Insurrection Erection

The beautiful lady liberty.

As far as we know, the Greeks where the first to attempt a democracy. A few individuals used force of arms to cease power and become a “tyrant”. A tyrant is one who "rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics against his own people as well as others". Tyrants did not have congresses or courts. Tyrants gain power and used power by raw force. In the United States, the closest we ever had to a tyrant was Abraham Lincoln because he issued orders putting aside many personal freedoms in a time of civil war. John WilkesBooth, who theatrically portrayed my namesake Mark Anthony, declared “Sic semper tyrannis” (thus always tyrants) before inflicting a mortal wound upon that president.

Factually inaccurate

To say our current president is a tyrant is incorrect in fact, theory, and ethics. No rational definition of Barack Obama's behavior can even remotely construe him as a tyrant. Staying within the boundaries of law, no matter how unpopular the action, does not make one a tyrant. There is no credible evidence that Barack Obama is attempting to use the power of our government for the betterment of himself or his family. We still have civil order and reports of the raw use of force upon our citizens are either lies or fanciful exaggerations.

There are many today who believe they have a right to keep and bear arms, our constitutions 2nd amendment, so that the general population can be armed to overthrow a tyrannical government. Talk in some corners has been escalating with angry words and fierce intention. Handguns, rifles, and other personal firearms and ammunition are selling out across the land. People dress in camouflage and train in militias, holding the desire to violently overthrow our constituted government.

Advocating armed revolution

There are those among us who are angrily considering an armed revolution. Using phrases like “the blood of tyrants” and “from my cold dead hands” they talk with one another angrily. Murmurs and rumors are reverberating in coffee cafe's and internet forums. Men speak of their handguns. Descriptions of how to make booby-traps and roadside bombs are written. Serious thought is even going on about how to wage a new civil war in some quarters.

Childish patriotism

This use of the word “tyrant” is similar to what children do with other bad words on an elementary school playground. A part of freedom is the right to dislike or even hate our current leader. A part of freedom is to hold non-factual opinions. A part of freedom is right to call out “bullsh*t” on those who have non-factual opinions. We do not, nor have we ever had, a real tyrant. Those who think we do, are ignorant of what tyranny is and I am calling “bullsh*t” on you.

Comparing our current government to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao has no factual credence. Hitler ordered the death of 6 million Jews and launched a war that sucked in the whole world. Obama has peacefully ended one war and is almost stopped another. Stalin forcibly relocated 20 million people, many who starved to death for the good of the “state”. Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president in our history. Mao forced his entire population to quit their jobs and wear the same exact uniform in his “Great Leap Forward”. Obama sends bills to congress and argues laws under a constitutional framework, soliciting the opinions of its citizens in a civil manner. I am no big fan of President Obama., but to say he is a tyrant and to compare him to men of great evil is to speak with ignorance and talk like a fool.

"I, Mark Anthony Bloom, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

We are citizen soldiers

Since 1789, members of my family have sworn this oath. We have served in the Navy, Marines, and Army as enlisted men. My daughter's family arrived on these shores as pilgrims on the Mayflower. When we swear allegiance, we have some history. When we swear allegiance, we mean it. Those who would oppose our country by force of arms fit the precise dictionary definition of traitors; being “persons who betray a friend, country, and principle”.

In 1979, while most of my friends were either in college or working their first low paying jobs out of high school, I was sitting in a tank gunnery range close to the border of what was then Eastern Germany. We knew that Soviet observers watched us. It was a Cold War, where we were training in full view of our enemies so maybe they would not start World War 3.

Old fashion armor

If you have ever been near a main battle tank when it fires, you know that the biggest bang from a firework show is tiny pop. Fifty yards away you can feel the ground shake under your feet as high explosive race out of the 105mm barrels of the M60A3 weapon. Its laser rangefinder and ballistic computer made this weapon deadly accurate at over two miles. Young testosterone filled gunners often bragged “If we can see it, we can kill it.” The M60A3 has been out of service for many years now, replaced by the much faster, more accurate, longer ranged, and highly dependable M1 Abrams main battle tank.

Our armed forces then used what is called the “Combined Arms Doctrine”. This method of warfare integrated different branches of a military; infantry, tanks, and helicopters in combination, supporting each other in swiftly deadly fashion. This doctrine and its weapons have been able to overcome every military force that dared go against it. Most recently in Iraq, new weapon and information systems have reduced highly trained armies quickly and efficiently.

Apache helicopter

Since my time in the United States armed forces, the weapons and tactics, doctrine and planning have become highly experienced in waging war and controlling populations of armed citizens who oppose them. In Iraq and Afghanistan their ability to overcome insurgencies of armed militias has been tested with hard won practice.

Any person or group in our country who thinks that their second amendment rights are about the ability to overthrow our government by force of arms do not understand the nature of modern warfare. Even if some portion of the soldiers were to revolt and take military weapons with them, they would quickly overcome by loyal, oath abiding citizen-soldiers using drones, satellites, helicopters, aircraft carriers, submarines, and secret intelligence capabilities most do not know exist.

Musketted soldiers

The days of muskets, when a civilian population could overthrow their government by force are gone. The technology of war has changed so radically since the founders that their original intent is archaic in today's world.

Our honorable National Guard is the closest we can come to having what our constitutions framers meant when they wrote “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” for the purpose of overthrowing our government if it every does become tyrannical. Even the best commercially available automatic weapons and high explosives are inconsequential for the purpose of combating our own military.

The National Guard uses cast off weapons systems from our active Army. The National Guard is almost uniformly loyal to the constitutional power our voted in government. The National Guard is not capable of overthrowing the government by use of force.

The right way to change government

For change in our government, we must rely on civic and peaceful means. Voting, organizing, rallies, demonstrations, standing in the town square and yelling at the top of your lungs are all reasonable methods for us to change our government. Force of arms no longer works to this end.

To those citizens of our beloved land, who are angry and wish to take up arms against the current government I say; take a step back, calm down and rethink. Please do not take up arms against your homeland because you dislike its political direction. Please do not cause the death of innocents in your emotionally fearful state of mind. Please do not throw your life away against a machine you do not comprehend. Please find a way to get along and move on until the next election when we can together decide what to do next.

Gunning for You

I like guns. I shoot guns. I like wild venison and duck meat. I've had a gun near my pillow to protect me and mine from a perceived threat. I was a soldier who learned to operate, maintain and repair many kinds of weapons. I have been in the position where I had to consider taking another man's life away for a purpose. I never want to do that unless I have no other alternative. Nor, I hope, do you.

Hunting for food and sport

In my country we are now having a debate about restricting gun ownership. We can agree that we want to feel safe.  We can agree we do not want to be the victim of violent crime. We do not agree how to become safe and limit crimes.

The side against gun ownership is attempting to limit the access to certain types of firearms. To summarize their intention would be to say that guns do harm and that limitation of guns will limit the harm guns do.

The side for gun ownership wants to expand the number of guns. To summarize this position is to say that people need to protect themselves from crime and enemies domestic and foreign; more guns mean less harm.

Study with an open mind

A part of maturity and wisdom, in my opinion, is the ability to put aside my preconceptions and go seek information.  Researching facts allows me to become more educated and thereby have a more informed opinion. Below I try to share what I found. Maybe it can help you see better too.

This question of limiting access to certain kinds of weapons is nothing new. In feudal Japan there was an attempt to limit access to military grade weapons by only allowing Samurai to carry them. The British have long banned the carrying of firearms. Since the early history of the United States there have been attempts at limiting access to weapons starting at least with Andrew Jackson's presidency around 1830.

St. Valentines Day Massacre

During the Prohibition era, gangsters began to use some of the first automatic firearms with criminal intent. The Valentine's Day massacre became a public focus point resulting in the National Firearms Act of 1934 when fully automatic weapons became heavily regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Even with those provisions being stopped and started, strengthened and weakened over time, the United States is commonly understood to have the least limitations of weapon ownership of any modern industrialized country on the planet.

Chemical weapons
should not be common

There is ample history of weapons' bans to draw upon in order to understand its effectiveness. However, much of research being done has NOT been from the objective view of “what are the facts so we can form opinions” but rather from the subjective view of “here is my opinion and the facts I found to back it up.” This makes finding studies with true objective analysis difficult at best.

