Ok . . . Most of you know I'm not a political person . . . barely know the topic. :P
Freedom
This country espouses a love of freedom. But do they mean that everyone, everywhere should be free . . . or just us?? I'm quite serious about this. As I child I assumed people wanted to be free. Anyone . . . any country . . . not free was only because they were being oppressed by evil people, hostile regimes and failed govenrments desperately clinging to power. People wanted freedom. This country was the beacon that offered that hope.
But youthful stories tend to be edged out by reality as we grow. I'm not at all certain the dreams should go with them though. Washington may not have cut down a cherry tree . . . . but the dream of honest politicians need not vanish like the reality of honest politicians has done. I think it is even more important as we proceed from the present to the future that we continue that thought about honesty . . . and apply it to ourselves. Politicians are elected from the people and if people are unable to be honest with themselves or with each other . . . how can we expect that honesty in our government?
Freedom is a good term to start with. Do we value freedom? Or do we prefer equality?? Can we have both? The truth is most people don't give a rat's backside about freedom other than as a concept. Travel to Cuba is restricted and NO Cuban cigars!!! Well . . . we think . . . so what? Didn't wanna go myself anyway, right? How would you feel, though, if you were told you COULD travel to Cuba and smoke Cuban cigars ONLY if you were a registered Republican? I can HEAR the outrage! What if ONLY people who can PROVE they were born in Florida or Georgia, or who could prove hispanic bloodlines could go? Oh, Heck NO!! We wouldn't stand for it. You can take our freedom . . . but ONLY if you take it from us ALL! ( Then . . . it's fine ). I agree with Alexis DeToqueville . . . this country values equality more . . . and TV is such a great equalizer. Echoes of this seem to permeate all political arguments. Anybody in politics does something bad, illegal or evil and the defenders point to the opposite party . . . using the "equality" concept as a defense for actions which should never be defended. "Well HE did it!" -- "But What about . . . . (fill in the blank--)?" Worse, from there the argument descends into stating why something is different . . . completely off the track of the event in question . . . just challenging the comparison. It'll be NO time before someone defends Scooter Libby's Communted sentence by pointing at other Presidential Pardons or commutations . . . which really avoids the matter nicely about whether or not it was the right thing to do . . . and is, in fact, completely unrelated.
Freedom? Here you're not free to drive without a seat belt . . . or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Freedom at a personal level is always regulated and curtailed and the violations of these minimal standards result in fines and are simply another for of income for the government. You don't find outrage until you grasp the ticket in your hand . . .
Exporting Freedom
Do we want other's to be free??? No REALLY . . . that's the question. Do you want Islamic, religious fundamentalists to be FREE? Ask yourself . . . . Free to do as they wish . . . to themselves? To do as they wish to others? Free to become Socialists if they desire it? Free to require clothing on women as they see fit?? Free to execute their own citizens for infidelity? Free to stone women? Do we want to see 'Democracy' there or do we want to see American values (as you see fit to define the term) instead? Democracy . . . majority rule . . . as a Sunni muslim in a Shiite majority country . . . why on Earth would I want to see Democracy forced on me by anyone . . . particularly the US . . . after it supported me in power through Sadaam Hussein? As the United States . . . Do we want to see another Shiite country like Iran? So we finagel with the details and intricacies of nation-building . . . trying to get a coalition goverment protective of it's minorities (read- Sunnis & Kurds) and to avoid the inevitable consequences that would stem from true freedom in that region . . . and we descend to the same failed policies we've done for decades . . . building our idea of government or installing a strong enough leader (Oooops - sorry Chalabi . . . not strong enough) to hold the population down from being able to do what the majority wants to do.
Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and many others . . . we as a country have installed and supported horrendous, despicable dictators. I think this is beyond doubt, but should somebody choose to challenge the assertion I believe it would take very little time to prove it to an open or inquiring mind. Why? Jeanne Kirkpatrick (former US ambassador to the UN) defended this country's support of these God-awful dictators . . . (Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and Reason in Politics, 1982 (ISBN 0-671-43836-0) and felt outrage at the thought somebody might suggest we avoid supporting them. Somehow she found no issue serving as a UN ambassador while detesting the institution itself. But ask yourselves . . . do we want others to be free if they don't think like we do? From a higher level of thinking . . . don't we know that their freedom will cost us economically? Let's face it . . . the Guatemala Coup de 'etat was about money and a fruit company and it was cheaper to pay a dictator than a country. It's a financial equation. The dictator gets support and gives deals to corporations in exchange for that support . . . everybody wins . . . except the people in the dictator's country and the people in our country who are now being despised and hated without so much as a share in the profits.
