16 June 2008
And so it goes. This past weekend(13 June-thru 15 June 2008) two men I thought of as friends died. NBC "Meet The Press" anchor, Tim Russert, experienced a fatal heart attack; Dr. Dennis Fecher was diagnosed with lung cancer in November 2007. One friend, Dennis Fecher, I knew intimately and for nearly thirty years; the other, Tim Russert, I knew only as millions of viewers over the past seventeen years have known him, as an honest reliable man. Dennis Fecher was a person of great intellect, of science and reason; Tim Russert also possessed a high degree of intellect, was a man of religious faith and reason. I will miss them both for vastly different reasons; one I only met with vicariously, the other I hugged goodbye when parting company last Saturday afternoon 14 June 2008. Because both of these men were an ongoing source of inspiration, encouragement, and challenge, because both men were given to promote human progress, the improvement of government and life, and most importantly, to a better quality of living; because the people that know these two men testify as to their exuberance for family, work and to living every minute of evry day, I wish to dedicate this posting regarding the definition of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government.
In loving memory of Dr. Dennis R. Fecher and Tim Russert.
HUMANISTIC EQUALISM:(noun) Philosophy, system, and process concerning the ethical conduct of government within society arising from the intrinsic inherent value and dignity of human life conjoined with absolute equality.
A philosophy of politics and government reasoned as follows:
Given that, within a societal context, the value and dignity of citizens' lives are intrinsic, inherent and inarguable. And, given that within the same societal context, the benefit gained and value added by guaranteeing absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights to all citizens is undeniable. It may therefore be concluded that a philosophy, system, and process of government based exclusively on human progress and absolute equality must of necessity be an ethical government.
In other words, if the philosophical underpinnings of a government system and process are focused entirely on that which will enhance and improve the lives and living conditions of all citizens; and if government "sees" and deals with every citizen absolutely equally, then the end result must be a government that is truly ethical in all its function, activity and conduct.
I realize that it is hard to believe, but in all of human history there has never been a government system or any kind of controlling authority or body created and instituted based first and foremost on people and equality. No known government in all the annals of mankind ever elevated the people over property, profit, power, and position. Not one.
Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is a genuinely new proposal for politics and government. Others, such as Locke, Hume, and Rousseau, assert the "social contract," the citizens' real value, and the need for those governed to give consent along with the tremendous amount of power they possess; but none go so far as to say that the only acceptable reason for and purpose of government is the progress and prosperity of its citizens. And I have not found any evidence that guaranteeing absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights to ALL citizens has ever been seriously discussed with regard to the way government treats the people it serves. In fact, the idea of government serving citizens in any form or fashion is only as old as the United States of America.
I submit that Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is the next logical adaptation in the evolutionary process concerning systems of government. I would like to know any thoughts someone may have and encourage all to make a comment. More to come soon. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
Showing posts with label process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label process. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
COPROMISE PART II: THE PROMISE OF CORRUPTION
30 April 2008
What is compromise? Is it a co-promise? Is it a promise to cooperate? Is it a commonly agreed upon promise? The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd. Edition, indicates that compromise is a settlement of differences by concession; or combining the qualities of different things. Within the context of government and governing, I submit, that compromise is more about what is given up, rather than what is gained, that everyone loses, while only a limited few realize some degree of benefit; and, that compromise is the first act of corruption. How can this be?
Compromise, when all is said and done, can only occur between two people. Yes, more may be involved in the negotiations, but in the end the ultimate agreement is usually struck between two individuals that have enough power to enforce it. Conversely, two well-founded, well-developed ideas or plans cannot be compromised if either is to accomplish its purpose. For example, presidential hopefuls, Republican John McCain and Democrat, Hillary Clinton, are currently clamoring for a suspension of the federal tax on gasoline throughout the summer season; Senator Barrack OBama opposes the idea. He is against it for two basic reasons; it would not significantly effect the price of gasoline for average citizens, and the loss of revenue diminishes what can be allocated for infrastructure maintenance and repair.
I am not advocating for Mr. Obama, but he is right. If and when this issues comes before congress, some sort of compromise will be reached, and regardless of the final terms, average citizens will lose far more than we will gain, while a limited number of politicians and corporations will reap the greatest benefit. Think about it! Consider the compromises that have been reached about funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for S-CHP (State Children's Health Program) funding, and for the so-called "economic stimulus" package passed earlier this year. Each of these actions by our government were passed, some have been vetoed by President Bush, but all are the product of compromise.
