Thoreau on Democracy as a Theory of Government

"Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen." - Civil Disobedience, 1849

Here are the questions that this quotation poses to me:
- Is democracy the best possible form of government? 
- If democracy is not the best possible form of government, do we have an inkling of what is? 
- Moreover, can government "work" at all?


Feel free to leave your answer via the comments section. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

what i've learned since my 'vacation'

I know it's been a while since last I posted. I know I've spent a lot of time away and I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this (I'm talking to you Willie Chuck!). Needless to say, I've done a lot of thinking since my last post(s), spent a lot of time in study, reflection, meditation and active interpersonal exchanges (is that redundant?). I'd like to think that I've learned a couple of things since last we all met in cyberspace... but I've decided to let you all be the judge of that. It's not a complete list just yet: I may add to it from time-to-time. No formal format this time... just off the proverbial cuff. Everything I've listed below is something that I've had to learn myself the hard way because I was, at one time, the worst offender I knew. Anyone that's known me for more than a year will laugh at how true this is.

What I've learned about politics, government and economics and would like to share:
- The republican form of government is a particularly clever way of continuing the feudal aristocracies of the Middle Ages. To entertain the notion that the United States is an actual democracy is to be mistaken.

- Capitalism was not the founding economic model of America... open up a history book sometime. There was a significant movement in the 19th century to adopt Marxism by the emerging "middle class". This movement was effectively shut down by the efforts of the robber-baron industrialists of the period. If you support capitalism, that's fine - but you should do so from an informed and factually accurate point-of-view.

- Glen Beck is a grade "A", irresponsible, first-rate and ideologically-charged demagogue... and a jack ass.

- Socialism isn't the devil, it isn't un-American and it isn't un-Christian. Claiming otherwise only proves two things: a) you apparently don't understand what socialism is and, b) you don't understand traditional American values or traditional Christian values.

- If you think that having no military experience disqualifies you from being the President of the United States, I'd like for you to look up the military records for the following men: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Quincy Adams. Four out of the first five presidents of the United States did not serve in the military and the one that did (George Washington) claimed that the greatest threat to liberty and democracy was a standing army.

What I've learned about religion and would like to share:
- A lot of evangelical Christians in America balk at the word "religion", so I want to make sure people understand what I mean when I use that word: a religion is a framework of beliefs concentrated around an idea of the sacred or divine. Technically the word religion means, in the original Latin re-ligio, "that which binds together." As I've said before in other posts, this definition is the equivalent to what I call "ideology". It not only includes theology and worldviews but traditions as well.

- I get the accusation of sounding smug and elitist when I say this to people. I realize how it comes across but I still think it is worth saying and I apologize ahead of time if you take offense to this: if your primary understanding/interpretation of the Christian Bible comes from an English translation - then it is highly likely that you don't understand what you're reading. Unfortunately for Americans without fluency in Greek and Hebrew (myself included), the Bible was not written in the English language or with an Anglo-Saxon cultural context. In other words: if you want to understand the source-text for the Christian religion, then you cannot approach the text with a modern American Christian mindset. Period.

- The God talked about in most religious (or sacro-ideological) communities and traditions is impossibly small and shallow to me. There are ways to approach an idea of the sacred and the divine that exist outside of institutional religious communities that are worth exploring without condemnation.

- I'm not entirely sure that the Jesus talked about in Christian religious traditions is broadly-enough defined. In other words: Jesus is interpreted too narrowly for my tastes within most expressions of Christianity.

- The Bible is not a historical text, despite the presence of historical events described in it. It is a work of hagiography. The sooner you read the Bible with that understanding, the sooner a lot of the information in it will begin to make an incredible amount of sense.

- I've read the Bible and quoted it as much as anyone else I know, but beginning a claim about truth with "the Bible says..." immediately undercuts one's credibility.

- Belief, especially religious belief, is one of the only conventions in the human repertoire that will blatantly defy "reality." And no, that's not a good thing.

- Superstition is the most offensive kind of ignorance I've ever encountered - in both its "charmed" and "cursed" forms.

What I've learned about education and would like to share:
- Education is the process by which you take an empty mind and replace it with an open one.

- Too much of what passes for education is really just indoctrination. To educate someone is not to teach them what to think, but how to think.

- Students are the only demographic in America that want to get less-and-less for the money they pay.

- What you put into your education, you will get back with dividends.

- A Master's Degree is just that. Think about it for a second. It is a degree that confers on you the title of master. If you think it's ok to just "get by" in a Master's program, you have completely missed the point and don't deserve to have the title. As a graduate student, you should be shooting for a hard-earned "A" in every class. Period.

- Open-mindedness isn't a cure-all for what ails us intellectually... but it's a good start and the foundation for a truly educated person.

That's all I've got for right now. I'm sure to add more to it later. Feel free to comment as you see fit.

da, comrade jesus?

Let me be immediately clear on two points:

1. Jesus wasn't a "communist" in the way that we think of communism.
2. "Communism" in the way that we think of communism, isn't communism.

Some readers took immediate exception to this comment on my last post: "... the very first manifestation of the Christian church - located in Jerusalem (not Rome) - was akin to a communist society - devoid of private possession (Acts 2:43-47, Acts 3:6)..." and, while I don't really intend to back off of that statement, I would like to clarify what I mean by that. I will retrace the case for this argument in three points.

The Soviet Union, "Red" China, Vietnam, North Korea... these countries are not communist. I know that's what we've been calling them for nearly a century, but that's not what they are. These countries were/are single-party dictatorships. They are more akin to fascist states than the true definition of communist states and share more in common with Nazi Germany, Baathist Iraq, Fascist Italy, Revolutionary/Napoleonic France or even the current regime in Iran than a true communist state. All of these states and regimes were controlled by one dominant and unchallenged party and ruled by a premier that reigned with near-impunity. This is not communism in the text-book sense. In a theoretical sense, democracy is only the precursor to a more "perfectly equal" system of government: and that system is, theoretically, communism. Make of that what you will - but, rest assured, the "communist" bogeymen of yesterday and today are simply dictatorships.

Communism, in a true form, cannot ever be a government system because it requires the constant, wholehearted, and unanimous consent of its people. This, of course, will never happen. So why would I say that the first manifestation of the Christian church was "akin to a communist society"? Well - let's take a look at the cited texts:

"[The church in Jerusalem] committed themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the life together, the common meal, and the prayers. Everyone around was in awe--all those wonders and signs done through the apostles! And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person's need was met. They followed a daily discipline of worship in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God. People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved." - Acts 2:42-47 (MSG)

"When [the crippled beggar] saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, 'Look at us!' And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, 'I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene--walk!' And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened. With a leap he stood upright and began to walk..." - Acts 3:3-8 (NASB)

These passages of ecclesiastical history show us two very pointed facts about the first church. First, the disciples of Jesus (which numbered in the thousands at this time) turned their back on their possessions, wealth accumulation, and private ownership in order to voluntarily pool all of their combined resources. Some members had very little wealth to donate and some had a lot, but what's noteworthy is that all of the members' financial and provisionary needs were met. The second fact is that Peter and John, the two most powerful men in the Jesus movement, claimed to be broke when dealing with the crippled beggar. This instance, while seeming like any one of our own false claims when we're being accosted by the homeless man at the intersection, is consistent with other passages in the chronicle and also with claims by the Apostle Paul (the other most powerful man in the Jesus movement) when he claimed to be sustained solely by the generosity of the churches he visited.

These men are a far cry from the multi-million-dollar net worths of America's most prominent preachers, though there was every reason to believe that the Apostles could have very easily gotten away with getting rich off of the generosity of so many new converts (ranging in the hundreds of thousands and, eventually, the millions). One need only look so far as the Roman papacy to prove that point.

In short: if you find the concept of the Christian church being similar, in every tangible respect, to a communist society - it seems that your ideological framework is clashing with a very objective reality.

Leave the light on.