The social contract
We humans can trace the written exploration of the concept of a social contract – implied, assumed, or legally codified – since the time of Plato although even if we look at early hieroglyphics, we will get a sense of community which implies some standards of conduct and agreed upon behavior. As anthropologists research earlier communities or even the organizing principles of animal communities, they identify clear understandings about the basic rights of the members of the community.
Early communities may have agreed on the right of its members to share such resources as food, shelter, heat, and access to the healer or shaman. The basic right to be a member of the community was dependent on the stated or implied agreement to adhere to certain rules or expectations.
As societies got more complicated, members of the community who were later to be labeled as philosophers/elders/wise people began to talk about forms/structure of government and what were considered basic human rights. From Plato to folks such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques we have explored the basic rights of individuals versus the stated or implied rights under the social contract.
In 1948 the United Nations created a document known as The Universal Decoration of Human Rights. In thirty articles it attempts to spell out the basic rights of all we humans. Although this document went a long way towards facilitating discussions of how the world body could help facilitate a more fair and just community, the world has significantly changed since 1948. Certainly, from space travel, cell phones, internet, and the more effective treatment of certain diseases, we have used our creativity to both enlarge and compress the world. The internet and cell phones have also, in many respects, redefined community and allowed the possibility for most of the world’s human population to communicate with each other. The internet and smart phones have allowed access to financial institutions and services which had previously not been available to many.
Yet given all of these possibilities we humans have a long way to go before we can live more peacefully together. It might be argued that there is an increased ability for terrorist activity, to use fear to control we humans, and for some of we humans to attempt to impose rules and restrictions on other of we humans. There are some, such as the journalist David Rothkop (Ted talk – How fear drives American politics), who maintain that since 9/11 the United States has allowed fear to determine its National and International policy. One might even claim that fear has allowed us to redefine what we consider basic human rights. From holding people in prison for years to the use of rendition to torture prisoners to much of the rhetoric of the current United States presidential debate, it would seem that the appeal is to fear:
Immigrants- people from different cultures.
Not being to own massive firepower/guns.
Changes in cultural norms.
Less often stated are the fears of:
Working for years at a job one hates (between 70 to 80 percent of U.S. working population.
The possibility that one narrow view of religion might not be the only possible truth.
“The American Dream” may not be attainable.
“The American Dream” may not be something to be envied.
Having created a world which we no longer have the illusion of controlling.
Everyone but me is to be feared.
I would also maintain that perhaps more than ever we are fearful of both poverty and the poor person who may seem happier than those who have a lot of material possessions but little happiness/satisfaction.
In the 1950s it seemed that many in the United States lived with the illusions that:
As long as we could control the Russians we were safe.
The interference in the affairs of foreign nations by the United States was justified because we were helping to create a more democratic and Christian world.
Attaining “The American Dream” was going to bring us happiness – a bigger house, a bigger car, and more of more was all that was needed to not only bring happiness but to prove our worth as human beings.
That as long as we did not allow ourselves to see the alcoholism, sexual infidelity, unhappy marriages, and the ongoing slavery and oppression all would be well.
Tending to the poor without having to share with them since, of course, only bad, undeserving people were poor who we out of the largeness of our hearts would “help” (help is much different than sharing).
A cursory count of Think Tanks in the United states results in somewhere between 150 and 200 of them. There are think tanks on:
International Relations and Security
Environment, Science and Technology
Arts and Humanity
Political and Economics
Despite the fact that these think tanks are composed of some of the leaders in their respective fields, we do not seem to changing our basic approach to crime, poverty, terrorism, and other issues which keep us from truly becoming a more global, sharing community.
On a Ted Talk by Mia Birdsong, The story we tell about poverty which isn’t true, she says:
“Desmond Tutu talks about the concept of ubuntu, in the context of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process that they embarked on after apartheid. He says it means, ‘My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours; we belong to a bundle of life.’ A bundle of life. The Truth and Reconciliation process started by elevating the voices of the unheard. If this country is going to live up to its promise of liberty and justice for all, then we need to elevate the voices of our unheard, of people like Jobana, Sintia and Bertha, Theresa and Baakir. We must leverage their solutions and their ideas”.
Ms. Birdson suggests that perhaps if we look closely we will notice that those we label as “poor people” often already have the answers. They might not look like the answers we expected, wanted, or those which will create clones of we “successful” ones.
Folks such as David Rothkopf suggest that those presenting in such forums as Ted Talks might have more creative options than many, if not all, of the ones in so called think tanks.
Mr. Rothkopf also suggests that we might need to revisit such subjects as basic human rights. For example, should electricity and basic access to the internet and smart phones be considered basic human rights? What other rights might we consider basic?
The document written by the United Nations in 1948 was an impressive attempt for that time in history. Perhaps it is time to revisit both that bill of rights and the makeup of such institutions as The United Nations.
Most importantly, perhaps it is time that we begin to let go of our fear or at least quit allowing it to determine to determine our policy and behavior.
Perhaps we could non-judgmentally agree some approaches are working and some are not. What if we, the citizens of the United States, took the lead in saying we are going to focus this political campaign on:
Letting go of fear as the primary motivator.
Recognizing that military actions are not reducing terrorists events/activity.
Realizing that the American (the United States) Dream may need to change – more of more might not be the road to happiness.
Respecting all religions as an attempt to discern a more loving and just way to live this life and letting go of the need to think that our way is the only way.
Allowing for the possibility that the terrorists, the people in prison, and poor people need a place at the table and the power to help articulate issues and solutions.
Designing our educational system for teaching basic and advanced tools for such action-oriented discussions.
Written February 1, 2016
We humans can trace the written exploration of the concept of a social contract – implied, assumed, or legally codified – since the time of Plato although even if we look at early hieroglyphics, we will get a sense of community which implies some standards of conduct and agreed upon behavior. As anthropologists research earlier communities or even the organizing principles of animal communities, they identify clear understandings about the basic rights of the members of the community.
Early communities may have agreed on the right of its members to share such resources as food, shelter, heat, and access to the healer or shaman. The basic right to be a member of the community was dependent on the stated or implied agreement to adhere to certain rules or expectations.
As societies got more complicated, members of the community who were later to be labeled as philosophers/elders/wise people began to talk about forms/structure of government and what were considered basic human rights. From Plato to folks such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques we have explored the basic rights of individuals versus the stated or implied rights under the social contract.
In 1948 the United Nations created a document known as The Universal Decoration of Human Rights. In thirty articles it attempts to spell out the basic rights of all we humans. Although this document went a long way towards facilitating discussions of how the world body could help facilitate a more fair and just community, the world has significantly changed since 1948. Certainly, from space travel, cell phones, internet, and the more effective treatment of certain diseases, we have used our creativity to both enlarge and compress the world. The internet and cell phones have also, in many respects, redefined community and allowed the possibility for most of the world’s human population to communicate with each other. The internet and smart phones have allowed access to financial institutions and services which had previously not been available to many.
Yet given all of these possibilities we humans have a long way to go before we can live more peacefully together. It might be argued that there is an increased ability for terrorist activity, to use fear to control we humans, and for some of we humans to attempt to impose rules and restrictions on other of we humans. There are some, such as the journalist David Rothkop (Ted talk – How fear drives American politics), who maintain that since 9/11 the United States has allowed fear to determine its National and International policy. One might even claim that fear has allowed us to redefine what we consider basic human rights. From holding people in prison for years to the use of rendition to torture prisoners to much of the rhetoric of the current United States presidential debate, it would seem that the appeal is to fear:
Immigrants- people from different cultures.
Not being to own massive firepower/guns.
Changes in cultural norms.
Less often stated are the fears of:
Working for years at a job one hates (between 70 to 80 percent of U.S. working population.
The possibility that one narrow view of religion might not be the only possible truth.
“The American Dream” may not be attainable.
“The American Dream” may not be something to be envied.
Having created a world which we no longer have the illusion of controlling.
Everyone but me is to be feared.
I would also maintain that perhaps more than ever we are fearful of both poverty and the poor person who may seem happier than those who have a lot of material possessions but little happiness/satisfaction.
In the 1950s it seemed that many in the United States lived with the illusions that:
As long as we could control the Russians we were safe.
The interference in the affairs of foreign nations by the United States was justified because we were helping to create a more democratic and Christian world.
Attaining “The American Dream” was going to bring us happiness – a bigger house, a bigger car, and more of more was all that was needed to not only bring happiness but to prove our worth as human beings.
That as long as we did not allow ourselves to see the alcoholism, sexual infidelity, unhappy marriages, and the ongoing slavery and oppression all would be well.
Tending to the poor without having to share with them since, of course, only bad, undeserving people were poor who we out of the largeness of our hearts would “help” (help is much different than sharing).
A cursory count of Think Tanks in the United states results in somewhere between 150 and 200 of them. There are think tanks on:
International Relations and Security
Environment, Science and Technology
Arts and Humanity
Political and Economics
Despite the fact that these think tanks are composed of some of the leaders in their respective fields, we do not seem to changing our basic approach to crime, poverty, terrorism, and other issues which keep us from truly becoming a more global, sharing community.
On a Ted Talk by Mia Birdsong, The story we tell about poverty which isn’t true, she says:
“Desmond Tutu talks about the concept of ubuntu, in the context of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process that they embarked on after apartheid. He says it means, ‘My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours; we belong to a bundle of life.’ A bundle of life. The Truth and Reconciliation process started by elevating the voices of the unheard. If this country is going to live up to its promise of liberty and justice for all, then we need to elevate the voices of our unheard, of people like Jobana, Sintia and Bertha, Theresa and Baakir. We must leverage their solutions and their ideas”.
Ms. Birdson suggests that perhaps if we look closely we will notice that those we label as “poor people” often already have the answers. They might not look like the answers we expected, wanted, or those which will create clones of we “successful” ones.
Folks such as David Rothkopf suggest that those presenting in such forums as Ted Talks might have more creative options than many, if not all, of the ones in so called think tanks.
Mr. Rothkopf also suggests that we might need to revisit such subjects as basic human rights. For example, should electricity and basic access to the internet and smart phones be considered basic human rights? What other rights might we consider basic?
The document written by the United Nations in 1948 was an impressive attempt for that time in history. Perhaps it is time to revisit both that bill of rights and the makeup of such institutions as The United Nations.
Most importantly, perhaps it is time that we begin to let go of our fear or at least quit allowing it to determine to determine our policy and behavior.
Perhaps we could non-judgmentally agree some approaches are working and some are not. What if we, the citizens of the United States, took the lead in saying we are going to focus this political campaign on:
Letting go of fear as the primary motivator.
Recognizing that military actions are not reducing terrorists events/activity.
Realizing that the American (the United States) Dream may need to change – more of more might not be the road to happiness.
Respecting all religions as an attempt to discern a more loving and just way to live this life and letting go of the need to think that our way is the only way.
Allowing for the possibility that the terrorists, the people in prison, and poor people need a place at the table and the power to help articulate issues and solutions.
Designing our educational system for teaching basic and advanced tools for such action-oriented discussions.
Written February 1, 2016
RSS Feed