What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interest?
What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is the predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others, and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?
What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?
What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us?
What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair tradeoff with the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistanian, Afghan people are killed or displaced?
What if we finally decide that torture, even if called “enhanced interrogation technique”, is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?
What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?
What if all war-time spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?
What if we finally see that war-time conditions always undermine personal liberty?
What if Conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?
What if Conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?
What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?
What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?
What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?
What if a military draft is being planned for for the wars that would spread if our foreign policy is not changed?
What if the American people learned the truth, that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security, that it never changes from one administration to the next?
What if war in preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?
What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?
What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?
What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?
What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded?
Nothing.
But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored?
Nothing good.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
A discussion on the Philosophy of Liberty
We all know that we, as humans, have certain inalienable rights endowed by our creator. These rights are stated in the Declaration of Independence. These rights existed prior to The Declaration of Independence and will exist until the end of time because they were not granted by man therefor cannot be taken away by man. This is what was meant when it was said that the rights were inalienable. Those rights are the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
How do you define these rights? We have the right to physical life and nobody can do anything that would put an end to our life. Hence murder is illegal because to take the life of another is a direct infringement on that persons right to their life. We also have the right to the Pursuit of Happiness. This right is not a guarantee of happiness, only that we may pursue it. That’s simple enough, right? But when it comes to liberty, things get more complicated. What exactly is liberty? I have heard it said, more than once, that liberty is the right to “be”. A more theoretical definition would be that liberty is a concept in political philosophy that maintains the idea that human beings are capable of governing themselves. That is not to say that as a society, we do not need laws. Quite the opposite, in fact. Laws are enacted to promote peace within a society and are necessary to protect and promote the rights we are born with as endowed by the creator, however one chooses to define the word “creator”.
To believe in the concept of liberty is not to believe in a particular outcome, social or otherwise. It merely permits a person to think and make personal decisions of their own volition. It could also be said that liberty is based on the belief in “Self-Ownership”. To believe in liberty is to believe that you own your life. Self- Ownership, the belief that an individual owns their life, requires that a person think, speak and act for themselves If you accept the concept of liberty and understand that it applies to every human being, you must also accept that it is unethical to act in a way that would infringe upon anyone else’s inalienable right to Life, Liberty and their Pursuit of Happiness.
If you believe and accept the concept of liberty and self – ownership and believe that you alone have the right to your life and the right to make choices regarding your personal life, could you not also say that you are responsible for the outcome of your choices whether the outcome is success or failure? And if that is true, would it be ethical to expect or to initiate force against someone else in order to receive what the concept of liberty says you are capable and therefor responsible for providing for yourself? If you believe and accept the concept of liberty, the answer must compel you to say “No”. On the other hand, would it be ethical to seek help from family, community or charitable organizations? The answer to that would have to be yes because through the mutual consent between two or more parties, a person may receive goods, services, monetary compensation or any combination thereof as long as all parties are willing and agree to the exchange. The difference between the two scenarios should be obvious. One is enacted through force while the other is by mutual consent. Which of the two is most ethical to you? While we cannot initiate force against others to do what we believe to be right and just, if we accept and act in accordance to the rights and responsibilities of liberty, it is safe to say that community problems would be solved on a community level because who knows what a community needs better than the members of that community? Not all problems can or should be solved with a one size fits all form of legislation.
Our participation or lack thereof in society has a direct impact on our community as a whole. There was a time when communities were much closer than they are today. There was a time when adults and parents in a community looked after not only their own children, but their neighbors children as well. If a parent witnessed a child doing something unacceptable, you can bet that parent spoke to the child and made sure the parents of the child knew what the child had done. People were more involved within their communities and took the time to know their neighbors. Parents seemed to know that values and discipline started in the home and were reinforced at school through teachers, in the church and in their community. The children, knowing that they were not entirely anonymous in their actions, learned to behave because it is what was expected from society as a whole and this helped to cultivate their moral compass and to know, in no uncertain terms, the difference between right and wrong. These things were clearly defined by parents as well as society and children learned at an early age that there were consequences for their actions.
Most of you have heard the saying, “It takes a village to raise a child”. This statement is as true today as it was when the saying was popular. Times have changed and we no longer have “villages” and somewhere in the evolution of society, thoughts and attitudes began to change. Less importance was placed on personal accountability and more emphasis was placed on minding our own business. Who were we to tell anyone what was “right” or “wrong”? Child rearing became more personal and instead of focusing on teaching our children the core values we grew up with, we began to focus on political correctness. Shame was no longer an acceptable emotion for a child to feel, even when their actions warranted shame. In a society that was based upon liberty and the concept of self – ownership, our values drifted farther and farther from the original mark. The values that used to be taught in a community became more the exception and less the general rule. This could be considered a breakdown in society where it becomes every man for himself which is the exact opposite of a society based on liberty. As previously established, liberty and self-ownership require that we act in our best interest while respecting the same rights in others and a societal breakdown is not in our own best interest. While some would have you believe that believing in personal liberty is inherently selfish, liberty is the exact opposite of selfish. Taking responsibility for yourself and therefor your actions makes for a better society. The reason for this is that in believing in personal liberty and that of others, we are compelled to reject things that would infringe upon our individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Things like crime, violence, racism and drug addiction are things that are detrimental to us as people and society as a whole. Self – ownership would compel a person to reject these things and by doing so, the community would benefit and be more productive as a whole while an attitude of selfishness and entitlement is a drain on all productive members of a society. The very concept of liberty says this is so.
