Tag Archives: conflict and society

Principled Means, Principled Ends

Posted on by

These are precarious times.  We find ourselves confronted with growing social and economic instability and an uncertain future.  We do not want to sit on our hands.  Yet, unprecedented complexity and uncertainty make it impossible to know what to expect.

How easy it would be to let emotions rule, tipping the future into chaos and endangering the very goals we wish to secure.

It is with this in mind that I take up where I left off in the previous post (June 9).  I see two pragmatic reasons why political violence will not get Americans where we want to go.  One is tactical.  The second is strategic – and the more important.

Any patriot preparing today for armed resistance in the tradition of 1776 will pit himself against an extraordinary opponent.  He will be outmaneuvered and outgunned by fully militarized police possessing the most advanced surveillance technology and backed by massive firepower.

The mythic ideal of the citizen soldier remains deeply engrained in the American psyche.  But the plain fact is, if you imagine a heroic Star Wars scenario in defense of freedom and justice you are indulging in fantasy.

I am not interested in arguing about this because there is a much bigger problem, and it is this:  Who exactly do you intend to fight?

American law enforcement agencies and the United States military are served by loyal, committed Americans.   These are our people, our sons and daughters, friends and neighbors.  They are working people, they have families, and they care about the future.

It is our responsibility to win them over, not beat them up.  They should be approached respectfully, with persuasive argument and attractive example.

As I wrote here last week, violence committed by Americans against Americans would contradict the rationale behind the impetus to violence itself.   It would be self-contradictory, pitting us against one another and subverting the integrity and viability of the American Idea as a guiding force for the good.

Our views on politics or government, the integrity of the Constitution, or the corruption of principles, are all serious matters.  But, public servants, police officers and bureaucrats are not the problem.

We must respect these people, not just as a matter of principle, but because we need them. They are essential to a constructive solution.

Americans are not to be persuaded when we are attacked, not for some high-minded cause or anything else.  When faced with hostility we naturally close ranks, and clear thinking stops.

Even the misguided rebellion of tiny splinter groups will be destructive to the cause of liberty.  Any resort to force can easily lead to cascading consequences in which violence begets violence in a downward spiral, tearing the fabric of the republic and threatening the progress of constructive action.

Furthermore, it is simply not necessary.

Change is needed that is real, lasting, and built on the solid ground of dependable communities – not quicksand.  I never said this would be easy, so let me be clear – the skills, attitudes, and discipline that create and build community are at the heart of what we need to learn to create and build the future.

This is more than a matter of survival.  For thousands of years community has formed the foundation of civilization.  The essential concern in the present hour, and the basis by which to judge constructive action, must be the spirit and the quality of the future we wish for.  It is the means that determine the end.

This is not a theoretical nicety, but hard-nosed truth.  Understanding it will determine success or failure.

We are capable of being decent, patient and forbearing, of cooperating to resolve practical problems and even saving each others’ lives.  Personal principles, values and views must certainly be respected.  But, rising above our differences will be essential if we are to identify shared values, ensure comprehensive security, and begin to build a stable social economy for the future.

Going to war with our fellow citizens would make no sense.  Indeed, the ends we seek could be delayed by decades and possibly destroyed by impractical or intemperate courses of action.

Tom

Next week: A Foundation Based on Values

A note to regular readers: Thank you for all the comments, ideas, and perspectives shared in recent weeks, especially on the Facebook page.  You are a valuable “reality test” for me as a writer.  This project would be impossible without you.

Ends and Means…

Posted on by

Music 4-x

“The principle that the ends justify the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals”

–F. A. Hayek

“He who chooses the beginning of the road chooses the place it leads to.  It is the means that determine the end.”

–Harry Emerson Fosdick

“An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes.”

–Ayn Rand

“They say ‘means are after all means’.  I would say ‘means are after all everything’.  As the means, so the end.”

–Mohandas Gandhi

“The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means.”

–Georges Bernanos

 

The Second Amendment, Then and Now

Posted on by

The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was first proposed to Congress by James Madison as articles to be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution.

Congress approved twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution in 1789 and submitted them to the states for ratification.  Contrary to Madison’s proposal, they were submitted as “supplemental” additions.  Articles Three through Twelve were ratified by the required number of states and became Amendments One through Ten in 1791.

The Second Amendment, which has become a matter of considerable interest in recent years, reads as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This was not controversial at the time.  The concept existed in English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights.  And, many Americans feel it necessary to own firearms today.

The importance of this issue to the Founders was quite clear.  James Madison, who introduced the language that became the Second Amendment, also wrote that “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Alexander Hamilton, like Madison a strong advocate for Federalism, was equally explicit: “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Thomas Jefferson famously said: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.” And he also wrote that “The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

During the years just prior to the Revolutionary War there was mob violence in several of the colonies.  In addition, many Americans lived in or close to wilderness regions where conditions were essentially lawless.  The need people felt to protect their families was quite rational.