There IS some argument to be made about limiting freedom . . . like the freedom to charge whatever the market wants for necessary lifesaving medical treatment. But imposing limits on ourselves is one thing. Imposing on others is another matter entirely. But I have a genuine question here. Do we want true democracy everywhere . . . . or do we just SAY it? Does freedom equate with democracy?
__________________________________________________________________________
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 50
Ok . . . and if there's no economic interest does it follow that there's no interest either way? Still . . . forget the National Foreign policy and politics for a second . . . do we really want people to be free in all situations to do as they wish?? Or are some cultures better suited to more restrictive governments?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
petty laws, for our own good, of course, are exactly what you said. The laws are just a way for governments, Federal, State, & Local to bring in more dollars.
Americans are not free, we need to fix our nation before we try to fix others. Let's
reinstate the Marshall Plan.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Idealism is fine . . . especialyy if it spurs actions that drive people and activity towards idealistic, working goals.
I don't get the connection to the Marshall Plan . . . the only Marshall plan I can think of was the plan used to provide aid and, essentially, to rebuild Europe after World War II. If that's the plan you're referring to I don't see an easy connection between that and rebuilding our own country.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I love my country, but I've let her down. While I was busy making ends meet raising my family, my government became big business. While I was climbing the corporate ladder (so to speak) my government was selling our homeland piece by piece to other countries.
It's all about accountability...freedom takes work...to maintain freedom we must have a true democracy. Sure they go hand in hand. But I can sit here all day telling it like I see it...but if I don't put words into action, I have only myself to blame.
Do we want democracy everywhere? I don't know. Can we change our mindset and not measure our success by the success or failure of others? Can we hold ourselves accountable to someone or something other than the almighty dollar? Is it too late to try?
The computer age is a whole different ball game. It could be democracy's saving grace or it could be it's final downfall. It gives the everyday Joe a platform but it also gives Uncle Sam access to Joe's personal life.
I wish I could see the whole of the 21st Century...I wish I could be an active participant in the year 2050. Of course, that's absurd. But I'm here now and I must hold myself accountable before I start lambastering others just to excuse my own shortcomings.
No we want to fight and bicker about everything...like the good little sheeple the political parties and the media have created.
I couldn't agree with you more about a sense of personal accountability. But, as you mention, some of us were busy working, raising children, paying mortgages and that struggle, while more severe at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, affects all of us to some extent. We watched as more and more women entered the job market . . . then watched as more and more women were required to work to continue to make ends meet . . . then watched more and more families break up . . . and while we watched the evolution of the 50s families . . . no eyes rested on the government.
I don't think the government has been purchased by big business . . . I think big business has found it's way into the government. The compromises needed to conduct politics . . . have created a horrible alliance . . . . to the point that the business world (Corporate) and the Politcal world are melded together. This country has some serious issues of it's own to deal with . . .
Excellent comment.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Under those circumstances it sounds as if true freedom inherently promotes anarchy...
A wonderful and insightful article. Our version of freedom cannot be a template for freedom around the world.
Stephen Crane, Author of, "The Red Badge of Courage", Wrote "For I understand that a man is born into the world with his own pair of eyes, and he is not at all responsible for his vision -- he is merely responsible for his quality of personal honesty". I think that vision varies from person to person and nation to nation. Unless we choose to force our vision of the truth on the world, and pay the price in blood for that privilege, we would be better off to start at home and protect our own freedom.
Tyrants, now feast on the labors of the working class, and those who serve us ,enrich themselves with our sweat. It's time to fire them all! Send them all home. We'll know when we've got it right, because the boot of repression, will be lifted from our throat.
Freedom without the rule of law is anarchy IMO.
Of course none will understand this from their objective earth oriented way of thinking where everything is contested and divided, often between good and evil as the dualistic expression of (+/-) where the "/" is the Gap or Void of misunderstanding and non-acceptance.
The TRUTH of (+=-) requires that one know this truth which is a form of TRINITY where it IS the Spirit of God, our one and only God of this universe, common to each of us as the "=" in between the opposites. Spirit of God is REAL, you just do not yet know it. It interconnects everything and everyone ... when we come to realize that, we will know that we are all brothers and sisters of our parent God ... then we will know that we have perfect freedom to do just as we desire at all times ...
But we will also know that an accounting (called Karma) is kept, and what goes around comes around ... there are no accidents ... as you sow, so shall you reap, each gets just what they deserve, no more and no less ...
Knowing this, everyone will follow the golden rule by choice ... we will actually know our freedom then ...
Of course this is not likely to happen on this earth as long as people are ego oriented into believing they are each separate from other(s). Thus the fears and hatreds, the selfishness-es and all of the 'other' associated problems we have always seemed to have ... welcome to the world based upon 5 sensory objectivity and it's religions based upon the same ... no way out based upon that.
Find your own INner Spiritual higher Self, it is your Soul and connection to God ... at least then you will know yourself to be completely free ... of course you may have to die to physicality to find out ... but that will never scare you again either because then you will have the larger picture that puts everything into it's proper perspective ...
The BET will set you free ! The BET is (+=-) ! IT IS the TRUTH !!! Ignore these words if you really like things the way they seem to you.
OH, by the way, the word 'perfection' stands for the natural balance of anything ... (+=-).
Read all about it here ... free downloads
Peace, j.
Clearly, differing cultures have different limits, and to a great extent those limits are sensible to the people there. What I see in this article and thread, is a splitting of the notion of our own cultures "freedom" into two rather different things. We tend to speak of democracy as a very good thing, and one we feel works very well.
Yet, when we speak of the actual government which this "very good thing" has brought us, we scowl and wince. Elected officials, particularly on the national level, are essentially despised. and we won't go into to Presidents (Not on Independence day). We end up in wars which do the country no good, and leave the citizens in a state of anxiety, bankrupt our treasury (more taxes, eventually), and cost us some of our finest people. We see corruption and favoritism, and an almost unimaginable difference between the lot of a Paris Hilton and a child of the ghetto. And oh so many more disturbing things.
We do not compare THAT "democracy" to the systems of governance other cultures function with. And what is more, we focus almost exclusively on the bleaker aspects of those others, in a completely opposite way than we bring ours to the scales. We speak of the most disturbing aspects we can think of. One would think these people just went around oppressing each other all day. How silly of us.
We really ought to stop thinking we have found some great solution to mankind's woes. We haven't. In fact, there is some rather serious question as to whether our "democracy" even survived, let alone thrived. We say "we" are rich, that is the big sell. But in truth, we are the hardest working people on the planet, and we have the best infrastructure, and fantastic automation, and high tech, and other productivity advantages. Still, the bulk of the people struggle their whole lives to maintain a respectable standard of living, and worry the entire time.
So if we are truly "free", why is it so hard to look with wide open eyes at ourselves in comparison to others ? Why are our minds not free ?
I think what the basic premise should be is self-determination. There are basic rights/freedoms that pertain for all human beings. After that, I believe any societal/government should have the ability to self-determine their own laws/rules on behavior beyond these basic rights. Would we say another country is not free if they determine through individual decision/vote to have a theocracy? It may not gel with our version of freedom, but as long as the people agree that this meets their standards, and does not trample on the individual's basic rights, then it works for them. The problem with democracy is that it many times involves majority rule. We need to balance the rule of the majority with the needs of the minority based on basic rights in any society.
Thanks . . . you understood my point exactly!
Joe . . . well spoken . . . Geo.: Don't know who all or how many did it but I grew up with Janis Joplin doing that song...... and my opinion is, like yours, lawless freedom is anarchy. I'm only questioning whether our democratic idea of freedom would continue to be wanted if we exported it to cultures with significantly different backgrounds.
Thans so much for the interesting comments!!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
First . . . The Shiite / Sunni / Kurd issues will not be resolved with a majority rule democracy . . . and without the years put into making it work . . . the best you can hope for is a limited, physical, minority protection . . . followed by an erosion of minority rights . . . and a Shiite country in time. Other minority interests . . . like women . . . can expect that a Muslim country will have somewhat more restrictive rules regarding their women. Perhaps that's as it should be . . . but we cannot impose our values and at the same time allow them to be democratic. A culture may have a different line too. Our state of Texas has no issue executing convicted criminals. What of a country that executes 'their' criminals when the crime might be adultery?
The reverse side, of course, is if you don't have democracy imported . . . then we're back to backing the strong men . . . which has worked for 50 years but is starting to cost us in reputation, morals and security. It's a dilemma. But I think the answer is to back up and reassess ourselves . . . provide help and guidance where needed and requested . . . and start becoming that 'Beacon on the hill".
Thanks all for the wonderful, thoughtful comments!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
After reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" a number of years ago, I started to view different societal structures (as evidenced in the Middle East) in a different light. Our evolution of representative forms of government in the west is a natural outcome of our societal evolution. I don't think that foisting a structure that has taken the west thousands of years to develop here, in reality, upon a tribal society that has been functioning in parallel for thousands of years is ultimately going to be successful. There are just too many innate differences.
Iraq is still functioning in this manner - note that the limited successes of the recent surge are in part due to the cooperation of the tribal leaders still in power in Iraq.
Times do change . . . and conditions that are altered with each new innovation or method (either effecting production or distribution) make changes in the requirements of society (often subtle). Those changes have to be made by people who see both the need and the benefit in order to be fully supported. Often it's gradual . . . and gathers support as it progresses. Always it is resisted.
So, using the tribal societal structure as an excellent example . . . and Islam as yet another . . . you will see a broad cross spectrum of people at different intellectual levels . . . with differing motives . . . some looking to the future and the changes needed . . . some terrified of progress longing for "the good old days" of the past . . . most somewhere in between, combining aspects of both for a working plan of their own . . .
In both examples - thrusting American ideals of democracy will shake up the Society . . . no doubt . . . and after living in one way for so long . . . I'm not sure that anyone can predict the outcome of forcing our systems and beliefs on them . . . nor am I convinced that it can be done at all.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The one thing I am not very up on is the objective side of science and mathematics … so I am not aware of what sentential calculus is all about … maybe if I were more knowledgeable in those fields I would not dare use the figurative terms that I do. But it is my own impression that (+=-) best explains my view which I wrote a whole book about to better explain.
This concept is not at all an axiom because it is not at all self-evident on the surface where everyone is more used to dealing in the duality of (+/-), which may well be a common axiom. I am but attempting to plant some seeds for future growth, hopefully (+=-) will eventually become at least an APHORISM, which to me it most definitely IS even now, and then with time graduate to an AXIOM replacing the 'backwards' duality of (+/-) that causes so much conflict.
What you are suggesting about my rephrasing has been told to me before by very intelligent others … and I am very open to any way to do so that still retains the truths intended … I am not smart enough to come up with that … as smart as I might be, this is the best I have to offer.
Because it is a 'new thought' matter, I expect that hardly anyone will allow that it makes any sense to them and thus most will reject it off hand … but I know of no way to correct that as much as I would like to.
So I just throw it out there and hope enough people will 'read between the lines' and discover for themselves the subjective truth involved.
But any specific guidance on presentation changes will be appreciated … my major mission is to get people to think about IT not me.
FYI: You are officially the first recipient of a "rate" from me (told ya I was new) and, yes, I give it a 10
I'm so glad my passion on the topic did not close your mind about me! Thanks ever so much!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I am a published author (self-published) with a knack for words. Perhaps a collaborative effort from two like minded people could be considered?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I long ago recognised my concept in Hegel's dialectic and it is in great part to that that I value the 'synthesis'. :-)
We like to make freedom synonymous with Democracy, but, of course, the only truly free form of government is Anarchy.
Thanks . . . I think freedom is more than inconvenient because we speak 'freedom' as a term with no meaning but seek equality more. That ends minority issues . . . equality . . . more than freedom . . . is what we want to export too. We don't want a massive Shiite majority in Iraq to experience true Democracy with our version of minority protections . . . we would much rather they all be treated equal and well . . . so you can be a Kurd or Sunni and have a good life.
Thanks for commenting.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The demise of the Marx / Engels theoretical structure (in my opinion) came from the inability to foresee the inevitable change. They had concentrated on the Feudal system and a way to escape it . . . particularly for serfs. The reasoning was, indeed, brilliant . . . but the fact is the Feudal world was nearly extinct by the time they postulated the theory on how to deal with it . . . and they, of course, had no way of knowing the corporate ascendency and the new "corporate serfdom" that would ensue . . . so they were dealing with a world that was dying as they sought to escape it. Perhaps "dying" is the wrong term. Morphing might be more appropriate.
