Of late I have been pondering the difference between "freedom" and "quality". Both of which are contextual words that have been distorted for political malfeasance in my home country. I personally find all things relative due to an aversion to absolutism (which everyone knows, only Sith deal in). In absolute terms these two words are often similarly associated as one. With complete freedom comes a higher quality of life. In relative terms I find these words sometimes contradictory and other times very compatible.
To clarify, everyday in Korea I witness epic traffic congestion. Usually this congestion is caused by people riding way to close to others at intersections and ignoring traffic laws that prohibit entering an intersection if you can't move all the way through. The freedom to park in an intersection seems to destroy the quality of commuting. If everyone just backed off a bit traffic would run more smoothly, creating a higher quality of transportation for everyone else (less traffic, less accidents, less commute time). The freedom to drive like an asshole has few benefits for the quality of life of the greater society.
In the States there are debates raging that run both directions between these two ideals, while in the best circumstances a balance has been struck. An example of opposing points would be regulation of business. Taxation and regulation of corporations has been called tyrannical by those of the ruling class (along with many of the under served classes who have been indoctrinated by their rulers considerable media holdings). However it has been proven by our economic situation that letting a few ruling class people steal and swindle millions out of their money is about as smart as letting a Ferrari speed down the street at 210 until it hits a school bus full of children. The freedom of that Ferrari driver certainly didn't help the children who where, in this case forced to pay for the medical bills of the driver, on his idiotic quest to presumably get laid.
Just because Glenn Beck has the Freedom to plan a "Tea Party" (which is an attempt to turn the under served masses towards xenophobic infighting while the rich rob us again) march on DC on the anniversary of the I have a dream speech, doesn't mean it serves quality. Its worse than a community center for Muslims a few blocks from ground zero. Creating an opportunity for understanding (community center) at the exploding point (ground zero) is an example of freedom and quality looking to live together in a peaceful world. A ruling class hate monger usurping the hallowed ground of a man who served to bring people of all races, colors and creeds together is just an example of freedom trumping quality. I'd be willing to bet that the mosque would receive very real hostile opposition with much more eloquence and acceptance than the rallied masses of right wingers chanting "freedom!" against their imagined tyrants.
Words are just words. Who is free? Who is oppressed? What defines quality? The scale that measures liberty bottoms out at a anarchy at one end and complete autocracy at the other. We can only see what is not free or quality and move to seek an ideal balance between the two. What do I know? Perhaps autocracy or anarchy are the highest quality. Perhaps the circumstances dictate what is best.
~R!
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기