Well, if you have ready my previous two posts, you might have noticed I have become a little lack-luster on the whole America thing. All I can say is that I like answers. I have always believed that there are no problems that do not have a solution. That sometimes those solutions might not be what we want them to be, or they might be harder to find than others... but in the end, there is a solution. My problem is that my recent discoveries of this 'great nation' seem to lead me to a place I don't see a lot of answers or solutions. I can only see the problems, which leads me to a very negitive place... something not good for a person who tends to think positive about things.
I think my biggest problem is that I believe in simplicity. Experience and research have taught me that, more often than not, the simple solution often lies within the simplicity of the problem. Even the complex problems tend not to be that complex once broken down to the core of the situation. When you start to rule out the negligible factors, and truly examine what is happening, often the situation is far simpler and thus a simple solution will result in a trickle down effect and resolve the greater complex problem. But now I don't see the problems we face as being able to be simplified. Or at least a simplified answer will be able to trickle down through the complexity. However, I do take some comfort in the fact that if I feel this frustrated, I might actually have some understanding of what the framers were experiencing when they came up with our constitution.
I keep trying ot look at the whoel picture, but focus on the key details... such that man is flawed. I think that beyond any other detail this is the primary issue that must be addressed in any form of society. But how does one create a society that does not find a way to constrain the flawed individual, but rather create a society that insures the flawed individual constrains him/her self? And, at the same time, provides the society a freedom to do what they want. This very concept probes into something so simple, yet more complex than anything I have ever considered before. And it is the lack of understanding that frustrates me, as I am not certain that there is an answer to these questions.
What is freedom?
Freedom is the ability for any and all members of society to do, say and be anything that want to be at any time they want to do, say or want to be it. It is a society of no constraints. As such, it allows those members of society that may be more flawed than others to think that they like another member's wife and think that sleeping with her because he wants to is acceptible. While this act would be covered under freedom... it fails at a moral conduct level, and would most definately cause a failure in such a society. So thus, a totally free society is not possible.
To most of us, we have this little voice inside ourselves that provides us with a natural form of constrain. It tells us that taking something that doesn't belong to us, and thus it is a wrong behavior. But what about the individual that does not have that little voice... or at least one that does not listen to it? Is he any less important of a member of society only because he thinks differently? And if so, at what point did he become a lesser member? The point at which he thought of taking something? The point at which he actually took the item? At what point do we draw the line in the sand and say, "This side is fine, but that side is not." And who gets to decide where that line belongs? By stating that there is a line at which too much is too much, we create a barrier from total freedom that effeects all members of society equally... and we create a possition of power over all other members of the society... a power that can be abused at any time to the advantage of those that chose to use it on their behalf. Thus, by creating 'laws' we destroy freedom. Yet, without laws, we get chaos.
And what if we enact laws to govern our society? We accept the limited freedom in exchange for the protection from those that think differently. We give the power to those that will enforce these laws and maintain them to continually adapt the laws as needed to the changing society. But what of those that don't agree with the changes? What if 40% of the society opposes the possible changes, but 60% are in favor... thus changing the laws? You now have 40% of the society obligated to follow laws they did not want, because 60% did. And what if those voting only represented 20% of the society at large? You would now have 12% of the population dictating the remaining 88% of the society as to how they must lead their lives. No... this just does not work. No 'free society' could ever survive an environment such as this.
The problem lies in this simplistic riddle:
A society can neither be completely free, nor can it survive the constraints placed upon it by a portion of its own populus. In other words... no society can survive. Why does this logically compute, but yet it simply isn't believable?
My head hurts... going to stop thinking for a while. Or at least redirrect my thoughts to something simpler... like my Statics Exam coming up.