![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What ever happened to convictions?
Jun. 28th, 2003 09:50 amI don’t believe in anything. I’m reading a conservative mantra about how the legislature is imposing its will upon the masses, representational democracy is a contradiction if not an outright joke, and freedom is not even present in an illusionary form if you think about it. I’m feeling either they have made some good points in their argument or I’m simply too easily led by one viewpoint. I'm finding more flaws in liberal views and more strengths in conservative ones...or just not falling for either camp. The more I analyze things the less I believe in any particular view, but while it's easy to attack theories, what I lack is the answer to the void that is left when the argument is defeated.
Admittedly, I’m a little biased at the moment as a liberal influence on me is appearing more and more to hold their convictions more for a sense of identity than for genuine logic of the arguments involved. I respect the right view for the wrong reasons, but not the person whose motivation is so poor. Nice that they do the right thing, but for what? For the planet and society, or to show how angry they are at the preppies they knew in middle-school? I'm also finding the same biases and misleading techniques being used by both sides, and calling many beliefs into doubt. Yes, in my mid-30s I'm still very clay-like.
I like the ideas put forth by my Nazi (Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law) about freedom and when you consider the principal of freedom to be paramount I would agree that the legislature does in fact force its will against people on a regular basis. I agree that there is a tremendous separation between the common person and the creation / enforcement of law. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.
With freedom economically we inevitably wind up with monopolies, or in the soda war case oligopolies. It’s a free system, but one that leads to similar ‘successes.’ With total freedom or anarchy, the dominant form of government to form is first a series of warlords who soon collapse to a single military dictator. Imagine what shape our environment would be in without the EPA (now something of a Eunuch thanx to the intervention of BushCo (tm)). Freedom is a nice thing, and I’d like to have it and allow others to have it, but I’m afraid I can’t ignore the history of freedom and the potential consequences. Freedom is bad unless you give it to good people? People generally suck, always choosing their selfish interest, even more frequently a short-term interest no matter how great the sacrifice to themselves in the future. I point out that not only will people screw each other over without so much as a second thought, but they are so fickle they will even screw THEMSELVES over in the future tense as though the present self exists independently of future consequences.
The argument that does stick to me is that market freedom is a nice utopian example to look towards in regards to personal freedom. In a free market, if I don't like Coke or Pepsi, I can choose yummy Dr. Pepper, Inca Cola, or even make my own bizarre concoctions - selling them if I like. While majority decisions are made and I am somewhat subject to them, as in the case of having to either pay the price Coke wants for 12 ounces of the bubbly, or not have access to it, I remain free to NOT pay the prevailing price or CHOOSE something else. In the case of the legislature or formation of law, there is a winning side and a losing side. Whatever speed limit is set, we either obey or are forced to obey. There is no individual choice allowed, creating winners and losers. Wouldn't it be nice if you could choose laws the way you do CDs? Perhaps not - some of us have tempers.
(note I've used the soda example to both attack and support the existance of freedom in a free market. Did I mention a total lack of stable convictions?)
Things freedom would destroy: the free market. Everyone knows about the lovely supply and demand curves, how they intersect, and how each person makes their choice. Free market, sounds great. The best product for the best price will prevail, making everyone happy. What about Robber barons? Competition is bought out and/or stifled, legally now where illegally before due to the mixing of power in the market and power to conduct yourself outside the market. Environmentalism and any efforts to maintain ecological balances would be washed aside in a matter of months without legislation and enforcement to protect these areas. We see this occur in our own lands when laws are weakened, and in all countries where the ecology is being mowed down for short-term profits. Would slavery have ended without legislation? How about discrimination?
Still, I don’t know that I like the idea of forming mountains of rules of law to protect everything _I_ care about. I worry about the fact that people freak out when a police person is behind them, UNAWARE if they are breaking any laws or not. I’ve never liked the argument that ignorance of the law is no excuse - if the law is so counter-intuitive that you don’t even feel the least bit like what you’re doing is wrong, that perhaps it’s the law that should be called into question rather than your behavior (I usually apply that argument to speeding and coming to a complete stop at a stop sign).
So, how can you have both freedom and protection from the selfish and cruel masses? I don’t subscribe to the idea that might makes right, survival of the fittest, etc. but I do give those ideas some consideration. Some cruelty is inherent, and not necessarily bad per se since without some fear of failure many simply produce nothing and live a parasitic life off the work of others.
Law school is going to be a blast.
Yes I should LJ-cut this, yes it won't be seen as 98% of people I know and even I usually only scan LJ during work hours. Perhaps we should legislate LJ, or sue them for the costs to private industry and taxpayers...
In any case I feel no guilt about not cutting it as there is a good chance that no one will see it as by Monday morning everyone will post their weekend synopsis along with 20 pictures in full-size...
Admittedly, I’m a little biased at the moment as a liberal influence on me is appearing more and more to hold their convictions more for a sense of identity than for genuine logic of the arguments involved. I respect the right view for the wrong reasons, but not the person whose motivation is so poor. Nice that they do the right thing, but for what? For the planet and society, or to show how angry they are at the preppies they knew in middle-school? I'm also finding the same biases and misleading techniques being used by both sides, and calling many beliefs into doubt. Yes, in my mid-30s I'm still very clay-like.
I like the ideas put forth by my Nazi (Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law) about freedom and when you consider the principal of freedom to be paramount I would agree that the legislature does in fact force its will against people on a regular basis. I agree that there is a tremendous separation between the common person and the creation / enforcement of law. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.
With freedom economically we inevitably wind up with monopolies, or in the soda war case oligopolies. It’s a free system, but one that leads to similar ‘successes.’ With total freedom or anarchy, the dominant form of government to form is first a series of warlords who soon collapse to a single military dictator. Imagine what shape our environment would be in without the EPA (now something of a Eunuch thanx to the intervention of BushCo (tm)). Freedom is a nice thing, and I’d like to have it and allow others to have it, but I’m afraid I can’t ignore the history of freedom and the potential consequences. Freedom is bad unless you give it to good people? People generally suck, always choosing their selfish interest, even more frequently a short-term interest no matter how great the sacrifice to themselves in the future. I point out that not only will people screw each other over without so much as a second thought, but they are so fickle they will even screw THEMSELVES over in the future tense as though the present self exists independently of future consequences.
The argument that does stick to me is that market freedom is a nice utopian example to look towards in regards to personal freedom. In a free market, if I don't like Coke or Pepsi, I can choose yummy Dr. Pepper, Inca Cola, or even make my own bizarre concoctions - selling them if I like. While majority decisions are made and I am somewhat subject to them, as in the case of having to either pay the price Coke wants for 12 ounces of the bubbly, or not have access to it, I remain free to NOT pay the prevailing price or CHOOSE something else. In the case of the legislature or formation of law, there is a winning side and a losing side. Whatever speed limit is set, we either obey or are forced to obey. There is no individual choice allowed, creating winners and losers. Wouldn't it be nice if you could choose laws the way you do CDs? Perhaps not - some of us have tempers.
(note I've used the soda example to both attack and support the existance of freedom in a free market. Did I mention a total lack of stable convictions?)
Things freedom would destroy: the free market. Everyone knows about the lovely supply and demand curves, how they intersect, and how each person makes their choice. Free market, sounds great. The best product for the best price will prevail, making everyone happy. What about Robber barons? Competition is bought out and/or stifled, legally now where illegally before due to the mixing of power in the market and power to conduct yourself outside the market. Environmentalism and any efforts to maintain ecological balances would be washed aside in a matter of months without legislation and enforcement to protect these areas. We see this occur in our own lands when laws are weakened, and in all countries where the ecology is being mowed down for short-term profits. Would slavery have ended without legislation? How about discrimination?
Still, I don’t know that I like the idea of forming mountains of rules of law to protect everything _I_ care about. I worry about the fact that people freak out when a police person is behind them, UNAWARE if they are breaking any laws or not. I’ve never liked the argument that ignorance of the law is no excuse - if the law is so counter-intuitive that you don’t even feel the least bit like what you’re doing is wrong, that perhaps it’s the law that should be called into question rather than your behavior (I usually apply that argument to speeding and coming to a complete stop at a stop sign).
So, how can you have both freedom and protection from the selfish and cruel masses? I don’t subscribe to the idea that might makes right, survival of the fittest, etc. but I do give those ideas some consideration. Some cruelty is inherent, and not necessarily bad per se since without some fear of failure many simply produce nothing and live a parasitic life off the work of others.
Law school is going to be a blast.
Yes I should LJ-cut this, yes it won't be seen as 98% of people I know and even I usually only scan LJ during work hours. Perhaps we should legislate LJ, or sue them for the costs to private industry and taxpayers...
In any case I feel no guilt about not cutting it as there is a good chance that no one will see it as by Monday morning everyone will post their weekend synopsis along with 20 pictures in full-size...