Perhaps the most widely accepted objective studies involved using statistical analysis comparing gun ownership, level of gun controls, and crime rates.  The study was conducted in 1980 on 170 cities with 100,000 or more people. The results of this study was reported in the peer reviewed Journal of Quantitative Criminology. The models covered violent crime which frequently involve guns: homicide, suicide, fatal gun accidents, robbery, and aggravated assaults, as well as rape. It found the following seemingly confusing results:

• The number of guns did not increase the number of violent crimes
• When crime rates increased, more people acquired guns
• Gun control did not decrease the number of guns
• Gun control generally has no effect on violence rates

From this study, it is possible to conclude that gun control doesn't operate like the pro-gun or anti-gun debaters think. Below is an attempt to outline the finding, not justify it, so that we can consider our actions to reduce violence with better data.

Capone was just violent

Guns do not cause crime – The finding suggested that limiting access to guns will not decrease the number of violent crimes. Crimes occur for reasons having nothing to do with the weapons themselves. Violent crimes will occur because of other factors. We cannot then take the view that if we take away the guns we will be safer. Our wish to become safer by removing the weapons simply doesn't hold up, no matter what our intuition tells us.

Fear desires protection

Crime scares people – When we feel threatened, we protect ourselves. Purchasing or acquiring a weapon of violence makes us feel safer. It doesn't matter if we know how to use it, but the knowledge that a weapon is available to us reduces our fear of violence. This is a personal, internal experience of how human beings react to threats.

Gun smuggling

People will get guns – Attempts to take away weapons from law abiding citizens or potential criminals does not work. Both the lawful and criminal citizens will find ways to subvert the law and acquire the weapons they desire. The number of guns in a population is not related to the laws governing them. This process works much like the bans on alcohol or drugs; measures of law do not stop us from obtaining the things we desire.

Shoot out

Violence happens for other reasons - Human motivation for doing crime comes from other factors besides guns. People can be greedy, mean, unbalanced, over-emotional, impulsive, hyperactive, sensation seeking, and risk taking. These internal reasons that are in people drive them to commit criminal acts.  These motivations have no relation to the tools for violence at their disposal. The gun does not cause the crime, the person does.

Learning non-violent methods

In summary, more guns does not work and less guns does not work.  Our feeling of being protected is important to us.  Stopping violence is not about guns.  It would appear that both sides to this argument are wrong and right. Our intuitions about guns and violence could lead us to make bad choices that will not get the result of reduced violence we desire.

I have not been able to find an answer to how to reduce violent crime. This would appear to be a much harder problem than the pro- or anti- guns sides think.  Perhaps violence reduction can be found in other laws or in education. 

Learning about the
proper use of weapons

We can to find ways to identify people who would commit violent acts.  We can then reduce their motivations and lessen the number of crimes.

Education may also hold the key. We can education ourselves to prevent violence.  We can educate ourselves on the proper use of firearms.

I like guns. I shoot guns. I want the right to own them. I also want to be responsible and practical and decent to my fellow man. I don't fear my neighbors, rather try to love them. Even the ones who are not so nice.

Beyond the Book

“I read a book, Grandma.” gushed the young boy.

“Good for you, Enoch!” exclaimed Eve “Did the reading bring you joy?”

“Oh yes. I learned about Grandpa and you and more.”

“You had joy and you learned? Now that is a good way to spend some time. What did you learn?”

“Well. I learned about the trees and a serpent and the fruit of the garden and about not being naked any more.”

“You know of being naked?" she frowned, "Where did you find this book?”

“From Grandpa of course.” replied the boy.

“I must speak to Grandpa about what he writes and lets you read. “How do you feel about being naked, child?”

“I do not mind Grandma. I am warm with the clothes daddy made me.”

Enoch watches his grandmother prepare the bread for their next meal a while and then asks “Grandma?”

“Yes my dear?”

Gutenberg's masterpiece

“What was uncle Able like?”

“He had a fat flock,” she sighed, “but let us talk of other things.” After a long moment she continued, “What shall you do after we eat?”

“I do not know. Could I go play?”

“It is not yet time for play child. You must use this day given you wisely and with honor.” she suggested “There are many things you could do.”

Enoch frowned and said softly “Like what Grandma? I do not know what to do. Can I read some more?”

“You have read enough for one day child, you should go explore. Reading the good book is only the beginning of knowledge and the maker.” Eve replied “To learn of all creation is a great joy and honors your maker and grandfather at the same time.  You can read more tomorrow.”

“But what should I explore? Where should I go?” said Enoch confused.

“You have all of heaven and earth to learn, dear boy. You could seek to know every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, every rock of the land and every wave of the sea. You could plant a garden to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” Eve explained.

Puzzled Enoch replied “Just like grandpa does?”

“I am sure that grandpa will help you to learn of all the creation if you ask.” nodded Grandma happily “Grandpa Adam knows the name of every creature and plant, you know.”

“He does?”

“Oh yes, little one he does. He named them all and so knows them well.” she remembered.

“Does he know everything grandma?” the boy wondered aloud.

“I should think not!” chuckled Eve. “It will take more than your whole life and the lives of your children's children's children and beyond to come to understand even a small part of what has been created.”

Turning his head to the ground the child mumbled “Why should I bother. There is too much to know. It will take too long.”

“That is no reason to not learn, boy. To not know would be to turn your back on the maker. To learn is to worship him. You want to worship the maker, yes?”

“Yes grandma.” whispered the boy as he kicked at a stone. After a moment he looked up at her and asked “Can grandpa write a book with all the maker's knowledge in it? Then I could read it and know it all faster!”

“Oh child! Were it so simple. The creation is so vast, its mystery so deep, all created for you to discover and know. Do not take the lazy way and read just one book. Go out and see, think and mediate on all of what is.”

“But what about the book, grandma? Grandpa said it was the most important.”

“He did, did he? If Adam says it is important then it must be. The book helps us to know of the tree of good and evil. It does not tell of the stars in their paths, the working of the earth below us, or the way to make bread. These things you must come to know through your ears and eyes.  You must think upon them to hold them in your mind.  Knowing the work of the maker will make you holy in his sight.”

“Now that is enough talk for now Enoch. Be a good boy and fetch Grandpa to eat, the meal is almost ready and he will be hungry.”

Lex Talionis

Justice is blind

Lex Talionis is Latin for the legal concept of mirror punishment. It is based on the idea that a person who has injured another person is hurt to a similar degree, that the punishment should be similar in intensity and kind to the offense of the wrongdoer. The more common way to think of it is “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth.”

The earliest known use of this idea comes from Hammurabi where if a person caused the death of another person, the killer would be put to death. This allowed legal codes to begin with very simple ideas of justice, understandable by all. A straight forward way to standardize justice.

As legal systems evolved, this simple idea led to more complex forms of justice. The Hebrew code of law slowly transferred the retribution from a physical one to a monetary one; the punishment of some crimes came to have a cost in goods instead of in kind.

Roman justice was still brutal

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is quoted as saying “"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

By the time of Roman law, the Lex Talionis idea had been largely abandoned for non-physical crimes and specific penalties for crimes had been codified that seemed “more fair” to the culture involved.

Lex Talionis is still practiced today in some cultures, although it is quickly diminishing as an alternative for punishment. Still it is not uncommon after a terrible crime to hear citizens demand “an eye for an eye”.

What purpose is served by Lex Talionis upon the criminal? What is the end we seek when a crime has been committed? I would challenge the assumption that Lex Talionis is a valid basis for justice.

There are many reasons we seek justice. Some victims desire revenge or payback. Governments wish to deter crime in order to keep a safe society. Many people seek repayment for the harm caused to make it right. Some desire only a public denunciation; showing the world that bad things were done.

A guillotine from the
 Reign of Terror

Revenge justice, sometimes known as retribution often comes from the anger and pain of the victim. Like in the famous movie “The Princess Bride” we wish to say “You killed my father, prepare to die.”

Revenge justice has several problems. It requires a level of violence that is not permitted by the society in the first place, giving sanction to a crime being met with another crime. Revenge justice can lead to a spiral of violence where one act triggers another and another. As Mahatma Gandhi said  "An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind."  Often the satisfaction of revenge is followed by the remorse of doing violence as it reduces the victim to the level of the criminal.  

Using revenge to punishing a child who broke my front window carelessly playing baseball would mean I advocate breaking his family's window as revenge. The father of the child would not like having his window broken and may well break another window of mine. My wife could respond and on and on, only the glazier being satisfied with the outcomes.

Revenge punishments have a tendency to degrade the society imposing them. Constant circles of violence make a culture gradually more brutal. It is the hallmark of civilized modern society that we do not allow the victim to take punishment upon the criminal. Lynchings and posse justice are examples of how we have moved away from revenge as a means to govern ourselves.

