Tag: liberty

Public Office and Freedom of Expression

Post author By David
Post date February 20, 2009
4 Comments on Public Office and Freedom of Expression

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I could not begin to cover the latest situation with Chris Buttars but there is an important issue there. Everyone has a responsibility to refrain from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, but public officials have even more reason to be judicious in what they choose to say. As far as I’m concerned that’s a choice you make when you run for office. I have not read what he said (nor do I intend to). I have not paid attention to the particulars of the reprimand that he received but I have read a variety of opinions on what should have happened. I thought I would throw in my two bits about these kinds of situations.

I consider it perfectly reasonable that the state senate should have the power to discipline and reprimand its members when they act in a way that detracts from the office they hold. Obviously in criminal cases they should be free to remove the offending senator. This is not a criminal case. Public officials have as much right to fre expression as any other citizen even if they bear a heavier responsibility for their use of that right. Because this is not a criminal case I believe it is up to the voters in the 10th district to decide if they want him to represent them in the senate. Personally, even if I agreed with his politics all the time (which I don’t) I would not want him serving as my representative because of the distraction he brings all too regularly.

Tags government, liberty, public service

culture life

Human Rights

A post at the Utah Amicus this morning shared a short video based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The video and the overall message is good, but starting at 2:51 in the video the message departs from the reality of human rights and enters the Utopia of idealism. I think it is important to recognize the difference between the real and the ideal if we are to have any hope of establishing true liberty. Of all the categories which this declaration lists as distinctions which cannot alter basic human rights there is one category which they fail to list which tears some of their "rights" to shreds – placement in history. We have no rights today that were not also the rights applicable to our great grandparents. I do not mean to say that those rights have never been infringed upon, but if we call something a right today which could not have been delivered in all ages of civilization then it is not actually a right.

Those who subscribe to the Conservative/Libertarian philosophy would rightly point out that there is no such thing as gay rights, womens rights, or minority rights of any kind – there are only individual rights. In other words, membership in any group, majority or minority does nto grant any rights that are not equally applicable to those outside the group. The same holds true of responsibilities. Society, nor any group in society, has no responsibilities. Only individuals have responsibilities.

So, while it is nice to say that society has a responsibility to help you develop the truth is that for better or worse society does help you develop. It is the moral responsibility of every individual to encourage those they interact with to develop in a positive way according to their individual capacities. In other words, a teacher can help a child to learn and a police officer can encourage a child to respect the law. The teacher and the police officer may have some influence outside those spheres, but we cannot expect one to fill the role of the other. The real truth is that we cannot expect society to take on any responsibility – we can only expect ourselves to take on any necessary or desirable responsibility (and we can encourage others to do the same).

There is no right to employment – only the right to receive the fruits of your labor. It is the responsibility of others to treat you fairly, but that does not entitle you to a any given job nor does it mean that employers must make work for you. I can appreciate the idea of a right to a fair salary, but I am confident that the meaning of those promoting this Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean a social guarantee of some minimum salary – which is not a right and cannot be enforced without taking away true liberty.

The happy sentiment that each workday should not be too long is completely meaningless. First we must define "too long" and second we must find a way to enforce it. A standard definition of "too long might be 8, 10, or 12 hours per day. Tell that to those who produced their own food on a family farm when an 18-hour workday was little better than subsistence. We no longer live in that age, but it goes to prove that needs, resources, and capacities are outside the control of society and thus the "too long" workday cannot be artificially defined or equitably enforced. The same argument holds true wtih the reference to "a decent standard of living."

The right to go to school was not available in any for for long ages of many societies and that lack had nothing to do with oppression – it had to do with subsistence. I have the right to be treated fairly regarldess of my economic curcumstance, but I do not have the right to go to school when school is not avaliable or when I do not have the capacity to go to school and still meet my real human needs. The same holds true for participation in the arts and sciences of my community.

While it is nice to think about an education that promotes peace and understanding among all people the reality is, again, that this tries to place on society a responsibility that every individual has to treat (and teach others to treat) all people with respect and dignity. Education (meaning public or formal educaiton) should focus on academic disciplines and teach/promote respect and understanding by example more than indoctrination.

In short, there are no group rights or responsibilities. We must each shoulder our responsibilities – which include protecting and respecting the rights of others. Second, real rights are rights regardless of historic reference point. Any right which could not be enforced (as distinct from simply "was not enforced") at all points in history is not a right, no matter how noble or desireable it is.

Tags liberty, reactions, rights

culture National

Federalist No. 39

Federalist No. 39 seems to contain the central argument that is being addressed in the debate over ratifying the constitution:

"But it was not sufficient," say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States." And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken?

It seems that it was commonly assumed that the only proper form of government was a republican form. If we had a new constitutional convention today I would not be surprised if many people felt that the proper form of government would rightly be a democratic form. I believe that the reason for this lies in the distinction between a federal government and a national government:

The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. (a national government) Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. (a federal government) In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. (my notes added)

As our government has taken on a more national character (as the local levels of government have become more subordinated to the federal government) it is natural for people to want a more direct say in the actions of that general government and thus the assumption of the desireability of a democratic form of government. I worry about this mindset.

The conclusion is that the government formed by the Constitution is a balance of federal and national in form. The proper solution to our national political ills is not to advance further down the misguided path that the founders were studiously avoiding (a democratic form and a national form) but to return to the solution that they so wisely pursued (the republican form balanced between national and federal in character). We need to teach the body politic the virtues of the republican form of government and the virtues of a balance between federalism and nationalism so that they will demand that their government, which is structured for just that balance, will act as it was designed to act so that their liberty is preserved as it was intended to be.

Tags Constitution, documents, federalism, federalist, history, liberty

culture National

We Can Do Better

It seems that both parties have been parroting this message all through the 2008 campaign. While they are absolutely right that we can do better, I am not talking about 2008, the Bush administration, or any other recent phenomenon. As I have been reading Lies My Teacher Told Me I am seeing a glaringly obvious pattern to our nations history. Despite the fact that we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world (and we have been for two centuries even with our myriad faults) our history seems to consist more of opportunities lost and blundered chances for real greatness than it does of human excellence. It feels like this greatest of nations has been pushed to the pinnacle of world achievement against our underlying efforts to sink to the depths of human mistakes.

Our biggest blunders are universally centered on the human elements of our interactions with other nations and within our society. Since Europe first laid claim to this continent the Europeans refused to interact with other nations on equal terms. History books continue to perpetuate that crime by minimizing all non-dominant cultures. Thus we approach our endeavors from the perspective of dominance. I believe that mindset of superiority or cultural hierarchy encourages us to pursue homogenization.

The pursuit of homogenization causes equality to trump liberty. Instead of valuing the right of people to make choices and receive the consequences for those choices we begin to devalue all choice by attempting to make the consequences of all choice lead to the same outcome. The only possible result for that type of system would be to destroy everything of value. Trying to enforce an equality of outcome takes the shine off of anything with real intrinsic value. Without that shine illuminating things with real value we lose the incentive to choose that which has value because, whether the outcomes are the same or different, it is always easier to chose the lower road. If the easy way and the hard way end in the same destination many more people will always choose the easy way.

We have all heard the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What we need to realize that those who fail to teach history – to whitewash it and pretend that it consists of a natural progression – are steadily preventing the real progress that could be made.

If this seems like an underformed idea – that’s because it is. I am trying to synthesize a lot of information and I am still putting it into words and putting it into context. What I know is that, similar to the issue of the cost of health care and how to reduce it, most of the problems we face as a nation are larger, more complex, and more deeply rooted than we care to believe. As long as we do not see the whole problem we are at least as likely to make the problem worse with our solutions as we are to make it better.

Tags history, liberty, thoughts

culture

What Do You Expect?

What started as a post about Equality Before the Law grew into a discussion about the role of government in helping our fellow men. That eventually spun of into a discussion about how we can or should mix religion and politics at The Life I am Choosing. Later I ran across Connor’s post about the truth concerning charity in a capitalist system. That related post had a comment that seemed to capture the difference in the expectations between the two sides of the debate.

