Individualism: it is often heralded, by both friends and foes, as the essential American value, its contribution to the world, and the bedrock of US freedom, justice, and liberty. To which is contrasted collectivism: to America's friends, the evil excuse for tyranny, to its foes, a kinder, gentler way.
But this is a false dichotomy, one which never occurred to the founders of the United States, nor the writers of its Constitution. To them, the enemy was aristocracy, and man's desire to rule over his fellow. And an essential freedom was the freedom to associate in a collective. Indeed, one of the themes of early American settlement, continuing for several hundred years - long past its declaration of independence, was the desire of groups of people to break away from the old order, and to establish a more perfect society along new lines of governance, ideology, or belief.
It is a shame that this wellspring of ferment and diversity has dried up, squeezed between big government and the individual. It needn't be that way. True, the wide open, under-populated spaces have disappeared, so that it is no longer possible for a group to physically break away, and the complexity of our economy has made it impractical, even if it were possible. Nevertheless, it is possible to do much. But it would mean that the government would have to give up some of its monopoly rights.
Defense, trade, welfare, unemployment: I see no practical way to decentralize these things. But none of these are central to the collective. The binding forces of the collective: education, ideology, art, are well suited to decentralization. Amritas often talks about the Akaka bill: "The purpose is to protect over 160 race-based programs under court challenge because of a Supreme Court decision." I certainly disagree with granting one group of people special rights. On the other hand, I deeply sympathize with the desire of native Hawaiians to preserve their culture, and I think it's a crime for the government to impose its values on their children through the imposition of a $10,000-per-child fine (private school tuition) for non-compliance. Why not grant cultural rights to all Americans? Why not give all Americans the right to educate their children according to their heritage, values, and ideology? Why not give all Americans the right to support their cultural institutions, their arts and universities, as they see fit? Hawaiians aren't the only people who want to preserve their culture. Everybody has a culture!
It is our right, as individuals, to associate in collectives.
Posted by David Boxenhorn at March 27, 2005 10:48 PMand one could also ask... why not give ALL AMERICANS the right to get married... including gays and lesbians?
but that's a debate for another day.....
Posted by: celestial blue at March 28, 2005 04:39 PM PermalinkWhat is marriage? It has no meaning other than what you and your religion give it. You don't need government to give your relationships meaning! Government should get out of the marriage business entirely.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at March 28, 2005 05:24 PM PermalinkWell, it's obviously a big deal for a lot of people, but it still boils down to giving rights to some people and not others.
And I agree, it's one matter the gov't needs to keep out of.
Well, it's obviously a big deal for a lot of people
A good reason to keep government out, if possible.
Let's try keep the comments on-topic, okay? (I deleted a few that followed this tangent. I really don't want to go there. As site-owner I get the last word: minimum imposition of beliefs on others, maximum diversity.)
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at March 29, 2005 01:43 PM Permalinkwell... I thought I was keping it on topic by running with the idea that "all Americans" have cultural rights, and yes, there is a gay culture.
I will henceforth keep my trap shut then, but I dare suggest that by editing the opinions of others who are commenting you are very much imposing your beliefs on others and minimizing diversity. You can't put up a post of some debate and not expect to get opinions that may differ from your own, or that may draw upon similar situations to make a point.
Posted by: celestial blue at March 29, 2005 03:37 PM Permalinkdare suggest that by editing the opinions of others who are commenting you are very much imposing your beliefs on others and minimizing diversity
I didn't edit anyone's opinions, I deleted them. I am not imposing my beliefs on others: they are free to talk about them on their own blogs, and elsewhere. As to whether I am minimizing or maximizing diversity on this blog, I admit that it's open to debate. Setting aside the question of whether I want to maximize diversity on this blog (I'm not sure about the answer to that question) surely you must admit that some kinds of comments do minimize diversity, and by deleting them you can encourage it!
As to whether you were on topic: My problem was where the discussion went, which was definitely off-topic. Sorry if I offended you.