It should be noted that a primary motivation for supporting “a well regulated Militia,” articulated in the Second Amendment as “being necessary to the security of a free State,” was the strong opposition among the Founders to the concept of a standing army.

Thomas Jefferson put it this way: “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.  To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” “Every citizen should be a soldier,” he wrote. “This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

The American reality in 1776 and 1791 was entirely different from that confronting us today.  Yet, news of social and religious violence imposes on our peace every day.  Older Americans are particularly sensitized to what has changed: the radical loss of trust and the lack of civility, ethical integrity, and social responsibility we see everywhere.

We must acknowledge the compelling reasons why so many feel it necessary to possess firearms.

It is in this context that I have expressed my concern about threats of force made or implied in the name of political ends.  We already face dangerous instability, a condition that can only grow worse as conditions deteriorate.

Unfortunately, I expect it will ultimately be demonstrated for all to see – that the pursuit of violence will produce exactly the opposite of its intended purpose.  Such destructiveness will set us back immeasurably.

There is a dynamic relationship between means and ends.  The character of the ends we seek will be determined by the character of the means with which we seek them.

Violence committed by Americans against Americans would contradict the rationale behind the impetus to violence itself.   It would be self-contradictory, pitting brother and sister against brother and sister, subverting the integrity and viability of the American Idea as a guiding force for the good.

We can do better.

Both our purpose and our means need to be carefully considered, and we need to get it right.  We face an extended period of sequential crises.  Many dark and dangerous things are possible.

Tom

Next week: Principled Means, Principled Ends

Sorrow and suffering enough…

Posted on by

Trees 10

“If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”

–Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

The First Principle

Posted on by

If we are to regain our self-confidence with the vision and values of the founders, it would be useful to employ means that can actually lead to the goals we seek.  Let’s proceed then with careful deliberation rather than emotion and ego.

No American responds well to abuse, verbal or otherwise.  Nothing will subvert our purpose more quickly than a combative attitude that alienates the very people we need to win over.

Will we allow our differences to tear us apart?

We have choices.  We can choose to join forces to tackle the practical problems that threaten the safety and security of our communities.  We can choose to distinguish ourselves with common decency and cooperation in the interests of a well-reasoned and purposeful future.

It is only in dependable personal relationships tasked with essential responsibilities that we can truly come to know and influence one another.

We live in an era of dangerous instability.   It is a time to refrain from antagonistic words; a time to refocus our creative energy away from the dysfunction of partisan politics, so to secure the essential needs of our local communities.

I have described three essential elements that make community possible – trust, dependability, and constructive action.  These elements will only be found in communities where neighbors rise above their differences to serve a higher purpose.  And, for a self-respecting people, purpose must be something more than “survival.”

As regular readers know, I have chosen the term “constructive action” to describe the positive means by which we can realistically engage with one another and progress.  And, I have explained why a shared sense of purpose is helpful in guiding constructive action.

Shared purpose, I wrote, is a lens through which a community can bring the challenges of necessity into focus, and coordinate the efforts of diverse personalities.  Purpose can provide a standard by which to determine priorities and judge progress.

So, how can we understand constructive action?

Constructive action is based on the refusal to do harm.  It is action taken in a spirit of respect and kindness, a spirit founded upon the refusal to do violence to fellow citizens.

The principle here is the refusal to hurt – by impatience, dishonesty, hatred, or wishing ill of anybody.

I submit to you that this is the essential first principle upon which all other principles, values, and purposes depend.

Please do not misinterpret constructive action as merely a negative state of harmlessness. Quite the contrary, while constructive action in its purest form attempts to treat even the evil-doer with grace, it by no means assists the evil-doer in doing wrong or tolerates wrong-doing in any way.

The state of constructive action requires that we resist what is wrong and disassociate ourselves from it even if doing so antagonizes the wrong-doer.

There is a close relationship between the positive spirit of kindness, respect, and trustworthiness that characterizes constructive action and the moral integrity of the civil society we wish to build.  As means and ends, the two are inseparable.

Constructive action is the means.  Unity of purpose, grounded in the truthfulness of moral integrity, is the end.

Western political thinking has always considered means to be either an abstraction of tactics or simply the character of social and political machinery.  In both cases means are considered only in their service to the goals of particular political interests.

We will approach our understanding of means in quite a different way, replacing end-serving goals with an end-creating purpose.

Such an approach to means is necessary if we seek to apply traditional American values to rapidly changing circumstances.

This is the reason for my insistence on the meaningful engagement of all Americans in this endeavor, despite our vast diversity.

A vital and energetic future can only be realized by leveraging our differences in knowledge, skills, perspectives.  And, the closer we work together the greater our opportunity to influence, attract and inspire.

Again, we have clear choices to make.  Either we choose to recover and refine the fundamental meaning of the American Idea, or we can walk away forever from the safety, stability, and purpose of a future we can trust and believe in.

Tom

Next week: The Second Amendment, Then and Now.

A note to regular readers:  Your ideas, views, and constructive feedback have been immensely helpful to me, especially on the Facebook page.  This project would be impossible without you.  To receive alerts by email you may click on “Follow” on the right side of this page.

To build or destroy…

Posted on by

Farm 1-x

“To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years.  To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.”

–Winston Churchill

 

 

 

Stability and Constructive Action

Posted on by

Security concerns increase with social instability in the world around us.  Our safety and well-being will ultimately depend, as I observed in the previous post, upon the stability and trustworthiness of the conditions we put in place around us.

Stability and security are mutually reinforcing, but without stability any effort to increase security is futile.  Stability makes our efforts to create security possible, and it benefits from those efforts.

It is natural to think that security must come first, but actually it is the other way around.  The key to security is effective community and the value of our personal investment in each other.

The first priority for any stable community is the strength of interpersonal relationships. These form the basis for trust, for good communication and effective problem-solving.

Dependable community depends on dependable relationships.

Americans are used to thinking of security as the responsibility of trained professionals who are expected to deal with emergency situations.  That is because we have been accustomed to stable institutions and dependable systems.

This may not always be true.  Things we have taken for granted in the past may become emergency concerns – if we are not prepared for them.

Food security is an important example.  Supermarkets typically limit their distribution centers to a three-day supply.  If the supply chain is disrupted and their vendors are unable to deliver, we are in trouble.

Unless we use our imaginations, the interruption of systems we take for granted will catch us off guard.  A systemic disruption could be caused by an Ebola-type epidemic, a cyber-attack on the banking system or national grid, a global monetary crisis, or any number of other reasons.

These are not unreasonable possibilities.

In my view, we would do well to think about the implications – from public health threats and emergency medicine to the need for a cash economy.  Building dependable networks of support among neighboring communities will also be important.

Knowing how to work effectively in groups will be key.  This will mean developing personal skills. Group decision-making and resolving interpersonal conflicts need not be traumatic ordeals, if we have acquired the necessary skills.

We are quite capable of preparing ourselves if we remain purposeful and ready to learn.  In the coming months I will discuss additional challenges we are likely to face, and tools to address them.

I have written of the importance of such virtues as trustworthiness, dependability, and responsibility.  I expect these make sense to you.  But, I have also introduced an idea that might seem novel, which I call “constructive action.”  And, last week I argued that stability is not possible without forward motion.

Why are motion and constructive action indispensable to our endeavors?

Think of it this way: Keeping our balance while riding a bicycle requires forward motion.  In any community, business, or organization, activity guided by a sense of purpose serves a similar function.  No social group can sustain coherence or affectionate ties unsupported by vision and purpose.

We will face two important areas of consideration as we consolidate our communities: What we do and how we do it.  The concept of constructive action concerns the latter – the way we can work together effectively.

This has a direct bearing on security.  To put it simply, constructive action is about being constructive rather than destructive, building rather than tearing down, freeing rather than oppressing.

A constructive approach requires a positive attitude and will contribute to improved safety and well-being.  Destructive actions and a negative attitude will set us back, the results of emotional reaction rather than rational purposefulness.

One leads toward the ends we seek; the other pushes us farther away.

Shared purpose is a lens through which the challenges of necessity can be brought into focus and the efforts of diverse personalities can be coordinated.  Shared purpose provides a standard by which a community can judge priorities and progress.

With sufficient willpower and discipline, each of us can develop our skills and learn how to do this.  And, a positive attitude will support rational thinking and a constructive way forward.

Tom

Next week:  Hard realities, practical necessities

A note to readers: Please consider supporting this blog and book project by suggesting that your friends and associates that they take a look.  And, clicking the Follow button will provide email alerts.

Doing the impossible…

Posted on by

Leaves 3

“There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and the energy of her citizens cannot cure.”

–Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Start by doing what’s necessary; then do what’s possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible.”

–Francis of Assisi

 

Foundations for Security

Posted on by

In seeking security for those we care for – access to food and clean water, the safety of our children, or a defense against a collapsing civil order – we would do well to consider the qualities of order and stability that security requires.

Safety depends on the conditions we put in place around us, and therefore upon our ability to provide for necessities and to create a dependable environment.  This will not be possible without active trustworthy relationships with our neighbors.

With deteriorating social and economic conditions we will be exposed to the failure of institutions and systems we have depended on for basic needs.  Our neighborhoods may feel less safe.  Police protection may become less dependable.  We are likely to see some of our fellow citizens become disoriented and lose their balance.

We may be required to organize our communities effectively to meet needs and resolve practical problems.

It may also be wise to think carefully and rationally about the potential for sociopathic violence.  But, let’s be clear: The possibility for violence is only one among a wide range of security concerns.  In the coming weeks I will touch on some of these, including ways we can both prepare for and limit violence.

As we experience increasing social and economic disorder, I expect it will become increasingly clear that we must assume responsibility for our own necessities.

Food security will be a major problem if we do not learn how to produce and preserve food.  Hunger is not fun and hungry people are often not very nice.

The greatest test for some may be the sudden recognition that we do not really know how to be self-sufficient.  Our well-being will depend on how we respond to these challenges.  And so, as we find our way forward in a new reality it will become apparent that the requirements of security are in fact the requirements of stable communities.

That said, let’s be realistic about the relative nature of security.

President Dwight Eisenhower, a five star general, reminded us of the limits: “If you want total security,” he said, “go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.”

Like President Eisenhower, Helen Keller also had a way of putting things in perspective.  Being both deaf and blind gave her insights into life that the rest of us would do well to think about.

“Security is mostly a superstition,” she said. “It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.  Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.  Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

Fear can interfere with our ability to address problems and to keep our heads clear in difficult circumstances.  However, security concerns certainly do need to be addressed to keep our families safe and our communities productive.

I suggest that a sequence of responsibilities applies to local communities:  Freedom depends on security, which depends on stability, which in turn depends upon honesty, trust, dependability, and forbearance.

There is one other essential component as well, which I call “constructive action.”  By this I mean the active condition in which dependable working relationships develop.  We have already discussed the critical importance of trust and dependability at length.  These depend on constructive action, guided by principle and a sense of purpose.

Principle and purpose cannot exist frozen in time.  I believe stability is only possible when we are in motion.

Constructive action supported by a shared sense of purpose will be the only way to navigate through dark times.  For family and community, a stable foundation is our first priority.  Constructive action allows us dynamic flexibility in responding to what the world throws at us.

All of this will depend on our readiness to work closely with people we have differences with. We cannot be tentative about it.  Building trustworthy communities will not be easy.  Our future depends on it.

Tom

Dear readers:  In the coming weeks I will consider several issues related to security for families and communities.  I look forward to your comments and constructive feedback; this project would be impossible without you.

A house divided against itself…

Posted on by

Conflict 1

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”

–Matthew 12:25  (KJV)

 

The foundational principle…

Posted on by

Lake 1

“Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication.  It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.”

“When the trust account is high, communication is easy, instant, and effective.”

–Stephen R. Covey

The Resilience of Inner Freedom

Posted on by

I fear America is sliding steadily toward social disorder and economic disarray. In an atmosphere of deepening crisis, I am concerned about the potential for overreaction by government, police agencies, and citizens. These are circumstances in which terrible things can happen, and indeed are happening.

This week I will share a story with you that illuminates our capacity as human beings to assert our dignity and inner freedom even amidst the most dreadful circumstances.

Responding to the contradictions and injustices we experience in life is challenging. Yet, doing so rationally and responsibly can be a personal statement of transcendent freedom. This is possible regardless of the conditions around us, however difficult they may be.

To be free we must seek to be autonomous individuals first, whole and complete in ourselves, and then to actualize our identity with dignity and perseverance.

We may not like the reality in which we find ourselves. Indeed, it could be nightmarish. But, possessing free will necessitates a commitment to be free in oneself and to engage proactively with the circumstances we face.

If there is a primary requirement for attaining inner integrity, it is the personal determination to do so. In my view, this choice has never been described more eloquently than by Viktor Frankl in the book, Man’s Search for Meaning, the testimony of four terrible years as a prisoner in Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp.

Because his response to that experience is so revealing, I will devote most of this post to his words:

“I may give the impression that the human being is completely and unavoidably influenced by his surroundings. (In this case the surroundings being the unique structure of camp life, which forced the prisoner to conform his conduct to a certain set pattern.) But, what about human liberty?

“Is there no spiritual freedom in regard to behavior and reaction to any given surroundings? …Do the prisoners’ reactions to the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of such circumstances?

“We can answer these questions from experience as well as on principle.

“The experiences of camp life show that man does have a choice of action. There were enough examples, often of a heroic nature, which proved that apathy could be overcome, irritability suppressed. Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress.

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

“And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom….

“Even though conditions such as lack of sleep, insufficient food and various mental stresses may suggest that the inmates were bound to react in certain ways, in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him – mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp.”

As we face our own tests, which we hope will not be so daunting as Dr. Frankl’s, how can we find this resilience within ourselves? Here is a freedom gained through empowered compassion and responsibility as we respond to the turmoil of a transformative age.

No one can do this for us. As we turn our attention to the suffering and confusion of those around us, we are preparing for both the coming hardship and the new day beyond.

Tom

Next week: Liberty and justice made personal.