Deterrence justice is the credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices. Deterring or preventing a crime has the assumptions that specific punishments imposed on offenders will stop the would be criminal from acting badly.

Modern Iranian justice

Research has shown that increasing the severity of a punishment does not have much effect on crime. Killing a murderer does not stop other murders as we would suppose. Historical evidence that this method does not stop murder is quite good.

What does work to prevent criminal acts is the certainty of punishment. This idea works against our intuition, but never the less is real. Potential criminals think themselves more able than the law enforcers. Bad people think they can “get away with it” and are not stopped by potential harsh punishments like “an eye for an eye”. When, however, it is certain that some punishment will come, even if not severe, deterrence works. If a criminal is fairly certain they will be caught, then they do not do the crime.

Justice of cookie jar

A child who wants a cookie and knows that the cookie jar is forbidden will often take the cookie despite the potential for punishment if they believe they may not be caught. If however they know mom is watching they will not get anywhere near the cookie jar. It is not even necessary to spank the child to have this certainty of punishment effect. Simple knowledge of taking away a favorite toy or loss of privileges is sufficient for deterrence as long as the child knows there is a high probability of being found out.

The ultimate challenge of all justice is to minimize the amount of crime. The less crime, the fewer victims, the better the society. The emotions of the moment are a bad means to achieve that goal of justice. We must strive to build systems that make the punishment swift and certain, but we should not demean ourselves by sinking to the level of visiting a crime on the criminal.

Obscene Purification

Innocence of holding hands. 

So what then is pollution of the soul? My hand touched the oven of death then tried to stroke my daughters face. Am I tainted and her with me or made pure and blessed with a baptism of faint residue?

In early 1990, just as the Berlin Wall was about to fall, I was among the very first westerners behind the Iron Curtain. My next door neighbor was a refugee from the Solidarity movement of Poland in the early 1980s and we had become both friends and business partners. Using his contacts Jurek and I had been able to get past the heavy security and gain very early access to the untapped potential of black market businesses which had been subsisting beneath the shadow of a communistic hand.

Faun fountain in Glwice

To the locals we came to meet, our arrival was a big affair. We represented the first symbolic ray of hope of a new future and prosperity. Levi jeans, Star Trek, and the Beatles were our commonly shared vision of the world where the Polish people yearning to be free looked to us for omens of good fortune.

Our base of operations was in Gliwice, a city in the Upper Silesia district of Poland. Gliwice was symbolic as the place where Hitler's launched his first attack of World War Two using storm-troopers dressed as Polish soldiers to give him the excuse he needed for war.

After we had been there a week meeting with those whom desired trade and commerce, we took a day off for a specially arranged tour of Auschwitz. Konzentrationslager Auschwitz, as the German's would say, was a special prison camp where extermination of those people unwanted by the state occurred. This camp had been designated the place where the final solution to the Jewish question in Europe would be resolved. One of the secret business owners we had been negotiating with had pulled some strings and got us a private tour of this place of terror and great pain.

"Work will Make you Free" says the gate to the camp

Dressed in somber black we met Ewa, the graduate student from the University of Silesia who had made a deep study of German occupied Poland, having agreed to act as our guide. Only Jurek, Ewa, and I were at the Auschwitz camp that day, the tour being private and the camp closed to tourists. Ewa unlocked the gate and escorted us slowly through offices, work rooms, barracks, gas chambers, crematoria, and processing blocks.

Jews lining up to be "relocated"

At least 1.1 million Jews and over two hundred thousand other people met their deaths in this place. Nazi authorities had targeted groups because of their perceived inferiority for race, political views, ideology, or behavior. People whom today we would call “gay” or “homosexual” were among the first to be led to their deaths as undesirables. Communists and anarchists followed, with Gypsies and Jews close behind.

The ghastly procedure was carried out with incredible efficiency  Trains of humans packed in by the hundreds to cars made for hauling livestock would arrive. All had been told to bring a small kit of goods so that they could be resettled to the newly conquered land or “lebensraum”. Getting out of the trains, SS soldiers would divide those who could work from those to be immediately killed. After working them in starvation conditions or being used for medical experimentation, even those divided out would be sent on to a fateful shower of Zykon B.

Combs stripped from the bodies

From the showers, the bodies of those who had been victims of the gas chamber where removed and their personal effects gathered for reuse by the Reich. Small, black, plastic hair combs by the tens of thousands filled one two-story, basketball court sized building we saw on our tour.

We spent several unbelievably difficult minutes by the ovens where the bodies were burned, stacked and packed remains filling the small space of heat to maximize the energy used to reduce to ash what had only minutes before been human beings.

As I stood there filled with a horrific sense of fascination upon the limits of cruelty possible by my fellow man; I by reflex reached out and touched the oven brick and its open metal arch shaped door. Becoming conscious of what I had done, I jerked my hand away.  I tried to wipe it clean of the feeling of the thing on my pants. There were no remains, or even dust, on my hand as I stared down at it in disbelief of my own action. Ewa, sensing my violent physical reaction to the abominable touch, quickly and mercifully hustled us on to the next monstrous exhibit.

Ovens to remove the evidence

This sense of having become personally involved with the destruction did not soon leave me. Like post-traumatic shock or the death of a family member, my heart was darkened by a force I could not shake. Even the shared bottle of vodka Jurek and I downed could not obliterate the feeling that I had been polluted.

Several weeks later, upon returning to my home, I reached out to touch my young daughter's cheek. Remembering the ovens, I was unable to even place that hand upon her. The idea of sharing that evil, even in so indirect a way caused me to shudder and lose courage.

As time passed and my perspective changed by other events entering my mind and concern, the intensity of the experience faded. Even during the worst of it, I never thought there was anything real to this haunting feeling, but all along I knew it was my own emotions run amok. This knowledge did not provide comfort. Eventually I was able to put the feelings aside.

Challenge hate.

Even now, this memory still occasionally returns to me. The feeling of cold. The smell of death. The cramped intense little space of so much claustrophobic evil. When I hear those deniers of this great sin against humanity, I wonder at how such ideas can even exist in the hearts of men.

Confronting evil, staring in the abyss of what men can do, while jarring and unpleasant has had a profound impact on my conscience  and morality. This many years removed I can say that it has allowed me to become more patient, more tolerant, and more filled with the desire to understand the diversity and beauty of my fellow man.

To those of you who are filled with hate. Who fear the gay, the black, the Jew, the religion unlike your own; I challenge you. Go to such a place of great evil, mediate and return to those you love, if you dare.

Superhero and Structure

Ronald Reagan as Superman

Much discussion has been had in politics lately about anarchy versus order, individuals versus the collective. Words like 'liberal' and 'conservative', 'socialism' and 'capitalism' are bandied about like so many clouds on a stormy day. Our political discourse seems divided into camps of one form or another, each convinced they have the right answers because of their own personal theories of government, politics, and social organization.

Discussions like this remind me vaguely of arguments about comic book heroes. Both require analysis of myths about where powers come from and how they are used. Neither is grounded in the reality we live. Comic book superheros and political theorists provide us with myths to help us imagine what could be, but should never be confused with what is.

Obama is the Anti-Christ

Imagine two young men in a comic book store arguing things like “Ayn Rand trumps Karl Marx, dude, she has creative people powers!” Or two grumpy old men in a diner debating if Superman could beat Batman in a tug of war. Those may be educational and entertaining, but they are no way to run a society.

These discussions may tell us more about ourselves than about how to make a more perfect union or cool super hero. Plato, the first great political philosopher,viewed society as a reflection of the man. That each man should strive to be good, just as each society should. Men learn and change, so should societies.

Sarah Palin as Wonder Woman

Governmental systems, political organization theory said a different way, are the means by which we design the process and procedures of a society. These structures are the rules and habits the people rely on to get along and get what they want. The needs, wants, resources, and tools available are different in each moment.

Each local society in each time has different requirements. A desert society with great scarcity of resources will most probably need a different form of organization than a river plain society with abundant resources. A society at peace and a society at war will have unique needs.

Ayn Rand has the Right Stuff

The lines of 'anarchy' to 'order' and 'demos' to 'aristo' are not only effected by sustainability issues, but also by the dreams and ambitions of the cultures involved.

I see no historical evidence that any system of political organization that was stable over time. Even the most long lived (Rome or Chinese) societies undergo some pretty radical organizational changes in time.

Perhaps the best organization is that which is adaptable to its environment as a life form.

