ragamoffyn ramblin'
i'm trying to put my finger on the exact way to phrase this idea...
is it actually that the essential function of gov't is to assess the value of human life, like any other resource (animals, plants, fossil fuels, the environment, etc.)?
or is that really just some kind of end result of the way that gov't operates?
considering some of the information in my last post, particularly _the jungle_ by Upton Sinclair -- in which the animal's journey through the slaughterhouse is presented as an allegorical analog to the life of a citizen in a modern industrial state -- we can give thanks that the working and living conditions in chicago have changed since that time; but we can also safely assume that such horrors have actually just been relocated to maquiladoras, or other sweatshops around the world.
--
more food for thought:
--
my gov't textbook gives this definition of Government:
individuals and institutions in a society that make up its rules, and possess the power and authority to enforce those rules.
--
& the four basic functions of gov't
1. resolve conflicts
2. provide public services
3. set goals for public policies
4. preserve culture
--
according to John Locke, it is the responsibility of gov't to protect our 'Natural Rights' to life, liberty, and property.
--
& according to Harold Lasswell, politics is the process of determining "who gets what, when, & how" in a society.
--
tracing back to the magna carta... further back to Athens... and even as far back as the Code of Hammurabi... but even more so since the 17th century -- gov't has been a social contract between the people and their representatives, where the citizens agree to abide by certain rules (perhaps sacrifice some freedoms?), in exchange for some benefits (security?): the gov't is given adequate power to secure the mutual protection and welfare of all individuals.
--
which reminds me of something that is often quoted in one form or another:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, 11 November 1755
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107#BNFN-01-06-02-0107-fn-0005-ptr
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
--
I had previously thought that Franklin's quote was predated by similar logic from Edward Gibbon, regarding the failure of Athens; but that was apparently due due a highly circulated mis-attribution by Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher should have given credit for her paraphrasing to the work of Edith Hamilton. Edith Hamilton used similar phrasing concerning Athens' failure in print multiple times, including:
"Lessons of the Past" an article from the September 27, 1958 _Saturday Evening Post_
& similar wording also appears in _The Ever-Present Past_ (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1964), p. 37.
Here is an excellent example from Hamilton's _The Echo of Greece_ (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1967), pp. 47-48:
"What the people wanted was a government which would provide a comfortable life for them, and with this as the foremost object ideas of freedom and self-reliance and service to the community were obscured to the point of disappearing. Athens was more and more looked on as a co-operative business, possessed of great wealth, in which all citizens had a right to share. The larger and larger funds demanded made heavier and heavier taxation necessary, but that only troubled the well-to-do, always a minority, and no one gave a thought to the possibility that the source might be taxed out of existence. [ . . . ] Athens had reached the point of rejecting independence, and the freedom she now wanted was freedom from responsibility. There could be only one result. [ . . . ] If men insisted on being free from the burden of a life that was self-dependent and also responsible for the common good, they would cease to be free at all. Responsibility was the price every man must pay for freedom. It was to be had on no other terms."
--
Although this logic in general also brings to mind this story from _Edifying Discourses in Diverse Spirits_ (also translated as _Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits_) published on March 13, 1847, by Søren Kierkegaard, paraphrased here:
"Kierkegaard told of a wild dove of the forest which always was able to find adequate sustenance (because God provides for the birds of the air) but which, of course, never was able to know for sure where the next meal was coming from, or whether there would be a next meal. Thus not out of any real deprivation but out of fear of future deprivation the wild dove became jealous of the farmer's domesticated doves; they lived assured by the presence of the farmer's abundant granary and by the fact that the farmer fed them regularly from it. In the end, anxiety over material security led the wild dove to trade its forest freedom for the farmer's dovecot, and it promptly found itself on the farmer's table." - Gospel of Suffering: Discourse I, On What Is To Be Learned From The Lilies. trans. David F. & Lilian Marvin Swenson. 1948
--
worse than a faustian baragin, is it not -- but what choice do we really have?
i'm going to sleep on that one... too many thoughts which i must put to rest.
is it actually that the essential function of gov't is to assess the value of human life, like any other resource (animals, plants, fossil fuels, the environment, etc.)?
or is that really just some kind of end result of the way that gov't operates?
considering some of the information in my last post, particularly _the jungle_ by Upton Sinclair -- in which the animal's journey through the slaughterhouse is presented as an allegorical analog to the life of a citizen in a modern industrial state -- we can give thanks that the working and living conditions in chicago have changed since that time; but we can also safely assume that such horrors have actually just been relocated to maquiladoras, or other sweatshops around the world.
--
more food for thought:
--
my gov't textbook gives this definition of Government:
individuals and institutions in a society that make up its rules, and possess the power and authority to enforce those rules.
--
& the four basic functions of gov't
1. resolve conflicts
2. provide public services
3. set goals for public policies
4. preserve culture
--
according to John Locke, it is the responsibility of gov't to protect our 'Natural Rights' to life, liberty, and property.
--
& according to Harold Lasswell, politics is the process of determining "who gets what, when, & how" in a society.
--
tracing back to the magna carta... further back to Athens... and even as far back as the Code of Hammurabi... but even more so since the 17th century -- gov't has been a social contract between the people and their representatives, where the citizens agree to abide by certain rules (perhaps sacrifice some freedoms?), in exchange for some benefits (security?): the gov't is given adequate power to secure the mutual protection and welfare of all individuals.
--
which reminds me of something that is often quoted in one form or another:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, 11 November 1755
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107#BNFN-01-06-02-0107-fn-0005-ptr
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
--
I had previously thought that Franklin's quote was predated by similar logic from Edward Gibbon, regarding the failure of Athens; but that was apparently due due a highly circulated mis-attribution by Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher should have given credit for her paraphrasing to the work of Edith Hamilton. Edith Hamilton used similar phrasing concerning Athens' failure in print multiple times, including:
"Lessons of the Past" an article from the September 27, 1958 _Saturday Evening Post_
& similar wording also appears in _The Ever-Present Past_ (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1964), p. 37.
Here is an excellent example from Hamilton's _The Echo of Greece_ (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1967), pp. 47-48:
"What the people wanted was a government which would provide a comfortable life for them, and with this as the foremost object ideas of freedom and self-reliance and service to the community were obscured to the point of disappearing. Athens was more and more looked on as a co-operative business, possessed of great wealth, in which all citizens had a right to share. The larger and larger funds demanded made heavier and heavier taxation necessary, but that only troubled the well-to-do, always a minority, and no one gave a thought to the possibility that the source might be taxed out of existence. [ . . . ] Athens had reached the point of rejecting independence, and the freedom she now wanted was freedom from responsibility. There could be only one result. [ . . . ] If men insisted on being free from the burden of a life that was self-dependent and also responsible for the common good, they would cease to be free at all. Responsibility was the price every man must pay for freedom. It was to be had on no other terms."
--
Although this logic in general also brings to mind this story from _Edifying Discourses in Diverse Spirits_ (also translated as _Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits_) published on March 13, 1847, by Søren Kierkegaard, paraphrased here:
"Kierkegaard told of a wild dove of the forest which always was able to find adequate sustenance (because God provides for the birds of the air) but which, of course, never was able to know for sure where the next meal was coming from, or whether there would be a next meal. Thus not out of any real deprivation but out of fear of future deprivation the wild dove became jealous of the farmer's domesticated doves; they lived assured by the presence of the farmer's abundant granary and by the fact that the farmer fed them regularly from it. In the end, anxiety over material security led the wild dove to trade its forest freedom for the farmer's dovecot, and it promptly found itself on the farmer's table." - Gospel of Suffering: Discourse I, On What Is To Be Learned From The Lilies. trans. David F. & Lilian Marvin Swenson. 1948
--
worse than a faustian baragin, is it not -- but what choice do we really have?
i'm going to sleep on that one... too many thoughts which i must put to rest.