|
1/22/08
In this article I try to expose the nature of society
and then provide some ideas on how we are best
controlled by a government or a ruling power.
With about 5 people controlling 95% of the broadcasting
networks I question the political information provided.
How do I know which political candidate represents my
perception of what would make our country better? How do
I spend a few hours to support the soldiers who have
given years of battle and sometimes their life in order
to improve our quality of life?
Freedom as we know it has only existed 3 times in
recorded history. Ancient Greece was the first democracy
in the 5th century B.C. but it only lasted
for 200 years. Early Rome developed a seemingly
democratic system but it mostly served the bureaucrats.
After more than 1000 years democracy disappeared until
1215 when the Magna Carta was written in England. The
document codified that no man was above the law.
Unfortunately, it lay dormant for 500 years until lady
democracy stretched her arms and created the
Enlightenment. The Enlightenment with its emphasis on
reason, finally provided democracy with its
philosophical underpinnings. While the extent to which
it was enacted was questionable, it provided a recipe to
help establish the government that took root in the
United States.
Many people think the United States was founded on the
religion they are familiar with. Actually, it was
founded on the freedom of religion even though 83
percent of the people identified themselves as
Christian. Many people who initially came here were
escaping from religious persecution. There were,
however, groups who came here to spread their religion,
which they were free to do. Religion is an inherent
attribute in most people and to practice that religion
in freedom was powerful in many ways. However, there
were areas where religion gained a strong foothold and
abused the freedom of the people. There were those who
used their new found freedom by enacting their own
method of suppression by burning some young girl at the
stake for having hiccups. Religion also gave us the
right to take away the land from the Indians since they
were not familiar with European religions. The Indians
had their own religion but we applied the word Pagan to
their religion and called it evil. So, while we were a
country of freedom, there were religious groups who
suppressed individuals in their community.
Christian is actually a very broad term. One-third of
these self-identified Christians were not affiliated
with any church so it is possible they claimed to be
Christian in order to avoid further religious
persecution. There were religious groups who made great
efforts to gain national recognition or write their
religion on government structures. Thank goodness,
freedom prevailed. The beauty of freedom is that the
more than 3000 religions in the United States can each
take credit for the foundation and success of our
country. Then of course freedom did not apply to blacks
because they were not human beings; they were property.
Yes, even Thomas Jefferson had slaves when he helped
draft the Constitution. For the first century of
slavery, from the early 17th century to the early 18th
century, most Southern states made it a crime to baptize
slaves, because slaveholders feared they would have to
free slaves if they became their brothers and sisters in
Christ.
The Great Awakening set the stage for the American
Revolution by undermining faith in traditional
authority, particularly the authority of the Church of
England and the king, who was head of the church. The
first right granted in the Constitution guaranteed
separation of church and state on the national level and
the free exercise of religious beliefs. The authors of
the Constitution provided for a secular state, one based
not on religion but on toleration and liberty of
conscience. Influenced by the ideals of the
Enlightenment that promoted individualism, liberty, and
free inquiry, as well as by the examples set by the
middle colonies, the Founding Fathers committed the
nation to protecting minority viewpoints and beliefs.
Although religion has been influential, the United
States remains a secular society rooted in the rational
Enlightenment ideals of tolerance, liberty, and
individualism.
Please reference Encarta encyclopedia and search for
"American religion".
In doing so please keep in mind I respect the religious
beliefs in our country and am only opposed to those who
abuse people in the name of religion. Slavery and its
remnants today are a good example. While we seldom kill
people we easily destroy them in the name of some
fabricated form of justice.
So the United States initiated the most modern and
successful government of freedom despite a few flaws
here and there. The recipe has resulted in the most
powerful nation that has existed on Earth. But the
recipe for any government of freedom has been short
lived as recorded by history. We have the reasons for
the fall of previous governments well documented. Those
same reasons are now arising in our own government. We
may still have enough influence to make good choices and
preserve our freedom but I question if we have enough
time to really check out the available resources. With
our busy lives we barely have time to watch the million
dollar images projected on TV in 15 second commercials.
In my personal opinion the most serious problem we are
confronted with is the inability to change the
Constitution. If we had the ability to change the
Constitution then that would be our most serious
problem. We simply do not have the ability to redesign
our Constitution to take us into the future. I also question
where each candidate gets their money. Then of course
how do they vote on all issues. I have never known one
Democrat or Republican in my life that thinks abortion
is ok but we will use the abortion issue to destroy as
many political opponents as possible while separating
our society into two distinct groups of people who
oppose each other. Why can't we be concerned with life at all ages.
What about
freedom? What about a future for the children?
Here are 3 of about 50 problem examples I can offer you.
1. Each judge on the Supreme Court votes
according to the beliefs of the President who appointed
that judge. What happened to the 3 branches of
government?
2. If one party is good and one party is evil
then what happened to the freedom of choosing between
two viable parties? Are we pursuing a dictatorship?
3. Why are there no Moderates in the
presidential lineup? A Moderate is a person residing
between Liberal and Conservative. Ron Paul is the only
candidate in the middle between Liberal and Conservative
but then he is also a Libertarian. Libertarian applies
to a world much more at peace than the one we live in.
Most Conservatives and Liberals do not think we are at
that stage of development. Why no moderates?
Now
if you want 75 years of research by the universities on
the difference between Conservative and Liberal you can
read the article posted on my web site at
http://tkpro.com/Pages/Political/Politics.htm.
