What Trampolines Can Tell Us About Ideal Society
September 23, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
I was jumping on the trampoline today with my three kids — eight year-old Alex, three year-old Liberty (Libby), and eleven month-old Avery — and, like I am prone to do, reflecting on ideal society.
Alex, skilled and energetic, wants to jump as high as he can and perform tricks. Libby, unaware of her surroundings, jumps wildly, often upending Avery. Avery has a good time, yet she’s at risk from her older, heavier, more capable siblings. Much of the time was spent cautioning Alex and Libby to be careful with Avery. In fact, the experience revolved around catering to Avery, the youngest, weakest, and least capable in our family.
One adult and three kids on a trampoline — a microchosm of society, or at least what it should be. The following are the lessons I identified:
1. Cater to the weakest.
Just as we cared for baby Avery on the trampoline, in the ideal society, individuals voluntarily serve and uplift the weak, the poor, the aged, the disabled. Competition and cooperation go hand-in-hand; competition increases quality while cooperation ensures peace and stability. Competition should never create ill feeling; cooperation should never create dependency. The goal of this ideal isn’t to take the strongest down to the level of the weakest; rather it is to uplift the weak to increased capacity, thus raising all of society without creating wide discrepancies in social status and/or wealth distribution.
2. Create outlets for all skill levels and interests.
While the ideal caters to the weakest, it also allows for full expression of every individual, including the most talented and capable. The disease of socialism is that it tends toward mediocrity, tearing down the able in the name of “helping” the weak. In the ideal, catering to the weak is never done at the expense of the strong. In the case of our trampoline experience, we took turns so that each child could do what they wanted and grow on their terms. Alex took a turn alone, doing flips and aerials. Libby did her crazy thing. Then, I held Avery in my arms and we all jumped together. No desires were sacrificed, Avery was protected and made to enjoy the experience at a higher level than she could alone.
Think of this concept in a public school setting. Inevitably, in a class of 25 or more students, the “slow” learners get left behind, while the “fast” learners quickly become bored. Both the weak and the strong suffer.
Imagine a setting where each individual is allowed to learn and progress on their own terms, at their own speed. Then, having grown, they help others to do the same.
3. Protect rights.
Just as my youngest daughter needed to be protected from physical danger posed by her siblings, the ideal society has a strong institution that protects the rights of every individual. Keeping individuals safe from harm from others is not the same as giving every individual the same material goods.
4. The ideal is for all of this to happen at the level of family and community.
Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have no intimate knowledge of, nor a relationship with, the members of our communities. While families and community members voluntarily serve each other, the federal government relies solely upon force to institute “goodwill.” Top-down, removed-from-the-source charity always tends toward bureaucracy, wastes money and misemploys resources, and depends upon force as its animating factor.
Ideal charity is animated by voluntary love, is based on intimate relationships, makes the most productive use of resources as possible, and creates independence from dependence, and interdependence from independence.
Conclusion
So who cares? There’s no startling revelation here. What matters is what we do with this knowledge, not what we sit and ponder on. Be a bridge-builder: Identify where society is, where it should be, then quietly and powerfully insert yourself in the middle. Find people that need to be served and serve them. Help the unemployed develop skills and find employment. Help addicts find freedom. Care for your aged parents in your own home instead of sending them to a retirement center. Be active in your community. Be true to your spouse and loving to your children. Teach your children the importance of service, especially through your example. Remove the need for federal government force by replacing it with family and community-centered voluntary charity.
The next time you’re disgusted with federal government waste, deception, and/or force, turn that disgust into positive action by building your family and community. The stronger our families and communities, the less involved and smaller the government can be. And spend some time jumping on a trampoline — there’s no telling what you’ll learn.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Postmodern Politics: Individualistic or Relationship-Based?
August 4, 2008 by Mike Wilson · 4 Comments
Confidence in human institutions is fading. Modernism is slowly losing its foothold as many human beings are seeing that institutions are unable to deliver the happiness they claim to provide. In fact, many are beginning to see the authoritarian nature of most human institutions as a limit to their pursuit of happiness, an encroachment on their liberty, and as diminishing the value of their lives.
Over the past one hundred years, as this process has slowly taken hold, two political philosophers have described what the future (now the present) has in store and attempted to show us what options there are in a postmodern world.
These two main branches of postmodernism can be described as libertarian postmodernism (individualism) and humanistic postmodernism (a sense of responsibility to care for and better the situation of self and others). These two philosophers are Ayn Rand, promoting the individualistic branch, and Leo Tolstoy, promoting the humanistic branch.
Freedom for Bread
August 1, 2008 by Mike Wilson · 4 Comments
One of socialism’s fundamental tenets is its desire for the government to universally care for people, whether it be through single-payor healthcare or ensuring jobs and even equal wealth for all. These are lofty and admirable goals and desires. However, what are the potential costs?
Many conservatives will point to the actual fiscal costs of accomplishing these goals; that it will result in a higher tax burden and therefore a slower economy (because we know it’s all about an “efficient” economy). Others will point to the idea that if the government gets involved in providing everything for everyone, it takes away self-reliance, which is almost a god to be worshiped by many conservatives.
Philosophers and economists from the late 18th century put forth the argument that because the government receives its power from the people, the government can’t do anything that people can’t do. Therefore, because an individual cannot forcibly take money from one person and give it to another, the government should not be able to forcibly tax people and give the money as handouts to others.
Liberals will say, “but taxes aren’t forcibly taking money; we’ve agreed as a society run things this way.” Just try not paying your taxes and see how much force lies therein.
All of these points have some validity, but none of them are strong enough or philosophically fundamental enough to sway me. They don’t address the fundamental problem with government-mediated wealth redistribution or provision for all needs from cradle-to-grave. The fundamental problem has to do with agency and freedom. Let me explain.
Question #8: What is the fundamental character of human beings?
July 5, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
| 10 Foundational Questions | Introduction | Question #1 | Question #2 | Question #3 | Question #4 | Question #5 | Question #6 | Question #7 |
“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it… The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.” - John Adams in Thoughts on Government
At the core of political philosophy and constitutional government is the issue of human nature; we can’t know how to govern unless we fully understand whom is being governed. Designing and managing a polity must take into consideration who human beings are, how and why they act, and how to best promote their happiness.
Human nature is composed of two things: 1) motivations, and 2) tendencies.
Human Motivation
The brilliant Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises formulated a methodology for understanding human action that he called “praxeology.” Mises deduced fifty laws of human action, which include the following highlights:
- Choice determines all human action.
- Human action is purposeful; people make choices for reasons.
- Action is the attempt to change the state of being for a more satisfactory state.
- No person does anything except what they think will improve their satisfaction.
The core of Mises’ laws is that we act to increase our satisfaction. From getting up from the couch to get a soda, to going to church, to perpetrating violent crime, every human action is designed to bring the actor more satisfaction than he or she currently feels.
A well-designed body politic, then, will allow its citizens to seek and gain satisfaction in any way they see fit, as long as they do not encroach upon the unalienable rights of others. As the Roman statesman Cato said, “By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of his labor, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society or any members of it, by taking from any member or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.”
Human Tendencies
Are human beings good, or evil? Are we fallen beings, or are we enlightened beings of light and love? Do we seek depravity, or degeneracy?
Yes.
It seems like most philosophers have held the either/or view of human nature; some say we are good, and some say we are bad. It seems clear to me that we are both, that inherent to every individual is the potential for divinity and degeneracy.
Why It Matters
101 Ways to Show Public Virtue
February 18, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
Improve the World, One Small Act of Service At A Time
Public virtue, voluntarily sacrificing personal benefits and desires for the good of society, can be a tough concept to grasp and believe in.
This may be so because it can seem like a daunting task; we may feel like small and daily sacrifices just don’t cut it. We may read accounts of men like George Washington suffering through Valley Forge and think that comparatively our daily efforts are insignificant and meaningless.
I don’t think this is the case at all; in fact, I believe the best way for us to show public virtue is by making a small yet significant effort every day to make the world a better place. Without public virtue, our republic cannot last.
With this in mind, I have compiled a list of 101 ways that contemporary Americans can display public virtue in small, significant, practical, and consistent ways:
1. Vote
2. Pick up garbage in your neighborhood
3. Read to a child/teach a child how to read
4. Volunteer at a soup kitchen
5. Attend a city council meeting
6. Make a meal for a struggling family
7. Donate money to a non-profit organization
8. Get out and stay out of debt
9. Study the Constitution
10. Volunteer at your child’s school
Read more
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...