Even in my father's life time, my own country has morphed from a capitalism (pre-great depression) to a planned economy (world war 2) to various forms social distribution and capitalism (post world war 2). In addition the power structures have shifted from distributed to centralized and back several times. All this is done in a framework that allows power to move from one branch of government (judicial, executive, legislative) to another depending upon the needs of the moment.

I maintain it is not the specific form of government, rather its ability to to adapt that is the key to political success. This adaptability comes from the mechanical structure of its rules rather than its idealized form (anarchy, liberalism, democracy, etc.).

So Batman is not always going to beat Superman, Ayn Rand did not come up with the perfect economic system, Spiderman is not always nice, socialism is not always evil, the Hulk can be a jerk sometimes and free markets can wreck havoc if left unchecked.

Let's ask ourselves the mature question; “What is needed next for this situation at this time?”

Edges of our Freedom

Freedom is so basic to our culture we tend to take it for granted. When asked “Should we be free?”, citizens of western societies will consistently answer “Yes”. When you ask about the specifics, the answers vary widely and the reality of freedom becomes less certain. To understand this, lets take a journey around Ireland and see what we can sea.

Borders of Ireland

 Ireland is a island bordered by only sea. At some point, it appears, Ireland ends and the sea begins.

How long is the border of Ireland? Where is that border between land and sea? If we draw a simple triangle around Ireland we can get a rough estimate of just how long that border is.

Closer borders
are longer

Even at a glance, this border is not quite right. So lets break up the sides of our triangle and add some more triangles make our calculation more accurate. Notice how the length is now longer?

Clearly we are still guessing at the length of the Irish border. Farther and farther we can bring in the detail by adding more and more triangles. At some point we start to outline every bay and inlet, every bump and cranny visible to the human eye all along the coast. We could stop there, at what the eye can see, and call ourselves done. The border of Ireland has been found on a practical level.

Borders are hard
to define

If accuracy is our claim and desire, then 'being practical' isn't good enough. If we want to be as good as we can be, we must continue the mapping of triangle even further. Each pebble, each grain of sand, each molecule, each atom, and even to the level of each quark needs be measured.

The closer we look at the border between Ireland and the sea, the longer Ireland's coast becomes. This process can go on into infinity, or surely beyond the ability of our minds to understand and value.

Finding the edges of freedom is similar to finding the edges of the land. We can say “Here is land.” and be sure of it. We think we know what freedom is and sometimes it seems very clear. We can say “Here is water” and know that it is not land. Such too is lack of freedom known to us.

But when we try to say where freedom begins and ends, the closer we look the harder it is to tell. If we want to be accurate, if we want to be more than practical, we must consider more carefully the boundary of freedoms.

Women desiring votes were scandalous

 Freedom of speech is such beast where the borders are long and winding.

It is clear that 'freedom-land' should allow us to express our opinions, unmolested by government or citizens. The idea that we should be able to freely exchange ideas allows all of us to learn more and find a more perfect union between us.

We do not however allow all speech. The "freedom-less ocean" does not allow individuals to cause others clear and present danger. Inciting violence, fighting words, is likewise not permitted. Lying under oath is not considered just in the land of freedom.

Freedom's border in focus

The closer you look at the border between freedom of speech and immoral behavior the longer the line becomes to understanding the limits of our freedoms.

This is true for all our freedoms. Freedom of religion does not include those that practice cannibalism. Freedom to bear arms does not include nuclear weapons. Protections for assemblies of people do not grant the right for lynch mobs to form.

In each moment, we change the boundaries of our freedoms, much as the coast of Ireland is not fixed. In little ways, here and there, the coastline grows and shrinks.

Freedoms can get extended or be taken away. Examples of this are numerous; the extension of voting rights to un-propertied men, women and to lower age groups has increased our coast lines of freedom.

The sea of not free

Freedoms can be retracted or limited to protect us. Speed limits inhibit our freedom of movement. Pharmaceuticals are controlled in order to save lives. Copyrights limit the freedom to copy others speech for profit. Weights and measures are standardized to keep us fair and honest with each other.

We should cherish our freedoms and protect them. We should also not forget that all freedoms have boundaries that are not definable, that get longer and longer as you look at them. The simple answers may be easy but are frequently not the accurate ones.

Our government exists to help us define the edges of our freedoms in our time.