One may argue that, had it not been for compromise, nothing would have gotten done. That may be true, however, it does not make it right, honest or effective. Because of compromise thousands of soldiers and civilians have continued to die, children and entire families are being denied health care- some of them will die as a result, and as many as two million citizens still face foreclosure, economic ruin and homelessness.
Reader's can argue until they are blue in the face about the need for compromise in legislation and government, but the the evidence of its harmful consequences throughout the course of our nation's history is undeniable and overwhelming. The growth and maturity of the United States; its industrialization, our inestimable wealth and nuclear domination of the planet is the product of compromise. By the same token, our increasing and immediate dysfunction, deterioration and decline are also the result of compromise. Compromise has made the United States of America what it is, and what it is not. Now, the question is, "How can government function without compromise?"
There must be a process. A process that makes all citizens the primary objective and beneficiaries, that will bring about the best results and effects for everyone. Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government contains such a process. It is a Three-question Test process. When considering final passage of any policy, legislation, or action lawmakers must ask and answer three questions:
What is compromise? Is it a co-promise? Is it a promise to cooperate? Is it a commonly agreed upon promise? The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd. Edition, indicates that compromise is a settlement of differences by concession; or combining the qualities of different things. Within the context of government and governing, I submit, that compromise is more about what is given up, rather than what is gained, that everyone loses, while only a limited few realize some degree of benefit; and, that compromise is the first act of corruption. How can this be?
Compromise, when all is said and done, can only occur between two people. Yes, more may be involved in the negotiations, but in the end the ultimate agreement is usually struck between two individuals that have enough power to enforce it. Conversely, two well-founded, well-developed ideas or plans cannot be compromised if either is to accomplish its purpose. For example, presidential hopefuls, Republican John McCain and Democrat, Hillary Clinton, are currently clamoring for a suspension of the federal tax on gasoline throughout the summer season; Senator Barrack OBama opposes the idea. He is against it for two basic reasons; it would not significantly effect the price of gasoline for average citizens, and the loss of revenue diminishes what can be allocated for infrastructure maintenance and repair.
I am not advocating for Mr. Obama, but he is right. If and when this issues comes before congress, some sort of compromise will be reached, and regardless of the final terms, average citizens will lose far more than we will gain, while a limited number of politicians and corporations will reap the greatest benefit. Think about it! Consider the compromises that have been reached about funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for S-CHP (State Children's Health Program) funding, and for the so-called "economic stimulus" package passed earlier this year. Each of these actions by our government were passed, some have been vetoed by President Bush, but all are the product of compromise.
One may argue that, had it not been for compromise, nothing would have gotten done. That may be true, however, it does not make it right, honest or effective. Because of compromise thousands of soldiers and civilians have continued to die, children and entire families are being denied health care- some of them will die as a result, and as many as two million citizens still face foreclosure, economic ruin and homelessness.
Reader's can argue until they are blue in the face about the need for compromise in legislation and government, but the the evidence of its harmful consequences throughout the course of our nation's history is undeniable and overwhelming. The growth and maturity of the United States; its industrialization, our inestimable wealth and nuclear domination of the planet is the product of compromise. By the same token, our increasing and immediate dysfunction, deterioration and decline are also the result of compromise. Compromise has made the United States of America what it is, and what it is not. Now, the question is, "How can government function without compromise?"
There must be a process. A process that makes all citizens the primary objective and beneficiaries, that will bring about the best results and effects for everyone. Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government contains such a process. It is a Three-question Test process. When considering final passage of any policy, legislation, or action lawmakers must ask and answer three questions:
- Will this action or function cause ruinous harm to the dignity, value, happiness and progress of citizens' lives?
- Will this action or function secure, without exception, absolutely equal privileges, status and rights of every citizen?
- Will this action or function require and guarantee without exception, equitable, impartial application and enforcement to every citizen?
The answer to the first question must be No; questions two and three must be answered in the affirmative. If the response to any of the questions is qualified in any manner, is unclear or ambiguous, the action or function must be rejected as it is and debate resumed until it complies with the rules of the process. The objective of the three questions is to eliminate self-interest, special interest, greed and compromise; this would all but do away with the opportunity for acts of corruption and collusion. I will discuss this in greater detail at a later time. For now I ask only that readers think about it and consider the possibilities such a process could produce.
Throughout the coming days, weeks and months pay attention and make note of when you read, hear or see something about compromises, deals or agreements reached by congress or the president. When you do look into it, see who is gaining and who is losing. I will bet all the money I could make for the remainder of my life that in all instances average working people, common citizens, will always be the biggest losers and that politicians and the wealthy will always gain the most benefit.
