In case anyone has been holding their breath to read more of my thoughts I am sorry this took me so long. I believe I left off saying that I had come to the conclusion that the "pursuit of happiness" is mainly the pursuit of money. Though I do not think that money is happiness I would like to clarify that in any part of the world I've been to money is certainly the vehicle to happiness.
"Tell me more, Captain Obvious" I hear you say. Well here it goes. It is impossible to exist in the US without either spending money, or having someone spend money on your behalf. I don't mean eating, or having a roof over your head. I mean existing. Every last acre of land is owned by somebody. A person is either going to have to pay someone to be on their land, or be trespassing, or own it themselves (Ok, I guess by impossible I meant impossible to legally exist). Even public land e.g. parks are only open to those who pay fees, or are open for only certain hours. Homeless people, for example, can be arrested for sleeping in parks. They can go to shelters, but someone has to pay for those.
What I am getting at is basically what I understand the Hippie movement to be about in the 60s. There is no place from sea to shining sea that a person can go to aimlessly play out the rest of their lives, or do something productive without first shelling out a little somethin' somethin'. The land of opportunity has been surveyed, parceled and claimed a long time ago.
Now imagine adding in stuff like food and shelter. If you're able to wonder around long enough without getting arrested or shot for trespassing you'll eventually find some fruit or nut trees (or something) maybe some wild game (pigeons, mice, bugs, ferrell cats) that can be eaten without some exchange of money. Hey look, maybe it's not impossible to exist here without having a little cash flow. "The best things in life are free" I think you were thinking a little earlier. I agree with that, but crossing the threshold of comfort needed to enjoy them is not.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Should I stick to the obvious statements thing?
Yeah, I think I'll do that as long as I can. So I believe I have some unfinished business with that last post. What is the "pursuit of happiness"? There is more to that question, but I'm not sure how to ask it. Do people really care if they are impeeding someone else's if theirs is going well? ...That isn't too far off I guess. Oh yeah, and there is the original purpose of this blog, what is the governments role in this?
I am kinda just sitting here at this point trying to decide whether to approach this from the top down, or from the bottom up. I think I will go with the top down approach to change things up (since I have been doing this so long and my many readers are so comfertable with my style...). Earlier I made a statement that I think the government's ( I think I'll call it the govey for short) most basic function is to protect the more vulnerable of it's governed from those that could and would take advantage of them. This may just be my opinion; I've heard one other person make a stab at the govey's most basic role (some congresman, or senator on NPR) and that was "to protect our shores and deliver our mail" (I'd like to hear more more ideas about that actually). I think mine is better (in fact, he said that should be the govey's only role).
Anyway, I do see a very clear relationship between people's conflicting pusuits of happiness and a need to keep one from bulldosing the other just because they can. For example, one person (Guy A) may be living on a hill and another person (Guy B) may come along and decide they want to live on that hill (neither is willing to share the hill in this scenario). There is now a conflict of interest, and of course there are different ways to settle the dispute. Guy B could pay for the hill, he could go somewhere else, something like that... or if he is bigger he could just beat up Guy A and take the hill. Does Guy B have more of a right to the hill because he is bigger?
The above scenario is very basic because a hill is something tangeble, but what about things that are not so tangible like smoking in a public place? I for one would like to be able to go anywhere and not have to put up with smoke all the time. On the other hand, some one who smokes may want to take a quick smoke break from time to time without having to seek out some designated smoking spot half a mile away. I'm pretty sure that people who don't smoke would all team up with me and not care that we are taking away someone else's right to enjoy (their shortened, and diminished quality) life the way they want.
I think it is safe to say that though annoying to the people who lose them, the intanebles aren't missed as much. We'd all love to have the God given right to always park in the best spot, or always be the first in line at potlucks, but those aren't the things that we fight for or even think about on a daily basis. There is one think that people think about possibly even more often than sex, money. At least in the US, all of those other little (and big) things are basicly determined by how much money you have anyway. Perhaps this is too big of a leap, but I'd have to say that in this country the "pusuit of happiness" = the ability to obtain + keep money.
I am kinda just sitting here at this point trying to decide whether to approach this from the top down, or from the bottom up. I think I will go with the top down approach to change things up (since I have been doing this so long and my many readers are so comfertable with my style...). Earlier I made a statement that I think the government's ( I think I'll call it the govey for short) most basic function is to protect the more vulnerable of it's governed from those that could and would take advantage of them. This may just be my opinion; I've heard one other person make a stab at the govey's most basic role (some congresman, or senator on NPR) and that was "to protect our shores and deliver our mail" (I'd like to hear more more ideas about that actually). I think mine is better (in fact, he said that should be the govey's only role).
Anyway, I do see a very clear relationship between people's conflicting pusuits of happiness and a need to keep one from bulldosing the other just because they can. For example, one person (Guy A) may be living on a hill and another person (Guy B) may come along and decide they want to live on that hill (neither is willing to share the hill in this scenario). There is now a conflict of interest, and of course there are different ways to settle the dispute. Guy B could pay for the hill, he could go somewhere else, something like that... or if he is bigger he could just beat up Guy A and take the hill. Does Guy B have more of a right to the hill because he is bigger?
The above scenario is very basic because a hill is something tangeble, but what about things that are not so tangible like smoking in a public place? I for one would like to be able to go anywhere and not have to put up with smoke all the time. On the other hand, some one who smokes may want to take a quick smoke break from time to time without having to seek out some designated smoking spot half a mile away. I'm pretty sure that people who don't smoke would all team up with me and not care that we are taking away someone else's right to enjoy (their shortened, and diminished quality) life the way they want.
I think it is safe to say that though annoying to the people who lose them, the intanebles aren't missed as much. We'd all love to have the God given right to always park in the best spot, or always be the first in line at potlucks, but those aren't the things that we fight for or even think about on a daily basis. There is one think that people think about possibly even more often than sex, money. At least in the US, all of those other little (and big) things are basicly determined by how much money you have anyway. Perhaps this is too big of a leap, but I'd have to say that in this country the "pusuit of happiness" = the ability to obtain + keep money.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Was that last one too obvious?
I sure hope it was. It may seem that I am going way to far back trying to get a running start and will run out of steam when it's time to jump, but I think it's pretty important that I understand why we have a government before I just go around saying how other people are doing such a poor job running it. In my last post I have a link to a transcript of the declaration of independence not because I think that the founding father were these perfect people who had tea with God every afternoon, but because I wanted to get an idea where to go from my obvious stand point that there needs to be some framework that keeps us from "eliminating the competition".
I did read the whole thing, but since it is mostly about what a bad king the king of England was I will only refer to the part that anybody who did open the link was likely to read anyway. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The first unalienable right is kind of indisputable to sane people. The second is weird since this document was written by a slave owner (don't get me wrong here, he was apparently pretty good to them), and our whole penal system is based on depriving evildoers of their freedom (and sometimes life), but the third one has got to be one of those things on which each person has a completely different view.
"The pursuit of happiness"!?!? Please forgive me, but I think I have to go to the most primal level to comprehend this. Say we go back to the scenario where there is no one on earth but me, and my actions are not bounded by the responsibility of not hurting someone else. Suppose the thing that would make me the most happy is to talk to someone... This leads me to a tangent.
Have you ever met one of those people who talks crap about you having a full time job, or going to school and tell you how you are stupid for giving their life away to someone else just to get some money? But then they don't have the money to do all the stuff they want to do with their free time, and they begrudgingly realize that they are the ones who are trapped? (I realize this is more of the "what is freedom?" thing, but I forgot to mention it).
Back to my point. Complete freedom does not necessarily equal happiness. maybe it is because people are social animals, but I think people need boundaries if for no other reason to appreciate their freedom from them (don't take this out of context). I for example found that while I was looking for a job, having no time constraints was more tedious than now that I have to wake up at a certain time each day.
Back to my other point. We know it is wrong to kill people, we know it is wrong to enslave people (at least we think we do), but I am not so sure we have a problem stepping on other people pursuit of happiness. There is just something that makes it so mush easier to plan for what we want without taking into account what others want,or need. I think I will have to devote my next post to examples of this, but I am finally sleepy now (yeah, this one just turned out to be an intro to the next one [or few] I guess)
I did read the whole thing, but since it is mostly about what a bad king the king of England was I will only refer to the part that anybody who did open the link was likely to read anyway. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The first unalienable right is kind of indisputable to sane people. The second is weird since this document was written by a slave owner (don't get me wrong here, he was apparently pretty good to them), and our whole penal system is based on depriving evildoers of their freedom (and sometimes life), but the third one has got to be one of those things on which each person has a completely different view.
"The pursuit of happiness"!?!? Please forgive me, but I think I have to go to the most primal level to comprehend this. Say we go back to the scenario where there is no one on earth but me, and my actions are not bounded by the responsibility of not hurting someone else. Suppose the thing that would make me the most happy is to talk to someone... This leads me to a tangent.
Have you ever met one of those people who talks crap about you having a full time job, or going to school and tell you how you are stupid for giving their life away to someone else just to get some money? But then they don't have the money to do all the stuff they want to do with their free time, and they begrudgingly realize that they are the ones who are trapped? (I realize this is more of the "what is freedom?" thing, but I forgot to mention it).
Back to my point. Complete freedom does not necessarily equal happiness. maybe it is because people are social animals, but I think people need boundaries if for no other reason to appreciate their freedom from them (don't take this out of context). I for example found that while I was looking for a job, having no time constraints was more tedious than now that I have to wake up at a certain time each day.
Back to my other point. We know it is wrong to kill people, we know it is wrong to enslave people (at least we think we do), but I am not so sure we have a problem stepping on other people pursuit of happiness. There is just something that makes it so mush easier to plan for what we want without taking into account what others want,or need. I think I will have to devote my next post to examples of this, but I am finally sleepy now (yeah, this one just turned out to be an intro to the next one [or few] I guess)
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Where do I get started?
Perhaps I could define for myself the term "political viewpoint". This only has one good interpretation for me. A political viewpoint is how a person thinks a government should run. I imagine each person's is unique since everyone else should unite in fulfilling that one person's needs.
I was once asked the question "What is freedom?". This seems like a simple question, and maybe it is. They furthered their question by posing the scenario: If you are the only person on earth you have total freedom to do anything you wish. You get hungry... kill an animal and eat it. Eat whatever, go wherever, you have no obligations or restrictions. So what happens when another person enters the picture. Now you might eat their pet, or poop on their bed. You may not ever see them, but if there will be sharing of any space there will inevitably be some kind of order to be kept (or you kill the other person and go back to the beginning of the scenario).
I know what you are thinking, but before you go and off the rest of the species, you may want to consider the things you are not free to do when there is no one else around. Like spill your soda on somebodies lap. I know this is a bit of an exaggeration, but what is to keep someone from getting rid of whomever they please in order to have their freedom. This is what I believe is the most basic purpose for people to unite and govern themselves. You should not have to let have the freedom they want at the expense of your own. In the declaration of independence this idea is stated much more eloquently. I believe that if a government does not protect the vulnerable from the opportunistic it has failed. I do not necessarily think it needs to save people from themselves.
I was once asked the question "What is freedom?". This seems like a simple question, and maybe it is. They furthered their question by posing the scenario: If you are the only person on earth you have total freedom to do anything you wish. You get hungry... kill an animal and eat it. Eat whatever, go wherever, you have no obligations or restrictions. So what happens when another person enters the picture. Now you might eat their pet, or poop on their bed. You may not ever see them, but if there will be sharing of any space there will inevitably be some kind of order to be kept (or you kill the other person and go back to the beginning of the scenario).
I know what you are thinking, but before you go and off the rest of the species, you may want to consider the things you are not free to do when there is no one else around. Like spill your soda on somebodies lap. I know this is a bit of an exaggeration, but what is to keep someone from getting rid of whomever they please in order to have their freedom. This is what I believe is the most basic purpose for people to unite and govern themselves. You should not have to let have the freedom they want at the expense of your own. In the declaration of independence this idea is stated much more eloquently. I believe that if a government does not protect the vulnerable from the opportunistic it has failed. I do not necessarily think it needs to save people from themselves.
Why Am I writing a Blog?
To state the obvious of course. That is that our country is deeply divided on just about every important issue anyone can have an opinion about. Make that, is divided on every issue whether or not it is actually even open to interpretation anyway. There is one item I have in mind to which I plan to dedicate this blog, political view points.
Original huh? Well, I am not about to try and change yours. I would actually like to develop my own. I did use to have a philosophy to which I subscribed which I came upon in a similar fashion to how I assume other people got theirs. I heard someone else's opinion, made it my own because I had none at the time, and defended it to the death (not literally) when it was challenged because that is what I believed. So now that I realize how dumb that was I aim to actually develop some stance (conservative/liberal/something that makes sense...) based on actual logic as opposed to emotion and defending my viewpoint at all costs (facing the fact that I had the wrong idea about something for such a long time and not wanting to cut my losses).
So how do I intend to accomplish my goal? I intend to state my observations on certain subjects, maybe state my stance on it based on my past experiences, other observations, some kind of analysis, or just intuitive guesses. What I would very much appreciate from you would be feedback involving the same, or similar parameters from your vantage point. Of course I am going to miss important factors which is why I thought it would be a good idea to open up my thought process to "public" scrutiny.
One thing that I am not looking for is a cheer leading squad. I would appreciate positive feedback, but I have noticed that discussions involving politics to tend to be more like people watching a football gave to support their team (just so you know "Go Cowboys"esq remarks are more than likely to be disregarded). This is not a sounding board for un-founded, or un-backable opinions. If I were to sway you in any way it would be to ask your self "Am I saying this because I know it to be true, or is it just something I've been told and decided to latch onto?".
I am typically a pacifist when it comes political discussions and ignore the stupid things people say in hope of moving on to a different subject, but I have realized that approach is not helping anybody. There is no real discussion anyway, just words that are exchanged propagating rifts between people that need to be working together. Perhaps if people stop and think about what they are trying to accomplish, they might accomplish it.
Original huh? Well, I am not about to try and change yours. I would actually like to develop my own. I did use to have a philosophy to which I subscribed which I came upon in a similar fashion to how I assume other people got theirs. I heard someone else's opinion, made it my own because I had none at the time, and defended it to the death (not literally) when it was challenged because that is what I believed. So now that I realize how dumb that was I aim to actually develop some stance (conservative/liberal/something that makes sense...) based on actual logic as opposed to emotion and defending my viewpoint at all costs (facing the fact that I had the wrong idea about something for such a long time and not wanting to cut my losses).
So how do I intend to accomplish my goal? I intend to state my observations on certain subjects, maybe state my stance on it based on my past experiences, other observations, some kind of analysis, or just intuitive guesses. What I would very much appreciate from you would be feedback involving the same, or similar parameters from your vantage point. Of course I am going to miss important factors which is why I thought it would be a good idea to open up my thought process to "public" scrutiny.
One thing that I am not looking for is a cheer leading squad. I would appreciate positive feedback, but I have noticed that discussions involving politics to tend to be more like people watching a football gave to support their team (just so you know "Go Cowboys"esq remarks are more than likely to be disregarded). This is not a sounding board for un-founded, or un-backable opinions. If I were to sway you in any way it would be to ask your self "Am I saying this because I know it to be true, or is it just something I've been told and decided to latch onto?".
I am typically a pacifist when it comes political discussions and ignore the stupid things people say in hope of moving on to a different subject, but I have realized that approach is not helping anybody. There is no real discussion anyway, just words that are exchanged propagating rifts between people that need to be working together. Perhaps if people stop and think about what they are trying to accomplish, they might accomplish it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)