Constructive gadfly
Published on January 7, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics
 There came a time in the chain of human events when a resourceful legislator among aimless, conflicting tribal customs was able to convene the group or warring tribes in order to minimize wasteful energies among them theretofore expended on suspicion of estranged otherness, and paranoia within the symbiosis of a group. This was the dawn of the struggle in forming the social contract that would eventuate cooperative spirit to level off excessive protectiveness of individuals and groups, thereby creating a unity that could take hold and grow. Since, there followed many codes of legislation, among them — Hammurabi’s, Moses’, Buddha’s and Jesus’ Pericles’ and Justinian’s, Napoleon’s, Rousseau’s natural law, and English common law our founding fathers adopted, all of which furthered the growth of cooperative spirit of the state that paradoxically unleashed the creative energy of individuals, for under the protection of laws individuality of value flourishes.

In modern times — particularly in developed democracies — we tend to forget that the backdrop to individual growth and inventiveness is society and state as there are no captains without a ship and those who have toiled endlessly in ship-building. Accolades are freely tossed round the globe at creative individuals as though on their own are responsible for the development of leadership in politics, intellect, goods and services, wealth, and morality. Without the blood, sweat and tears of collective human endeavor through the centuries to make a better world, there would be no celebrated individuals free today leading the pack in governance, commerce, labor, and the arts. Those who boast that their success is in spite of government, suffer a lapse in memory, else they would have to acknowledge that their success is because of the rule of law in society in which is their privilege to participate.

There are those who espouse unwarranted liberty to those at the top who are leaders in the myriad of industries and arts, as though these captains perform miraculously without the underpinnings of a stable ship. One needs only to observe the many good works in Iraq explosively unraveled by insurgents, or the tragic 9/11 disruption of so many lives destined to do good things, to realize how important is the rule of law, however imperfect, in contributing to the freedom of individuals. It is true that the state exists in order that individuals may thrive peacefully in behalf of themselves and others; and equally true that the individual has a duty of gratitude to the state. A Rolls Royce is only as good as the pubic highways it is privileged to run on. Microsoft would be meaningless without the PC and conversely; further both owe its existence to the pioneers at AT&T and Xerox researchers of the 50s and 60s. Google would not be in the daily lexicon were it not for the extraordinary government and private investments in kick-starting the internet. Politicians themselves defy the rule of law and make a mockery of its foundations and glorious edifice they are sworn to protect. That said, this does not by any means take away from the good or deflate the strides of the present to effectuate fruition of its origins, which also owe allegiance to its predecessors — each generation is entitled to its heroes of excellence. Still, implicit is that we not forget the overriding matrix that makes it all possible.

That is why it is heart rending that so many are enemies of governance whether it be the function of law or within the self and its field of private and public endeavors.

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 7, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Jan 07, 2006
There is some truth to your piece here. If there is no freedom to act and think, there is no innovation; and without government, there is no freedom. On the other hand, government that has too much influence over our lives throws the balance to the other side, and freedom is lost.

Personal freedom is the result of a (unequal) balance between the individual, the community and the government. Without each, freedom is lost, but if either exert too much power over the other, personal freedom is also lost.

We hail the innovator because of their ability to make new things because the "average" person can't, or won't. However, the patent offices are full of inventions that never go beyond the drawing board and requrements of a patent application. As you point out (if I caught your point right), for the invention to have any success, it takes others to produce, market, distribute, sell and consume the new invention or innovation.

Inventors and innovators are individuals, their right and freedom to innovate is "endowed by their creator", but it is both regulated and protected by community standards and government. To ignore either (or put either above the rest) costs everyone the freedom to innovate, produce, and/or consume.

In your "ship" analogy, while it's true that the captain is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the ship, if the bosemen, helmsmen, quartermasters and other officers are not held responsible for their parts of the whole, the ship will fail. It is the job of the captain to make policy and oversee the workings of the ship. The officers are the ones in charge of making sure the policies of the captain and their parts of the whole are carried out. In other words, while the Captain is responsible for the whole, it is useless (and detrimental) to the operation of the ship to expect the Captian to worry about the day to day goings on. Each officer needs to be held responsible for their part.

I can't say I agree with everything about this article, but you do make some great points.
on Jan 07, 2006
I tried to give you an insightful but failed. At any rate, a very decent, thoughtful response.
on Jan 07, 2006
Yeah, it has been awhile since I've been able to make "insightfuls" work also. Thanks for trying anyway, glad you liked it.
on Jan 08, 2006
Your welcome and may you continue on the fruitful path of deep analysis.
on Jan 08, 2006

Insightfuls work sporadically for me.  However, that being said, I object in only one sense.

Microsoft would have invented PCs if they were not already there, and then claimed their abacus was bigger and better than the ones the Greeks had!

on Jan 09, 2006
abacus was bigger and better than the ones the Greeks had!
But not free of glitches.
on Jan 09, 2006

abacus was bigger and better than the ones the Greeks had!
But not free of glitches.

Oh you mean the feature set?

on Jan 14, 2006
Gates would blame meddling Greek gods.