The essence of what is being discussed here is the debate between the rights of individual people and the rights of the people as a whole, further seen through the filter of what the individual and collective obligations in guaranteeing those rights may be. The issue is not cut and dry and, as we have seen demonstrated above, there is plenty of room for complete and total misunderstanding, which as we all know is so easy as to be almost unavoidable in what is (to anyone who actually understands it) a complex, subtle and yet emotionally supercharged issue; a bit like trying to put out a birthday cake candle with a fire hose. You all by now know my style; straight-line computation on the basis of salient facts and don't-waste-time-with-emotive-fluff. So I hope you'll take it to heart when I say that any attempt to cut hard and fast lines through this particular morass is doomed to failure; the plethora of special cases and nearly limitless variables makes it impossible.What we can do though is establish a certain number of flexible guidelines, which we have, as a nation, been pretty damned good at doing historically. Its really only in the last 20 years or so that the sort of hyper-partisan crap we're seeing right now has taken firm root. The Tea baggers (love that!) are deluding themselves if they think they are the inheritors of the Reagan Era; Tip & Ronnie may not have been drinking buddies but they understood the necessity of compromise in keeping the peace in a democracy.
I know I've discussed this before, but it seems to be worth repeating:
I think the first thing to do here is to go back to the idea behind the Bill of Rights and re-evaluate our collective idea of what exactly the inalienable rights of the lawful citizen in our society are. Obviously we aren't going to strike anything currently in place, but it is an undeniable fact that the situation has changed since the 18th century and we need to acknowledge that certain options (go west, young man) aren't there any more. We also need to acknowledge that certain less-than-humane practices based on practical reality aren't valid any more; can anyone think of any reason to deny healthcare, shelter or food that doesn't revolve around "me", "gawd!" or "soshulizum"? This is an example of addressing individuals, but our society as a whole has requirements as well.
I would suggest that anything necessary to the systemic functioning of our nation, as a whole, should never be in the hands of any private interest or private interest in general. Period. Once upon a time, the list of those necessities was a great deal shorter; we have, however, increased the scope and scale of our society, creating layer upon organic layer of complex, interdependent systems upon which why now rely for every aspect of our daily business, even our survival. This is not a plea for "collectivism", so do not despair; while there is certainly much more which must be considered vital to the national interest, the list itself is still pretty short in absolute terms. Some of it is direct service, some of it regulatory in nature and we can undoubtedly argue for hours about what that list should actually contain...but that said list needs to be established is, I think, unarguable. In most respects I think this is a matter of metrics; people need to know where they stand, what they are getting for their tax dollars and what their obligations are.
So now you’re likely asking what exactly I think needs to be on the list of “items of national interest”; well I’ll make a few suggestions as to additions, which is not to be considered exhaustive:
- Utilities - Water, sewage, power, and heat. Under no circumstances in this day and age should any home be without these. In the modern city, complex mechanism that it is, these are issues of survival, not only of individuals but of the community.
- Healthcare - There are two aspects to this; maintaining public health in general, and providing for the care of persons born with disabilities. It is in the national interest to prevent outbreaks of disease, it is our obligation as human beings to care for our injured and disabled and no person born with otherwise fatal conditions should be required to pay more than any other person simply to continue living.
- Transportation - It is absolutely vital that we enable as much as possible free movement within our own borders; it serves to conserve limited resources, improve our health and most importantly, it make our workforce more mobile. Persons who are able to get around quickly and efficiently can seek and meet employment opportunities in a wider area.
- Employment - Modern America is a society much different from the bucolic era of the 18th century. We are no longer a nation of yeoman farmers, each unto himself alone. We live in cities and towns and people need work in order to provide for themselves and their families. Now under no circumstances should our public offices take over all employment; command economics was tried in Russia under the soviets and failed miserably. However there is always a demand for public service, from street cleaning to building infrastructure to the endless administrative paperwork at all levels. When all else fails, people need to know that they can find employment serving their communities at all levels in order to meet their needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment