Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Homespun Symposium XII, a Follow-Up
The topic I proposed for the Homespun Bloggers Symposium has stirred a few people, and I encourage you to read the responses they've linked at the Homespun page.
I've had a lively (even angry) debate with a fellow Homespunner, Thomas Luongo, both in the comments sections of his blog and my own. We've also exchanged some e-mail. I won't attempt to paraphrase his opinions, he presents himself clearly, and his ideas are best read in his own words.
In one recent note, Tom encouraged me to continue the discussion at my blog, which I'm doing here. I e-mailed this note to Tom, and I'm blogging it, too, for the consideration of anyone who's interested. If you care to comment, the comments link is at the bottom of this post, as usual.
Tom,
I think that the heart of our disagreement is the differences in the way we'd each answer this question, which I'm phrasing as objectively as I can: Is an individual who enjoys the rights of citizenship in Nation X obligated to defend that nation if called to duty? Clearly I see an obligation. From my perspective, it's the difference between being there when you're needed and being a freeloader. You seem to see things differently.
I think our differences here stem from fundamental elements of our characters. That might read like a slam, but it isn't intended to be. I do thank you for e-mailing me and approaching the debate civility, and I thank you for your comments at my blog. I'm not interested in "preaching to the choir," and I like to hear from people who disagree with me, even if we do initially rub one and other the wrong way.
Regards,
Darrell
Permalink -- Posted by Darrell at 19:46 
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Darrell,
I want to challenge a couple of assumptions within the context of your post, because there is wisdom to be gained from defining terms.
The problem I have is with the implications you attach to the word 'right,' as if your rights come from some other place. Now, some say they come from God, I say they derive from your being a human being. But, either way, your rights are personal and only an unrepentant socialist would believe that your society or government is the source of your rights. In fact, that is the heart of socialist theory and the crux of the Hobbesian dialectic.
Now, in your post you talk about the 'rights of citizenship.' That phrase doesn't parse well. You may have the 'privelege' of citizenship, as granted by your society/government within their legal framework, but not your 'rights.' Again, your rights are your own.
Remember, rights are things that only people have. Governments have powers, granted to them by the people which ordained them (see the preamble to the Constitution). So, I'd like to know how the government can have the 'right' to force me into service to do it's bidding?
Moreover, any task that has to be forced upon a free-acting adult is a task whose motives and consequences should be questioned. If it was such a good idea to invade this country or kill these people, there would be no need to forcably do anything, except maybe turn away unqualified volunteers.
The freeloader vs. team-player argument is specious as well for the simple reason that we are all economically active and as such contribute to a particular cause via the division of labor and our leveraging our unique talents/skills/dispositions to our maximal advantage. So, while you may offer yourself up as infantry, I may be testing the food that goes into your rations to ensure your health. There is no such thing as a free lunch...period.
Ta,
I want to challenge a couple of assumptions within the context of your post, because there is wisdom to be gained from defining terms.
The problem I have is with the implications you attach to the word 'right,' as if your rights come from some other place. Now, some say they come from God, I say they derive from your being a human being. But, either way, your rights are personal and only an unrepentant socialist would believe that your society or government is the source of your rights. In fact, that is the heart of socialist theory and the crux of the Hobbesian dialectic.
Now, in your post you talk about the 'rights of citizenship.' That phrase doesn't parse well. You may have the 'privelege' of citizenship, as granted by your society/government within their legal framework, but not your 'rights.' Again, your rights are your own.
Remember, rights are things that only people have. Governments have powers, granted to them by the people which ordained them (see the preamble to the Constitution). So, I'd like to know how the government can have the 'right' to force me into service to do it's bidding?
Moreover, any task that has to be forced upon a free-acting adult is a task whose motives and consequences should be questioned. If it was such a good idea to invade this country or kill these people, there would be no need to forcably do anything, except maybe turn away unqualified volunteers.
The freeloader vs. team-player argument is specious as well for the simple reason that we are all economically active and as such contribute to a particular cause via the division of labor and our leveraging our unique talents/skills/dispositions to our maximal advantage. So, while you may offer yourself up as infantry, I may be testing the food that goes into your rations to ensure your health. There is no such thing as a free lunch...period.
Ta,
Darrell,
BTW, I really forgot last night to mention that I do appreciate the rate at which the rancor was racheted down so as to try and create an understanding of the others position. I realize that this was something my comment above did not address and should have.
As well I appreciate the sentiments expressed above with regards to how well I have expressed myself. That is the only form of praise that matters here. I work very hard to say .exactly. what I mean, even if it takes more words than should be necessary.
Ta,
Post a Comment
BTW, I really forgot last night to mention that I do appreciate the rate at which the rancor was racheted down so as to try and create an understanding of the others position. I realize that this was something my comment above did not address and should have.
As well I appreciate the sentiments expressed above with regards to how well I have expressed myself. That is the only form of praise that matters here. I work very hard to say .exactly. what I mean, even if it takes more words than should be necessary.
Ta,
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
