At it's worst, the blog world is basically a collection of pointless noise, where the bloggers are preaching to the converted, and, quite often, throw around invective and insult at the "others" with whom they disagree with little point or purpose.
However - at it's best, it gives us a forum to both learn more about the society around us, and to engage in discussion, sometimes spirited, about matters of interests and importance to society to help us mold our own views, and, if we're really lucky, in a manner that perhaps helps others to mold their views in a way which is more thoughtful and more useful than "my party says it's good, so it's good".
So - today, I've had a bit of a discussion with Ti-Guy regarding my concerns in my previous blog, and concepts of personal liberty. And he makes, actually, a pretty interesting observation, while perhaps not completely original, is still very worth thinking about:
Ti-Guy:
One way of re-orienting the imagination with respect to freedom is to realise that your rights are *not* inalienable or fundamental. They're not rights at all. They're social conventions and require constant vigilance and concerted action in order to be protected.
The last eight years (illegal surveillance, rendition, secret prisons, official propaganda passed off as 'news', 'free speech zones', systemic corruption and rampant conflict of interest, etc. etc.) have taught me that. There's been no bigger fraud perpetrated on the average North American democrat than the one that has convinced them that their rights are something no one can take away from them.
Sure, it'd be great if that were true, but unfortunately, it isn't and never will be.
In some respect, he is exactly correct. Just belonging to a society requires that we relinquish some of our personal freedom to provide for the common benefit of that society. I don't have freedom to kill my neighbor. My neighbor doesn't have freedom to steal my car. As society becomes more complex, this social contract becomes more abstract and less personal. If I wish to have a road to drive my car on, I must give up some of my income, even against my will, to allow for that common benefit, and I don't have the choice to say, "but I don't drive a car".
However - that being said, I think Ti-Guy's point is perhaps too defeatist.
I still believe that "they" are "us".
In other words, the governemnt exists, still, as a servant of the people, and fundamentally, our freedoms, at least in a democratic society, cannot be "taken away", they can only be given away.
So - the good news is, we have the power, collectively, to take them back.
And I'm not talking about some anarchists or pure libertarians view of "freedom". I'm talking about an ordered society, where there are rules of conduct and obligation towards eachother.. but not to the extent that we allow wiretapping, surveilance of internet activity, presumptions of guilt before innocence, untrammelled police power.. all in the effort to "protect" us.
Newsflash. The world is not, and will never be, perfectly safe.
My buddy saw a kid on a big-wheel yesterday, wearing a bike helmet. The kid is 6" off the ground and her parents force her to wear a bike helmet.
Is this where we are going? A society of big wheelers wearing bike helmets? Please.
Truly, to live, we have to every once in a while, get on a skateboard. And as Stephen King points out in his novel, "The Stand";
You can't be careful on a skateboard, man.
3 comments:
In other words, the government exists, still, as a servant of the people, and fundamentally, our freedoms, at least in a democratic society, cannot be "taken away", they can only be given away.
Well, that's the theory. But in reality, you don't have anything to either give away or to have taken from you. That how symbolic entities such as freedom and rights and other such things work.
I'm making a very picky, conceptual point here, but it's one I think, in this era of "universal human rights" that we need to understand. All of those transgressions I mentionned above, you'll note, have been accomplished legally, as far as we know and likely will ever know, as least until revealing the truth no longer matters.
No question, TG, it's "legal", and, as I state, it's really self-imposed.
Look to the U.S., one government condones waterboarding, the next doesn't.. and really, it's an exercise of the will of the electorate that imposes that.
Two problems though:
a) There is an unhealthy trust in government in Canada, I think, which I think relates to the desire to be "taken care of"; and
b) There really isn't a strong independant press in this country that makes the government accountable, that discloses the "truth" in the way the fifth estate is supposed to.. which is why I'm much less critical of the demand for a free press than, say, BCL..
a) There is an unhealthy trust in government in Canada, I think, which I think relates to the desire to be "taken care of"...
The alternative libertarians usually promote is a kind of paranoia with respect to government, which I think is worse than an unhealthy trust, since it's not usually supported with compelling evidence and is ultimately, unedifying and dreary. What we should be going for is healthy skepticism. And since that requires being informed, too many people just can't be bothered.
There really isn't a strong independant press in this country that makes the government accountable, that discloses the "truth" in the way the fifth estate is supposed to.. which is why I'm much less critical of the demand for a free press than, say, BCL.
You've gotten the argument wrong. The critique of the press is not an assault on press freedom, but on the press's irresponsibility, which is amplified by convergence and corporatism.
I wish you would try to understand that.
Post a Comment