Federalism/Republicanism

Having just watched the John Adams miniseries and seen several John Trumbull paintings at the Wadsworth today, I feel like a little Revolutionary War-era mumbling.

Obviously it can be said that authority is important, as is governance, since nobody wants to be subject the whims of others' strength/resources. I suppose in theory, anarchy would not be fret with the problems posed by modern devices such as weaponry since nobody would have invented them to begin with (since marketing would not have existed anyway). However, I believe our first markets, congregations and [resultantly] laws must have been formed by this anti-anarchy communal quid pro quo mentality. Paraphrasing Guns, Germs & Steel societies were only able to arise after the agricultural revolution which was promoted by a grouping of people able to support inventors (and later bureaucrats) who came up with these ideas. My point is that in order to have a functioning society (and even to have philosophy), a society must exist at a comfortable enough level to support people with designated functions other than survival (a willingness to do so evidences our belief [at least on some level] that vitality of the community runs deeper than simple survival of its members). The whole, we realize, is more than just a sum of its parts.

As far as the powers imbued to this body (of bureaucracy), it's a matter of weighing pros and cons. Fear, on one hand, can lead us to an absolute police state where we can pass approval over domination of people we designate as our enemies; groups of people that we label and collectively degenerate into objects for our assignments [of negative idealizations]. And on the other hand, we at our most content, have this tendency to see ourselves and others as divine beings, devoid of all wants and sin (if you will). We cannot see the evil capable of other people, the ability for them to hurt us, or to have our lives inexplicably affected by others simply because in the moment they are not. This goes farther than simple police authority; this is how much trust we can place in others as part of our society, our family, and our day-to-day interactions. If we want people to be able to have freedom of the press and say whatever they want, there is the very real chance that 'public opinion' may be swayed to a point of malignance towards a persons or individual. The truth is we are not divine, inhuman beings; we are of flesh and are fickle creatures, prone to persuasion and changes of mood and motivation. We can be driven to do a great many things.

So if that is the case, where does this leave us for law and society? Do we want to each attempt to pass legislation that we see fit to personally benefit our individuals or work towards some collective greater than each of us and accept that we will have to sacrifice personal boundaries of comfort and others at some point? Obviously it is much easier to accept sacrifice in theory than live with it when the moment comes: take, for example, airport security, the PATRIOT ACT, and other simple issues of police morality. And let us not forget fascist Italy, a fascinating case study in the propagation of the wills of a few, coupled with charisma and the media.

I do personally believe that unwitting those most realized are actively pushing their will over others. I certainly am, as are those who actively try to seek what they want. Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche is a great work in the will and motivation of man. Another great example is American politics in todays digital media society. We are constantly bombarded through USA Today, CNN, New York Times and almost every large publication a certain angle of politics, what we should be looking for, and what is acceptable. It has become commonplace knowledge that racism is horrible thing, that the term "retarded" is taboo, et cetera et cetera. I would like to make this point: To think we have freedom of the mind is unacceptable, by all interpretations.

Is it acceptable, however to act to impinge on the "rights" of others? Their happiness? Their "right" to a content, unaffected life? One might not feel compelled to bring down the mood of a complete stranger, but can one always help making those close to them suffer from time to time? Certainly not! The American right to a pursuit of happiness is being impinged on all the time by those closest to us. Happiness, contention, is such a fickle idea: In Camus' The Stranger, the character remarks how he could "probably find himself content in any situation", and the book ends with a public crucification, of sorts. One's right to be happy needs to be an idea independent of the will of others, but at the same time the harmony produced by people working towards a common goal is what creates that happiness in the first place. The laws of nature are not beholden to the laws of man, as they are necessitated for them to be in order to "hold them self-evident". We hold a great many things, and evidence of the harmony of nature and humanity is not one of them.

So applying this to a broader perspective, do we have the right to impose our beliefs onto others? Do we have the obligation to allow others happiness (even though this cannot be attained through an optimistic status quo)? Let me clarify: if we cannot grant the right to happiness without sacrificing our own well-being to the demons of our shifting moods, anxiety and depression, are we still obligated to allow happiness [to create some forum for others to achieve self-contention]?

If it is true that we are, can I not bring up the case of the military; a goal-oriented, limited rat race, if you will, that still provides its constituents with a common goal and feelings of utilization, even though one could justly call it an exercise in superficiality. If it's true that we are not obligated to do so, what horrors does this enable us to justify? Many.

Either way, an active role in shaping a forum for others' happiness leads to feelings of absolute guilt (that is, we are betraying an objective plan or set of morals that are presupposed by our structure of thought). And the permissive idea that we must have no obligations for ensuing others' happiness leads to eventual [and quick] objectification and aggression against those to whom we assign our own frustrations. (Another great example of attributal framework shaping large outcomes.) Neither is too pleasant a picture.

Unfortunately, I feel like this post has betrayed the title, as most do, but please take from this a more flavorful discourse on the guilt/obligations associated with the fickle state of the human mood, mind and motivation. Certainly more flavorful than 18th century political philosophy. :D