So if we believe and accept the concept of liberty and that the problems of society can and should be handled by the members of a community, the need for government intervention is removed because those who believe in liberty also understand that the use of force through legislation that would infringe upon anothers rights and is in direct opposition to a truly liberated society and the two cannot coexist if we are to consider ourselves a free nation.
How do you define these rights? We have the right to physical life and nobody can do anything that would put an end to our life. Hence murder is illegal because to take the life of another is a direct infringement on that persons right to their life. We also have the right to the Pursuit of Happiness. This right is not a guarantee of happiness, only that we may pursue it. That’s simple enough, right? But when it comes to liberty, things get more complicated. What exactly is liberty? I have heard it said, more than once, that liberty is the right to “be”. A more theoretical definition would be that liberty is a concept in political philosophy that maintains the idea that human beings are capable of governing themselves. That is not to say that as a society, we do not need laws. Quite the opposite, in fact. Laws are enacted to promote peace within a society and are necessary to protect and promote the rights we are born with as endowed by the creator, however one chooses to define the word “creator”.
To believe in the concept of liberty is not to believe in a particular outcome, social or otherwise. It merely permits a person to think and make personal decisions of their own volition. It could also be said that liberty is based on the belief in “Self-Ownership”. To believe in liberty is to believe that you own your life. Self- Ownership, the belief that an individual owns their life, requires that a person think, speak and act for themselves If you accept the concept of liberty and understand that it applies to every human being, you must also accept that it is unethical to act in a way that would infringe upon anyone else’s inalienable right to Life, Liberty and their Pursuit of Happiness.
If you believe and accept the concept of liberty and self – ownership and believe that you alone have the right to your life and the right to make choices regarding your personal life, could you not also say that you are responsible for the outcome of your choices whether the outcome is success or failure? And if that is true, would it be ethical to expect or to initiate force against someone else in order to receive what the concept of liberty says you are capable and therefor responsible for providing for yourself? If you believe and accept the concept of liberty, the answer must compel you to say “No”. On the other hand, would it be ethical to seek help from family, community or charitable organizations? The answer to that would have to be yes because through the mutual consent between two or more parties, a person may receive goods, services, monetary compensation or any combination thereof as long as all parties are willing and agree to the exchange. The difference between the two scenarios should be obvious. One is enacted through force while the other is by mutual consent. Which of the two is most ethical to you? While we cannot initiate force against others to do what we believe to be right and just, if we accept and act in accordance to the rights and responsibilities of liberty, it is safe to say that community problems would be solved on a community level because who knows what a community needs better than the members of that community? Not all problems can or should be solved with a one size fits all form of legislation.
Our participation or lack thereof in society has a direct impact on our community as a whole. There was a time when communities were much closer than they are today. There was a time when adults and parents in a community looked after not only their own children, but their neighbors children as well. If a parent witnessed a child doing something unacceptable, you can bet that parent spoke to the child and made sure the parents of the child knew what the child had done. People were more involved within their communities and took the time to know their neighbors. Parents seemed to know that values and discipline started in the home and were reinforced at school through teachers, in the church and in their community. The children, knowing that they were not entirely anonymous in their actions, learned to behave because it is what was expected from society as a whole and this helped to cultivate their moral compass and to know, in no uncertain terms, the difference between right and wrong. These things were clearly defined by parents as well as society and children learned at an early age that there were consequences for their actions.
Most of you have heard the saying, “It takes a village to raise a child”. This statement is as true today as it was when the saying was popular. Times have changed and we no longer have “villages” and somewhere in the evolution of society, thoughts and attitudes began to change. Less importance was placed on personal accountability and more emphasis was placed on minding our own business. Who were we to tell anyone what was “right” or “wrong”? Child rearing became more personal and instead of focusing on teaching our children the core values we grew up with, we began to focus on political correctness. Shame was no longer an acceptable emotion for a child to feel, even when their actions warranted shame. In a society that was based upon liberty and the concept of self – ownership, our values drifted farther and farther from the original mark. The values that used to be taught in a community became more the exception and less the general rule. This could be considered a breakdown in society where it becomes every man for himself which is the exact opposite of a society based on liberty. As previously established, liberty and self-ownership require that we act in our best interest while respecting the same rights in others and a societal breakdown is not in our own best interest. While some would have you believe that believing in personal liberty is inherently selfish, liberty is the exact opposite of selfish. Taking responsibility for yourself and therefor your actions makes for a better society. The reason for this is that in believing in personal liberty and that of others, we are compelled to reject things that would infringe upon our individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Things like crime, violence, racism and drug addiction are things that are detrimental to us as people and society as a whole. Self – ownership would compel a person to reject these things and by doing so, the community would benefit and be more productive as a whole while an attitude of selfishness and entitlement is a drain on all productive members of a society. The very concept of liberty says this is so.
So if we believe and accept the concept of liberty and that the problems of society can and should be handled by the members of a community, the need for government intervention is removed because those who believe in liberty also understand that the use of force through legislation that would infringe upon anothers rights and is in direct opposition to a truly liberated society and the two cannot coexist if we are to consider ourselves a free nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)