Further Musings On the Peace of the Gun
Aug. 23rd, 2004 02:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caraigSome interesting comments were brought up in my previous journal entry, and I'd like to expand on some of the thoughts that were brought up in it. As with most things I do -- unlike the little review of King Arthur, of which the most ticklingly proud thing was the title: "Through a Glass Carbonated" (sometimes I crack myself up) -- this is somewaht rambly, long on words and short on organization. Beyond this point lie dragons of verbage.
I'd disagree on Justice being an artifical concept. Sayng it is artificial relegates it to the concept of a commodity tht can be bought and sold. 'Justice' is bought and paid for by the person with the most money, the most lawyers, and, inevitably, the most guns. 'Might makes right,' and all that. Some poeple have no problem with a Peace of the Gun, in that it does bring order and stability, though at cost. I disagree with the concept of the Peace of the Gun in principle. Coercion is inethical; and yet, and here is the conundrum, it works. Sadly, Might might not make Right, but it certainly makes the status quo. As an example, see the current marginalization of the native American tribes, or for a more international flavor the claim that China has over Tibet. Or the depressingly recurrent tribal wars in Africa, the most recent of which are the Rwandan atrocities. He with the biggest and most guns wins, makes the rules, and writes history.
The trouble with this, of course, is that the people most willing to wave around the biggest guns tend to not be the most socially-minded folk. The Peace of the Gun is that which is established by the modern meaning of the word "tyrant," in that it must be constantly stomped into the people who are so "governed."
Unfortunately, while you probably won't hear any politician publically disagreeing, I am also aware that in realpolitik this sort of thing is naivety. Not that the Peace of the Gun and the strongarm tactics and genocides are right, but that they are what happen, no matter how much I fold my arms and say 'That's not right!' There are thus two solutions: to sit there and let events happen, or to stand up and happen to events. Despite what you might think, Mohandas Ghandi favored the latter though his doctrine of civil disobedience. Rosa Parks was another.
In the rants on my web site -- before I got to rant and ramble here ^^ -- i repeatedly talked about the importance of three concepts, the phrasing of which I lifted form elsewhere but only because they had a nice direct touch. They are:
The important thing for now is the first. As I said above, the world will not be changed by admonitions of ethics, either mute or voluminous. Again, however, this does not justify the actions that we know to be wrong. The best we can do now is to recognize in as unbiased a way as possible just what is wrong with our society, culture, and civilization -- I think the issues we are facing go beyond national lines -- and be honest about them. These are problems that are not only external, meaning societal, but integral as well, within ourselves as individuals. If any change is to happenn, it has to come from within -- trite, but true.
as I have said before, I fall on the left side of the house, and I'm afraid that because of that some folks pretty much dismiss my opinions as a matter of course, if not dismiss me myself. I do not believe, however, that anyone can be Pangloss and declare this to be the best of all possible worlds. Even if in the US we do not have a police state (yet) or intertribal/interracial war (yet) or a collapse of social welfare institutions (yet), still there is a lot of room for improvement.
Not sure what else I can say here, really. Perhaps Ive thought overlong about this posting, so it is time to post it and see what comes of it.
As I said, a bit discomboulated and somewhat rambling. Pax.
I'd disagree on Justice being an artifical concept. Sayng it is artificial relegates it to the concept of a commodity tht can be bought and sold. 'Justice' is bought and paid for by the person with the most money, the most lawyers, and, inevitably, the most guns. 'Might makes right,' and all that. Some poeple have no problem with a Peace of the Gun, in that it does bring order and stability, though at cost. I disagree with the concept of the Peace of the Gun in principle. Coercion is inethical; and yet, and here is the conundrum, it works. Sadly, Might might not make Right, but it certainly makes the status quo. As an example, see the current marginalization of the native American tribes, or for a more international flavor the claim that China has over Tibet. Or the depressingly recurrent tribal wars in Africa, the most recent of which are the Rwandan atrocities. He with the biggest and most guns wins, makes the rules, and writes history.
The trouble with this, of course, is that the people most willing to wave around the biggest guns tend to not be the most socially-minded folk. The Peace of the Gun is that which is established by the modern meaning of the word "tyrant," in that it must be constantly stomped into the people who are so "governed."
Unfortunately, while you probably won't hear any politician publically disagreeing, I am also aware that in realpolitik this sort of thing is naivety. Not that the Peace of the Gun and the strongarm tactics and genocides are right, but that they are what happen, no matter how much I fold my arms and say 'That's not right!' There are thus two solutions: to sit there and let events happen, or to stand up and happen to events. Despite what you might think, Mohandas Ghandi favored the latter though his doctrine of civil disobedience. Rosa Parks was another.
In the rants on my web site -- before I got to rant and ramble here ^^ -- i repeatedly talked about the importance of three concepts, the phrasing of which I lifted form elsewhere but only because they had a nice direct touch. They are:
- Free your mind.
- The truth shall set you free.
- Fear nothing.
The important thing for now is the first. As I said above, the world will not be changed by admonitions of ethics, either mute or voluminous. Again, however, this does not justify the actions that we know to be wrong. The best we can do now is to recognize in as unbiased a way as possible just what is wrong with our society, culture, and civilization -- I think the issues we are facing go beyond national lines -- and be honest about them. These are problems that are not only external, meaning societal, but integral as well, within ourselves as individuals. If any change is to happenn, it has to come from within -- trite, but true.
as I have said before, I fall on the left side of the house, and I'm afraid that because of that some folks pretty much dismiss my opinions as a matter of course, if not dismiss me myself. I do not believe, however, that anyone can be Pangloss and declare this to be the best of all possible worlds. Even if in the US we do not have a police state (yet) or intertribal/interracial war (yet) or a collapse of social welfare institutions (yet), still there is a lot of room for improvement.
Not sure what else I can say here, really. Perhaps Ive thought overlong about this posting, so it is time to post it and see what comes of it.
As I said, a bit discomboulated and somewhat rambling. Pax.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Part 02
Date: 2004-08-23 12:39 pm (UTC)http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200408200923.asp
He takes on a narrow arguement. The piece may seem to be about Gay marraige, but he's taing on a narro argument raised by a proponent. Goldberg thinks that Gay marraige is inevitable, but this section came to mind reading your piece.
Change without social consensus will seem to millions as merely the arbitrary abuse of power, as it surely would have if the Supreme Court had ruled in 1904 that those who were commonly called sodomites should, with the bang of a gavel, be given the right to marry one another. Rauch might respond that justice delayed is justice denied, or some such, and he might have a good case. But as a matter of human behavior, that wouldn't change the analysis. After all, we were right to abolish slavery as a matter of justice. But the lack of social consensus to do so birthed not only America's bloodiest war but generations of civil discord, which endures today.
Essentially you seem to be coming from this from a Utopian perspective. My Idea of a Utopia would be a house na hillside, witha moderate amount of land, enough that I don't see my neighbor's house. a creative job within easy commute with my flying car, and getting to gether with friends on th weekend for a barbeque, and shooting, with all of us watching movies and cleaning what we used after the sun goes down. Easy access to info, and a certain "smalltown" feel of the local community. Your utopia may be different, in fact it probably is. Utopia is subjective. One man's Utopia is another man's hell. Utopianism, or belief in utopianism, i think is one of the most dangerous ideas out there, because of it's subjectivity. the road to hell, et cetera. I think a better idea is to create for yourself the environment you want to live in personally,and enjoy that freedom, without imposing one's utopian ideal upon someone else. Choose your arraigements, rather than be coerced itno them "for the common good". the U.S. is not perfect, but it works.
Scott