I contend that great men should be remembered for their achievements and that the foibles of their day-to-day life should not diminish their status. Success in life is difficult to achieve – pitfalls are everywhere and everyone has a million reasons why they can’t accomplish their goals. One road to success is to emulate those that have already been there. Mentors and heroes who have defied the odds and succeeded where most have failed can be of great comfort to one in time of disillusionment.
Why then have we entered upon an era where it is almost obligatory to denigrate our heroes? My answer is that we have dispensed with principles and have entered an age of pragmatism. The consequences of the acceptance of a pragmatic world are subtle at first, almost imperceptible. A great swath of grey begins to encroach on what was once the demarcation between black and white. Certainty begins to dissolve into doubt - Confidence devolves to fear. In this world reason is supplanted with a determination to mould reality to fit our desires in spite of contradictions.
No one in a pragmatic world can stand for anything but the social caprice of the day. What is right today may be wrong tomorrow. Everyone must experiment with short-term solutions devoid of context. A pragmatic notion is held in esteem as long as one can get away with it. How could a hero survive in this world?
Heroes are discredited by the pragmatic idea of “moral equivalence”. This means that modern ideas of social conformity to which a hero may not adhere are used to discredit the hero’s achievement. This argument can also be used to explain away all manner evil in the world.
An argument of this type that I have heard stated with a straight face is: Stalin’s liquidation of thirty million people was not as bad as Hitler’s murder of ten million because he did it to achieve a noble end, where as Hitler simply was a racist. Quite a pragmatic view!
I have heard that Ronald Reagan's policies contributed to the end of the cold war but he was a fool and a liar because he tried to say he did not dye his hair. Many great heroes are dismissed simply for being dead, white and male.
Many people today accept the notion that war is bad in and of itself. They accept that terrible evil could be happening in the world, but they say war is not the answer. A good admonishment at the UN should do the trick. Mass murder may continue but at least we did not go to war. I say this line of non-thought is devoid of any understanding of the principle of self-preservation. It is a pragmatic moral-equivalence.
Heroes are invariably men of principle. They would be waffling poll readers plagued with indecision if they were not. Gandhi was a man of principle who gained independence for India and at the same time proved the humanity of British rule. Had Nazis or Communists ruled India he would have been shot on the first day of protest. Gandhi counted on the fact that the British would adhere to the principles of human decency and fair play. If he had faced pragmatists instead – well.
Cecil Rhodes was a man of principle and energy who built an empire in southern Africa. Today he is scorned as a racist and a tyrant by the mainstream. He may have employed thousands of whites and blacks where there was no work before. He may have undermined and subverted a truly racist government in the Transvaal primarily for business principles and built a country of immense wealth. He may have believed that the right to vote should be based on education achieved and not on skin colour – but today in spite of the corrupt mess that modern rulers have inflicted on southern Africa he is considered a vile evil racist. A very pragmatic view!
Western civilization was built on principles that cannot be denied without contradiction. That is why it has dominated the world. Other civilizations are awash in mysticism and emotion. Pragmatism is undermining our heroes and thus destroying the principles that we have built our civilization upon. It is with selfish intent that I ask – Have you defended your heroes today?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
hello uncle Chris!
thanks for the email concerning the update of your blog site. Unfortunately it arrived in my bulk in-box which I do not check so I've only received it today. I've heard a little bit about the allegedly heated debate going on between primarily yourself and Christine concerning one Baden Powell.
Although I haven't actually read the exchanges, it seems like your recent posting of a little piece on heroes and how modern society is allegedly committed to the merciless denigration of their memories is somewhat of a response to this debate.
As a former political science student at Concordia university, as well as a current and devoted political, social, cultural, emotional (yes, uncle, even emotional) activist, I would like to posit to you a small portion of my own response to this particular entry of yours.
Concerning Heroes:
It was interesting to note that in your piece on moral equivalence and modern judgement of heroes you did not mention any heroes such as Rev. Martin Luther King, Emily Carr, Terry Fox, Anna Mae Aquash, Plato and Socrates. Heroes and Heroines (heroes are not invariably men!) who have only ever struggled and taught to discover the truths about human kind and to further social harmony. Why? because they are not victims of scorn and ridicule in todays eyes? Because they did not rely solely o n principles that they had been raised to hold dear as the only basis for their actions? Plato and Socrates represent two of the most pragmatic philosophers in history; purely devoted to reason and the pursuit of knowledge they have been so influential in the development of the principles of western society (which you claim to maintain), that they are still taught today nearly three thousand years after they wrote.
In fact that is exactly what pragmatism means. Two synonyms of the word pragmatic are logical and down-to-earth. How can you say that "reason is supplanted with a determination to mould reality to fit our desires in spite of contradictions" and then claim that this is the result of a more pragmatic society? The definition of Pragmatism opposes it to theoretical and opinion based analysis and establishes it as the idolatry of reason! I believe that you should consult a dictionary or thesaurus.
But, word usage aside, your piece presents a vast array of other interesting claims about how we view our heroes. First, you claim that moral equivalence cannot provide a fair representational analysis of the actions of past world figures because the moral conventions of today may differ greatly from those of past societies. (at least that is the idea the term moral equivalence actually opposes; the examples you give don't really refute moral equivalence at all, especially the one a bout Reagan dying his hair...)
We are always looking to our mistakes in the past to guide us on a more effective path in the future. If we don't consider ideas such as moral equivalence it could easily be suggested China's occupation of Tibet and the destruction of thousands of Buddhist temples and the murder of thousands monks and nuns was completely fine because that was simply a reflection of moral conventions among the Chinese population at the time. Moral equivalence is not an idea presented with the goal of disc rediting heroes, uncle, it is simply a way to further define contemporary values in an effort to avoid repeating mistakes. And, again, many many heroes of the past still remain heroes of today. It seems to only be your personal heroes which are discredited by contemporary society.
Ronald Reagan for example: Although some may like to believe that he was only considered a liar for not admitted to a hair colour touch up, in fact most consider Reagan a corrupt and untruthful president for things such as the Iran-Contra affair, which saw the Reagan Government first negotiate with and sell arms to an Iran fraught with terrorism despite an arms embargo on the country (at the same time in fact selling arms also to Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq&n bsp;to support their anti Iranian campaign, and then years later began bombing the hell out of the Iraqi people in an effort to force the Hussein Dictatorship into caring for his people...) and then divert money made from that illegal endeavour to finance the Contras rebel group in Nicaragua effectively supporting more violence in a country which had just come out of a violent rebellion against a strictly right-wing dictatorship; All done in the name of "Democracy" (which actually comes from the Greek demos kratos meaning power of the people, and due to distortions in the SMP electoral systems in Canada and the United States does not actually exist in North America.)
So I'm not quite sure why you choose to hold Reagan in such high esteem for waging war against communism, especially when in the end it was in fact the diplomatic efforts of US officials with Gorbachev, which had begun long before Reagan's violent term in office, and actually came about more due to decisions by presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin to divert spending from the military to more worthy causes such as the stagnation of the Soviet economy. The same type of st agnation which the US is seeing today. Of course war has its uses and as nothing is inherently evil in and of itself, war also has value, but those such as our dear Mr. Bush ("I am a War president!")who claim that it is a useful tool for implementing change where in reality effective wealth distribution practises and programs for social/economic cohesion really are the only viable option for change, over emphasize the value of violence and power as tools to achieving peaceful resolution.
As for your mention of Ghandi as a hero, it's unfortunate that you only used Ghandi, the very symbol of Indian struggle against colonial England, as an attempt to rebuff the British colonial empire as humanistic and did not mention at all that one of the great virtues of Ghandi's legacy, and indeed that which he is best known for, was his unwavering appeal to pacifism and specifically non-violence as a means for achieving Indian s overeignty. I can only present my perception of why you feel the need to use Ghandi's memory in this way and that is perhaps that you are embarassed of your British heritage and all the issues that the British colonial legacy is linked to.
Remeber, uncle, that we are not bound to the same fate as those who came before us. We are all individuals and we all have the ability to choose which path we want to take. We do not need to confine ourselves to the examples of our predecessors, and although they may provide valuable insight into effective ways of living we must not be afraid to criticise, indeed, everywhere possible. Only through the acceptance of the mistakes of our p redecessors and ourselves can we truly appreciate the lessons they have to teach us. By no means does this lessen their value as social leaders, it only can contribute to our understanding of them and it can give us hope through the realization that mistakes are common even among our heroes; that's what truly makes them heroes. I firmly believe that many people are afraid of such self/peer analysis and often content themselves, consciously or subconsciously, with the idea that it is simpler not to deal with these kinds of issues. Inevitably the achievments and successes and pleasures which they experience end up being only superficial and short term; ultimately unsatisfying and destructive.
Adam Smith's economic vision was subject to these same kinds of insecureties and short falls. The idea that humans can follow their own desires with no consideration for the well being of others and his appeal to God and the "invisible hand" to straighten everything out is a prime example of someone who is unwilling to deeply examine how humans interact. He forgets that we are individuals with the power of choice, an that invisible hand is actually within our control, and that it will take an altruistic commitment by the academic, economic, and political communities to acheive actual distributive justice. This has not occurred. Instead we get vast economic inequality and increasing numbers of poor and mrginalized populations. All of which is within the power of humans to change simply by choosing to do so. An idealistic view? of course! But then every single institution functioning in society today is driven by the possiblilty of achieving an ideal. This ideal is one that is especially possible and only relires on the will of the individual to be realized. We know this is true because we always have the power to choose.
Along this vein, let's choose, if you will, to examine the validity of your support for the humanity of the British Empire in India. How did the british first enter the country? Throughout the 1600s many sorties were made by the East India Company to Indian Emperors in attempts to convice the nation to allow the company access to Indian lands for factories. After nearly a hundred years of setbacks and utter humiliation of the company at the hands of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, the British eventually wnt to war with India and the East India Company found themselves no more an association but rulers of a nation capable of exercising political sovereignty over a largely unknown population and culture. "British rule was justified, in part, by the claims that the Indians required to be civilized, and that British rule would introduce in place of Oriental despotism and anarchy a reliable system of justice, the rule of law, and the notion of 'fair play'. Certain Indian social or religious practices that the British found to be abhorrent were outlawed, such as sati in 1829, and an ethic of 'improvement' was said to dictate British social policies." (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/BrIndia.html)
Not very humanistic huh? The British could have easily chosen to work alongside Indian governments to establish amicable economic relations.(and some of them tried; Warren Hastings, the first governor general of India set about to make British settlers aware and repectful of Indian culture and history, but, because of his actions, upon his return to England he would be impeached for high crimes against the crown) Instead, fueled by collective c ultural insecurity, ethnocentric bias, and the temptation of a british monopoly over the resources of the area, they ended up waging war with the nation and establishing it as another colony; simply another notch in the British colonial belt.
Unfortunately, I feel I have written enough for now and I am getting tired from being at the computer for so long. I guess I'm going to have to do this in installments so Cecil Rhodes and the pinciples of Western Society will have to wait. Perhaps I'll send you more tomorrow. If you find the time to get through this, I'll let you know that I just love a good healthy debate, so please do not hesitate to write me back with a response!
much love,
gregory
Hi Gregory
You have obviously developed into an intelligent and thoughtful young man. Your parents should be very proud of your achievement. I look forward to corresponding with you in the future. Having worked for many years in sales I have learned that one of the most important tools in successful human relations is the ability to empathize with others who hold opposing points of view. This allows one to see the world from different angles and at the same time helps one develop their own philosophy of Life. In that spirit I will attempt to contrast my ideas with the points outlined in your letter.
Lord Baden-Powell is indeed one of my heroes and I think Christine did concede that he did have a few good points. I think she has more difficulty with the ambient ethos of the time than with the man. Perhaps in one hundred years when the altruistic socialism of our time is brought into disrepute men will still venerate the achievements of those who laboured under the conventions of our time.
It is enlightening that your activism, as you put it, is in support of the politics of social issues, cultural issues and special emphasis on emotion. I commend you for your consistent use of these priorities as they go a long way in explaining your conclusions. My personal motto might read: “Rational passion & passionate reason”. I know at a Metaphysical level that reality exits, that “A” is “A” as Aristotle said, because I can sense it and it adheres to rules. I try to ground all of my arguments in reality. A famous woman once said that for a proper argument to proceed both sides must accept that reality exists and the validity of reason; otherwise there is no point in continuing. I trust you adhere.
It should not surprise you that my heroes are different from yours and that I will not indulge in the modern semantics of gender. Needless to say I have many heroes who happen to be women; Eleanor of Aquitaine, Elizabeth I, Florence Nightingale, George Eliot, Victoria, Edith Cavell, Ayn Rand, and Margaret Thatcher. All of these heroes are revered for their deeds not their gender. I hope that I did not give the impression that the few examples of heroes that I named in “Feet of Clay” were my only heroes. Martin Luther King is truly a hero and at the same time is victim of the pragmatic moral-equivalence that was the main point of the article. Many modern writers have sought to diminish King because of his notorious philandering – my point is that his accomplishments should stand as a monument to the man. By the same token Emily Carr, Terry Fox and Anna Mae Aquash (I have to admit that I had to look that one up) are exemplary human spirits. Plato and his dialoguing device Socrates are truly pragmatic philosophers as you state. Plato’s theory of concepts borders on the bazaar with his “field of forms” and his parable on Atlantis verges on the occult. I would contend that history has played host to two basic philosophic visions: One reality based and the other mystical. In effect Aristotle verses Plato.
It is with the motivation you ascribe to heroes that I take umbrage. “Heroes…who have only ever struggled and taught to discover the truths about human kind and to further social harmony.” Hmm. I agree that many great men seek out quests in the name of “truth” (there is only one by the way) but to acquiesce in the name of social harmony; never! If Martin Luther King only wanted social harmony he would of packed his bags and moved to Africa. Surely King’s motivation was to upset social harmony in order to right a terrible injustice. In fairness I believe we have an issue of perspective here and what Orwell calls doublespeak. What the dictionary means by social harmony and, correct me if I am wrong, what you mean are two different things. I think you mean a more equitable distribution of wealth when you say social harmony, but I am just guessing.
There is one other area where perspective plays an important role. I can empathize with anyone who is cloistered in the ivory tower of academia that believes the delivering of “scorn and ridicule” to be from a single point-of-view – or seen through “today’s eyes”. Perhaps those who disagree do not exist within the hallowed halls.
Pragmatism
First, “logical” is not a synonym for the word pragmatic. The term is derived from a Greek word meaning action from which our words “practice” and “practical” come. It was first introduced into philosophy by Charles Peirce in 1878 and expanded upon by William James. The philosophy of Pragmatism dispenses with principles and judges actions by their outcomes. This by necessity involves experimentation and a short-term outlook. I would suggest reading Essays in Pragmatism by William James. Pragmatism would in fact encourage theoretical analysis and opinions that would be free of the constraints of principles. Without a logical deduction that is grounded in an axiom Pragmatism would hardly be considered “the idolatry of reason”.
I suggest that moral-equivalence has nothing what so ever to do with learning from the past. It is merely a method used to discredit or justify an action or event. Moral-equivalence means that an often-unrelated issue is twined together with a perceived good or perceived evil in order to neutralize it in an argument. I do agree with George Santayana that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” but this has nothing to do with a device called moral-equivalence. Your citing of China’s occupation of Tibet is odd because it is a classic case of a pragmatic moral-equivalence used to disarm any opposition. The communists used Marxist ideology to justify the brutal pacification of Tibet. The evil of the invasion was mollified by the blessings of global communism – a very pragmatic moral-equivalence. I do agree that the use and acceptance of moral-equivalence arguments does define the predominant trends in our time. It is a barometric reading of how far we are willing go in our evasion of reality. Also, since there is no such person as “contemporary society” it cannot discredit my heroes. Only individuals presenting sound arguments grounded in reality can discredit anything. I do not believe that “fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”.
Ronald Reagan
Though it may be hard for some to remember the world lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation for the better part of forty years after World War Two. The Cold War was a clash of ideologies that split the world into opposing camps and was played out in countless subversions and intrigues. Soviet Russia had launched massive propaganda campaigns, armed and organized revolutions throughout the third world, and built up the largest military machine in history. As the leading nation in the West the United States had to confront an evil that was equal in every way to Nazi Germany. The defeat of Soviet Russia was always the top strategic consideration during the cold war. John Foster Dulles had defined the policy that the West would implement in the 1950’s to respond to what was then called the Domino theory. His plan was to draw a line in the sand and contain the Soviets on the other side. This meant that the West would have to put out fires everywhere in the world that the communists tried to subvert. Ronald Reagan became President at a time when the United States looked like it was loosing the Cold War. The country was still reeling from the defeat in Vietnam and had lost confidence in itself under President Carter. In Iran Americans were being held hostage and there seemed at the time that there was nothing they could do about it. Reagan changed everything. His uncompromising position with regard to Iran forced the Ayatollahs to release the hostages just before he was sworn in as President. He met the Soviets aggressively everywhere in the world and instilled a new confidence in the West. Reagan believed that the Soviet economy was their weakest area and he concentrated on pushing it beyond its capabilities until it collapsed. His massive defensive build-up which concentrated on high technology weaponry forced the Soviets to respond with ever more military spending. It did not take long for the Soviet people to start feeling the shortages and the strain forced the Russians to retreat from many of their offensive operations around the world. Freedom movements began to appear everywhere and finally in Poland the first Soviet withdrawal was observed. The Soviet Union itself began to implode and finally collapsed. A combination of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul had defeated the once mighty and terrifying Soviet Empire. This is why Reagan is a hero to all people who truly love freedom, especially those who live in the former Warsaw Pact countries.
The Economy
The economy is where the rubber meets the road. I suspect that you are in favour of using government force to redistribute wealth. My position is one of individual liberty and market based Capitalism. I contend that no other system in history has been able to create wealth at all levels of society as quickly and as fairly as Capitalist economies do. It is a meritocracy where success is rewarded and each is free to find his own level. The reason why Capitalism is so successful is that it complies with basic human nature. Man must use his mind in order to survive and in order for his mind to function efficiently he must be free. A man cannot be coerced to think. One of the reasons why the Communist system will never out perform a Capitalist system is that the workers see no point in succeeding.
The British Empire
I am an unreserved supporter of the British Empire and I shudder to think what the world would be like without its influence. I am curious as to why you feel that there was a great struggle in India against what you call colonial rule. Perhaps the context of British control of India should be judged against world events. You see the British took control of India not to dominate the Indians but because they were involved in a world war against the French. The Seven Years War saw the Conquest of North America and India by the British. It is doubtful that India would have been a united and developed country had it not been for the defeat of the French. With the decline of the Mogul Empire India resembled a collection of failed states and cried out for the just rule of law. In all of history I cannot think of a more successful partnership than the Indian Raj. For almost two hundred years the British ruled India with no more violent rebellions than say Canada had. It is instructive that during the peak of the so called struggle against colonial rule the Indian Empire fielded a vast professional army under British command that drove the Japanese out of Burma during World War II. General Slim said that the Indians were the most loyal and the most effective troops under his command. I still stand by my earlier statement that if it were the Communists or Nazis who ruled India, Ghandi would have been killed on the first day of protest.
Being a rational libertarian it would be absurd to believe in something as mystical as fate. When I suggested that one path to success was to model the behaviour of those that have already been there, I certainly did not intend to imply that one is “confined” to that path. Surely it would be foolish to propose that we should not learn from the mistakes of others. The battleground in which we clash is here today. The Ideas that will affect our lives are debated today. Those of us that believe man must be free in order to prosper are very aware of tactics used by collectivists and mystics to encroach on that liberty. It is the dominant philosophy of pragmatism that allows abominations like Communism, Nazism and the Welfare State to take root. If one dispenses with principles there is no protection for freedom and the collectivist experimenters will eat away at the foundations of its superstructure. That is why we must protect the legacy of great individuals from the pragmatic moral-equivalence attacks that modern statist’s from the Left and the Right make upon them.
One must be very brave to take on the solid logic of Adam Smith’s economic system. His device of the “invisible hand” is simply a metaphor to illustrate the consequences of ones actions. Smith is warning that those who experiment with the economy may be met with unintended penalties. An example would be the use of government force to redistribute wealth. The high taxes would cause a flight of capital to a freer jurisdiction and slow the economy providing less money to redistribute. This is one reason that collectivists seek to dominate the world; (i.e. Global communism) so that there is nowhere for capital to flee.
You have shown your predisposition when you claim that you can control the “invisible hand”. Many have tried to do this in the past and have suffered the consequences. I presume when you say individuals you mean the collective power of government. This puts you in a benevolent oligarchy that dispenses its paternalistic prescriptions to who ever it wants. Sounds like the Liberal party of Canada to me. However, “show me a young man who is a conservative and I will show you a young man without a heart”. As you will learn someday the other half of this quote still holds true.
If you truly want to lift the prospects for the poor in the world you should be promoting freedom and drastically limited government interference in the lives of its citizens. The countries that have the highest standard of living, pollute the least, and have people knocking on their doors to immigrate to are the freest Capitalist countries. I say be an idealist for freedom! Don’t idealize the use of government force to provide a short cut to “distributive justice”.
I hope that you will come over to light and fight collectivism wherever you find it.
Peace and Love
Uncle Chris
Just going over my notes here I noticed that you mention that the British outlawed Sati in 1829. I wonder if you know that Sati meant that if a women’s husband died she would be burned to death on his funeral pyre.
Banning this barbarity seems very humane to me.
CJB
I must say I really am a simpleton. You guys are much too smart for me to keep up with. I think I suffer from the isolation of my training and work environment. My sphere of thought is gradually expanding though as I get further away from residency. I think it took me 5 years to resist picking up a textbook instead of a novel or magazine when I had a bit of spare time. Health care workers and patients are such a negative lot too. Its colours your outlook somewhat.
Its seems to me, Fistis, that your definition of freedom must be different than mine or Gregory's (although I don't want to speak for him). The underlying theme with regard to freedom seems to come down to the unfettered ability to pursue one's ambitions unencumbered by rule or restriction. While an important consideration, I think there are many components to freedom to consider. As an example, consider the US and Canada. I consider us to be much more free than them. While an entrepreneur may have a slight economic advantage in the US, in many other areas we have a distinct advantage contributing to our quality of life. Freedom from fear, freedom from crime, freedom from religion and freedom of religious expression. Literacy, educational opportunity, cultural and environmental diversity. Space, resources, and best of all,relatively few people. All these things contribute to our state of well being and allow us to pursue our ambitions and objectives despite the hoops and obsticles governments may put in our path.
How come we're so much better than the US? Because we have embraced democracy and capitalism not as an ideology but as a means to an end. Common sense rules. Capitalist economies work and provide a broad spectrum of benefit to a large spectrum of the economy. But there will always be the weaker and the feebler and the lazy. Not recognizing that and adopting an extremist religious capitalist ferver where interfering with the pursuit of wealth is almost a crime, and violent reprisal is a constitutional right, creates an undercurrent of resentment and ultimately crime. We're a freer society because we have chosen to protect our basic rights and freedoms with social programs, not guns. Obviously this isn't perfect and its a recipe for abuse, but its the middle road which has always been the best. The ultimate alternative is nicely described in Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crake" (Fistis, ever read an Atwood novel?) Pleeblands for the multitudes of scum and enclosed, protected, environmentally pure comunities for the successful few.
My feeling is that pure capitalism is an ideology that can only work when combined with compassion( and democracy). Capitalism without compassion feeds greed and is ultimately exploited. Why has capitalism been so successful in turning around Ireland yet it creates sess pools of corruption and exploitation in Africa and parts of Asia? Democracies demand accountability. Governments that want to be re elected know that protecting the rights of their citizens with standards and regulations is good for all. Without that accountability they simply make deals with the corporate giants to share the profits and keep the poor underfoot. People can't be counted on to be compassionate. The unfortunate reality is that we need governments to set the standards to protect the pleebs of the world. As an individual this does nothing to get in my way. Failure to achieve success has more to do with your definition of success and your dedication to your goals than any tax or regulation a government puts in your way.
Well, much less eloquent than you guys but at least its a contribution.
Phil
Dear Phil,
I feel obliged to comment on some of your debating observations. I think that you are probably that last person that I know that can lay claim to the title of simpleton. With regard to patients being a negative lot, I guess upon some recollection, if bitching is negative, I have been guilty.
I don't really think your definition of freedom is very different from Chris's. Freedom to my mind, is the ability to choose a course of action which you judge to be the most beneficial for yourself at the same time respecting the rights and property of all other individuals. This is the principle on which the laws of the land should be based. Respect for the rights of the individual creates order, fairness and equity. Your reference to comparative freedoms in the US and Canada confuses individual freedoms with circumstances that many in the US have no control. Freedom from fear and crime is not something that those who live on the lower east side of Vancouver can boast. Ask the Jews in Toronto if they are free from anti-Semitic abuse. You are certainly right when you say these freedoms contribute to our well being but these benefits could well be temporary.
Our government in Canada has lost track of what we should expect our government to provide. Security, protection of our land base, health care and care for the sick and aged (the last being very important). There are other elemental benefits I'm sure that I have not mentioned but on the other hand there are some in which I believe the government has no business being involved. The one that comes to mind first is day care. They think they can look after our children better than we can. This is a parents responsibility. All they have to do is leave us with enough money to do the job. Can you think of any personal aspect of our life that the government has taken over that we as individuals(the writer excepted) couldn't have done a better job. Human resources, gun registry, golf balls, Indian affairs, dozens of un auditable slush funds, it's all our money. Martin would like us to think he's a great guy by handing out great gobs of our money to buy support. All it tells me is that he has no concern for most of the citizens of Canada, the ones who pay the bills.
Yes, we may be better off than the Americans now, but it's not because we practice democracy in a better fashion. There is nothing closer to a dictator that the Prime Minister of Canada. We've been very lucky and we still get a chance for a change every four years. You say "common sense" rules. Who's common sense, not mine. I'd do a lot of things very differently. There will always be the weak and the feeble and we must look after them. As for the lazy, one of the rules that came done from the mountain top was "Thou shalt not steal". What right do the lazy have to live off of the labour of others. That is stealing. I'm not talking about a helping hand when it's needed but we do not owe anyone a living if they are able to work and will not.
We would be a more free society today if we truly did protect our human rights and exact recognition of the obligations that accompany those rights. Nobody ever talks about the other side of the coin, the obligations. No need to comment on abuse of the system. We read about it every day in the paper. I haven't read Margaret Atwood and I don't know which society your quote refers to but I don't see multitudes of scum, and I see some protected communities which are not particularly environmentally pure. In BC we experienced eight years of a socialist government. They virtually bankrupted the economy. People moved out of the province in droves. Freebees everywhere if you were a teacher, a government employee, a union member but soon the recipients of all the easy money started to out number the workers who contributed to the tax base. Businesses went broke, capital refused to come into the province, workers were laid off. In the last four years we have had a government that recognized that business has to make a profit. Capital has started to move back into the province and we have the highest GDP growth in the country. We have a balanced budget. The citizens of BC are now better off and it's getting better. Mind you, we have a provincial election on Tuesday next week. All those that used to have the freebees want the old days back. I don't really trust voters. They're all dreaming of Utopia. Yes wouldn't it be loverly.
You mentioned that capitalism was successful in turning Ireland around but not in Africa. Well of course, Ireland is a Democracy. If you have people who steal all the money the population will not benefit.
"Democracies demand accountability" hey, that my line.
People can be counted on to be compassionate. As an example, half the world and certainly Canadians came to the assistance of the unfortunate Tsunami victims in south east Asia.
Yes, success is many things to many people. Real success is having a happy life. Everyone strives to reach that goal in their own way.
Cheers
Dad
Post a Comment