These and similar accusations . . . stem from a mistrust of capitalism and a lack of faith in man’s innate desire to help others.

Man’s innate desire to help others is what drives most of those who argue both sides of this issue. There are those capitalists who are not thinking of how to benefit others, and yet what they do almost always does help others. There are those communalists who are not really interested in helping others and they are very happy to be useing the force of government to negate the property rights of others. Despite those two groups, the majority of people approach this discussion with an honest desire to help others. Some believing that government can provide the best coverage in helping others while others believe that individuals can tackle the major problem areas as well as filling the cracks that would be missed by government.

Tags connections, government, liberty, rights

General

Rights and Liberty

This is 8 minutes well spent if you have any question about what constitutes a right and why rights are more than simply good things that deserve legal protection or assistance. (Hat tip: The Anti-PC Infidel)

Tags connections, liberty, rights

culture

Equal Before the Law

In Sunday school today we were talking, among other things, about the freedom of conscience that was protected under Nephite law. The teacher (I can’t remember his name since it was our first week in a new ward) made the statement that all men were equal before the law. The thought that followed in my mind was that this was the highest equality we should strive for in society – that all men would be equal before the law. We need not seek for all men to be equal in material posessions, or in educational attainment, but only that all be treated equally in the eyes of the law and that there be no legal basis for any kind of discrimination with regards to the various kinds of opportunity that a person might seek.

Tags laws, liberty, religion

National State

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Fear

Post author By David
Post date July 8, 2008
2 Comments on The Rule of Law or the Rule of Fear

I really liked this challenge from Obi wan Liberali related to the current FISA revision bill.

So to my Republican friends, I lay the challenge before you. If you support the FISA bill going before the Senate, justify and defend that support. If you oppose the bill, speak up to your Republican U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett.

Personally I have already contacted my senators, but I would be very interested to hear of someone trying to justify support for the bill.

Tags civic participation, connections, FISA, liberty

life

Independence From What

In church today there were a number of things spoken related to Independence Day. One of the people who spokle wa a woman from the UK who noted that the celebration was of independence from Great Britain. Of course that is a natural perspective, but I think that we need to recognize that that what we are really celebrating is independence from oppresive government. In Eighteenth Century America the government of Great Britain was the embodiment of government oppression.

Today we should still be mindful of any government oppression and assert our continued independence by participating in the system and holding government accountable because freedom from government oppression can only be had by clinging to an authority higher and more lasting than the current administration. That is why each officer of government at all levels pledges to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States – now if they would all keep their pledge.

Tags Constitution, government, liberty

culture

A Real Solution

For all the political talk about what ails our society and how our “leaders” in Washington can fix it, I think that Peter Lovenheim has identified one real solution that can put everything back into perspective – recapturing the meaning of “neighbor.” He asks this very important question that I’d like to take a stab at answering.

Why is it that in an age of cheap long-distance rates, discount airlines and the Internet, when we can create community anywhere, we often don’t know the people who live next door?

My first guess is that this is a matter of scarce resources (time) becoming spread too thin. Because we can stay connected with our college buddies when they are spread around the country we spend less time getting to know the neighbors who may not share any interests with us. When it was more cost prohibitive to keep regular contact with our old friends we were more likely to reach out to the neighbors where we could afford to build the relationships. In fact, I think that we can safely say that prior to easy travel we had the added incentive to build neighbor relations because there was also a higher chance that we were staying closer to home and so our neighbors were likely to have history or family connections with us.

I would not argue that this is acceptable. In fact, I think that this tendency toward disconnection on the local level feeds into our growing propensity to seek solutions to all our problems on a large scale. The less we identify with our local neighborhood the less likely we are to think about concerns on a local level. The more we think in terms of national problems the more we insist and accept the erosion of liberty that almost universally follows when we try to address concerns (rightly or wrongly) on a national scale.

Does anyone else have perspectives to round out my thinking?

Tags community, government, liberty, neighbors