One step further
Now let me take it one step further!
Let's say you are constructing your ideal nation. You have all the cultural, historical and political experiences of our planet.
So, what is your guiding political philosophy? What is your religion (or lack thereof)? What are your attitudes toward morality? What is your economic system? And so on.
Of course, there's no "right" answer. I'm just curious to see what everyone's "ideal" country is like. I won't bias the comments by giving my answer just yet, but do expect to hear from me as the discussion gets going. Fire away!
Let's say you are constructing your ideal nation. You have all the cultural, historical and political experiences of our planet.
So, what is your guiding political philosophy? What is your religion (or lack thereof)? What are your attitudes toward morality? What is your economic system? And so on.
Of course, there's no "right" answer. I'm just curious to see what everyone's "ideal" country is like. I won't bias the comments by giving my answer just yet, but do expect to hear from me as the discussion gets going. Fire away!
posted by Joshua @ 8:32 PM
4 Comments:
I concur with Timmy, though I also envision a "Tipping Point"-inspired hyper-representative democracy, where the local side of things would provide a representative per every twenty-five or so adult citizens, with twenty-five or so of those representatives choosing the regional leader above them, and so on. The general would still be a nationwide, one-man-one-vote contest, of course, but if every citizen knew that they could get the ear of their representative, with the sociological datat intact to ensure that these groups may still be able to act as teams, and come to some form of agreement as to their goals and their preferred solutions.
I agree with Timmy that the law cannot legislate morality, andI think that when it attempts to do so, the two become confused in a way that leads to Nationalism-as-morality, which in turn leads to fascism. Laws will be for protection and provision and nothing else, which means that Religion won't come - in Josh Lyman's words - within ten city blocks of the law.
Still, Bokononism would still be outlawed. That's only fair.
All righty, here I go.
First off, my government would be essentially the same as the one proposed by the U.S. Constitution. Liberty, federalism, and all that good stuff.
I think my one break with current jurisprudence would be that I'd be a bit more aggressive in protecting state/local (vs. federal/national) power. I'd want to encourage different political subdivisions to take different approaches.
With the emphasis on locality, I wouldn't want to have "one person, one vote" as my guiding electoral principle. I would have a bicameral legislature, but only one would be elected by the people directly. The selection of the other would be based on political subdivision and be the right of that subdivision to determine.
Economically it would be a lot more laissez-faire. Free trade, limited-to-non-existent corporate subsidies, and more flexible minimum wage laws at the national level (on a related note, I think the current combination of illegal immigration and minimum wage requirements creates a perpetuates an economic underclass. Ask me about it sometime!).
In terms of morality and religion, I again take my cue from a more local approach. I would give the localities a great deal of leeway in morals legislation (alcohol and drug availability, pornography, abortion, divorce, businesses open on Sundays, etc...).
Following the two previous comments, though, I wouldn't have an official religion at the national level. But I would differ with the two previous in that I would allow religion and morality to come closer than "ten blocks" of the law. I wouldn't allow a particular sect (in an official capacity) to come within fifty blocks of the national government, but religion itself is welcome to live in the house next door and come over for dinner.
I've already posted about this, on the main page of course, but allowing religion to "come over for dinner," to me, is what allows County judges the right to legally dictate his own religion to parents. For another great example of this, see this story:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481
ALmost by definition, individual religions will find the others to be faulty, and will seek to bring all others to their side. This isn't an evil action on the part of the religious - after all, they clearly believe that this conversion will save the converted's soul, an ideal that would likely supercede the ideal of strict constitutional adherence. I don't agree with it, but it's certainly not "wrong" in the moral sense. Nevertheless, this is why the Church and State shouldn't even be able to smell each other. They corrupt one another equally. As the State moves further towards endorsing one faith, even tacitly, the others will necessarily be oppressed in equal measure. See the cases I've already mentioned. On the other side, when politics waves it's hands around in the sanctuary, you're about two breaths away from having the money-changers in the temple. (I'd say we're long past that point in America, where in many cases the money-changers are at the pulpit.) For another example, I'd point out this story:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48855
Farrah has fallen so deeply into the "GOP equals Christianity and Bush os the Second Coming" camp that he's decrying Christian leaders who are banding together to save the environment as apocalyptic false believers. This is the dinner conversation that Church and State are having.
As for the minimum wage, I am interested to hear your thoughts on the perpetual underclass, as I imagine they are probably pretty thoughtful, but I myself like the solution of having employers pay their employees whatever they like, so long as the highest-paid member of the organization doesn't make more than fifty times what the lowest paid member makes (excluding interns and aprentices, of course.) Anyway, peace on with your country and I'll peace out with mine, though I do largely agree with your Laissez Faire doctrine. I'm probably going to post soon about how fara government should ideally go in legislating industry standards.
I think we may be quibbling on terms when it comes to religion. When I say "come over for dinner," what I really mean is a set of cultural norms in which a public figure could say this:
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
I cite Lincoln precisely because he was known for his view of "religious modesty," and would not seek a situation in which any creed could be imposed.
But can you imagine any public figure giving a speech that good - but at the same time, so profoundly religious - in the present day? He would come across as some sort of religious fanatic!
The reason I think the opportunity for religiosity in the culture should be more widespread is because I believe it would throw the money-changers out.
But if religion - and even God - continues to be viewed as a "right-wing" thing, we'll continue to have Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells as the voices of 'religious' people, and the rest of us will continue to lose touch with a glorious heritage.
But I understand your concern: the risk of theocracy and fascism is too great to let this genie out of the bottle. In the end, you may be right. I just hope not.
Post a Comment
<< Home