Politik
Here in America, it is taken for granted that capitalism is the ideal form of government, the right way to run a country. But we Americans usually don't give it much thought...really, any thought we do give it ends up answering the question "What is good about our way of government?", rather than "Is this the best form of government?".
I cannot help but feel injustice has been commited when I juxtapose the American aristocrat's mansion with the failing school that, if he so chose, he could revive; is it immoral for one man to have so much money, at the expense of so many others? It seems on the surface that it is right for a man to be allowed to keep what he has worked for... yet he is accountable to no one. He wallows in rediculous luxury, whilst others live hungry and lack good education- the life and time of so many are wasted, at the expense of a single man being pampered... this scenario is not limited to one instance.
Assuming it is wrong for one man to live in luxury at the expense of another's poverty, two questions arise: (1) does our government say we should force others to be moral? & (2) should we force others to be moral?
To what degree does our government go to enforcing morality on it's citizens?
"America has roughly 300 million people, and ther are roughly 6 billion people on the earth- that makes us a little less than 5% of the population. Yet we have a hugely disproportional amount of wealth. 'The plain fact is that we arestarving people, notdeliberately in the sense thatwe want them to die, butwilfully in the sense that weprefer their death to our owninconvenience."
--Victor Gollancz
On a similar note:
America has taken over the world; it may not seem that way in a strictly beurocrtic sense, but all nearly all countries have accepted our standard of economics, and our measuring stick for success: money. In turn, the world revolves around us- we defined success as what we do best, and that's be materialistic. Since everyone else has agreed to play by our rules, we're on top.
I do not lack questions, but answers are a rare find.
L.
I cannot help but feel injustice has been commited when I juxtapose the American aristocrat's mansion with the failing school that, if he so chose, he could revive; is it immoral for one man to have so much money, at the expense of so many others? It seems on the surface that it is right for a man to be allowed to keep what he has worked for... yet he is accountable to no one. He wallows in rediculous luxury, whilst others live hungry and lack good education- the life and time of so many are wasted, at the expense of a single man being pampered... this scenario is not limited to one instance.
Assuming it is wrong for one man to live in luxury at the expense of another's poverty, two questions arise: (1) does our government say we should force others to be moral? & (2) should we force others to be moral?
To what degree does our government go to enforcing morality on it's citizens?
"America has roughly 300 million people, and ther are roughly 6 billion people on the earth- that makes us a little less than 5% of the population. Yet we have a hugely disproportional amount of wealth. 'The plain fact is that we arestarving people, notdeliberately in the sense thatwe want them to die, butwilfully in the sense that weprefer their death to our owninconvenience."
--Victor Gollancz
On a similar note:
America has taken over the world; it may not seem that way in a strictly beurocrtic sense, but all nearly all countries have accepted our standard of economics, and our measuring stick for success: money. In turn, the world revolves around us- we defined success as what we do best, and that's be materialistic. Since everyone else has agreed to play by our rules, we're on top.
I do not lack questions, but answers are a rare find.
L.
posted by Lacking Latin at 11:50 AM
2 Comments:
i don't think
it's the government's place
to govern morality
humans
should not be given power
over the moral and ethical choices
of other humans
that those humans did not give them in the first place.
That is, parents and mentors and accountability partners are great,
but presidents telling you to pray and give this much
not okay.
However, tax cuts for giving to charities
and other such incentives
are bueno.
I believe so, anyway.
That is to say, then, that you are an anarchist; for a government cannot help but by it's very existence establish a certain value as the highest value, and then build a code to support it.
And surely that code would be called a system of morals?
Not to say that being an anarchist is a bad thing... I simply wanted to platform off of your comment to make a point.
Post a Comment
<< Home