The other day I had a conversation....

 

The other day, I had a chat with Vicki.  She noted that she didn't know when I was going over the top or whether I was being serious.  To tell the truth, I tend to do thought experiments where I take off the limits imposed by social taboos.  And people do not know what to make of me because of this.

An example of my way of thinking is allowing the public, not the politicians, to decide between two extremes of dealing with our border problems, ending political paralysis on this issue:

1. Should we increase the budgets of both border control and asylum judiciary areas, so that we can both police the border humanely and process asylum claims quickly.
   
   ---- OR ----
   
   
2.  Issue "2-legged hunting permits", and let gun happy nuts shoot bullets at illegals trying to cross the border, firing from the American side at targets on the Mexican side.
   

In short, should we force the public to make a simple choice between humane treatment of people and inhumane treatment of people.

The conversation veered into many areas, and I posed some topics that most people would consider taboo, such as:

1. Given how poorly educated the American public is, require people to have completed a high school education to gain the right to vote.  (There are many problems with this, but remember - this is a only a thought experiment.)
   
   
2. Denying people who are too poor to raise children the ability to procreate until they can show enough earning capacity to properly take care of a child.
   
   
3. Allowing prisoners the ability to vote in general elections.
   
   
4. Public executions of illegal aliens who have committed felonies.
   
   
5. Guardrails for both the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
   

There were more items on this list, but the difference between me and Vicki is a recognition that Democracy might not be the best solution for a country in certain circumstances.  I recognize that even freedom of speech may not be an absolute right.  For example, the nation of El Salvador has committed many human rights abuses in order to wrest control of the country from the gangs that previously terrorized the country.  Its popular leader is a dictator who has successfully put most of the nation's gang members into prison or forced them into exile.  My question is: How much freedom is too much freedom?  (Please note that I believe in Jeffersonian Democracy, but with the guardrails developed by Alexander Hamilton.)  Vicki can't get over the idea that certain freedoms should be checked, if only to prevent an autocrat from taking power - as Trump did on January 20th.

So I have a question:  If a well informed and well educated public is needed for a functioning democracy, how much freedom has to be taken away from people to force them to be well educated?  Sadly, I keep getting reminded of Juvenal's 6th satire:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

--- OR ---

 

Who's watching the watchmen?

If I had a better answer to this question than to trust that an educated public would do the job, I'd have solved one of the major political problems that keep perplexing us thousands of years after the question was first posed....

Faith vs. Cults

 

A little while ago, I had a conversation with a person who effectively said that religion itself was a root of evil, as it is used to control people and to do what is not in the interest of humanity.  I countered that all 3 major western faiths teach the same thing.  Then I followed that there is difference between having faith and being in a cult.  

I don't see that having a religious faith is bad, especially when a person questions and tests that faith every day.  One of the tenets of my faith is to treat others as I would have them treat me under the same circumstances.  Given that simple code of behavior, I often fall short of my ideal.  I am not perfect, so I have to accept imperfections in others. No one person has "THE" answer to life.  My faith tells me that I have "AN" answer to life. I question both my answer and people who claim to have their answers every day, so that I can improve my answer. This allows me to "live and let live" as long as that other person doesn't impinge on my life.

Contrast the above with the beliefs of a cult.  People blindly follow the directions of their leaders, not questioning whether those directions go against the official tenets of their belief structure.  The ultra orthodox in every religion tend to use extreme rules to control people, to keep them from even forming the questions that would set them on the path to unique personal faiths.  In short, this is tyranny hiding behind the label of religious freedom.

Look at the first statement in the image above: The Leader is Always Right.  Do Trump's followers ever say he is wrong about anything?  I haven't heard any of them say anything like this.  Next, look at the lack of criticism of the leader.  Isn't it amazing that GOP loyalists never question Trump's statements even when they are provable lies?  What about justification?  As much as I didn't like Hillary Clinton, I never could justify putting her, or any in the Democratic party in jail for opposing the GOP.  I could go on and on through the list, fleshing things out.  But the most important thing, as with many ultra orthodox religious followers is that they can't see themselves as part of a cult.  They see themselves as possessing the only "truth".  Everything else is a lie that must be stamped out.

Right now, we have an important choice to be made in November: Do we want to surrender our freedoms to a minority cult?  Or, do we want to preserve our freedoms, and live according to our individual faiths?  Hopefully, we will make the right choice in a few months....