Happy New Year!
I wanted to close the year out with a goodbye blog to Ed Rendell and Arlen Specter, two public servants I admire highly, who have made my life happier and full of hope...but that will have to come in a later post.
Later post? What about 'goodbye blog'? Well, I am putting this blog to rest, because it is too time consuming. For those who follow this blog, you may have noticed I am struggling to keep up with the daily grind of political news. I will be sharing my next blog, titled 'Inside Out,' so you can follow that one.
'Inside Out' will allow me the freedom to post what I want, when I want. There may be poetry, motherly memoirs, short stories, and, of course, political news and what I think about it. It will not come out every day, who knows when...who knows what. It is a mystery even to me.
I have had a great deal of satisfaction getting all the things out that I have wanted to say over the last 40 or so posts. Thanks to all who have shared the experience with me.
Happy New Year and fare well until I post to you again. ♥
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Common Good Act 3: Responsibility and Compassion
It has been hard for me to say definitively that one man is accountable for another. We are not accountable for each other, but we are accountable to each other. For this reason it has been hard for me to separate compassion and responsibility. Responsible: chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something; having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action. None of us can live alone, without the help of others...without community. We are made to live together. We will all need help at one time or another, and chances are, someone will be there to help you.
If you saw a man or woman starving on the streets, would you help? If you saw a wounded man, woman or child, would you do what you could to help them? I hope you answered yes, for humanities sake. Humanity: the quality of being human.
Why would someone answer, "No." to the above questions? It just so happens that I took a survey of 100 people a couple of years ago on campus, asking people if they would be nice to a homeless person. The survey was a reaction to my Comparative Politics teacher, who argued that America had as much of a class system as Britain and France, but that we just don't acknowledge it. Well, all of the Americans I asked said they would be nice, though some tentatively. The only five people who said they wouldn't were from England or China. "Why not?" I asked those who said they would not be nice. "Because, they deserve it," was invariably the answer.
It is my theory that the the five percent who said they would be mean suffer from the delusion of elitism. Elitism: the belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals; pride in or awareness of being in an elite group.
Elitism popped up in an earlier blog when I was discussing 'Can leaders make us do bad things?' Zimbardo's article mentioned that evil is an effect of situations, such as poverty, racism, sexism and elitism.
Do not the definitions for 'responsible' hold elitists and governments accountable for poverty and suffering of the people with whom they claim to be 'governors' of? Does it not also compel us all to provide for a fellow human who is suffering, if we have the means?
The gray area here is in the word 'moral.' For in our age, in our country, we cannot compel others to be moral, being moral is a choice. Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.
Considering this definition, those who choose not to act responsibly in caring for others in need, may choose not to, but the choice is unethical and wrong.
Our government, our 'elite' and we as a nation have a responsibility to feel compassion for those who suffer, for those who are wronged, and for those who fall through the cracks in society. Compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. It is the responsibility of our community leaders and representatives to identify and correct systemic faults that perpetuate poverty and suffering in our nation. It is each citizens responsibility to pay taxes to fund this protection that the government should provide us, and also to help those who we see that are in need. To do less would be irresponsible.
"A Nation's greatness is judged by how it treats its weakest members." -Ghandi
"There will always be poor people in the land. That’s why I command you to be generous..." -Jesus Deut 15:11
If you saw a man or woman starving on the streets, would you help? If you saw a wounded man, woman or child, would you do what you could to help them? I hope you answered yes, for humanities sake. Humanity: the quality of being human.
Why would someone answer, "No." to the above questions? It just so happens that I took a survey of 100 people a couple of years ago on campus, asking people if they would be nice to a homeless person. The survey was a reaction to my Comparative Politics teacher, who argued that America had as much of a class system as Britain and France, but that we just don't acknowledge it. Well, all of the Americans I asked said they would be nice, though some tentatively. The only five people who said they wouldn't were from England or China. "Why not?" I asked those who said they would not be nice. "Because, they deserve it," was invariably the answer.
It is my theory that the the five percent who said they would be mean suffer from the delusion of elitism. Elitism: the belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals; pride in or awareness of being in an elite group.
Elitism popped up in an earlier blog when I was discussing 'Can leaders make us do bad things?' Zimbardo's article mentioned that evil is an effect of situations, such as poverty, racism, sexism and elitism.
Do not the definitions for 'responsible' hold elitists and governments accountable for poverty and suffering of the people with whom they claim to be 'governors' of? Does it not also compel us all to provide for a fellow human who is suffering, if we have the means?
The gray area here is in the word 'moral.' For in our age, in our country, we cannot compel others to be moral, being moral is a choice. Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.
Considering this definition, those who choose not to act responsibly in caring for others in need, may choose not to, but the choice is unethical and wrong.
Our government, our 'elite' and we as a nation have a responsibility to feel compassion for those who suffer, for those who are wronged, and for those who fall through the cracks in society. Compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. It is the responsibility of our community leaders and representatives to identify and correct systemic faults that perpetuate poverty and suffering in our nation. It is each citizens responsibility to pay taxes to fund this protection that the government should provide us, and also to help those who we see that are in need. To do less would be irresponsible.
"A Nation's greatness is judged by how it treats its weakest members." -Ghandi
"There will always be poor people in the land. That’s why I command you to be generous..." -Jesus Deut 15:11
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Common Good Act 2
First, apologies for no blog yesterday. My mother was visiting...much more important!
Act 2: Power
According to political science theory, public welfare is a significant player in national power. The number of people, their age and their state of education, health and morale, all build part of the foundation a nation's power is built upon. Population in general is important to provide large armies and a large workforce. Countries with small populations seldom hold a lot of power on the international stage. Having a population that is not too aged is also important.
Education and health are limiting factors in what the population can do for a country. Research and development is a salient factor in the international game of power, and a country with a poorly educated population will lose out in this area. A nation with a population in poor health can drained of its power by exorbitant health care costs, and an unproductive work force.
Morale can make or break nations. Which is why you see dictators injecting their populous with propaganda that makes them feel swelling national pride. Eventually, if the morale of a country is not supported by real value, that country will fall.
"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
-The Declaration of Independence
The last post showed that public welfare is a matter of self-interest, on the part of the government. This post shows that public welfare is a matter of power for a government. Still, these have not shown public welfare to be a responsibility or an act of compassion. I have only only shown a reasonable government strategy for maintaining order and power.
Act 2: Power
According to political science theory, public welfare is a significant player in national power. The number of people, their age and their state of education, health and morale, all build part of the foundation a nation's power is built upon. Population in general is important to provide large armies and a large workforce. Countries with small populations seldom hold a lot of power on the international stage. Having a population that is not too aged is also important.
Education and health are limiting factors in what the population can do for a country. Research and development is a salient factor in the international game of power, and a country with a poorly educated population will lose out in this area. A nation with a population in poor health can drained of its power by exorbitant health care costs, and an unproductive work force.
Morale can make or break nations. Which is why you see dictators injecting their populous with propaganda that makes them feel swelling national pride. Eventually, if the morale of a country is not supported by real value, that country will fall.
"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
-The Declaration of Independence
The last post showed that public welfare is a matter of self-interest, on the part of the government. This post shows that public welfare is a matter of power for a government. Still, these have not shown public welfare to be a responsibility or an act of compassion. I have only only shown a reasonable government strategy for maintaining order and power.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Common Good
Is providing for the common good a responsibility or a superfluous act of compassion?
Act One: Self-interest
Providing for the common good is a self-interested action for those who govern and for those who have prosperity. What happens to the leader who says, "Let them eat cake!" when the people are starving in the streets? Mm-hmm. Europeans still scream, "Off with their heads!" when education costs rise and labor benefits fall. Since the beginning of time leaders have understood that they have to provide adequate infrastructure and services to their people or their people will revolt. Providing for the common good is part of the process of distributing surplus value to sustain a nations power and wealth, and whatever conservative politicians will tell you in America today, that is exactly what governments do...that is what power is for...distributing wealth (and for distributing power itself).
This 'protection' from government is a bargain, as in: an agreement between parties settling what each gives or receives in a transaction between them or what course of action or policy each pursues in respect to the other (Webster). It is a bargain between protection and wealth extraction. The government needs resources for armies, infrastructure, maintaining economic viability, and distributing goods (especially food). The government takes those resources from the people, mostly in the form of taxes, but also, by conscription.
Historically, governments have gotten the bulk of their taxes from business, which is why business and government are so cozy, and have always been. Kings would offer protection to trading ships in exchange for treasures. Without that treasure the government would fall, and without protection the business man would be pillaged. I think we have a structure in America that can break that antiquated conflict of interest, as the favored business interest is not always the best interest for the country.
As for the people, historically, governments would take food and men from them to fuel armies and supply the courts. In return the people received protection from invading armies. People also expected to be guarded against famine and crisis and otherwise facilitated a good quality of life relative to the Leader's abilities.
Today, the government takes resources mostly in the form of taxes, though in the case of the draft, also conscription. We pay taxes for protection. Protection, in our case, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Protection of our private property. Protection of justice. Protection through our constitution, our representatives, our laws and our courts...for a civil society...for a mutually assured stability.
Act One: Self-interest
Providing for the common good is a self-interested action for those who govern and for those who have prosperity. What happens to the leader who says, "Let them eat cake!" when the people are starving in the streets? Mm-hmm. Europeans still scream, "Off with their heads!" when education costs rise and labor benefits fall. Since the beginning of time leaders have understood that they have to provide adequate infrastructure and services to their people or their people will revolt. Providing for the common good is part of the process of distributing surplus value to sustain a nations power and wealth, and whatever conservative politicians will tell you in America today, that is exactly what governments do...that is what power is for...distributing wealth (and for distributing power itself).
This 'protection' from government is a bargain, as in: an agreement between parties settling what each gives or receives in a transaction between them or what course of action or policy each pursues in respect to the other (Webster). It is a bargain between protection and wealth extraction. The government needs resources for armies, infrastructure, maintaining economic viability, and distributing goods (especially food). The government takes those resources from the people, mostly in the form of taxes, but also, by conscription.
Historically, governments have gotten the bulk of their taxes from business, which is why business and government are so cozy, and have always been. Kings would offer protection to trading ships in exchange for treasures. Without that treasure the government would fall, and without protection the business man would be pillaged. I think we have a structure in America that can break that antiquated conflict of interest, as the favored business interest is not always the best interest for the country.
As for the people, historically, governments would take food and men from them to fuel armies and supply the courts. In return the people received protection from invading armies. People also expected to be guarded against famine and crisis and otherwise facilitated a good quality of life relative to the Leader's abilities.
Today, the government takes resources mostly in the form of taxes, though in the case of the draft, also conscription. We pay taxes for protection. Protection, in our case, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Protection of our private property. Protection of justice. Protection through our constitution, our representatives, our laws and our courts...for a civil society...for a mutually assured stability.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)