No opinions there, just 75 years of raw scientific
research data on a college level. And yes, I have read
everything from beginning to end. I found it much easier
and safer than my tour in Viet Nam. It will be easier
for you to read than the task facing our soldiers in
war.
Now for your test. Please answer the following
questions.
Is it possible to deduce judgments of value from matters
of fact?
Is it possible to deduce judgments from images?
What is the difference between democracy and autocracy?
Could one or the other be an illusion? Can a
Jeffersonian republic remain within the realm of
democracy? How? Show your work.
Freedom has a tendency towards a powerful nation if
harnessed properly. Therefore freedom is a relevant
subject.
At one point in time, in the United States, there was a
debate over Federalism. Alexander Hamilton designed
this system where there would be a permanent national
debt and at the same time an increase in the power of
government. The interest drawn on the bonds for the debt
would be high and guaranteed. Then of course it would
be necessary to tax the common people in order to pay
for the interest on the bonds. This method also was
designed to centralize power.
Thomas Jefferson had another point of view and wanted to
keep the power with the property-holding farmers who
were the most trustworthy citizens. Jefferson’s ideas
were to maintain a government strong enough to protect
property but not strong enough to threaten property. He
wanted to reduce the size of the military.
James
Madison, Jefferson and many others thought Hamilton’s
plans for a large national debt was a debt-driven,
patronage-wielding duplicate of the British government
against which they had just fought a revolution for.
In today’s United States we still have similar
structures in our government. Unfortunately, the terms
republican, democrat, conservative and liberal are
represented in ways that are contrary to what they
actually are. The term “no new taxes” only pertains to
the benefit of the extremely wealthy and those holding
the US bonds. The middle class and the poor vote as if
it represents them when it does not. A politician
offers “no new taxes” but at the same time offers many
additional services that are paid for by taxes. The
politician will promise limited government and less
regulation which is the exact recipe for the wealthy and
the formation of monopolies. The common people who could
formerly vote on government controls lose control to the
corporations and the wealthy that now control what the
government was doing. Power is lost in the middle class
and the middle class suffers. A country like Mexico has
no regulation and therefore no middle class.
I supplied the preceding information in order to ask if
common man is really capable of democracy. There are
those of nobility such as William James from France who
in 1876 suggested democracy does not work because the
lower classes have no idea what government consists of.
William James believed Aristocracy was a better form of
government and left the people happier. The people no
longer dealt with who was going to be in power and
became more content. Based on a large amount of
evidence he is correct.
So a Jeffersonian republic and democracy are the
illusions we are presented with when actually we are
yielding to Hamilton’s idea of Federalism while avoiding
the term aristocracy. As a result of the alternation
between republican and democrat we create the debt with
one party and pay off the interest with the other party.
As long as the people buy in to it properly the wealthy
will gain enormous power and control the government. To
a great extent they actually own it. Our national debt
is 80% privately owned. The other 20% is one branch of
government owing money to another branch of government.
So our present form of government is really an
aristocracy with democracy icing on it. The projected
image of liberal and conservative is merely a form of
exercise to expend energy in the masses and maintain
control. The voting process is not a freedom but a
social exercise to dissipate energy that might otherwise
be harmful to the nobility.
I sympathize with those who are not of nobility but
realize they could survive without the manipulative
controls. Even if what I am saying is totally true and
you understand it, it does not mean society as a whole
can deal with it. I do not believe the ideas presented
here can be taught without a thorough understanding of
government, the nature of society and the control of
society on a large scale. Most people need the existing
controls to maintain the expenditure of energy in
controlled ways.
I guess we could ask how aristocracy deals with
cross-cultural ethics on a global scale. One way is to
let the nobility of other countries buy some of the
wealth of our country. They too can have a piece of our
national debt. Then their common people can help our
common people pay the interest on the debt. Thanks to
market globalization we now have global nobles.
(Extremely wealthy people who control the world)
Relevant considerations are:
-
Population growth
-
Decrease in natural resources
-
Increase in competition for resources
-
Close nit nature or global communications.
-
Integration
of all countries on Earth
-
Climate change
We vote together to determine our leader. I never vote
to determine what your religion will be. You also cannot
vote to determine what my spirituality will be. You only
control who my political leader is. Therefore we must
have freedom of religion and separation of church and
state. It becomes even more important when entering the
global arena of life. So we bring our religion with us
to the negotiation table as the foundation of our
character but we do not place our religion directly on
the negotiation table. To place our religion on the
negotiation table would be to take the freedom of
religion away from the other people at the table.
Separate political systems in neighboring countries have
not faired well in history as there have been many wars.
A common economic system may be the only way to unite
the Earth. Once we have achieved market globalization we
can precede with transitions towards a greener and more
peaceful Earth.
The power structure adjustments are taking place but I
do not see the technical and physical changes being
implemented. Instead of other countries seeing us as a
respectful police nation they see us as greedy
intruders. I see no significant plans to accommodate
life when the oil is gone. Air pollution is causing
global warming and little is being done to change
direction.
There are many variables in our government and society
that can contribute to what I have presented or add
additional dimensions to it. Our form of government
might be sufficient at present but I question which direction is it
going and what it be like 20 years from now? With
the increase in population and the decline of natural
resources, the equation for survival becomes more
difficult to calculate. In the realm of major change,
the government needs good controls in order to make
seamless transitions. However, narrowly centralized
power or absolute power has a strong tendency towards
corruption.
An opinion from a person has no value unless you know
the person. My philosophy is further defined in highly
condensed form at:
http://tkpro.com/Philosophical/cross_cultural_ethics.htm
|
