2000-12-8 00:05:00
Volker wants us to get back to principles and bypass the small talk.
In truth we will probably never talk about a more important principle than that of freedom. Nor will we find one that is more illusive to the understanding of seekers.
Ask any person on the street or in any country if they are believers in freedom and they will answer yes. You could probably ask a thousand people at random this question and I would not be surprised if all thousand endorsed this principle.
On the other hand, if you listen to their words and watch their actions you will find that the large majority betray their beliefs.
Is this because they are evil, or control freaks or really do not believe in freedom after all?
Not really. Almost all people do desire maximum freedom.
What is the problem then?
The problem is many are tricked by illusion and do not see or understand the true principle and thus are unable to follow the path of freedom that that leads to understanding of pure truth. Truth and freedom interplay and create understanding from the soul.
Many proclaim freedom and walk into slavery. Others, a very few others, proclaim and live the principle of freedom and walk into the very heart of God, drawing many behind them.
I will teach, and teach again, this principle as long as I have breath, or until all see the principle with crystal clarity. So prepare yourself my friends, for me to remind us of this principle from time to time.
Now let us review the mundane question of the day:
"Why is it contrary to the principle of freedom to make laws enforcing seat belts, but supportive of the Principle to have laws requiring us to stop at stop signs?"
Travis seems to see through the same eyes as I do on this subject. He's not an extremist but presents a common sense answer:
"Not stopping at a stop sign puts everyone on the road at risk. Not wearing a seatbelt puts you, yourself, at risk. You are more likely to die if you get in an accident. However, that is your problem. You have a seatbelt in your car; if you choose not to use it then you deserve what you get. This harms YOU. And you are old enough to make a conscious choice on the matter. Much like how Utah lets adults ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
"The only one I can see supporting is the one about kids and car seats. Kids cannot speak for themselves or defend themselves. There is a valid argument for requiring parents to secure their children. Not doing so puts a child at risk without their consent (as they are not old enough to give it). Thus, to me, such laws seem to be in harmony with the principle of Freedom. It's oh so close to the line though."
JJ:
I have one important thing to add that no one mentioned. Remember that we talked about two types of laws.
The first are laws of morality. These laws are written in the hearts of the just. For instance, most believe it is wrong to lie and do not need a stated law to know this.
The second are laws of order. These laws are not written to inform what is right and wrong, but for the purpose of bringing order. Sometimes an immortal act (such as theft) must be governed by a law of order, but only if it is necessary for the stability of the group.
A law governing seat belt use is moral related and has little to do with order of the whole. Because it is a good idea to buckle up does not mean that we need a law around this concept of the good. All that is needed is correct education about what is right or wrong about its use. Travis has a point though with seat belts and children because they are too young to understand their use.
A law governing stopping at a red light has little to do with right and wrong but has much to do with order. Without such laws governing our roads driving from point A to point B would be close to impossible. Laws producing an orderly society will not pass away in the new age, but will be refined until they work so efficiently that the whole world will become stable and live in peace.
The problem the countries of the world have today is that they have too many laws and many of them are not written clearly and thus we need a mountain of attorneys and judges to tell us what they say.
Jessie Ventura had a good idea in dealing with this problem. He said that one year out of four Congress should meet for the sole purpose of studying the laws and deciding which ones could be eliminated. Imagine Congress doing nothing for a whole year but eliminating useless or ambiguous laws.
Let us take Volker's advice and now move on to a new principle. This should be a hot one - The Principle of Good and Evil.
Even though we have discussed this in the past, I am sure there is more light to be gained as we contemplate the subject.
Questions:
Is there such a thing as good and evil? If so, how would you define good and how would you define evil?
"Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods."
Thomas Paine
Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved