Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
John O'Hagan wrote:
> [...] As a non-American who has been following this thread, l would like to
> respectfully make a few comments.
>
> To an outsider, the preoccupations of American politics appear to be:
>
> -"Freedom", which seems to be code for the right to shoot people with guns;
>
I suppose, as an outsider, you might see it so. As an insider, that's
not how I see it at all.
> -"Free markets", which is an economic version of the theory that a car goes
> faster without any brakes.
>
More like "faster without any brakes constantly being applied".
> -"Deregulation", opposition to any moderation by society of individual or
> corporate behaviour, however selfish and destructive it may be, with the
> significant caveat that laws protecting private property and the monetary
> system are perfectly OK;
>
> -An unwillingness to help those in need without apportioning blame or doing
> the maths first (result: the highest incarceration rate in the world by far).
>
> -IMHO, to the rest of the world these preoccupations look mean. A functional
> society rests on compassion, empathy and sharing of resources. It also means
> some curbing of our individual impulses, understanding that in the big
> picture, we are all better off that way.
>
> -The politics of everyone-for-themselves, devil-take-the-hindmost means that
> those who live in a world carved up, bought and sold before they were born
> have been robbed of their chance to have a self-determined life before it
> even began. Why would anyone want to belong to a society in which they are
> worse off than they would be alone in the wilderness?
Second US. President, John Adams once said: "Our constitution was made
only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other."
When the individuals making up a nation have the compassion, empathy,
sharing of resources, and curbing of individual impulses that were
associated with a "moral and religious" people in Adams' day, then
there's no need for a plethora of regulations and laws, as the politics
of everyone-for-themselves does not apply. Unfortunately, the US is no
longer seeking to be that type of nation (and only imperfectly sought it
as a younger nation). Thus, what you're seeing is an America that voices
the principles that were designed for a nation that no longer fits those
principles (and to other nations that by and large never fit those
principles, so you don't even have the historical background to
understand the principles). So it's understandable you'd see a conflict
between the claims of "Constitutionalists" and the reality of living in
the modern world.
Since America has abandoned (by and large) those "moral and religious"
foundations, we find ourselves trying to survive under a Constitution
that is no longer suitable for us, with most of us never realizing the
basic problem that we have left our moral and religious foundations.
In other words, when a nation's individuals do right by one another, and
look out for one another's welfare above their own, there's no need for
a bunch of laws. We no longer have that type of nation.
--
Kent
Reply to: