Pete,
Well said. I admire
your ability to put into words very complex issues and express your opinion
without dumbing down your ideas obviously expecting that I will understand.
I am intrigued with the ideas of personal freedoms and
liberties placed against a backdrop of moral relativism and associated groups
who look for protection from others freedoms.
An example would be those that want additional resources for illegal aliens
(Texas and Kansas, maybe more states, allowing illegals to get instate tuition
and almost front of the line access to universities.)
I would break down the argument as freedom to and freedom
from. I would also go further and say
that it must be thought about as short and long term arrangements.
Most people in the US would agree that the government was
set up with rules that were limited in scope and nature and that as the
constitution states anything not listed here should be dealt with by the
states. I would take this a step further
and say that anything not directly prohibited by the constitution or the laws
of the land should then be granted to each individual to choose for
themselves. Freedom to do as one
pleases, as you said, without doing harm to others is where society should be
able to function without issue. Do no
harm is a trust that I have with everyone around me. When I drive I expect others to follow the same
rules that I am. If I start a business I
expect that my competition will adhere to the same rules that I do.
The challenge to this rule now is that people seem to want
to more clearly define what you are permitted to do rather than allow people to
make choices like how big my soda is or whether I drive an SUV or electric car
and they do so all in the name of the common good. Also larger companies not only have
advantages to economies of scale but they use the government to limit competition
by changing the rules or limiting access to their industry. Associations like the National Funeral
Directors Association limit access or create rules of governance for their
industry that limits access by requiring continuing education, licensing fees,
etc. Although we can say that these
rules help keep standards higher what changed when people were doing the same
things 100 years ago without requirements of licenses or continuing
education? Another simple example was
here is Louisiana where the legislature enacted a law that would require all
hair dressers, hair braiders, hair cutters hair anything to have a barbers
license and be educated in the field.
Why? Restrict access.
So how does the freedom to theory apply to the question of
Iraq? People in Iraq have never had
great freedoms to do anything. Access to
resources have been limited by government and so when others come in and “liberate”
them they are not sure what to do with their newfound freedom especially when
access to resources are still limited.
So ISIS comes in and sets up clear rules that must be followed and the
people in most cases fall in line because they prefer this to being left to
choose for themselves. The scriptures
say that when we lose our anchor we are driven and tossed by the waves of the
sea. Preaching of their word of Allah,
however wrong it may be, is where the people turn for solace and understanding
but they are being tossed by the waves of the sea and until they stand up for
themselves they will continue to be acted upon.
Preaching of the word of our God is more powerful than the sword and
could bring lasting peace but the people are not yet prepared to receive
it.
Unfortunately this example moves people to the freedom from
theory. This is where I believe that the
US is in most danger. Shakespeare, in
King Henry V, as mentioned in conference had the King mingling with his
soldiers to see what they thought of the war.
He found it striking that his soldiers thought the campaign good but if
not…the king was to blame not them. The
king said that although the king was in charge every man was responsible for
his own soul. I do think that people
today are looking to absolve themselves of personal responsibility by blaming others
for their personal lack of moral clarity.
Freedom from guilt when I do what everyone else is doing. My parent’s divorced so I will get divorced,
my friends living with his girlfriend so I will live with mine. Freedom from having to make a choice or
accept a consequence i.e. moral relativism is what is bringing America to its
knees.
Back to your point about the TSA or all the other alphabet
groups are viewed as bad but necessary to protect from the ills of the
world. WHO is supposed to protect me
from EBOLA and it is supposed to protect the world from Ebola. Did WHO fail?
Should it be held accountable for its failure? If it didn’t work should it still exist? The freedom from created a false sense of
security as you mentioned regarding the TSA a paper tiger.
So, short term and long term thoughts regarding freedom to
and freedom from. Short term protections
from harm while taking away freedom looks appealing, just as building a wall to
protect from oppressors feels safe but does not create lasting safety or increase
future freedom. We sacrifice short term
freedom and gain long term oppression.
As the Prophet so eloquently told the story of the Bismark,
I was struck with the simple example of being rudderless. I believe that the world is rudderless, being
blown by the waves and tossed, not being able to steer a straight course
because the world does not have a foundation.
Nephi saw this building hovering in the air and eventually he saw the
fall.
You are a great example of one who has been anchored to a
great foundation and cannot be moved by the winds and the waves.
I will figure out a new question to hit you with soon.
Scott
I am glad that I can talk to him about these things. I loved conference and all of the things that we were commanded to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment