An individual in nirvana...

Opening comment - please, if I take any one of the illustrious people I have quoted as an example, it is to examine the principle, not to try and make error out of their statement or to prove me correct and them wrong. It is a matter of trying to align pictures to see what is different rather than "right" or "wrong".

TF Stern has taken a look again at the relationships between "freedom" and religion - "A Line Drawn in the Sand"

As a collective of individual's intent on accomplishing the highest forms of liberty and freedom, there was a compromise made which would insure that the delicate balance of individual agency and the common good of the collective was met. This delicate balance is in jeopardy today because part of the foundation upon which such a fragile form of government was established has been compromised; that being the once strong restraining factors brought to bear on the vast majority of citizens in and by the knowledge that there are Christian values that fill in the gaps left by man's imperfect laws and ordinances. To exclude this part of the foundation, an integral part of a working whole society, even later as it evolves into a more "mature" population, is to bring about its own destruction.

We may step back and say that we are tolerant of other's right to believe and express themselves in any number of ways, provided those beliefs and those expressions do not upset the delicate balance necessary to insure stability to the foundation upon which we all depend.

Here is where we as Americans have turned a blind eye, believing that any and all forms of expression are part of our inherent freedom and liberty and that any and all are to be tolerated and even pursued. Such unwarranted toleration has led to degradation of the most noble of human desires, to become worthy heirs to all that our Father in Heaven has. In our pride and our abandoning of Christian values, once an integral part of the fabric of our everyday lives, we have abandoned the sure footing that was intended to guide our society through all times, good and bad. It is not enough to permit individuals their right to continue in their religious belief in a Christian setting; for that is still permissible, the changing environment mentioned by Brad, is that there has been a shift in the percentage of those who adhere to the laws as found in the Holy Scriptures, which go well beyond any laws and ordinances created and set in motion by men.

When I stated that I may not be ready for the Brave New World, one in which the vows of marriage no longer contain the affirmation that such was ordained of God, that such is intended to last until the end of days or that such is intended to be a binding of a man and a woman as husband and wife; then the foundation upon which that society is based has been usurped. When the citizens of a once noble society, one in which our Creator was revered and honored, now refrain from giving Him their respect and obedience; instead insist that their government is the provider of liberty and the provider of freedom, then it becomes only a matter of time when that society will become debased and unworthy of the blessings of that Creator who once they counted on for those liberties and freedoms.

The Christian belief in the Resurrection is central to the idea which I am discussing, an understanding of the state of man being able to defeat the mortal death by virtue of a Savior, even Jesus Christ. When our Founders went about the process of defining the parameters of our government, most of our citizens had a common thread, that our lives would be judged in a more important court setting, one in which our eternal souls would be placed in after mortality. While the intricacies of the Resurrection have been debated by almost every denomination, the fact remains that as a whole, the Resurrection and all that it entailed was held sacred and a part of the reason for holding to a life of worth and good character.

...

The concept of having to be accountable to God for your life here in mortality, the reward of having been restored into a body, that body being in the image of either perfect sin or perfect obedience as a reflection of the choices made during mortality, that concept has been the foundation of our society and the ability to contain debauchery and the carnal state of man, not the government's rules and ordinances.

When I hear that we must be tolerant of the deviant carnal members of our society, that is not the same as permitting these degenerates the ability to remove the foundation upon which our society depends by altering our concepts of liberty and freedom to mean disobedience and rebellion to God's commandments and the eternal laws which have always been in place, regardless of man's acceptance of them. We will all have to stand before the bar of justice, explain our transgressions and our willingness to be obedient or the lack thereof. I am not accountable for the sins of any other mortal being, however, I am responsible and accountable to God for advising my fellow mortal beings of the truths which I am aware of; anything less would in itself be slothful and undeserving of blessings.

The Libertarian Robert has picked up on the same theme, concluding...

While I certainly recognize the freedom of others to think and say whatever they like, I reserve the right to think and speak in opposition to any and every idea that is ultimately aimed at limiting my liberties and the liberties of similar dissenting views. In effect, various moralists and culturalists set themselves up as a mob of social dictators, who insist upon conformity to standards of their choosing, while rejecting the same treatment in reverse. The classic American example is illustrated in the form of partisan politics. Both the Left and the Right spend inordinate amounts of cash to seat their candidates, with the express purpose of imposing their ideological will upon everyone. All the while, they rather hypocritically decry the Islamists for having the selfsame goals. But to be fair, where the latter ignores the right to Life (suicide murderers), the former ignores the right to Liberty and Property (The New Deal, The Great Society, Reich, Kelo, prayer in public schools, "blue laws", McCain-Feingold, the FCC, etc., etc., etc.).

----------------------------

The Old Whig has been at another angle as well...( "I said this in response to my brother's post"

I must add that not all ideas will succeed in reaching fulfillment, nor will the majority, having reached fulfillment, succeed in achieving their proclaimed goals. Their goals would be the long-term happiness of their adherents, in this life or the next, or (for atheistic ideologies) among their descendants (as long as they adhere to The Plan).

Our Founders never expected us to achieve a permanent state of Utopia or Nirvana. They only hoped to create an ideological framework within which we could find solutions to our problems.

Departures from that framework - communism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, oligopoly, theocracy and totalitarianism - have proven to be marked failures.

As has, I suppose, Atomistic Individualism, though, within the Framework of a Constitution which respects individual, natural rights, I doubt that it would.

Tribalism has yet to prove to be a failure within that framework, except in the cases where it oversteps its bounds (shown by a tribe, or clan, inflicting harm on another). The Nuclear Family certainly hasn't proven to be a failure...

Well, I need to cut this off. What, though, is the goal of political theory?

__________________________________________

Dave Justus picks up on a Canadian theme,

It is quite possible that the value he is supposedly championing are laudable and that the various religious denominations would do well to adopt them. That is really beside the point however. One lesson that I believe can convincingly be drawn from history is that whenever a religious ideology is promoted by force the society it is foisted on and the ideology itself are both greatly damaged.

I don't think that Canada is anywhere near enacting anything like this (although with some of their speech codes they are not all far away from this as one would wish) but it is clear that there are people who desire this end, and that religious people who fear such a thing are not entirely paranoid.

I am not deeply religious, although I have a lot of respect for faith and people who hold it. Religious or not though, this sort of stifling of freedom in the name of tolerance has the potential to be truly dangerous.

If there is a common thread running in these various ideas, it seems to me to be one of dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs. There is nothing wrong, in fact in many ways it is a healthy sign. Certainly the mere fact that the current state of "our" democracy is the subject of debate shows that the various elements of "freedom" do exist and operate as they should.

There is a word of warning that must accompany all of these debates though. Very simply put, we all in our respective communities must ensure that as we do succeed in improving the political systems we form part of we must also be absolutely certain that the new is better than the old. As my grandmother might have said "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

That thought leads to the diversity of reasons that accompany this random but hardly representative sample. At second glance there is a lot of conflict in the reasons for the individual dissatisfactions being expressed.

In TFS's case the dissatisfaction seems to centre upon a "Brave New World" where the traditional idea of marriage no longer exists. He refines this as an example of the conflict between societal tolerance and his perception of the degradation of the Christian religion.

Robert on the other hand makes a comparative statement between The Christian state and its freedoms and the political state where opposing factions buy their position so that they can impose their beliefs upon others. I like that point Robert, though the attempt to factor in the Islamic extremeists into the same idea takes a bit more explaining than you have given.

At the same time there is a common theme in both of the individual.

Dave Justus, on the other hand is sounding an alarm based upon changes proposed in Canada. Specifically he is blowing the same trumpet that I have taken up on occasion - that of the dangers of mixing religion into politics and most specifically the advent of the "Christian state or nation". In that respect he creates a contrast with TFS, while at the same time upholding the individual right.

Al, I haven't forgotten you, it is just that your closing question does really beg a reply. So, here is my attempt at an answer.

Can I begin with two statements - these are essentially the premises upon which I want to base my "answer" to Al's question; they are the parameters that I want to use to limit my own thoughts to specific issues rather than starting to ramble... I also want to acknowledge that it is so many years since I last read Heinline that I rather feel "left out of the joke" if you will. I will explain that little outburst by stating that frankly, the idea of "utopia" is both anathema and impossibility for me. What parts of that are not explained in the following paragraphs I will append at the end.

First, there is a fundamental conflict between "individual" and "society" that goes far deeper than the mere meaning of the words. This will lead back to RFS's statement about "Brave New World" (which I admit despite its most depressing outcome is one of my favourite books).

Second, there is a fundamental conflict between "religion" and "democracy". This is a much simpler concept that I want to take up, in that it follows directly from the points made by Dave J. As I may already have hinted, there is a strong correlation between Dave's thoughts and my own in this respect.

So, there are the "rules"

____________________________________________________________

Individual vs Society

There is no need to define "individual" here. It has a fundamental meaning in English that needs no explanation. So, why have I substituted "society" in place of "state" or "politics"? The equate "society" and "state" for most of us is a given. There are instances where it is not; the "democracy seed" in Iraq for example ignores the fact that within that "state" there are effectively three "societies", each with its own goals. For this discussion, I am concentrating on what I know, the society in which I live and which differs little from the US or Australia or Britain.

The point that must be made, the point that is too oft ignored by people such as Robert is that "individuals" can not make for an efficient and effective society.

So, can humankind make an effective "society" where the individual can be given free rein? The reasons why I believe the "Utopian" solution is unworkable are far more pragmatic and also a matter of degree.

I think of the many utopian societies of which I have read and equally as important the atopias. The common themes, the bases for the utopia (or the reason against) generally comes from -

1. Promoting the individual and ignoring the pitfalls.


2. Creating the main story line around an elite


3. Creating the homogenous society, with immutable ranking or castes


4. Idealised caricatures of the society of the 1930's, or '40s, or 50's or 60's or whenever the author was writing.

Among the greatest ever of the utopians and antopians I would count the likes of H.G. Wells (First Men in the Moon, The Time Machine, Journey to the Centre of the Earth), Swift (Gulliver's Travels), perhaps Tolkien (for Middle Earth), Orwell (Animal Farm).

The Cult of the Individual

I knew, I just knew that I was going to trip over this one...

1. Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all
   - Nikita Khrushchev


2. The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual
   - Adolf Hitler


3. At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good
   - Ted Kennedy, 2002


4. There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual
   - Benito Mussolini


5. We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society
   - Hillary Clinton, 1993


6. All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person
   - Vladimir Lenin

Right, having shafted all of the possible objections and anti-arguments from the right, there is an aspect of the "individual over society" that I want you to consider before you start to object to my line of thinking.

First, there is absolutely no argument from me that the rights of the individual are paramount to the success of a free society. The question I want to put to you is this - "Just how far into the tails of a Bell Curve can a law go and still remain effective?" We see the consequences of this every day, and in many different forms; the abortion debate, the application of speeding laws, the right to carry arms, the right to teach evolution in schools, the right to teach divine creation in schools. In all of these instances there are implacable and irreconciliable extremes. Obviously (to me at least) no law can exist that will be workable and at the same time will satisfy the desires of both extremes. A law WILL BE EFFECTIVE when it reflects the desires and ethics of the majority of those subject to it.

The most important conclusion that I want to stress is that there will always be the extremes outside of that "frame" whose desires are irreconcileable. Think for a moment about the difficulty of reconciling "free abortionists" with "pro-lifers" to get a feel for what I mean. That means that within any "individualist utopia" there will be people who are dissatisfied with the structure of that society, and there will be conflict (at one level or another) between that group and the majority.

The Homogenous Society

So, the society of the individual will not work, at least will not be perfect? This is its antithesis. I slot it in here because TFS raised "Brave New World" which is probably the most brilliant and depressing word picture of this form of utopia.

It is not a utopia that I would wish. Nor, I suspect would any other promoter of the individual and individual rights.

What it is important to recognise, is that the foundation of the homogenous society is the extinction of the individual. I know that I could get right up the noses of the red-blooded capitalists reading this by suggesting that this failure alone could have been the reason for the collapse of Communism. (Sorry about the red herring there... please ignore. I might take that up at a later date.)

The Danger of the Individual

I have in mind here a thought (I think this is right) that the ideogram in Mandarin for "danger" is identical to that for "opportunity". That to me is the challenge of the idea of "individual over society". It is the catalyst of change. It must also be the principle of moderation.

It should also be apparent that the individuals with this "power" will almost invariably exist in the "outliers" of the Bell Curve. They will be the "outlaws", the nuisances, the provocateurs of the utopia. For the stability of the utopia they must not succeed, but their "genes" must be used to allow the society to evolve. There must be "anti-genes" that act like our bodies natural checks and balances preventing cancers and other "run-away" processes.

Religion vs Democracy

As I said earlier, this should not require great debate. I have already commended Dave Justus' remarks. I want to add these thoughts to his -

1. Where is the US's greatest "perceived enemy" at present? In another religion. How is that religion being portrayed? As "anti-democratic"


2. Would a Christian nation be any different to an Islamic Nation? Like DJ, I say a hearty "NO".


3. One of the precepts to a "Christian nation" will be uniformity of belief. Where does that leave the "Cult of the Individual"? I submit, out in the wilderness.

Closings - personal views

One of the difficulties with debates on topics such as "Individual Society" is the variation in meaning and concept that accompanies it. As I said earlier, Heinline is carrying a considerable following at this moment as an ideal. I must go read and catch up. But what I have set against that is going to stay, probably for quite some while.

Again, I can not get around the difficulty of the irreconcileable individual. I raised this once before (not that long back) and was met with the contrary "If they do not agree they either change their minds or leave". I had tired of that debate so much that I left the opportunity to take that thought to its logical (and not extreme) homogenous society. That was a part of why I included those brief notes under that heading.

For an objective view of what seems to me to be a "truly American view" I comment Al's commentary. The Old Whig is no fool in my book and his "Our Founders never expected us to achieve a permanent state of Utopia or Nirvana." has that ring of objectivity that I like.

For myself, my country will never be uptopia or nirvana. To say that it is admits that it has reached its peak and can go no further. That, to me, is the ultimate killer of the flower of life.