I will communicate with you again on 4 May 2008, until then please be safe, let me know what you think and give Peace a chance.
James Tinsley, B.A.
Monday, April 14, 2008
BECAUSE LIFE IS NOT FAIR, GOVERNMENT MUST BE EQUAL
14 April 2008
The title of this post sums up the big-picture premise upon which Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is constructed; albeit somewhat over-simplified. "Fair," and "equal," are not the same thing. "Fair" is a concept, or idea that flows from the principle of "equal," or "absolute equal" within the context of Humanistic Equalism.
By their very nature people are not fair. The result is a society that is not fair. So far, as a general rule of history, government is neither fair nor equal. Fairness is a subjective judgement that may lead to an action, and is facilitated by the condition of equality. And even though one may choose to act fairly absent the condition of equality, if the principle of equality is the required condition then fair conduct or action must be result. Therefore, since people most often act fairly only when it is in their own self-interest, or advantage, I submit that it is the duty and responsibility of institutional government to establish and maintain the condition of absolute equality concerning its activities, functions, and conduct. That is to say that if our government is predicated on the condition of absolute equality it will be fair.
For example, tomorrow (15 April) is the deadline for filing individual income tax information. By the way, HAPPY TAX DAY! I do not believe that in 55 years I have ever met or known, or known of, anyone that likes anything about income tax -whether private citizen or corporate citizen. If there is any element or aspect about which I might concede that citizens of the United States are in fact and practice "united" it is the issue of taxes. Why is that?
There are certainly as many answers as there are people; some hate the idea of so-called 'wealth redistribution,' most people feel that they are over-taxed (even the super-wealthy), and some simply hate the idea of government. I have concluded that the most common and fundamental reason Americans hate income tax and our tax system is two-fold. Our tax system is unfair and it is complicated beyond description. Our income tax is unfair, it is believed, because it is too high and because it is not spent wisely. It is complicated in order to benefit politicians and the wealthy donor class.
But what if it was possible to have a system of taxation that is equal, fair, and gives citizens first say in how government must spend the revenues? There is.
Next time I will tell you more about the system of taxation developed from the principles and process proposed by Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government, and I will delve a little deeper into its philosophical construction and reasoning. I look forward to your comments and opinions and to our next encounter. I will communicate with you again in four days on Friday 18 April 2008.
Until then, give peace a chance.
The title of this post sums up the big-picture premise upon which Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is constructed; albeit somewhat over-simplified. "Fair," and "equal," are not the same thing. "Fair" is a concept, or idea that flows from the principle of "equal," or "absolute equal" within the context of Humanistic Equalism.
By their very nature people are not fair. The result is a society that is not fair. So far, as a general rule of history, government is neither fair nor equal. Fairness is a subjective judgement that may lead to an action, and is facilitated by the condition of equality. And even though one may choose to act fairly absent the condition of equality, if the principle of equality is the required condition then fair conduct or action must be result. Therefore, since people most often act fairly only when it is in their own self-interest, or advantage, I submit that it is the duty and responsibility of institutional government to establish and maintain the condition of absolute equality concerning its activities, functions, and conduct. That is to say that if our government is predicated on the condition of absolute equality it will be fair.
For example, tomorrow (15 April) is the deadline for filing individual income tax information. By the way, HAPPY TAX DAY! I do not believe that in 55 years I have ever met or known, or known of, anyone that likes anything about income tax -whether private citizen or corporate citizen. If there is any element or aspect about which I might concede that citizens of the United States are in fact and practice "united" it is the issue of taxes. Why is that?
There are certainly as many answers as there are people; some hate the idea of so-called 'wealth redistribution,' most people feel that they are over-taxed (even the super-wealthy), and some simply hate the idea of government. I have concluded that the most common and fundamental reason Americans hate income tax and our tax system is two-fold. Our tax system is unfair and it is complicated beyond description. Our income tax is unfair, it is believed, because it is too high and because it is not spent wisely. It is complicated in order to benefit politicians and the wealthy donor class.
But what if it was possible to have a system of taxation that is equal, fair, and gives citizens first say in how government must spend the revenues? There is.
Next time I will tell you more about the system of taxation developed from the principles and process proposed by Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government, and I will delve a little deeper into its philosophical construction and reasoning. I look forward to your comments and opinions and to our next encounter. I will communicate with you again in four days on Friday 18 April 2008.
Until then, give peace a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
