Tuesday, January 25, 2011

The Fire of Liberty, The Security of Enslavement

They say that there are two types of persons in this world, those who are outer motivated and those who are inner motivated. The inner motivated internalizes responsibility while the outer motivated externalizes responsibility. This would be the foundational basis of a person's world viewpoint.

This concept governs the whole viewpoint of a person whether on a personal, political or religious level. It will be this concept that determines whether one is a determinist and collectivist or an individualist who believes in the free will of a person. While it can be determined that we are one or the other of these we must recognize one other type also.

To recognize this other type we must first designate these first two concepts as being the two extremes of the spectrum so as to create a center point of that spectrum. We can find the other type made up of both of the extremes which came about by the use of compromise. That type might be slightly left or right of that center point depending upon the issue or topic of discussion or debate.

In politics this division is clearly recognized by the political positions one takes in politics in regards to the role of government. These positions are commonly referred to as being on the right or the left with the independents in the middle of the fray. Every political party can be placed on this spectrum somewhere to the left or right of center on this spectrum with Democratic and Republican parties traditionally being recognized as being closest to the center on either side.

Without being judgmental the two political extremes of this spectrum would be the concepts of anarchy and either socialism or communism. I say it in a nonjudgmental way because in a perfect world these two concepts could be considered as the perfect political type of systems. Both theories has its foundation based on the least of those in society. One sees the strongest of society thus perceives all of society on the terms of the strongest. The other sees the weakest of society thus perceives all on the terms of the weakest.

One question that always came to mind when I came to this conclusion. That question being; in a perfect world would all be equal to the weakest of society or would all know the equality of the strongest of a society? Only when we can answer this question could we really determine which theory is the perfect theory of a perfect society and which is the least perfect theory of a perfect society.

But one problem with both theories is that we do not live in a perfect existence thus both are doomed to failure. And both are doomed for the same reason, the excessive use of force that only occurs in an imperfect state of existence. This is not to say that either system could not be tried and on a certain scale be seen as being successful.

But its success would not be as a result of creating a better society as the proponents of the system would convincingly promote. Its success would be dependent upon the acceptance of this excessive use of force as being justified in one manner or another. And in time a man will no longer see this excessive force as being justified and a rebellion will begin.

The centralist may be gloating over the fact that the extreme right and the extreme left are at each others throats but what the centralist don't realize is the fact that both sides are actually rebelling against the centralist position. Both sides have come to realize that they can no longer compromise their basic principles of government.

The only question that remains is which side the people will choose? We already know that the people will not accept the extreme of the right. Their compassion for the weak will prevent this. Whether or not they are strong enough as individuals to reject the extreme of the left is another story though.

What say you, my friend? Are you strong enough to resist the temptation of the promises that is being used to promote this form of society? Has individualism died out within the soul of the people? Has the fire of liberty been smothered by the promise of a security blanket? Only you can answer these questions, my friend.


buddeshepherd said...

And we are going to do what about it? Vote?
And for who exactly?
Kind of like when I was talking to the fellow who told me he had a case of 7.62 x 39 mm ammo, "just in case!"
I laughed and asked him where the revolution was and just when he was going to join it.
I suggested we go and shoot it up now while we still could. Boy that stuff does a number on tin cans in the river!

The Griper said...

vote, yes, then hold that politician's feet to the fire. that is the purpose and intent of groups like the tea party.

educate our children on the concepts of the Constitution. don't depend upon our schools to do so.

whether it was intended or not politics like the one we have is a civil war. the only difference being in the weapons used and the length of that war. and it is fought until unconditional surrender is achieved by one side or the other.

BB-Idaho said...

The American Center-
"I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them."
—George Washington

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
—Thomas Jefferson

"Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists."
—Thomas Jefferson

"I have always sought for the middle ground."
—James Madison

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
—John Adams
"The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters."
—Dwight D. Eisenhower
"To be locked into partisan politics doesn't permit you to think clearly."
—Mayor Rudy Giuliani
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right."
—Senator John McCain

The Griper said...

grandpa was chuckling as he read your response, BB. he even said "looks like we gave our good friend a reason to do some research again, huh, boy?"

since i am presuming that you are using these quotes as examples of the need to compromise then i'll address the Washington quote.

i would willingly agree if compromise was the only means to reconcile differences. so, logically, you'd have to prove that there is no other way. i'll await you proof before responding further.

