that
government policy reliably reflects the
collective wisdom and benevolence of society
(rather than its collective stupidity and
selfishness), while also guaranteeing that
the concerns of all (including those who, for
whatever reason, are neither particularly
wise nor benevolent by nature) may be fairly
considered and addressed?
|
|
Thomas Jefferson once
said, "The government that governs best
governs least." Some libertarians
seize upon that thought to propose that the best
government is no government at all. But are
people who actually live under anarchy really better
off? Consider places which have little or no
consistently effective government — Afghanistan,
Rwanda, Somalia, for example. It is difficult,
if not impossible, to name any place on earth which
has no government, yet enjoys cultural stability and
living standards which we would consider
satisfactory.
It would seem that
government of some sort is a practical inevitability
in human society: People will be
governed, if not officially by leaders of their own
choosing, then unofficially by gangs and thugs.
For all practical purposes (as Jefferson himself
discovered when he became U.S. President), a "no
government" option has never really been
available.
- For
those who cherish liberty, the abolition of
government might seem an ideal state.
However, all current models approaching pure
anarchy are inherently unstable under
real-world conditions. Is there any way
in which anarchy could be made stable,
practical, defensible, and workable over a
reasonably long term?
Could
such a system still be considered a true
anarchy?
|
|
Political conservatives'
standard complaint is that government is too big,
spends too much, and interferes in people's personal
lives. Yet conservatives typically advocate as
much (if not more) government spending as liberals
(though usually for different things—"star
wars" instead of schools, prisons instead of job
training, business subsidies instead of debt
reduction, etc.). And while they are
staunchly hands-off in the matter of government
regulation of business, these same
conservatives are ironically the very ones who
advocate policies to invade, investigate, and control
people's personal lives and arbitrarily
restrict the liberties of individuals and families.
Such glaring contradictions, between professed
ideology and actual policy, give rise, not to just
one or two questions, but to many.
- Why
do those who so loudly bewail the
inefficiency and waste of a huge federal
bureaucracy suppose that distributing its
functions among 50 overlapping and
conflicting state bureaucracies is a superior
option?
- Why
do those who decry the excesses of government
also advocate compulsory religious
indoctrination of school children?
- Why
do those who complain of government meddling
in people's personal lives insist that
individuals and families cannot be trusted to
make their own decisions in such private
matters as reproduction, religion, and choice
of reading / viewing material?
- Why
should those advocating promotion of religion
at taxpayer expense assume that such support
should be enjoyed only by their
own particular religion
(or at most, only by monotheistic religions)?
- Why
do those who trumpet "family
values" seem to feel that those values
can and should be determined and enforced by
government?
- Why
do those who agonize over deterioration of
society's moral fiber seek to undermine and
impoverish those institutions – art,
education, science, etc.
– which preserve and reinforce the
positive aspects and creative traditions of
our culture?
- Why
do those who preach fiscal conservatism
invariably end up supporting deficit
spending?
- Why
do those who profess sympathy for
overburdened taxpayers think nothing of
burdening them with the interest on trillions
of dollars in public debt?
- Why
do those who call for "economic
stimulus" prefer to funnel most of it
into a narrow sector unlikely to stimulate
any increase in broad consumer demand?
- Why
are conservatives captivated by the notion
that the legitimate rights of the wealthy and
powerful include the right to dominate,
abuse, exploit, and censor everyone else?
- Why
do those who profess concern for ordinary
people turn a blind eye whenever workers and
consumers are exploited and abused by
business, banks, and insurers?
- Why
do conservatives shout "states'
rights" whenever infringement of people's
rights becomes an issue?
- And
finally, why do people call themselves
"conservatives" when they
apparently do not know the meaning of the
word "conserve"?
|
|
Many people report
having "religious experiences"
which change their lives in some way. I, too,
have had what might be called a religious experience,
although it consisted of several relatively small but
cumulative events, rather than a single overwhelming
one. Indeed, my "religious
experience" might be seen as an incremental
enlightenment rather than a sudden revelation—with the ironic effect of having compelled me to
reject religion altogether.*
- Have
you ever had a "religious
experience" that altered your life in
some fundamental way? If so, would you
care to share it, and perhaps offer your
personal reflections and evaluations?
*Detailed in the
article, "Religion: How I Lost It But Found
Something Better," located in the Philosophy
& Religion section of ISSUES.
|
|
I invite your thoughts
and comments about these and any similar questions
which may occur to you.
The
CONTACT form is the preferred feedback medium for
guests of this site to express their thoughts.
I have initiated a "MAIL BAG" area, where
your messages may be posted (with your
permission). When sending your comments, please
check the appropriate boxes on the CONTACT form to
indicate whether you wish your comments published and
whether you prefer to be identified or anonymous.
=SAJ=
|
