How does one govern people’s ‘freedom’? Well, to have an orderly society, to begin with, one can’t have (allow) each person (to) do as he wishes. Therefore there is a larger theme of leadership (which is typically chosen in line with certain pressing priorities – in democracies). Now this leadership cannot wander anywhich way (as per personal fancy), neither can it purely tag along the majority line (for a minority can’t be oppressed). So that brings us to attending to a few immediate needs with a measure of sympathy (for those affected by the course of action, of course!). The rationale for each decision needs to be examined, and where there is a legitimate case, patience is needed. Where there are effects, they can be managed, even defended, again subject to a rationale. Otherwise it isn’t effect/sympathy that directs priority but only the reverse: priority, its effect/sympathy.
It makes sense that when the leader himself has been appointed for priority’s sake, the people (some of them, the more vocal among them) can’t all at once be obstructing him for effects. Where Trump is concerned, National security (terrorism), a struggling middle class, abortion, law n order have been the priorities that have offered him the mandate. Now the people must choose where to put their concern for asylum seekers, international relations, a perceived invasion of women’s rights (this argument is downright absurd – as in specifically around abortion!), and the right to oppose law enforcement. This might also be a good place to note that between the Left n the Right (among generally the Christian West), priorities and effects take reverse roles [which itself isn’t all too sound – although there is a measure of arguability to this relativity there’s more to the story, for all at once for instance allowing abortion and opposing it can’t be coexistent for they are mutually exclusive. At best one might include a few clauses for exceptions]. This automatically calls for a standard of truth from without (outside, and in this context the Bible) which not only guides all decision making but also in turn sympathises with now one party and disapproves of now another (their tendencies). This also serves as a guide on weighing priorities against effects, and as a result recommends a suitable course of participation and support for truth and wise management (wise management because leadership by virtue tends towards one end and there can only be one leader, and to get by in spite of other complexities one has but to manage).
Ultimately in a democratic system there is a measure of submission, cooperation and negotiation needed from those subordinate. Although at least it is understandable that ‘politics’ is more about domination than submission/cooperation, and therefore opposition parties will even obstruct for the heck of it (although I don’t think this necessarily needs to be, but if so it is, then politics itself might cease to be and we might all be making much more progress as one in much less time!), level headed citizens ought to examine where they themselves stand, whether they are part of the problem or the solution (given the priority). (In fact it is more important for a supposedly neutral citizen – who appears to be in the place of an adjudicator – to voice their verdict more cautiously, instead of as is commonly believed to be, rather arbitrarily and irresponsibly, and that with a sense of entitlement insured with a safety caveat as it were!). Or still better, they can go it all the way and wear the political mask of the party whose policies they are tending to weigh more heavily on. So why fear? Why two-time? Why be dishonest to both? Let’s choose who we are: responsibly neutral or hypocritically partisan.
Tags: allegiance, cooperation, effect, freedom, govern, object, priority, rule, Trump
Jabez' Journals 
Governing freedom: priority, effect & allegiance
28 JanHow does one govern people’s ‘freedom’? Well, to have an orderly society, to begin with, one can’t have (allow) each person (to) do as he wishes. Therefore there is a larger theme of leadership (which is typically chosen in line with certain pressing priorities – in democracies). Now this leadership cannot wander anywhich way (as per personal fancy), neither can it purely tag along the majority line (for a minority can’t be oppressed). So that brings us to attending to a few immediate needs with a measure of sympathy (for those affected by the course of action, of course!). The rationale for each decision needs to be examined, and where there is a legitimate case, patience is needed. Where there are effects, they can be managed, even defended, again subject to a rationale. Otherwise it isn’t effect/sympathy that directs priority but only the reverse: priority, its effect/sympathy.
It makes sense that when the leader himself has been appointed for priority’s sake, the people (some of them, the more vocal among them) can’t all at once be obstructing him for effects. Where Trump is concerned, National security (terrorism), a struggling middle class, abortion, law n order have been the priorities that have offered him the mandate. Now the people must choose where to put their concern for asylum seekers, international relations, a perceived invasion of women’s rights (this argument is downright absurd – as in specifically around abortion!), and the right to oppose law enforcement. This might also be a good place to note that between the Left n the Right (among generally the Christian West), priorities and effects take reverse roles [which itself isn’t all too sound – although there is a measure of arguability to this relativity there’s more to the story, for all at once for instance allowing abortion and opposing it can’t be coexistent for they are mutually exclusive. At best one might include a few clauses for exceptions]. This automatically calls for a standard of truth from without (outside, and in this context the Bible) which not only guides all decision making but also in turn sympathises with now one party and disapproves of now another (their tendencies). This also serves as a guide on weighing priorities against effects, and as a result recommends a suitable course of participation and support for truth and wise management (wise management because leadership by virtue tends towards one end and there can only be one leader, and to get by in spite of other complexities one has but to manage).
Ultimately in a democratic system there is a measure of submission, cooperation and negotiation needed from those subordinate. Although at least it is understandable that ‘politics’ is more about domination than submission/cooperation, and therefore opposition parties will even obstruct for the heck of it (although I don’t think this necessarily needs to be, but if so it is, then politics itself might cease to be and we might all be making much more progress as one in much less time!), level headed citizens ought to examine where they themselves stand, whether they are part of the problem or the solution (given the priority). (In fact it is more important for a supposedly neutral citizen – who appears to be in the place of an adjudicator – to voice their verdict more cautiously, instead of as is commonly believed to be, rather arbitrarily and irresponsibly, and that with a sense of entitlement insured with a safety caveat as it were!). Or still better, they can go it all the way and wear the political mask of the party whose policies they are tending to weigh more heavily on. So why fear? Why two-time? Why be dishonest to both? Let’s choose who we are: responsibly neutral or hypocritically partisan.
Tags: allegiance, cooperation, effect, freedom, govern, object, priority, rule, Trump