Socialism and Individualism
Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive, or is there a happy medium at which the two might come together for the good not only of society but also of the individual? Might it not be to the individual's benefit, and support his or her rights as a human, for societies or a society that can to provide as much of the following as possible: water, food, shelter (including necessary clothing and equipment), education, and health care? These are the things upon which a society prides itself for providing; it's for the social (greater) good, because it makes each individual happier, healthier, and more naturally productive. In those ways it also works for the individual well-being.
I feel (for what it's worth) like the issue arises not in the provision of these things to every human being we can reach, but in trying to enforce a 'code of use'. Money given must be given freely, without strings, because the giver can afford it. A government's job is to see to the well-being of it's people and the people of the countries around it. However, one government does not have the right to dictate how another will govern. What government does have the right to do is reflect the will of it's people. Do not we as a people desire that there be 'enough' for everyone? Do we not want an educated, healthy populace? But at the same time we want the freedom to distribute our own wealth.
Well, I think (again, for what that's worth :)) there would be more wealth in our pockets to distribute, more time in which to see to it's distribution, more enjoyment and fulfillment to be had in life, if we could embrace the idea that perhaps it's not about working eight hours a day, but as long as it takes to get the job done, which may be a lot less time in a world in which mechanized labor can do many of the things we've come to rely on. For some there will always be a hunger and a drive to go above and beyond, and when they do a world in which people are free to distribute what they have as they see fit will reward those people in accordance with their contribution. Others will always tend to lay about, but if we allow them to lay about in relative safety and comfort at least when we need them to get off their bums and do something they'll be fit for the job. We live in a world now where we can, if we will, make all the necessities and some of what were previously luxuries available to everyone, everywhere. The choice to take advantage of those things or not to ought to lie with each individual, but they ought to be available. The choice to give back ought also to belong to the one doing the giving, and some will not. In early days, many will not. When people have enough we don't clutch so tightly and fear for our own well-being if we let that little extra go. In time, community can happen.
Community, in my opinion, is the evolution of society. It's where we go from the rat race to the human race, where we can enjoy the fruits of our labors and feel satisfied in what we're fortunate enough to be a part of. Good friends, good conversation, the play of people enjoying one another simply for being who we are; what could be better? There is no fear or shame, only contentment, joy, and love. We live in an age where, if we can work out living together without having to have it all one way, let our society be ours, let theirs be theirs, ask for help from one another when we need it, offer it when we have it to give, and put government in it's place as intermediary, facilitator, and support structure, we could create something the likes of which has never been seen, at least in our little corner of the Universe, and yet which has come and passed on smaller scales (because human knowledge was more limited) time and again during the geologic hiccup we call the human age.
I hope we as humans have seen, experienced, and learned enough to finally put our heads together for a while and figure out where we, as a society of many nations but one world, will go from here. We preach a message of tolerance, even acceptance (which is in reality quite a different thing from tolerance), but when it comes to anything different than what we consider the moral right we're very quick, it seems, to feel we must step in and put a stop to it. Even if we do happen to hold the moral high ground in a given situation, if we are all different but equal what happened to living and letting live? Of course we have to do what we feel is right, but I think it never hurts to step back and really consider whether getting involved is the right thing to do. Sometimes it is, undeniably, and one would hope that in those times we would, but much of the time it's better to simply watch, wait, and be prepared should anyone end up needing help. And still other times, the best answer is to shake one's head, turn around, and just walk away. Those times are hardest of all for some, others can't bring themselves to step in where there's a real immediate need, but the vast majority of us, if you asked us, would say we do the best thing we can figure to do in the moment, and that's what we're meant to do. But doesn't it seem that our collective best can do better, if we work at it, than a country full of homeless, hungry, hard-working people? (And since by that I mean America at the mo, how must it be to be from somewhere with less to offer and fewer options?) Are we really this extravagant and disorganized, or are we perhaps capable of digging in and, together, sorting this mess out, then moving on where we're needed and wanted and offering what we can in helping others get sorted?
