Industrial Experiment
15-01-2005, 11:00
In the last several months, especially in the last couple weeks, I have drifted from my real feelings. I have gone after the structure to fulfill my ideals, instead of concentrating on the ideals themselves. Long ago I told myself, rightly, that a man cannot know what needs to be done to make him happy until it is already done; this applies to many walks of life, life itself being the greatest one. In the end, I believe the people of the world need to be happy. The only sound axiom I can arrive at to make sure everyone is happy is to grant them the freedom they need to pursue their own ends.
Thus, I throw out my old beliefs in socialism, I would rather a man have the freedom to earn his own dollar than have the things he doesn't want or need given to him for free. But then I must also throw out capitalism, for such a utopian system is open to great abuses cannot guaruntee happiness for all forever. What does this leave me?
Well, it's really quite simple. I know I am already happy in today's world, but I also know many people are not. In the end, I can trace the feelings of these unhappy people to very abuses of the very system I have just thrown out. This seems to only prove my thoughts, but I must continue to think.
If socialism, especially extreme socialism, represents the absolute control of an economy and very little economic freedom, then the only possible opposite for this is capitalism. But, you say, you have thrown out capitalism as a utopian dream too vulnerable to be considered reality. The only way I can respond is with a time honored quote:
"Free trade can never be truely free unless it is also fair trade"
Thus, we arrive at Adam Smith's original precepts about capitalism, that the system would be self-regulating according to the whims of the people. Of course, in the modern world, the average person is not entirely intelligent enough to participate in this idea of an invisible, regulating hand. Now, unexpectedly, I run across the second axiom I now wish to use: available, preferably free education.
However, even this ideal has a problem in the question of "Who will provide this?". Of course, the first mention will not doubt go to the government. But, you might say, is not the government inherently corrupt, untrustable? Not so, say I, not so. Here are two very good quotes that are all the answer there is for the question asked:
"Founding Fathers Quotes
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "
The American Declaration of Independence
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Noah Webster, Founding Father of the United States of America
These two quotes, in the end, strike upon the greatest principle of governance: the government only ever rules with the consent of the governed. Simplistically, there're more of us than there are of them.
However, why not take this a step further? Why make the "them" go away? In today's day and age of communications technology, it would be quite simple to provide the means of every man and woman of voting age to be able to vote on any issue that were to come up. This brings along the third axiom: absolute political freedom in the form of direct vote democracy.
While the logistics of setting up such a system would be quite formidible, once in place, it would fulfill one of the greatests criterion of all time, "A government of the people shall not perish from this Earth". It would, in essence, be invincible to the normal corruption of every other government in the world.
But this casual sentence brings up another issue: the world. It's quite well and simple ot provide the needed consumer knowledge to create the utopian capitalist system of Smith's dreams and skirt corruption in the government via a direct democracy in the United States, but there is a whole six billion odd other people in the world who don't live here, and thus would not be happy. Moving a direct democratic government up to the world stage would create even larger logistical problems and would already amplify the problem of ignorant mob rule, something I will touch upon later.
Now, it is necassary for me to step aside a moment and explain to you, the reader, my original reason for creating this topic. My intent, at least in the beginning, was to reaffirm my ardent pacifist views of the world via several very hard hitting quotes about the great crime against humanity that is war. However, I went off on a tanget rather early on that has branched out quite a bit to be a complete analysis of my philosophies on life.
Regardless, this is the point in the topic where I encounter a contradiction of the original intent and an explaination of the title.
I believe, in the end, that no war is a good war. No war is a war worth fighting, except for one. The revolution, the overthrowing of one's opressor and the grasping of one's right to happiness and freedom. However, even this war is a war that saddens me, "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime". This quote, from Ernest Hemingway for those who are curious, personifies my feelings about war to a T.
However, there is another quote that also seems to show the apparent contradiction in my views.
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing."
General George S. Patton
For one human to shed the blood of another human is always wrong, no matter what, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. If it is the overthrow of a tyrant by the oppressed masses, then they must fight their fight.
This puts into scope the problem I face. For the world, for the majority of humanity to be free to pursue their own happiness, then war seems almost unaviodable, especially in our world of dictators and genocides. I find it hard to reconcile my views with foriegn intervention in the form of a democracy warring against a dictator, I feel only the oppressed can truely be the ones to rise up against their so-called "leader".
But, in the end, I do not think it is possible to accomplish the uniting of the world without resorting to war; a war for freedom is still a war, and still a crime, but there is nothing else that can be done. This is the fourth, and most reluctuant, axiom: the necessary fight for the freedom of the world's people.
You say, though, that what happens after this is accomplished? Once the entire world is one big direct democracy? What happens when the minority becomes disallusioned with the decisions of the majority, simply because the majority is so different form the minority?
The only possible answer is the the abolishment of comlicated law and the simplification of what we need to ban. In the end, the only thing that man really needs to be rid of are the things that impede someone's search for happiness. Muder, assault, other violence, theft, racism, all the great threats to a man's life, freedom, and search for happiness. This is the fifth axiom: the establishment of limits on even the government of the people, for the majority is not always correct.
The end result of all this, it would seem, is a world that is one step from anarchy, but full enough of people who are well enough educated to avoid being duped by the likes of the massive corporations which, in truth, wouldn't exist in such a world, but all the people are happy simply because they can do anything they need to do to achieve that happiness.
This is my view of the perfect world.
I am a true liberal.
Judge me.
Thus, I throw out my old beliefs in socialism, I would rather a man have the freedom to earn his own dollar than have the things he doesn't want or need given to him for free. But then I must also throw out capitalism, for such a utopian system is open to great abuses cannot guaruntee happiness for all forever. What does this leave me?
Well, it's really quite simple. I know I am already happy in today's world, but I also know many people are not. In the end, I can trace the feelings of these unhappy people to very abuses of the very system I have just thrown out. This seems to only prove my thoughts, but I must continue to think.
If socialism, especially extreme socialism, represents the absolute control of an economy and very little economic freedom, then the only possible opposite for this is capitalism. But, you say, you have thrown out capitalism as a utopian dream too vulnerable to be considered reality. The only way I can respond is with a time honored quote:
"Free trade can never be truely free unless it is also fair trade"
Thus, we arrive at Adam Smith's original precepts about capitalism, that the system would be self-regulating according to the whims of the people. Of course, in the modern world, the average person is not entirely intelligent enough to participate in this idea of an invisible, regulating hand. Now, unexpectedly, I run across the second axiom I now wish to use: available, preferably free education.
However, even this ideal has a problem in the question of "Who will provide this?". Of course, the first mention will not doubt go to the government. But, you might say, is not the government inherently corrupt, untrustable? Not so, say I, not so. Here are two very good quotes that are all the answer there is for the question asked:
"Founding Fathers Quotes
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "
The American Declaration of Independence
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Noah Webster, Founding Father of the United States of America
These two quotes, in the end, strike upon the greatest principle of governance: the government only ever rules with the consent of the governed. Simplistically, there're more of us than there are of them.
However, why not take this a step further? Why make the "them" go away? In today's day and age of communications technology, it would be quite simple to provide the means of every man and woman of voting age to be able to vote on any issue that were to come up. This brings along the third axiom: absolute political freedom in the form of direct vote democracy.
While the logistics of setting up such a system would be quite formidible, once in place, it would fulfill one of the greatests criterion of all time, "A government of the people shall not perish from this Earth". It would, in essence, be invincible to the normal corruption of every other government in the world.
But this casual sentence brings up another issue: the world. It's quite well and simple ot provide the needed consumer knowledge to create the utopian capitalist system of Smith's dreams and skirt corruption in the government via a direct democracy in the United States, but there is a whole six billion odd other people in the world who don't live here, and thus would not be happy. Moving a direct democratic government up to the world stage would create even larger logistical problems and would already amplify the problem of ignorant mob rule, something I will touch upon later.
Now, it is necassary for me to step aside a moment and explain to you, the reader, my original reason for creating this topic. My intent, at least in the beginning, was to reaffirm my ardent pacifist views of the world via several very hard hitting quotes about the great crime against humanity that is war. However, I went off on a tanget rather early on that has branched out quite a bit to be a complete analysis of my philosophies on life.
Regardless, this is the point in the topic where I encounter a contradiction of the original intent and an explaination of the title.
I believe, in the end, that no war is a good war. No war is a war worth fighting, except for one. The revolution, the overthrowing of one's opressor and the grasping of one's right to happiness and freedom. However, even this war is a war that saddens me, "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime". This quote, from Ernest Hemingway for those who are curious, personifies my feelings about war to a T.
However, there is another quote that also seems to show the apparent contradiction in my views.
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing."
General George S. Patton
For one human to shed the blood of another human is always wrong, no matter what, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. If it is the overthrow of a tyrant by the oppressed masses, then they must fight their fight.
This puts into scope the problem I face. For the world, for the majority of humanity to be free to pursue their own happiness, then war seems almost unaviodable, especially in our world of dictators and genocides. I find it hard to reconcile my views with foriegn intervention in the form of a democracy warring against a dictator, I feel only the oppressed can truely be the ones to rise up against their so-called "leader".
But, in the end, I do not think it is possible to accomplish the uniting of the world without resorting to war; a war for freedom is still a war, and still a crime, but there is nothing else that can be done. This is the fourth, and most reluctuant, axiom: the necessary fight for the freedom of the world's people.
You say, though, that what happens after this is accomplished? Once the entire world is one big direct democracy? What happens when the minority becomes disallusioned with the decisions of the majority, simply because the majority is so different form the minority?
The only possible answer is the the abolishment of comlicated law and the simplification of what we need to ban. In the end, the only thing that man really needs to be rid of are the things that impede someone's search for happiness. Muder, assault, other violence, theft, racism, all the great threats to a man's life, freedom, and search for happiness. This is the fifth axiom: the establishment of limits on even the government of the people, for the majority is not always correct.
The end result of all this, it would seem, is a world that is one step from anarchy, but full enough of people who are well enough educated to avoid being duped by the likes of the massive corporations which, in truth, wouldn't exist in such a world, but all the people are happy simply because they can do anything they need to do to achieve that happiness.
This is my view of the perfect world.
I am a true liberal.
Judge me.