|
Zonie63 -> RE: REAL FREEDOM (5/30/2013 8:34:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I really think this is the key. Finding a way to find the balance. Of course, this is where the rubber meets the road because not everyone believes that there should even be balance. I'm wondering about whether there is some way to identify what correlates with a belief in balance vs. a belief in maximum freedom to the individual vs. belief in maximum freedom to society. In other words, is it "empathy", "compassion" or some other trait that enables people to seek balance on the freedom scale. Is it "selfishness" that makes people want only to maximize individual freedom? And if these beliefs are associated with other personality traits that we have, will we ever get the selfish to believe in balance?
Perhaps the first step towards the answers you are seeking is to accept that the answers will be inevitably culturally influenced.
For example, people in Asia tend to place a lot less emphasis on the notion of the Individual, and to accord much more respect and deference to hierarchies than Westerners do. When I was in Japan I was surprised to hear the Western pursuit of unlimited individuality described as 'selfishness'. The Japanese I was talking to felt that the individuals concerned had an obligation to contribute their best to society, and that their failure to do so, and putting their own needs and desires first was selfish.
All of which raises a rather tricky question: Are our concepts such as individuality and universal human rights really just another product of Western culture with limited application to non-Western cultures? Or do they embody truly universal values? Are there ways of organising the relationship(s) between a person and the society they live in other than codifying it into laws and legal obligations, duties and rights?
I agree that finding the balance is the key. I've heard the term "hyperindividualism" to describe individualism going to excess.
In America, we tend to believe that our freedom can only be taken away by governments, so the idea of limiting government makes sense from that point of view. Culturally, we seem to champion the mavericks and wild ducks more than yes men. The heroes in our culture are those who still do the right thing while thumbing their noses at the hierarchy (within certain boundaries, of course). Whether a lone gunfighter, rogue supercop, or a "dirty dozen" of misfits coming together for a righteous cause, they don't seem to have much respect or deference to any hierarchy - although some might see them as operating according to a higher set of principles.
I think selfishness and greed can exist in any society, although perhaps they have a greater sense of community obligation in other countries. Or perhaps they just have a greater sense of community in general, whereas in America, we don't really seem to have that anymore. It's really more of a dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself mentality that pervades our culture. Those who can't go it alone or need help from the community are perceived as weak, leading some to ask questions like "Why should my tax dollars go to support ________?"
The other dimension to this is that, given what we already know about our culture of individualism and selfishness, it is generally assumed that those individuals who work in government are also a part of that culture. Ideally, I'd like to think that people enter government service out of a sense of dedication and obligation to contribute to their society, but that hardly seems to be the case nowadays. Even setting aside whatever corruption exists in government, there's just a general sense of inertia caused by overpaid bureaucrats just marking time until they can start collecting their bloated government pensions. Experience has shown that whatever money gets put into healthcare, education, or any other useful purpose, much of the money gets siphoned off at the administrative level before it finally trickles down to where it's actually supposed to go. (Even private charities and religious organizations seem to have similar problems, so that seems a questionable option as well.)
I think that tends to reinforce the idea that it's really government itself that needs to be reined in. Whatever laws and legal obligations that are imposed on the common citizenry are meaningless until the government applies the same laws and principles to itself.
I don't know how they do it in Japan or Denmark. Maybe there's less corruption there and less of a sense of bureaucratic privilege and entitlement than we have over here. Maybe they're able to police their system better and weed out the bad apples before they stink up the whole barrel.
But overall, I don't get any sense that government employees have any sincere dedication or desire to serve the public interest. I don't think they're all on the take, but everything seems to be about them - their salaries, their benefits, their pensions - very little about what they're willing to do for the money they earn, and absolutely zero sense of community obligation.
We still have plenty of people with empathy and compassion, and a sincere desire to contribute to their communities. But I can see where there would be plenty of others who might feel it all a wasted effort, as they don't want to rock the boat and "you can't fight city hall," as the saying goes. Empathy can turn to apathy rather quickly under these conditions. Just get whatever you can for yourself and screw everybody else.
I don't know of any quick fix here. I'm not sure if it's a systemic issue either. That is, I don't think we can just copy the system of another country and expect it to have the same results here. I don't think we have any real sense of community anymore. The NIMBYs rule the roost.
|
|
|
|