I'll admit, I have quite a high opinion of myself. I think I am a good person, well-loved (if not always liked very much), generally positive and generally fortunate, and fairly insightful. I should hope everyone would hold a similar view of themselves. Does it not seem then that as a whole we could create something enduring around ourselves with the same general qualities? Perhaps not, I suppose, but there is always hope. :)
I feel (for what it's worth) like the issue arises not in the provision of these things to every human being we can reach, but in trying to enforce a 'code of use'. Money given must be given freely, without strings, because the giver can afford it. A government's job is to see to the well-being of it's people and the people of the countries around it. However, one government does not have the right to dictate how another will govern. What government does have the right to do is reflect the will of it's people. Do not we as a people desire that there be 'enough' for everyone? Do we not want an educated, healthy populace? But at the same time we want the freedom to distribute our own wealth.
Well, I think (again, for what that's worth :)) there would be more wealth in our pockets to distribute, more time in which to see to it's distribution, more enjoyment and fulfillment to be had in life, if we could embrace the idea that perhaps it's not about working eight hours a day, but as long as it takes to get the job done, which may be a lot less time in a world in which mechanized labor can do many of the things we've come to rely on. For some there will always be a hunger and a drive to go above and beyond, and when they do a world in which people are free to distribute what they have as they see fit will reward those people in accordance with their contribution. Others will always tend to lay about, but if we allow them to lay about in relative safety and comfort at least when we need them to get off their bums and do something they'll be fit for the job. We live in a world now where we can, if we will, make all the necessities and some of what were previously luxuries available to everyone, everywhere. The choice to take advantage of those things or not to ought to lie with each individual, but they ought to be available. The choice to give back ought also to belong to the one doing the giving, and some will not. In early days, many will not. When people have enough we don't clutch so tightly and fear for our own well-being if we let that little extra go. In time, community can happen.
Community, in my opinion, is the evolution of society. It's where we go from the rat race to the human race, where we can enjoy the fruits of our labors and feel satisfied in what we're fortunate enough to be a part of. Good friends, good conversation, the play of people enjoying one another simply for being who we are; what could be better? There is no fear or shame, only contentment, joy, and love. We live in an age where, if we can work out living together without having to have it all one way, let our society be ours, let theirs be theirs, ask for help from one another when we need it, offer it when we have it to give, and put government in it's place as intermediary, facilitator, and support structure, we could create something the likes of which has never been seen, at least in our little corner of the Universe, and yet which has come and passed on smaller scales (because human knowledge was more limited) time and again during the geologic hiccup we call the human age.
I hope we as humans have seen, experienced, and learned enough to finally put our heads together for a while and figure out where we, as a society of many nations but one world, will go from here. We preach a message of tolerance, even acceptance (which is in reality quite a different thing from tolerance), but when it comes to anything different than what we consider the moral right we're very quick, it seems, to feel we must step in and put a stop to it. Even if we do happen to hold the moral high ground in a given situation, if we are all different but equal what happened to living and letting live? Of course we have to do what we feel is right, but I think it never hurts to step back and really consider whether getting involved is the right thing to do. Sometimes it is, undeniably, and one would hope that in those times we would, but much of the time it's better to simply watch, wait, and be prepared should anyone end up needing help. And still other times, the best answer is to shake one's head, turn around, and just walk away. Those times are hardest of all for some, others can't bring themselves to step in where there's a real immediate need, but the vast majority of us, if you asked us, would say we do the best thing we can figure to do in the moment, and that's what we're meant to do. But doesn't it seem that our collective best can do better, if we work at it, than a country full of homeless, hungry, hard-working people? (And since by that I mean America at the mo, how must it be to be from somewhere with less to offer and fewer options?) Are we really this extravagant and disorganized, or are we perhaps capable of digging in and, together, sorting this mess out, then moving on where we're needed and wanted and offering what we can in helping others get sorted?
I'll admit, I have quite a high opinion of myself. I think I am a good person, well-loved (if not always liked very much), generally positive and generally fortunate, and fairly insightful. I should hope everyone would hold a similar view of themselves. Does it not seem then that as a whole we could create something enduring around ourselves with the same general qualities? Perhaps not, I suppose, but there is always hope. :)
Comments
Post a Comment