Ideas
How
do you explain the strength of ideas and the ramifications of not
doing critical thinking when examining those ideas and how they stack
up against your morals, your ethics, a nation's foundational
principles, or a faith's foundational theology and teachings. We are
in such a time where we need to be doing just that.
There is battle which has been bubbling just below the surface of our national political discourse and also global political discourse. The battle is between national identity and sovereignity and globalization and the homogenation of the global population. Do individual nations remain allowed to be sovereign within their own borders and the international community or must they sacrifice their uniqueness and individual culture to become part of the global community? It is the driving idea and battle exemplified in the recent "Brexit" vote where the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. It is the fight being fought, without being identified as such, in the current presidential election in the United States of America.
We are trying to hide this battle behind individual issues such as immigration, free trade, diversity, multiculturalism, social justice, racism, and other labels; but, it all comes back to the notion of globalization or nations being allowed to maintain their national sovereignity and the uniqueness which has long identified their national personality and approach to life. Are we going to force people to change give up their free will and submit to some global way of life. It is the essential question being asked and must be answered with a resounding no to globalization. People must be allowed individual liberty and free will; it is their birthright as human beings. Globalization must and will take that away from as demonstrated by recent actions within our borders by its proponents.
The taking away of free speech is demonstrated by the use of speech codes and the efforts underway to criminally charge those who speak out against the acceptance of man-made climate change. Any time accepted ideas are challenged they idea just has to be vetted again; those who disagree must not be jailed or punished because you can't refute their argument. If you cannot refute the stand of your retractors then perhaps you need to reexamine your own position. Especially an idea where there are scientists on both sides still trying to hash it out and one side as already been caught discarding data which didn't fit its hypothesis.
The creation of "safe zones" is another area where this is raising its disingenous head. "Safe Zones" are areas people can retreat to to get away from ideas which hurt their feelings because they disagree with their belief system. Our nation was built on actively engaging in discourse about the issues of the day with a "no holds barred" type of debate; it was what The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers were all about. The debate over the size, scope, and powers of the new government which went into the framing of the legal foundation of our consitutional republic was epic and engaged the greatest minds of their day. It gave us our Constitution, which recognizes the necessity of the individual free will of its citizens and what they would allow their government to do; but most importantly, what they would not allow their government to do. It codified the innate human rights each individual human being is born with and which must not be violated. It is the very foundation of what we term today as "human rights".
It is because this fact is no longer taught in our public school system which has led to the very moment we find ourselves. We no longer understand that our human founding fathers were flawed but put down on paper that which we take for granted; namely the right for each of us to be ourselves individually and collectively. Yes, they didn't end slavery; which some knew was a blight on the national conscience. Yes, they didn't extend full individual sovereignity to women; as I said they were flawed human beings who were the product of the society that produced them. It is also the reason they amendment process was included in the Constitution; to allow it to be changed as needed, after careful deliberation and national debate.
This is why those who want to foist globalization on us have done all they can to make the Constitution less in the eyes of those graduating from law schools and term it a "living document" which is fungible by those who sit in interpretation of it. They understood passions die as time goes by, which was intended by our Founding Fathers to allow for a true debate on the merits of the issue not emotion. It has led to judicial activism and legislation from the bench instead of interpretation as outlined in the Constitution. It is leading to the document no longer meaning what the words on the page say; but rather, whatever the emotion of the time we live in finds acceptable. Our rights are slowly whittled away until they no longer exist and we lose that for which so many have bled and died.
This thinking also undermines the rule of law which guarantees we are all equal before the bar of justice. Without the constitutional guarantees codified in the Constitution or if the Constitution is weakened to the point where it is ignored, those individual rights and the rule of law goes out the window and becomes whatever the judge sitting the bench at that moment says it is. Or if the individual charged with the enforcement of those laws can pick and choose which laws are applicable, then the rule of law no longer exists and we have no protections for the least of us. The law will be whatever the whim of the judge or prosecutor say it is or whomever can purchase the outcome they desire.
Globalization magnifies these issues because the government will be run by the multinational corporations. The governments will institute policies which will enable the multinational corporations to transfer goods and money with the least amount of problems. This will make it more difficult for new and small businesses to exist. Power and wealth will become even more consolidated and the difference between the rich and poor will become greater.
There is battle which has been bubbling just below the surface of our national political discourse and also global political discourse. The battle is between national identity and sovereignity and globalization and the homogenation of the global population. Do individual nations remain allowed to be sovereign within their own borders and the international community or must they sacrifice their uniqueness and individual culture to become part of the global community? It is the driving idea and battle exemplified in the recent "Brexit" vote where the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. It is the fight being fought, without being identified as such, in the current presidential election in the United States of America.
We are trying to hide this battle behind individual issues such as immigration, free trade, diversity, multiculturalism, social justice, racism, and other labels; but, it all comes back to the notion of globalization or nations being allowed to maintain their national sovereignity and the uniqueness which has long identified their national personality and approach to life. Are we going to force people to change give up their free will and submit to some global way of life. It is the essential question being asked and must be answered with a resounding no to globalization. People must be allowed individual liberty and free will; it is their birthright as human beings. Globalization must and will take that away from as demonstrated by recent actions within our borders by its proponents.
The taking away of free speech is demonstrated by the use of speech codes and the efforts underway to criminally charge those who speak out against the acceptance of man-made climate change. Any time accepted ideas are challenged they idea just has to be vetted again; those who disagree must not be jailed or punished because you can't refute their argument. If you cannot refute the stand of your retractors then perhaps you need to reexamine your own position. Especially an idea where there are scientists on both sides still trying to hash it out and one side as already been caught discarding data which didn't fit its hypothesis.
The creation of "safe zones" is another area where this is raising its disingenous head. "Safe Zones" are areas people can retreat to to get away from ideas which hurt their feelings because they disagree with their belief system. Our nation was built on actively engaging in discourse about the issues of the day with a "no holds barred" type of debate; it was what The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers were all about. The debate over the size, scope, and powers of the new government which went into the framing of the legal foundation of our consitutional republic was epic and engaged the greatest minds of their day. It gave us our Constitution, which recognizes the necessity of the individual free will of its citizens and what they would allow their government to do; but most importantly, what they would not allow their government to do. It codified the innate human rights each individual human being is born with and which must not be violated. It is the very foundation of what we term today as "human rights".
It is because this fact is no longer taught in our public school system which has led to the very moment we find ourselves. We no longer understand that our human founding fathers were flawed but put down on paper that which we take for granted; namely the right for each of us to be ourselves individually and collectively. Yes, they didn't end slavery; which some knew was a blight on the national conscience. Yes, they didn't extend full individual sovereignity to women; as I said they were flawed human beings who were the product of the society that produced them. It is also the reason they amendment process was included in the Constitution; to allow it to be changed as needed, after careful deliberation and national debate.
This is why those who want to foist globalization on us have done all they can to make the Constitution less in the eyes of those graduating from law schools and term it a "living document" which is fungible by those who sit in interpretation of it. They understood passions die as time goes by, which was intended by our Founding Fathers to allow for a true debate on the merits of the issue not emotion. It has led to judicial activism and legislation from the bench instead of interpretation as outlined in the Constitution. It is leading to the document no longer meaning what the words on the page say; but rather, whatever the emotion of the time we live in finds acceptable. Our rights are slowly whittled away until they no longer exist and we lose that for which so many have bled and died.
This thinking also undermines the rule of law which guarantees we are all equal before the bar of justice. Without the constitutional guarantees codified in the Constitution or if the Constitution is weakened to the point where it is ignored, those individual rights and the rule of law goes out the window and becomes whatever the judge sitting the bench at that moment says it is. Or if the individual charged with the enforcement of those laws can pick and choose which laws are applicable, then the rule of law no longer exists and we have no protections for the least of us. The law will be whatever the whim of the judge or prosecutor say it is or whomever can purchase the outcome they desire.
Globalization magnifies these issues because the government will be run by the multinational corporations. The governments will institute policies which will enable the multinational corporations to transfer goods and money with the least amount of problems. This will make it more difficult for new and small businesses to exist. Power and wealth will become even more consolidated and the difference between the rich and poor will become greater.
If
nations will take the steps to ensure their countries invest in the
maximization of their natural resources to
enable to the growth of their nation’s economy and the upward
mobility of their populations. Each nation and population would
control their own destiny while maintaining their unique identity and
belief system. But if globalization is allowed to take place the
decisions about their nation and people group will be made by a group
of people who know little to nothing about them and their goals and
identity.
Think
through ideas before embracing them. Research them, think through
their consequences. Will this idea bring about the desired goal you
have for your life.
No comments:
Post a Comment