Sometimes, I just get knocked for a loop. Maybe I’m just gullible, but is it really just me and a half dozen hillbillies that think the best and most honorable way to go through life is to do all you are able to do for yourself and your family before you ask for help from someone else? Be responsible for yourself. Seems to me to be a fundamental part of what I was taught by family, school, church, and friends for the last 54 years.
Make that 53 years and 11 months.
No, make it less than that. This is not the first time this has come up in message board conversations with folks who identify themselves as liberals.
The last time, I attributed it to the fact that the person who argued so starkly that there was no such thing as individualism was a strong union supporter. The fundamental basis of union existence is that no one person can change anything, but a large group can. Ergo, the individual loses significance and importance, and only the union has importance. Soon, it gets to the place that the person who decides to represent himself, rather than trade company control of his work for union control of his work, is seen as the bad guy, the wrong guy, the guy not to be trusted. Solely because he wanted to stand on his own two feet, not have the union prop him up.
However, perhaps it’s not that isolated. I’ve just been in a conversation on a message board with a fairly intelligent person, in all other respects. This person (I flipped a coin, I’ll designate as “she” but don’t take it for anything but a flipped coin), is a medical professional, so I’m on fair ground, I think, to estimate that she is intelligent. Throughout this whole conversation, it’s been mostly about how useless and insignificant the individual is and how important and supreme the collective is.
I’ve tried telling her that “individualism” as used by normal everyday people on the street means “I’ll do all I can within my power to provide for me and mine, before I ask for help, and I’ll take responsibility for myself and my family.” At one point, she said she would do the same. At another point, she ridiculed the idea.
Anyway, while thinking about this, wondering what would cause an otherwise intelligent person to oppose the idea of personal responsibility and taking care of oneself as much as possible, it occurred to me that this argument is not really about individuals vs groups.
It’s about absolute right and wrong vs relative right and wrong.
You see, if an individual’s action can be of any value, if it can have any impact, that individual had to have made that decision on his/her own, individually. If it is a good impact, then that individual, by definition, is able to determine right from wrong without the input of the rest of society. There must be, therefore, an objective right and wrong, because the individual determined right without any input from any other human. Perhaps there was input in the past, but that establishes understandings upon which our person of the day makes that decision. If that individual is allowed to be recognized as right, apart from society confirming his/her “rightness” then there must be an absolute right and wrong.
On the other hand, if only groups can have impact or do good things, then only groups can be right, and it becomes much easier to set aside the concept of objective right and wrong in favor of the majority opinion of the group. Ergo, the idea that the collective is always and forever better than an individual is actually a retreat from the concept of objective right and wrong. It is believing that no individual person can determine right, but that a group of individuals can. How on earth can 10 people do what one person cannot do, when the question is a mental one, determining right from wrong? It has to become a physical act to make that come to pass, and that physical act is indicating a preference, and if more than half of the group indicates the same preference, then that preference becomes “right.”
Think about that. Right and wrong. Cardinal concepts upon which all of civilization rises and falls, now determined (supposedly) by a vote of a group. “Wait, wait,” you say, “that is the basis of American voting. We vote and that decides it.” Really? Do we vote on what is right and what is wrong, or do we vote on who we want to go to that office and (hopefully) do right and avoid wrong? This idea that the moral compass can be voted on by a group and the outcome of that vote has more significance than an individual’s conscience is the silliness that replaces what generations have known. Mankind has a conscience, but only on an individual level. When that conscience speaks, wise humans listen, and carnal humans rebel. That is where that argument comes from, I firmly believe. It is the exact same argument as the child that comes to his/her parents and says “but all my friends get to go to this movie” and the child expects that group “power” to have some effect rather than the objective truth of whether or not Mom and Dad consider the movie appropriate for that child. Now, as you read this, those kids are the adults who make this argument that numbers make right, and they still expect it to have some effect when time-tested, conscience-driven right and wrong is the parent.
Sadly, I think the kids are winning.
Liberty for the Brave.
Al
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Why "the view from the street?"
Perhaps I’d better explain something.
I am not a member of academia. I have only a high school education, followed by a significant portion of highly focused Navy training. I do not care if Dr. Whatshisname has written three doctoral thesis and published six books on this subject or that. I think for myself. If my conclusions agree with the Dr, all well and good. If my conclusions do not agree with the Dr, all well and good.
I am not here to discuss what some “expert” said that we are all supposed to think. I hate that concept; I find nearly NO experts in the world. I merely believe we are all supposed to THINK. I think for myself; I expect others to. If commenters come here with “but Blindangle said…” or “That’s not what a conservative is, Gonfoogle said in 1973 that…” and think that will win the day here, they are wrong. Go away. Don’t waste your time. Blindangle and Gonfoogle (or whatever their real names might be) are not smarter than you and I. They only have a larger stage than we do. Noted.
So, this is the view from the street, pretty much literally. It’s what common people think, not what academia says we have to think. It’s what average Joes and Jills have on their mind, and how we see it from the perspective of someone who is not one of the uppercrust elite.
Hence, The View From The Street, and if I can ever figure out how to get the title properly capitalized, I will.
(edit: It seems I have found how to capitalize the title, or at least found a work around for it.)
Liberty for the Brave,
Al
I am not a member of academia. I have only a high school education, followed by a significant portion of highly focused Navy training. I do not care if Dr. Whatshisname has written three doctoral thesis and published six books on this subject or that. I think for myself. If my conclusions agree with the Dr, all well and good. If my conclusions do not agree with the Dr, all well and good.
I am not here to discuss what some “expert” said that we are all supposed to think. I hate that concept; I find nearly NO experts in the world. I merely believe we are all supposed to THINK. I think for myself; I expect others to. If commenters come here with “but Blindangle said…” or “That’s not what a conservative is, Gonfoogle said in 1973 that…” and think that will win the day here, they are wrong. Go away. Don’t waste your time. Blindangle and Gonfoogle (or whatever their real names might be) are not smarter than you and I. They only have a larger stage than we do. Noted.
So, this is the view from the street, pretty much literally. It’s what common people think, not what academia says we have to think. It’s what average Joes and Jills have on their mind, and how we see it from the perspective of someone who is not one of the uppercrust elite.
Hence, The View From The Street, and if I can ever figure out how to get the title properly capitalized, I will.
(edit: It seems I have found how to capitalize the title, or at least found a work around for it.)
Liberty for the Brave,
Al
Friday, October 23, 2009
A quick thought from the street 2234, 23 Oct 09
The right road can change. What was smooth can become rocky; or what was rocky, smooth. The straight road can lead to curves, or the curves to a straight road. What CANNOT change is that if it was the right road when you stepped onto it, it is still the right road, all the way to the end.
Getting Started
I suppose I'm not too old to start this. We'll see, as time and blogging go by.
First, despite my internet ID, I do not currently live in West Virginia. I grew up there, and if I am very blessed, I will go there to grow old and die. In the meantime, I am "from" WV in that my roots are there, hence my name.
I'm in my mid-50s, a retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer (submarines); still married to my high school sweetheart; two sons; one grandson; the two best daughters-in-law on the planet.
I just looked back at that sentence. My high school english teachers would cringe to see me write that in a serious way. However, if you read me here, get used to it. I do it all the time; I write like I talk.
Primarily, I considered starting this blog to discuss subjects most people will consider political. For the most part, I consider them less about politics and more about living life, but observing politics as a reflection of who we are.
As time goes by, I expect other subjects will slip in. I love to float streams fishing for smallmouth bass: I expect some of that will come up here. I believe the Bible, as inspired, word for word; I expect some of that will come up here. I have been a Redskins fan since 1973, through thick and thin, but not much of that will come up here unless something changes soon.
So, that's me. Oh, political "side." Everybody has to have a political "side," right? How can other people pre-judge whether you are a good person or a bad one, unless they know whether you hail from the left or the right? Well, here's my political side:
1. I believe that every word in the Consitution means today what it meant when it was written, unless amended by the approved amendment process.
.....a. Don't bother with the stupid "oh you still believe in slavery and women not voting" argument. It's stupid, and a waste of whatever skin you wore off on the keys typing it. There are two reasons:
..........i) It should be blatently obvious to the most casual observer that even if I didn't say "unless amended by the approved amendment process" above, that the amendment process and the amendments themselves are still unquestionably valid.
..........ii) When going back to re-acquire some characteristic of living that was cast off in error (and discovered using 20/20 hindsight), there is NO requirement to re-acquire everything surrounding it at the same time. Wishing for the "good old days" means only wishing for the good of the old days, at least it does to reasonable people.
2. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual as the starting place for governance. If the individual is not sovereign over his own existence, then his contribution to governance, whether by vote, by serving, or by working for those who serve, is moot and without validity.
3. I believe that the US is a christian nation.
.....a. That is NOT to say that the government is "christian" as in a religion that is a government or government approved religion. THAT is forbidden by the Constitution for good reason.
.....b. That is also NOT to say that the US is only for christians, or any such other silliness that generally gets trotted out as a supposedly fatal retort when this subject comes up. This nation is for everyone that wishes to come here, be a part of us, bring us what they are, and work together to preserve and extend liberty wherever possible.
....c. That IS to say that the bulk of the principles carried by the founders into the establishment of our government are found in christian belief, and if one would understand the principles of the founders (and every citizen should strive to, without exception), then one would do well to understand the framework of thought and philosophy that created the principles of the founders.
..........i) Oh, and as an addendum here, don't bother with the "they were deists, not Christians" argument.
...............1) That line of retort is a smoke screen for excluding the God of the Bible from any favorable consideration of the part of those in the discussion.
...............2) The most famous "deist" (so-called) held up as "proof" of this is Thomas Jefferson. Read Jefferson. I recommend the files accumulated by the University of Virginia. Whether "Diest" or Christian (by label), it is plain that his diety was Christ. Noted. That's the same thing as Christian principles. Putting a different name on it doesn't change it. Call what he believed "blizflather" if you must, but if/when you read him, you'll find his deity was Christ and he had a healthy disdain for the organization known as religion. That separation is a good one to remember when one considers a letter Jefferson wrote later on, especially when one wishes to try to use that letter to elucidate the Constitution.
4. I believe in individualism. I believe that responsible people do all they can for themselves, asking for assistance only as absolutely necessary and only as little as absolutely necessary, and when they are able to do for themselves, they do a little extra, in case a fellow citizen needs help. THAT is individualism, not the isolationist silliness I've heard thrust into the name "individualist." When someone has that attitude and that heart, I've seen them get more help, when they need it, than you can imagine, and every dollar that left a pocket for them was a dollar when it got to them, rather than the 55 cents or whatever is left over after a dollar passes through the government grist mills to get to them.
There will be more, I'm sure. That should get us started.
Liberty for the brave,
Al
First, despite my internet ID, I do not currently live in West Virginia. I grew up there, and if I am very blessed, I will go there to grow old and die. In the meantime, I am "from" WV in that my roots are there, hence my name.
I'm in my mid-50s, a retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer (submarines); still married to my high school sweetheart; two sons; one grandson; the two best daughters-in-law on the planet.
I just looked back at that sentence. My high school english teachers would cringe to see me write that in a serious way. However, if you read me here, get used to it. I do it all the time; I write like I talk.
Primarily, I considered starting this blog to discuss subjects most people will consider political. For the most part, I consider them less about politics and more about living life, but observing politics as a reflection of who we are.
As time goes by, I expect other subjects will slip in. I love to float streams fishing for smallmouth bass: I expect some of that will come up here. I believe the Bible, as inspired, word for word; I expect some of that will come up here. I have been a Redskins fan since 1973, through thick and thin, but not much of that will come up here unless something changes soon.
So, that's me. Oh, political "side." Everybody has to have a political "side," right? How can other people pre-judge whether you are a good person or a bad one, unless they know whether you hail from the left or the right? Well, here's my political side:
1. I believe that every word in the Consitution means today what it meant when it was written, unless amended by the approved amendment process.
.....a. Don't bother with the stupid "oh you still believe in slavery and women not voting" argument. It's stupid, and a waste of whatever skin you wore off on the keys typing it. There are two reasons:
..........i) It should be blatently obvious to the most casual observer that even if I didn't say "unless amended by the approved amendment process" above, that the amendment process and the amendments themselves are still unquestionably valid.
..........ii) When going back to re-acquire some characteristic of living that was cast off in error (and discovered using 20/20 hindsight), there is NO requirement to re-acquire everything surrounding it at the same time. Wishing for the "good old days" means only wishing for the good of the old days, at least it does to reasonable people.
2. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual as the starting place for governance. If the individual is not sovereign over his own existence, then his contribution to governance, whether by vote, by serving, or by working for those who serve, is moot and without validity.
3. I believe that the US is a christian nation.
.....a. That is NOT to say that the government is "christian" as in a religion that is a government or government approved religion. THAT is forbidden by the Constitution for good reason.
.....b. That is also NOT to say that the US is only for christians, or any such other silliness that generally gets trotted out as a supposedly fatal retort when this subject comes up. This nation is for everyone that wishes to come here, be a part of us, bring us what they are, and work together to preserve and extend liberty wherever possible.
....c. That IS to say that the bulk of the principles carried by the founders into the establishment of our government are found in christian belief, and if one would understand the principles of the founders (and every citizen should strive to, without exception), then one would do well to understand the framework of thought and philosophy that created the principles of the founders.
..........i) Oh, and as an addendum here, don't bother with the "they were deists, not Christians" argument.
...............1) That line of retort is a smoke screen for excluding the God of the Bible from any favorable consideration of the part of those in the discussion.
...............2) The most famous "deist" (so-called) held up as "proof" of this is Thomas Jefferson. Read Jefferson. I recommend the files accumulated by the University of Virginia. Whether "Diest" or Christian (by label), it is plain that his diety was Christ. Noted. That's the same thing as Christian principles. Putting a different name on it doesn't change it. Call what he believed "blizflather" if you must, but if/when you read him, you'll find his deity was Christ and he had a healthy disdain for the organization known as religion. That separation is a good one to remember when one considers a letter Jefferson wrote later on, especially when one wishes to try to use that letter to elucidate the Constitution.
4. I believe in individualism. I believe that responsible people do all they can for themselves, asking for assistance only as absolutely necessary and only as little as absolutely necessary, and when they are able to do for themselves, they do a little extra, in case a fellow citizen needs help. THAT is individualism, not the isolationist silliness I've heard thrust into the name "individualist." When someone has that attitude and that heart, I've seen them get more help, when they need it, than you can imagine, and every dollar that left a pocket for them was a dollar when it got to them, rather than the 55 cents or whatever is left over after a dollar passes through the government grist mills to get to them.
There will be more, I'm sure. That should get us started.
Liberty for the brave,
Al
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