Serfs are no longer tied to the land . . . . and corporations do not have borders.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Mankind needs to get in touch with essences a lot more than they now do ... the basic essentials of human thought, philosophy and spirituality rather than institutional hierarchical dictations from 'authorities' both secular, and especially, the religious.
People need to realise their God given Spirit withIN that interconnects us all INtuitively ... the needed 'changes' must come from the bottom (the people) up rather than the top down.
As it is in our society, the supposed 'authorities' have 'stacked the deck', they have the handle of the 'controls' via established wealth and ownership of our 'systems' of information ... they call the tunes that we now dance to. They in effect have 'dumbed us all down' ... to be more reliant on them. Just the way the want it because it 'seems' to work so well 'for' them.
They do it by completing their education. You should try it some time.
You may make fun of anything you wish. You may stamp you feet and report me to Gather. But at the end of the day . . . you'll still be ignorant and childish. And I stand by my comments on your incredibly childish attack on Cindy Sheehan . . . and your inability to respond to a single question.
Now . . . do yourself a favor and find a grownup who will read this to you and explain it for you. Make sure they get the diverse and educated comments made after the article as well . . . lots of good stuff in those. Ask lots of questions. Not questions like "What's your favorite color" though . . . this time questions about what you hear. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Don't you think that freedom and equality are two things that can't be done in halves? There is no sort of equal and no kinda free. That's why I think we don't truly want it for the world. It would set too many ideas we fear loose on the world at large, and those ideas would grow and grow. Then would we still be all that important on the world stage? Would we have as much influence?
That leaves just 1/2 of what was before ... but because the thinking of that half, they too will then find fault with each other ... only this time they are 'all' killer types ... it will not take long after that, as 1/2 life decay goes, before they will all be dead ... the choice of conflict and eventual annihilation of the whole via competition gone wild.
Then ... on the 'other' hand, is the way that God designed us, as in Adam and Eve, equals but opposites ... meant to cooperate rather than fight. Appreciation of their 'diversity' via love of one another, both joyful AND synergistically creative, a perfect 'marriage' with perfect children ... heaven on earth, Utopia ...
But then some one created a devil and everything went to hell ... do you not think it is time to realize the truth and turn things around ... or should we just keep on killing each other ... God is awaiting our decision. ? .
The choice is still ours.
Complete equality is also not attainable, in my humble opinion. The fact is . . . it's more desireable than freedom to most. Communism wasn't really so much about complete equality as it was about state ownership of industry so that profits would go to the state for re-investment for the betterment of the citizenry. It's more a merging of philosophy and economic theory.
But if neither freedom nor equality can come unfettered and without restriction . . . limitations will invariably be placed and it is in the imposition of the limits that we find the 'rub' as it were. Clearly . . . in this context . . . one must wonder what the true intent of an invasive foreign policy is when the justification has now evolved into a (among other things) fight for freedom and/or Democracy.
I suspect this is just a term being bandied about with no real meaning at all . . . a rallying cry . . . since who could be against 'freedom'? Black and White linear thinking where you are either 'A' or 'B' and where 'A' is Freedom and 'B' is the opposite is just another trick of the trade . . . because those who define situation can usually control it. Hence, an 'inheritance' tax becomes a 'Death' tax and tax breaks for corporations become tax incentives.
Joe
Your justice point is absolutely correct and it reinforces my thinking about equality. Justice is, at a conceptual level, the idea that we will all be treated the same if we act the same. Mandatory sentencing laws were instituted because people were incensed to discover more and more incidents of gross disparity in sentences for the same crimes.
Ellynn:
Good point and it begs the question of what type of democracy we'd want to export . . . and what type would people want to receive?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"I know my views seem simplistic and from a new-age religious loony..."
I disagree . . . well . . . kind of disagree. Spiritual might be a better term than religious. You're right . . . they must seem like that to more than a few . . . though not to me.
"I have had experiences that most would die for IF they just knew they were possible..."
Wow. Ditto here.
". . . karmic justice are the truths of the eternal universe . . ."
Agreed. Though we watch people who "live by the sword" that don't seem to "die by the sword" as promised in, for example, the Bible . . . nothing more than a rephrasing of karma which is a concept found in many if not most religions.
Sounds like you've looked into Buddhism and . . . possibly Lao Tzu as well?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
As one loony to another, you're ideas are always intelligent and well presented. :) Just because a thing can't be seen that doesn't mean it is not real.
Janice, thanks for the vote. :-)