Just random thoughts...

One of the wonderful things about the internet is the ability to learn only what you want to learn - everything else is completely useless trivia if it doesn't conform to your chosen point of view. And when I say "wonderful", I should put tags around it to convey my intended meaning. (Note to self - figure out how to convey sarcasm in a written medium)

I only follow a few blogs; most of them anonymously because I don't want someone going through my profile and attempting to peg me as something based on what I read. (That reminds me to check to see if my local library is cataloging all of my selected materials and then forwarding to the Dept of Homeland Security.) Some of those blogs are political - and all of them are very one-sided in their point of view. That is fine since no one should be taking what is written in blogs as an unbiased account of journalistic excellence. However, on more than one occasion, I have attempted to make comments on those same blogs to point out specific disagreements with stated arguments and the comments never make it past the review process. It seems that, if the comments do not agree with the author's stated points, then the authors will simply not allow them to be posted. Which simply perpetuates the narrow-minded views that increasingly crowd out the more nuanced (and often better informed) views that might help contribute to improve society overall. For the record, any comments made to this blog will not go through a review process but will be posted as they are submitted. The only time I might choose to make a revision/deletion is in the case of obvious trolling or flaming - and even then it would have to be pretty egregious. But simple disagreement with one of my posts does not merit removing someone else's opinion(s). However, this obviously is not the case with others (typically in the political realm) who do not wish to hear dissenting opinions. Too bad as the result is often just continued ignorance.

Switching gears, I have just finished reading Adam Robinson's Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist. As you can see, a wonderfully large picture of America's Public Enemy #1 (behind Saddam Hussein - oh, wait, never mind, he's already been dealt with) is displayed prominently on the front cover of the book. What I have found interesting is that some people, upon seeing the book, have been genuinely interested in both the book and my reasons for reading it (and that is because I happen to like history and the social sciences, not to mention I'd like to better understand how things have happened to this point). Others have given me looks that range from "Are you studying how to be a terrorist" to "I don't want to talk with someone who likes that guy on the cover of your book" to "WTF?!". Usually, I have to deliberately provoke discussions with people to learn and sometimes to help them see alternative points of view. Maybe I should just carry around that book all the time...

Come to think of it, the Department of Homeland Security sounds an awful lot like Orwellian double-speak. Since when did the US become the "homeland". Not to make light of the terrorist threat but I think they feel more threatened by our ideas and the freedom to live as we wish (for the most part - that is certainly not an absolute). To keep the "homeland" secure would require converting people to our way of thinking, not creating new barriers to keep them out and thereby reinforcing their misperceptions. I think I need to go back and do some research into exactly how "homeland security" works and what parameters they work within (or without, as the case may be). I'm betting that my beloved freedoms are not nearly what I think they were before 9/11/01. Of course, as I've noted here before, "freedom" is a relative term. But I won't go there again tonight...

Liberty or Death?

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"

Famous words by Patrick Henry that, in a way, launched the American Revolution. And the rest, as they say, is history. The US has stood as a beacon for freedom over generations and is often cited as a preferred location for people to be free - whether it be religious, political, social or otherwise. This does not mean that it is always the case and there are certainly instances throughout US history that demonstrate that the reality has not always fit the perception. However, the US is one of the few countries that has not necessarily shunned its past in favor of a more favorable presentation. Fights against perceived injustices permeate US history and a war was fought to correct the grievous injustice of slavery. For those (and there are many) who argue that the US has committed any number of wrongs (social, moral, etc.), they should consider the history of most any other nation in the world and how those nations have responded to the bad things perpetuated in their countries. Outside of Germany's reaction to the Holocaust, it is hard to find many other nations that have tried to make up for negative events in their history.

But I digress from my intended subject of liberty and freedom. I had the opportunity to watch a historical re-enactment of the Second Virginia Convention that was the scene of Henry's iconic speech. But what caught my attention was that the decision to take up arms for the pursuit of liberty was not undertaken with unanimous consent and that the discussions that led up to his speech were eerily reminiscent of arguments that take have surely taken place all over the world before and since - and are still done today. The decision taken by the members of the Virginia delegates to the second convention to raise arms and fight against the injustices they felt were inflicted upon them by the British in support of the colonists in Boston was one that had fervent support on both sides of the debate. Some felt that they could suffer no more under the taxation without representation under which they lived at the time while others felt that they had support that was building in England and that they simply needed to give them more time to assume the power that would enable them to return to the "halcyon days of yore".

The debate, essentially, was reduced to a peaceful and hopeful view that patience would see a return to more tranquil and reasonable days where everyone was allowed to prosper and live according to their own standards versus a belief that there was, and could be, no liberty to live free of the yoke of tyranny imposed by the British crown without an armed insurrection by the colonials. As was pointed out at the end of the re-enactment, the vote was won by only a slim margin of 5-6 votes in favor of raising a militia to serve as a defense against the British.

Freedom, as with most things, is a nuanced perception. Henry and his supporters were in favor of freedom to live and make choices on their own - or at least the right to have a say in the governance of their affairs. To those who stood in opposition, it seemed that freedom represented the ability to live their lives peacefully with the hope and belief that things would improve without forcing their active intervention. While it would seem that history has proven (for now) that the US was right to fight for its freedom, it was certainly not a decision taken lightly nor with the perceived consensus with which it seems it is often portrayed to the students who study that history. Only the future and its participants will determine how that freedom is partaken by the benefactors of that speech.

Freedom to be stupid?

Gov. Schwarzenegger halts use of welfare debit cards at casinos. Now THAT is a headline that is likely to raise some hackles - whether it be for "Gov. Schwarzenegger" or "halts use of welfare debit cards at casinos". Since the idea of the governator does not bother me - surely worse have been elected by free countries throughout the world - I did have to raise my eyebrows at the idea of people using welfare debit cards in casinos. Isn't welfare intended to help people survive - to maintain their personal and family welfare? I may be wrong, but I feel rather certain that welfare does not include using the money provided by the government to go gambling.

But this does tie back in with some of my thoughts on freedom. What are the actual limits placed on the recipient of the card as to its use? It's called a welfare debit card so the implication is that it is not intended for gambling money, but are there rules that explicitly forbid it? And should there be if there are not? Finally, if there are limits placed on its use, do those limits impinge upon the freedom of the recipient?

I am inclined to argue that beggars cannot be choosers and it is certainly the right of the lender to tell the borrower how they may use the funds. But banks make loans to individuals and companies all the time - with the only proviso that the money must be paid back. The government, however, gives money to people with no such provision or requirement. (After looking through the California Department of Social Services site, I cannot see what the actual rules are for receiving, using or paying back welfare payments.) At most, it appears that the main requirement is that the recipients show an effort to seek work. So does this then grant the government the right to tell people how to spend their money? After all, once the users receive it, then it technically *is* their money.

For the government to assert dominion over how people may spend their money - regardless of where it came from - seems an abuse of power and certainly a restriction of individual freedom. That people should stupidly spend the money given to assist their personal welfare is a choice that they are allowed to make and they should be forced to suffer the consequences. But if that freedom (to be stupid) is taken from them, it is not only the stupid who shall suffer. As I had pointed out earlier, suffering the consequences of one's actions is a freedom.

And, as with most things, freedom can be a double-edged sword.

More thoughts on freedom

In the US, there is a great hullabaloo regarding the reduction of freedoms that were allegedly once enjoyed by the masses. These allegations typically are made by people on the political right as the situation relates to the political ideology of the current administration - both executive and legislative. The loss of freedoms tend to subsist of the argument that there is a greater governmental intrusion into the lives of the private individual - more so than existed in the past. And while there is a certain credence that can be given to this argument, it certainly is not an argument that should belong to one side or the other of the political aisle.

Frankly, it can be argued that there has been a continuous loss of the individual freedoms upon which the US was established. As the government continues to expand its powers over the daily lives of its citizenry, albeit at the alleged benefit of those it governs, it continues to reduce the liberties to which the people once may have had rights. One example, hot button issue though it is, is the right of gun ownership. There continues to be an active movement to restrict the ownership of firearms in order to reduce the violence that plagues many areas in the country. The motivation for this movement is seemingly a pure one intended to help reduce the number of victims of gun crimes perpetrated by criminals with supposedly easy access to guns. To argue against them paints the opponents of gun control as violent fanatics. Yet the purpose of the second amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to own firearms not for the purpose of shooting fellow citizens at will but as a guarantee to mitigate the power of the government. A government that has no fear of its unarmed citizens is a government that is either already, or on its way to, a tyranny.

But this does not mean that there are not other ways for the government to exercise its expansion of powers over the daily lives and freedoms of its citizens. And certainly in recent memory, no newly elected leadership has refused the powers that were accumulated under previous administrations nor has failed to increase the powers that it could wield through whatever machinations it could create or twist to its own desires.

Frankly, power begets the desire for more power. And power in the hands of a few, even those who are freely elected, is freedom given to those same few for whatever pittance may be granted in return. So handing over the freedoms that the people may currently possess for whatever meager promises the government may make is a dangerous bargain in the long term. Even Thomas Jefferson knew that

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

How much further down the path must the people trod before they are willing to see it?

Thoughts on freedom

This will be one of several posts I hope to make on the subject of freedom. Given its importance in our political world today, it is certainly worth serious consideration. And I will note that my viewpoints may be contradictory at times or somewhat disjointed. These posts are meant to serve as a method for fleshing out the ideas on the subject. Perhaps, once I have done that, I will write up the more fully fleshed out idea in its entirety.

Freedom from responsibility for the actions taken by the individual leads to the further abdication of freedom for the individual in all other respects.

Or, put another way, responsibility for one's actions are an important freedom. When abdicating that responsibility, one abdicates their own freedom. The freedom to do what you want when you want comes with ability to enjoy, or suffer, the results of those actions. If you are only willing to enjoy the good results and slough off those that are unfavorable, then you are not free. It means that you will choose not to do certain things for fear of suffering negative consequences. Or worse, you will choose to assign the blame for those actions undertaken by you to others and, in the end, those others will then soon make the choices for you.

At the risk of offering a political example, I submit that the housing and foreclosure crisis is but a step in this direction. Many people who could not otherwise afford the homes they bought subsequently found themselves in default and foreclosure when the economy turned sour. However, instead of taking responsibility for making the poor choice to purchase homes they knew they could not realistically afford under the premise that they could simply borrow forever on equity (that somehow was not vulnerable to the normal ups and downs of economic principles), they blamed the mortgage lenders or the government for "encouraging" them to make such poor choices. Clearly it was not their fault and therefore they were entitled to government assistance to absolve them of the morass they later found themselves in.

This is not to argue that the government and mortgage may not share some blame, but this does not absolve the individuals of the choices they made. But the tendency to deflect blame for their actions is the next step in reducing the freedoms that they/we all once enjoyed.