Here's the way I see it. Liberalism, Conservativism, Libertarianism, Socialism, and the thousands of other political leanings are all slightly altered versions of the same thing. Yes, on any given day the beliefs, ideals, and agendas of each may appear so alien in contrast to one another that any connection between them would be abandoned, but in truth they are not nearly so different. It comes down to human needs. One man needs food, shelter, security, power(I shall return to this), and gratification; these form the base of what motivates mankind to do anything. One man conquers, slaughters, enslaves, and subjugates to eliminate the competition for such things while another attempts to establish an agrerian commune in which all citizens are given these things in equal measure in exchange for labor(a very restricted example, yes I know). Every human works to do for themselves, or for their posterity. Yes, ideals come into play more often than they should, but actions based purely upon them, without the motivation of personal gain, have had a suitably small impact on human history. It is our characteristic lust for power that has shaped the history of our species and our world. It is also this that deems all political leanings insignificant. The most compassionate and empathetic of men will commit the most vile of atrocities when inebriated with the sweet, sweet brew that is power. Joseph Stalin, for instance, began his life as a well-mannered Georgian teenager turned revolutionary, fighting to free his people from the tyranny of the Czars; to bring a balance to the motherland. Liberal little Joseph certainly maintained his allegiances when opportunity came-a-knockin'.
What I'm getting at is that all political allegiances are just fronts formed from social standing, assets, and convenient ideals. In the end, every human is driven by their base needs(the needs varying from person to person, of course). It takes little more than a nudge to turn a liberal into a conservative or a socialist into a libertarian. Such things are mere facades; eaily thrown by the wayside.
Warning: Really long comment which basically comes to nothing. My Style is simple free-association of ideas, and it is only by rather subconcsious forces that it has any cohesive meaning at all. This post may appear scattered, but shit, I might as well write it all down.
I would like to clarify that I was not leaving myself blind to the inherant failings of our own society, in fact quite the opposite. I was attempting to illustrate the failure of logic within our education system with regards to foreign cultures. In the past 30 years or so, the further liberalization of our schools due to the ever increading Civil Rights movement (Still thriving, but now geared inward to truly irrelevant non-issues, like Gay marriage) has led to the wide-spread belief that we are all equal, that we can not judge ANYBODY. This is blatantly contradictory to human instincts to judge, instincts which exist for a reason.
People have been trained in our generation to truly believe this idealistic theory of equality, even in cases where it is obviously incorrect (Just now is the nation begining to come around and realize that Men and Women are two totally different creatures, that they cannot truly compete in any catagory because of this core difference.)
The point is, we shouldn't be oblivious to our natural tendencies to judge. It seems that societies do graduate in a rather oderly manner as prescribed by the enlightenment. It should be pointed out that most of the world did not experience the rush of retrospective thought and philosophy that was the European Enlightenment, and in some respects, many parts of the world are going through a cultural Dark Age. It isn't that our society is perfect, it is simply that we recognize the value of human potential when not threatened starvation or lack of fulfilled needs.
Humansim is not a liberal ideal, but rather an observation of mass social organizations. It simply states that, provided everything else (Love, Security, and Sucess) humans will struggle to achieve their percieved potential. What their potential is is guided by society, but for the most part psychologically stable people will provide for themselves and their prosterity, and contribute to society in a positive manner (this includes avoiding Id based decisions such as murder, which seems to be a 'Sin' in every society of humans) What it comes down to is there is a natural set of morals for all human beings, summed up quite nicely by the Golden Rule: Do onto others as you would wish done onto you.
This is a side-effect of the Close-Knit communities originally formed by man, and it follows a natural logic. If you have no reason to kill a man, other than the simple impulse to do so, you will not do it. This gives a positive upspin to society which leads to ever increasing progress. Cultures which should be discarded are those which ignore this natural tendency towards progress.
Isn't the point to ponder?kickass_ninjaMay 27 2004, 00:06:17 UTC
Back to my main point: Our culture has gone through a thousand years of progressive thought. Since the late Middle Ages, European thinkers, perhaps propelled by the respect for the individual awarded in European culture, have been driving at the purpose of living. Even before the long slump of ignorance, the Greek thinkers helped instill an understanding of the true potential of humans. (The Greeks defeated the Persians even though they were vastly outnumbered, because of intellectual strength of their free society, and the national pride which goes with it) The first action was to ponder upon the core beliefs of their dogma, which led to the Reformation. Then the thinkers began to break from the church all together, especially in England. The first Colony sent by Anglos to the New World was founded purely on the ability of the individual man to achieve want he could (And to send the profits back to England), and with Salutory Neglect, a Culture of free enterprise, the first to be unencumbered by an Aristrocratic elite. Erstwhile, back in Europe, Free thinkers began to emerge and join a movement which came to be known as the Enlightenment. They champoined the ability of the individual to achieve overwhelming good. These ideas were transplanted to America and interwoven within our system. The ultimate result was the achievement of the best civilization which has existed, ever. Our society recognizes the positive abilities of Human nature, and gives them a viable environment to excercise their whim. It recognizes the vast potential of abuse apparent in all positions of power, and thus limits them as much as is effectively possible.
I contest that our system is superior to all others that exist, excepting of course those which are modeled or heavily influenced by our own (The Western World and Japan) The culture that has arisen is one which worships the individual. This has carried over to be a worship of the total sovergnty of every state, despite the fact that most of the world is still stagnating somewhere slightly above the Iron-age in thought. I assert that, since our culture is superior to others, we have a right, neigh a duty, to spread this enlightenment to as many people as possible.
We should struggle to recreate the Liberal Empire, while cohesively bonding subject nations even more closly than the British did, so that we can harness the unified might of the world. America's burden, in cojunction with the West, is to spread the concepts of Democracy and free trade to the ignorant corners of the globe, and to alter those cultural practices which oppose these ideals.
I would like to comment that the Conservative Ideal is in no way to subject others who are different. Quite the opposite, Conservatives struggle for a form of Idealogical Isolationism, to selfishly protect American archetypes, and send the profits of conquered lands back to America with no attempt at Paternalism.(Much like the French Colonial efforts)
It is true that the combined might of the world would truly smother us. That is why we need a revised UN to help us, not only as additional forces, but to help legitimize our efforts, and provide for the peaceful transfer of power to a prescribed method of nation building and Democratization. But first we must weed out strife in the world, so a period of occupation is neccessary and helpful to the world order. The transfer of power in Iraq may prove to have rather disasterous consequences, as their society is hardly stable enough to accept true democracy.
I didn't really answer any prompts. We should start ending our posts with clear questionskickass_ninjaMay 27 2004, 00:07:26 UTC
As for O-ring, Yes, absolute power should be avoided absolutely. All ideals are meer tools for those in power, including religious fervor. It is this base ignorance in the populous which should be rooted out. The ultimate cure to strife in the world is Education and Success. Unbias education which adopts a complete and balanced view of the world is desperately needed in struggling countries, but first Food and Security must be provided. It is for this reason that 'Peace keeping' forces need to be dispatched to a nation, but not kept there in an active police state. Harmony can be achieved through an integrated government with active participation by natives, such as in Colonial India (The sum total of all the British administrating the Colongy was about 900. Compare this to the population of India, which was some 400,000,000+ and you see the effectiveness of benevolent rule.) The British control of the nation also reduced strife within it, which was most obvious once they withdrew, the end result being the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh, with the rest of the story still unfolding.
Once they have overcome their own pride, Success can drown out cultural heritage, and an environment of learning will cause the populace to shed it's ineffective customs on there own. It can't be forced, or the result will be more resistence, but populations of people can be guided by Humanistic Law.
Synapsis: America needs to become Imperial. Otherwise we might as well go Isolationist, and protect our selves as the world falls apart.
What I'm getting at is that all political allegiances are just fronts formed from social standing, assets, and convenient ideals. In the end, every human is driven by their base needs(the needs varying from person to person, of course). It takes little more than a nudge to turn a liberal into a conservative or a socialist into a libertarian. Such things are mere facades; eaily thrown by the wayside.
Reply
I would like to clarify that I was not leaving myself blind to the inherant failings of our own society, in fact quite the opposite. I was attempting to illustrate the failure of logic within our education system with regards to foreign cultures. In the past 30 years or so, the further liberalization of our schools due to the ever increading Civil Rights movement (Still thriving, but now geared inward to truly irrelevant non-issues, like Gay marriage) has led to the wide-spread belief that we are all equal, that we can not judge ANYBODY. This is blatantly contradictory to human instincts to judge, instincts which exist for a reason.
People have been trained in our generation to truly believe this idealistic theory of equality, even in cases where it is obviously incorrect (Just now is the nation begining to come around and realize that Men and Women are two totally different creatures, that they cannot truly compete in any catagory because of this core difference.)
The point is, we shouldn't be oblivious to our natural tendencies to judge. It seems that societies do graduate in a rather oderly manner as prescribed by the enlightenment. It should be pointed out that most of the world did not experience the rush of retrospective thought and philosophy that was the European Enlightenment, and in some respects, many parts of the world are going through a cultural Dark Age. It isn't that our society is perfect, it is simply that we recognize the value of human potential when not threatened starvation or lack of fulfilled needs.
Humansim is not a liberal ideal, but rather an observation of mass social organizations. It simply states that, provided everything else (Love, Security, and Sucess) humans will struggle to achieve their percieved potential. What their potential is is guided by society, but for the most part psychologically stable people will provide for themselves and their prosterity, and contribute to society in a positive manner (this includes avoiding Id based decisions such as murder, which seems to be a 'Sin' in every society of humans) What it comes down to is there is a natural set of morals for all human beings, summed up quite nicely by the Golden Rule: Do onto others as you would wish done onto you.
This is a side-effect of the Close-Knit communities originally formed by man, and it follows a natural logic. If you have no reason to kill a man, other than the simple impulse to do so, you will not do it. This gives a positive upspin to society which leads to ever increasing progress. Cultures which should be discarded are those which ignore this natural tendency towards progress.
Reply
I contest that our system is superior to all others that exist, excepting of course those which are modeled or heavily influenced by our own (The Western World and Japan) The culture that has arisen is one which worships the individual. This has carried over to be a worship of the total sovergnty of every state, despite the fact that most of the world is still stagnating somewhere slightly above the Iron-age in thought. I assert that, since our culture is superior to others, we have a right, neigh a duty, to spread this enlightenment to as many people as possible.
We should struggle to recreate the Liberal Empire, while cohesively bonding subject nations even more closly than the British did, so that we can harness the unified might of the world. America's burden, in cojunction with the West, is to spread the concepts of Democracy and free trade to the ignorant corners of the globe, and to alter those cultural practices which oppose these ideals.
I would like to comment that the Conservative Ideal is in no way to subject others who are different. Quite the opposite, Conservatives struggle for a form of Idealogical Isolationism, to selfishly protect American archetypes, and send the profits of conquered lands back to America with no attempt at Paternalism.(Much like the French Colonial efforts)
It is true that the combined might of the world would truly smother us. That is why we need a revised UN to help us, not only as additional forces, but to help legitimize our efforts, and provide for the peaceful transfer of power to a prescribed method of nation building and Democratization. But first we must weed out strife in the world, so a period of occupation is neccessary and helpful to the world order. The transfer of power in Iraq may prove to have rather disasterous consequences, as their society is hardly stable enough to accept true democracy.
Reply
Once they have overcome their own pride, Success can drown out cultural heritage, and an environment of learning will cause the populace to shed it's ineffective customs on there own. It can't be forced, or the result will be more resistence, but populations of people can be guided by Humanistic Law.
Synapsis: America needs to become Imperial. Otherwise we might as well go Isolationist, and protect our selves as the world falls apart.
Reply
Leave a comment