Dear Joe,
When it comes to politics and economics conflict is an unavoidable fact. Any matter of politics or economics is one of friction and certain aspects of it (politics & economics) just happen to rub me the wrong way.
I will always be a firm critic of the affects that militaristic capitalist states (such as ours) have on societies, both local and foreign, and recognize the frictions that stem from those imbalances of power and goods. However, I think we should save the rhetoric for Political Theory or Philosophy 101, unless you actually don’t like choosing what you can buy, sell, or want -someone else telling you what is ok for you to do, read, think and say. Screw that, I rather see every square inch of the world privatized.
I will tell you this much. True freedom is in the power of speech, choice, ideology, and every other civil liberty that the Bush Administration is slowly destroying and long gone in Cuba, China, and anywhere else that’s toyed with communist propaganda. Utopia is a beautiful word but not when it requires restraint, violence and overall human suffrage. Marxism, although an incredibly well thought out system, has many downfalls. It may perhaps be centuries before any such ideology prevails and capitalism, if ever, implodes. I agree that constructs and notions of class are at times difficult and very sad truths. However, no one ever referred to Fidel, Mao, Lenin, or the Christ-likened gun tooting Che as commoners, except for maybe themselves or those who feared a firing squad execution. Common people do not live like those men do/did nor are responsible for the forcible deaths and harsh imprisonment of thousands of commoners. If socialist systems are as egalitarian as they preach, then why aren’t there equal allowances for the mindsets of citizens who oppose such measures of human constraint? Why are they all centralized police states? Why are these “liberators” fattening up while the common masses starve? Why aren’t any of them winning humanitarian-of-the-year awards?
It is best to let the masses shop and make choices on how to spend the fruits of their proletarian labor. Capitalism can be very soothing, after all it comes equipped with a host of vocabulary such as shop, new (and or improved), credit, private, variety, mine, yours, for sale, on sale, bargain, and when all these bring way too many bills, bankruptcy.
I figure that if I am going to live in tatters I rather it is due to anything other then the clothing stores being for-tourists-only.
Do you like the idea of living in a police state tourist-apartheid society? Nothing heroic about that, is there?
Yu,
Here's a subtle response, not sure if you would say it's inflated or deflated, but politics is not my genre. One things for sure, in today’s world, these ideas are time honored.
This American government, -- “what is it but a convention...endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each minute losing some of its integrity? It has not the exuberance and impact of a single living man, for a single being can flexion it to its volition. It is sorts of wooden firearms to the governed, themselves; and, if ever they should exercise it in ardent as a real one against one another, it will surely split.”
Wouldn’t you agree that Thoreau would roll over in his grave at the stipulation of politics in our country as we speak? Or rather, he would sanction us to stand up as individuals, take revolutionary efforts against the stabilized order with autonomy, acumen and intellect.
Thoreau states, “Government is best when it governs not at all.” This is easily paralleled to the Golden Rule—Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You—in that if everyone were attending to their own métier, in search of their own scope, all else would possibly fall into place. The Golden Rule applies freely because if each of us is in step with our own maxim our neighbors would be regarded as ourselves--It is a peerless explication to an age-old problem yet we rarely apply it in our daily lives.
Emerson proclaims in Politics about how Paul and various prophets made it a condition to practice self-control and such and how if we accomplished this moral behavior and thought, it would whelm into our model of government. Interestingly though, I can understand why many misconstrue Thoreau’s piece as somewhat of a piece on anarchy as it is an additional abstracted essay. We might get the notion that Thoreau is vindicating no government at all and I do not know if humans are predisposed to live without rules and government. But it seems more inclining to suggest that humans who are dedicated to seek the truth of their own lives are more in touch with their consciences and the results are then really self-explanatory or surmised. He does say, “not at once no government, but at once a better government.”
If we could only fasten that to our present-day government –well just imagine! It is difficult not to remember Thoreau’s own circumstance when he refused to pay his taxes—we might assume he was refusing the government, but he did accept his consequences! I would have to say that by spending time behind bars, he did profess his mindset in some form of government.
More specifically, towards your question about a “tourist-apartheid society.” If the government tries to preclude minds and injustice is being done in a way—such as slavery, etc.—he cannot justify that. He says, “Justice is more important than law” and in my own personal belief, nothing rings clearer than this. Citizens should consider more that a law and God would say the law is nothing when matched to human worth. Albeit, I can understand where people might have a belligerent attitude towards this idea. It appears to be either justice or law and we cannot achieve both. I cannot see this being unraveled any time in the near future, as it is age old. In reality, it has to do with conviction and if one believes and whether one believes the conscience as a forerunner in moral connotations. And that seems to bring us to another valid point, Pandora’s box. I mean we each have a conscience, but the factor is whether or not the conscience is settled in good or evil and more so what each person’s individual apprehension of good and evil is. I’m not sure if a definite answer exists, but are you giving my plea careful consideration? For example what if –and we know this to be a fact—certain individuals agree that slavery is constitutional and in their conscience they agree that it is moral? Is this from God…the devil…or mankind? Is it then middling if the individual says it is pardoned as part of their belief system? I would vindicate we have the right to make noise if we must—if our sole conscience demands the noise-thus no form of government has the right to rule an individual’s conscience.
P.S. Good source to read--Thoreau’s landmark essay on "Civil Disobedience."
Joe