BB-Idaho said...

Regarding the Washington quote, IMO, he was speaking of consensus building..a tool we see in
sports teams and businesses. I often used the term 'we need to learn to pull together and to pull in the same direction"
back when I was a manager.
It is hard, people being people and all, but the alternative is stalemate and failure. Just a guess,
not personally knowing ol
George. He had a brand new country to guide, had
Hamilton clamoring for a national bank and business interests, Jefferson wanting to cater to the farm folk, backwoods distillers avoiding taxes...and his wooden
teeth probably pained him as well as the extremes
he was trying to lassoo.
Perhaps he was prescient
in identifying the center,
middle as the folks who
held some views from either side, but rejected
others, the mass that would
continue through our history as an electorate
of balance?
Perhaps Grandpa knew
ol George, being about the same age. What's he think?

BB-Idaho said...

"you'd have to prove that there is no other way. i'll await you proof before responding further."
I have to prove nothing, the quotes speak for themselves, from folks far
better qualified than I.
When Grandpa presents documented proofs, than I
shall consider. (I like the old coot, though) :)

The Griper said...

"Regarding the Washington quote, IMO, he was speaking of consensus building.."

grandpa agrees with this, BB. the problem lies in the direction to take, doesn't it? the politics of today has two parties trying to lead the nation in opposite directions without either willing to give in to the other.
"It is hard, people being people and all, but the alternative is stalemate and failure."

there grandpa would also agree if there was a need for an immediate solution to a problem but it would not be neccessarily true if the problem did not require an immediate solution.

and the problem necessitating an immediate solution was the drafting of a document that would solve the problems of a federal government that were not met by the existing constitution at the time, mainly the funding of the federal government. this neccessitated a compromise on the issue of the issue of slavery where the issue of slavery was not an issue under the existing constitution at the time.

in fact the issue of slavery was being addressed already in the nation in the manner as intended, wasn't it?

BB-Idaho said...

Been pondering a bit about
"The centralist may be gloating over the fact that the extreme right and the extreme left are at each others throats but what the centralist don't realize is the fact that both sides are actually rebelling against the centralist position."
I agree that may be possible, although experience suggests that
the extremes rebel more strongly with their opposing extreme. The center, IMO, tends to
swing back and forth as
an electoral power (swinging more rapidly lately, it seems) depending on which points
of either extreme it finds attractive or repugnant.
While the overarching effect is one of moderation, the extremes
seek the center vote and in so doing feel they are compromising their beliefs.
Thus we accuse the center
of wishy-washy thinking, unable to make up their mind, or even disinterest.
(Given that the terms right and left arose from the seating of the 'estates' at the beginning of the French
Revolution, I have never
understood whether the
right and left is seen from the front...or the rear. Probably because when I first started officer training, I was
marching a company en masse, where the leader
marches backwards facing the company. The road turned to my right, so I
commanded 'Company, to the right, march. THEIR right
lead into the side of a barracks, however. After
50 pushups and 10 demerits, I came to understand that direction of POV is of importance and hence the common Army term, "Your OTHER left, stupid") :)

The Griper said...

he chuckles.
i use the term rebel here because the center has been the established position of our federal government for a long time. and that is what defines a rebellion, isn't it?

the far right has not been the position of our federal government since the early 1900's and the extreme left has never held that position yet.

as for a word describing how the right and left are behaving in regards to each other i think the word repel not rebel would better describe what is happening just as two magnets repel each other. the gap between them seems to widen each day without hope of reconciliatiion.

it appears to be a situation like Lincoln described when he declared that the nation could not remain divided. it had to be totally one way or the other.

in other words, i see history repeating itself right now. the only difference being the issues of debate.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster