I view democracy as a series of simultaneous conversations — dialogues if you will — between Freedom and responsibility, right and duties, individuality and community. Therefore, the core values that deserve a permanent place in the foundation of western societies have to be principles that leave room for both sides of each conversation. Democracy, in its most basic form, is all about freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from torture. However, this freedom should not be left unchecked, especially in this digital age where the line that exists between free speech and defamation or disinformation is now so blurry. This misuse of freedom should not then make it less of a core value in western societies as we cannot downplay the positive effects it has had in the society. For example, the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution has protected freedom of speech fiercely for centuries, and this, in turn, has enabled many of the critical movements in the world today like feminist movements and civil rights activists. Rather, it only tells us that 'freedom' cannot be a standalone value in society, and it has to be paired with the responsibility and accountability to manage freedom. This accountability should be like a tag on every human, a leash long enough that it allows us the freedom to exercise our rights, but short enough to keep us from affecting the collective peace of the society. We must also understand that the only way a system thrives is when the several parts that make up that system are equally cared for and catered to, democracy as a system is not an exception. In the most basic definition of democracy given by Abraham Lincoln, it is the "government of the people, by the people and for the people" this means the 'parts' that make up the system called democracy are the people. People, regardless of their beliefs and inclinations — so long as it is legal — should be afforded the same rights and treatment by the system that claims to cater to the needs of all humans equally. Diversity is not a weakness of a system, especially not modern democracy, it actually is the greatest strength it possesses. The blend of several cultures and beliefs creates a pluralist society that promotes creativity and innovation, but only if this 'strength' is harnessed. Another core value that should exist in the foundation of western democracies is the rule of law. A democracy is only fully functional when the judiciary system is standing independently and acting impartially. This seems like a value that should go without saying, as we can simply look back in time to remind ourselves of its importance. During the reign of Henry VIII, the influence of the Magna Carta was reduced to the barest minimum, and rights became proportional to the status of the persons concerned. It created a large gap in the rights of the average man when compared to those who were in positions of considerable power. It was in a bid to fight against this disparity that the system of democracy was established, and so one of the major pillars of democracy is the rule of law, the theory that everyone regardless of position or status is absolutely equal under the law, and this naturally should stop, say, a president in power from pardoning his son of his crimes. Everyday events take place that weaken the pillars of democracy in the society, and all of these events can be grouped as reactionary movements and agendas. Those who have rooted their minds in a system that existed in the past and are unable to adapt to the changes around them. Some of these events include the efforts to restrict voting access in the US, especially for certain minority groups, the restriction of media freedom and judicial independence that is going on in Hungary, the "Don't say gay" laws that exist in Florida and several other infringements on minority rights. It is therefore very necessary that proactive steps be taken to safeguard these core values of western democracies. One of these steps is to strengthen the independence of institutions like the judiciary, the media, electoral bodies, and civil society organisations. This step is vital for checking power at the executive level to ensure that every person, regardless of political status, is subject to the rule of law. Another effective method is simply education, in every sense of the word. At an academic level for students in classes, organising rallies to educate the public on their rights, and the accountability that accompanies those rights, creating platforms for dialogue between opposing ideological groups as most of these ideologies are formed because of the different ways people from different backgrounds experience the system. The opinions I have concerning western democracies are probably very clear by now, but then there are the deep and unavoidable questions that will surely pop up in the minds of the readers of this piece, "Where do we go from here?", "What framework can be used to support the ideal democratic society?" Well, the answers to these questions are not far fetched at all. The key lies in "renewal" and not nostalgia. It is very much like a build-block toy set, where all the blocks must be kept intact, but then there are several ways to arrange said blocks, so also employing a framework that adapts to the ever changing society, while simultaneously protecting the core values that form the foundation of said societies is the key. The beauty of democracy is its ability to balance these core principles, not in the absolute victory of one principle over another, but in the ongoing conversation itself — a continuous, probably messy, yet fundamentally hopeful process.
We
value most what we will die for. What ought we to die for? How about the human
race’s survival? Just as the economy is the largest conceivable scientific
experiment, since it subsumes all other experiments, so is humanity’s survival
the largest conceivable value. “Greater love has no one than this: to lay
down one’s life for one’s friends.”[1] One
might counter with “Jesus replied: ’Love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’”[2] yet what does
“loving God” mean? Love means to work for the advantage of the other[3]. The
only advantage of God we can work for is the human race. Practically, then,
loving God is to love mankind, or it is merely abstract love. “The third time he
said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus
asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all
things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” “[4] Now
that we have our purpose, which is to “feed the sheep,” what other values most
matter? Secondary and tertiary values must become tools to achieve our purpose,
or else they ought to be rejected. There
are three secondary values: (1) facts, (2) population growth, and (3) care. First,
in order to survive, man requires new facts about himself and about nature. Any
given sum of knowledge translatable into economic terms generates an
exploitable resource base, which marginally depletes over time. The only
solution to this depletion is increasing knowledge in order to increase the
resource base. Second,
since the universe likes to throw deadly curveballs at us, the more and faster
we can increase our knowledge to deal with them, the better off we are. To
increase knowledge as fast as possible we need more scientists. This requires
an increase in population. In turn, this requires increased economic
productivity to maintain that population, increasing the need for scientific
advance.[5] Third,
in order to survive, man must care for man. Doing this at scale requires
cooperating with others. That is, A cooperates with B for the advantage of C.
This process of cooperation and care must usually be learned young if it is to
set. This
means that the basic unit of a caring society is the natural, loving triad: the
nuclear family. Healthy, fertile families raise children to seek facts,
reproduce, and cooperatively care for others, or support those who do these
things. Internalizing
these three secondary values generates a self-possessed individual who embodies
the qualities it takes for mankind to survive. Such individuals taken together
naturally form a polity based on the consent of the governed.[6] What
can safeguard such polity from the ignorance, apathy, and malice that would
destroy it? The
polity is protected by three tertiary values: (1) the Constitution, (2) the
Word, and (3) the Militia. These combine to divide mankind into respective
territorial-demographic polities which are sovereign and self-directing,[7]
preventing a tyrannical Babel. The
Constitution is the highest law of the land, outlining (a) governmental
structure, (b) its purpose
of securing the general welfare, and (c) the
inalienable rights of citizens. Citizens
swear fealty to it, not to any man, and no one is above its law. Without
the Constitution, political loyalty devolves to mere men subject to corruption
and plot, and the individual finds his inalienable rights legally unprotected,
without which his ability to pursue the happiness of contributing to society is
hindered. The
Word is (a) free speech
as inalienable right, (b) a sophisticated
common language and culture, (c) effective
public and private communications media, and (d) the cultural
axioms of (i) the intelligibility of man and nature,
and (ii) the truth as essentially
goodness-producing. Without
the Word, the Constitution will lie ignored or misunderstood, citizens will
find thought, experiment, and debate impeded, and the polity will not be able
to cohere in solidarity because it will have no identity distinct from other
polities. These things will weaken the polity, making it easy prey for internal
reactionaries and external invaders. The
Militia is the repository of civilian martial force. The government ordinarily
has a monopoly of force, but can lose this monopoly should it ultimately prove to
be tyrannical[8], as by foiling the Word and disregarding the Constitution. Without
the Militia the Constitution and Word are naked before legal usurpers[9]. Reactionaries
will invariably subtract one or more of these seven values, which can
compromise the whole. Examples: · no facts:
Malthusian die-off conditions · no militia
or word: liberal authoritarianism (Canada, Western Europe) · no
constitution or word: wokeism, neo-fascism Barring
the Second Coming, nothing the future can throw at us will take away this value
hierarchy. Together they comprise the matrix of human meaning. Recapitulating: Primary · SURVIVAL
(mankind must survive in order to mean anything) Secondary · FACTS
(mankind needs knowledge) · POPULATION
GROWTH (mankind must grow to avoid decay) · CARE
(mankind needs love) Tertiary · CONSTITUTION
(mankind need order) · THE WORD
(mankind needs truth) · MILITIA
(mankind needs might) Taking
anything out impairs mankind’s capacity to survive. If we value also the
principles of democracy, as the sophisticated articulation of the consent of
the governed, we must know that they blossom in vain without these sacred roots.
Will we drink this Balm of Gilead that makes our wounded society whole?[10] [1] John 15:13, NIV [2] Mat 22:37, NIV [3]
Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 [4] John 21:17, NIV [5] Lyndon LaRouche, There Are No Limits to Growth, 1983 [6]
Nicolaus of Cusa, De concordantia
catholica, 1434 [7]
United States Declaration of Independence, 1776 [8]
Cf. overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government by Syrian opposition
forces, 2024 [9] United States Bill of Rights, 1791 [10] Paul Robeson, “There Is a Balm in Gilead,” 19th
century hymn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okl2XbTM7xM
Every single day the headlines scream of divided nations, the internet is filled with democratic propaganda, citizens view their neighbors as enemies, and certain demographics are oppressed. Many still think that politics is only about elections and having an unreachable public servant in the seat of presidency. However, it is important to understand that a government is more than that, it is about the core values, policies and creation of structures mainly built to protect the governed. Democracy originated in the Ancient Agora of Athens around the fifth century B.C.E. We are now in the 21st century and there are still substantial issues surrounding the concept. As Western nations grapple with shifting priorities and approaches to governance, we must ask ourselves: What values are so essential that they must surpass political divisions? Luckily, this is exactly what will be discussed in this essay. A functioning democracy requires certain foundational elements that go beyond left-right divisions, progressive-conservative battles, or any particular party's agenda. These elements form the basic infrastructure of democratic governance, which can be seen as the rules of the game that allow different political ideologies to compete without destroying the playing field itself. First among these core values stands the Importance of elections and the principle of peaceful power transition. It is important for democratic systems to hold elections, as this gives the governed the right to choose who they feel is best to lead at that point in time. Also, elections should be convenient for voters to participate in, and not frustrate their efforts. However, this isn't only about holding elections, it's about all parties accepting the legitimate results of those elections. George Washington was a good example of democracy and peaceful power transition, as he stepped aside after two terms despite there not being anything in the U.S. Constitution until 1951 to limit the number of terms a president could serve, reinforcing the importance of the country over any single leader. Kamala Harris conceding the 2024 presidential race and pledging a smooth transition for the incoming government is also a good example of the core values that should be embraced. Recent events in other democracies have shown how fragile this principle can become when political actors prioritize power retention over democratic processes. On 3 December 2024, at 22:27 Korea Standard Time, Yoon Suk Yeol, the president of South Korea, declared martial law during a televised [broadcast], due to his growing unpopularity and resolve to stay in power. Fortunately, his plan did not work out as the people of South Korea came out in protest and the parliament, due to their independence, was able to vote against the development unanimously, making martial law obsolete in 6 hours. This shows that to protect democracy against reactionary threats, judicial independence is perhaps the most crucial safeguard. Also, the right to peaceful protest and political organization must remain untouched regardless of political alignment. The second point which is equally crucial is the protection of minority rights and this covers not just ethnic or religious minorities, but any group that finds itself outvoted on particular issues. True democracy cannot mean simple majority rule; it must include built-in protections for those who disagree with the majority. This principle applies whether those who hold conservative or progressive principles hold power. If this is not upheld, it leads to institutional discrimination that will continually shape political participation and representation. Events like the violation of minority rights through Jim Crow laws against African Americans in the US, the systematic exclusion of LGBTQ+ Americans through discriminatory legislation like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and Australia's denial of citizenship rights to Aboriginal peoples until 1967 and the waves this all caused by weakening the democratic system represent good examples of how democratic values were undermined when the minorities were not protected. In contrast, New Zealand's long-standing dedication to Māori parliamentary representation, and Canada's embrace of official bilingualism to protect French-speaking minorities illustrate that when minorities receive equal protection and representation under the law, it tends to build stronger democratic institutions that benefit everyone. For a democracy to be sustainable, it is important that everyone is carried along and provisions are made for the minority no matter the person in the seat. Another core value to be upheld is gender equality. Women make up half of the world's population and yet disparities still exist in many forms. In the West, while women are considered the majority, there is still a lack of representation in decision-making spaces. To protect Western values, the foundational democracy must explicitly safeguard women's rights as non-negotiable democratic values. The historical struggle for women's suffrage reminds [us] that democratic participation hasn't always been accepted - and these hard-won rights require constant protection. This encompasses several key areas, one of which includes reproductive rights. The ability to make personal healthcare decisions, including abortion access, represents a crucial aspect of individual liberty. When governments restrict these rights, they don't merely limit personal choices - they undermine the democratic principle that citizens control their own lives. Healthcare equality also demands particular attention. Women's access to comprehensive healthcare, including preventive services, maternal care, and essential medical treatments, must not depend on political winds. Workplace protections, including equal pay legislation and discrimination safeguards, form another essential democratic value because, without financial independence, political independence becomes harder to maintain. Another key area is political representation itself, which requires ongoing attention. While women's voting rights are now established in Western democracies, barriers to full political participation often remain. These range from subtle disadvantages in campaign financing to overt discrimination in party structures. Democratic systems must actively work to eliminate these obstacles. If these are removed from Western foundational values, then the West might be subject to the fate of the strong women in Afghanistan who have their voices held. That is no democracy. The West represents freedom in all forms; therefore, these foundational values should be kept in place to keep it from developing into an anarchical society.
This writing competition asks for a vision for the basic values of Western democracies. That is, it is assumed that Western democracies are fundamentally something worth striving for / beneficial / desirable and that people can underpin them with the right values. Is this idea justified or does it not lead to government madness?What is a democracy or any other kind of government really? Let's think of a group of people. Let's assume that these people can live and act in two ways - with or without a monopoly on violence. What can the same people with a monopoly on violence do better than those without a monopoly on violence? This is logical: the only difference can be the coercive nature of the monopoly on violence. Don't try to break out of this logic.Because of the coercive nature of people with a monopoly on violence, those who know how to use governmental institutions can use them to get something they would not get voluntarily. That is the only difference. So the people of the ruling classes will use the government to get benefits they would not get voluntarily. And the non-ruling classes will pay the price for this redistribution struggle.Now you might be thinking of checks and balances etc., i.e. measures to curb this process of exploitation. But that can never be the solution. Even in a government system that theoretically works best, the coercive nature remains the only difference between people with or without a monopoly on violence. There is not a single government in the world in which this could be different, unless it loses its coercive nature and simply stops being a government. The political science tinkering with the government-run system does not change one iota about the coercive nature and the fact that people are using the monopoly on violence to organize things for themselves that they would not get voluntarily.Now you may object that coercion is somehow needed for certain things in a society. Yes, that may be the case. But people without a monopoly on violence would also be able to freely link contracts to structures that make contracts binding. Of course, people who act do not want non-binding contracts. Bindingness is therefore a praxeological necessity that is structurally linked to contracts. And voluntary cooperation creates a framework for action where those who adhere to contracts become strong and those who break contracts become weak. There would then be no monopoly protection, i.e. coercive structures would also have to be linked to the responsibility of the initiators. In a governmet-run system, on the other hand, responsibility is conveniently passed on. What about the values that western democracies have written into their constitutions? Are they really honest about doing things right? If you look closely, then that is of course not the case. The values are fitted into the state system in such a way that they primarily protect the state system, not the people.I would like to illustrate this using the example of the German governmet system. You could certainly tell a different story about each country. But I know German history best. The German Grundgesetz, which is seen as the constitution, has human dignity as its highest principle: human dignity is inviolable.There is a conceptual problem here. To speak of dignity means to define an interpersonal relationship that does not exist naturally. That is, it is pretended that several million people in a nation form a community in which they (should) cooperate with each other voluntarily. Voluntary cooperation is a way of acting that automatically ascribes personal integrity to each actor involved. That is what dignity naturally derives from. But it is of course absurd to assume that several million people in a nation cooperate with each other voluntarily - especially if they are simultaneously on opposing fronts in political processes.In voluntary cooperation, the parties themselves determine the dignified framework that their cooperation should be based on. In the context of voluntary cooperation, each individual would be the master of what defines his or her personal integrity by consensus. In the government-run context, however, it is third parties or civil servants who make their own arbitrary assessment of what they want to grant you as dignity and what they do not. German lawyers also include the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeit) in human dignity. According to this, for example, a government action is only permissible if it basically fulfills its intended purpose in some way. But we have already seen above that a government-run system with its monopoly on violence does not, in principle, have anything that could actually enable its citizens to act better than the same people without a monopoly on violence. For its opponents, a government is therefore, in principle, not proportionate and therefore completely unworthy. This would also give rise to the right to withdraw. One can therefore actually claim that the German Grundgesetz in Section 1 implies a right to withdraw. Of course, the German government will not live up to this claim because officials, including their supporters, impose their own views on the interpretation of values.So we see that any government develops a self-interest in order to maintain its power as a systemic structure. And that will be the case as long as people do not recognize what a government really is, but believe what is already written in the Bible: authority is God's servant, for your good. The values are all already there. The vision is: one should not try to put the fox in charge of the henhouse when it comes to values.
One of the main reasons as to why each and every previous Western world empire was destroyed was due to homosexuality being embedded into the system. The first major Western empire began in Greece with the rise of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. The problem with the Greek civilization was that homosexuality was embedded within their culture. The source of the rampant homosexuality was due to all of the Greek gods that they worshiped from Greek mythology. Alexander the Great was considered to also have homosexual relations throughout his kingly reign. During those times, each temple was dedicated to a specific god or goddess. For example, there was a temple for Zeus, a temple for Hera, a temple for Diana, a temple for Athena, a temple for Ares, and so on and son. Each temple had temple prostitutes. For temples of a male god like Hermes or Hephaestus, all of the prostitutes would be male in a portrayal of that particular god. For temples of a female god like Demeter, all of the prostitutes would be female in a portrayal of that particular god. Therefore in those times, people were having sex with everybody. They eventually fell to the Roman Empire in the first century BC under the reign of Augustus Caesar without much of a battle from the Greeks, and it was so large that it was split into the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. However, the Roman Empire was heavily influenced by Greek civilization and maintained their debauchery. We all have heard about Caligula. Since America has been recognized as the current empire since defeating the British army during the Revolutionary War that ended in 1783, homosexuality has become so embedded within American culture that now boys in high school are playing girls sports. In America, a boy under the age of 18 can choose to have surgery to have his wiener cut off, but is not able to drink alcohol legally until the age of 21. Make it make sense. My vision for western values is to eliminate the embedded homosexuality before America is destroyed like all of the previous empires that chose to embrace sex with the same sex. A kingdom that decides for the nation to remain heterosexual has benefits for all of the residents. In Deuteronomy 23:17, God commands that no man should be a homosexual. King Solomon's son Rehoboam reigned for 41 years in Judah after his father's death. He chose not to remove the homosexuals from the land. As a result, King Rehoboam never won a battle. This parallel sounds just like the USA because America has not decisively won a war since the First Gulf War over 30 years ago. Asa ruled over Judah for 41 years. His reign was able to reverse the 41 years of chaos of Rehoboam because he eliminated the sodomites from the land. He did a mass deportation of homosexuals from Judah. Then, Asa's son Jehoshaphat removed the rest of the homosexuals that disobeyed his father's decree. However, America has a long way to go before we can get to the point that there is no longer homosexuality. Current Vice President-elect J.D. Vance said during the campaign that they would win the normal gay guy vote. Although homosexuality has been normalized in the USA, having sex with someone else of the same sex is abnormal. Even nature lets one know that homosexuality is abnormal because only sex between a man and a woman can have the results of a conceived child after nine months. You have never heard of two men having a baby after they had sex. Do you share my vision of Western values? Please let me know in the comments.
In my
first essay, I argued that a return to the 7 liberal arts [Trivium and
Quadrivium] and to Aristotelian logic would facilitate a balance between the
free speech rights of citizens and governmental power to prevent harm/s. Since, both governments and citizens had
identical duties to state the truth, argue rationally and, thus, reach identical
common-law judgments, such a balance ought to be "trivial" to
obtain. However, in the absence of those
7 arts a balance would be impossible --- a sheep vs. wolves scenario. Then I
argued that since a Judicial Branch tyrant violated Jordan Peterson's free
speech rights, he also violated Peterson's right to a fair hearing under the same
"Charter”. One writer protested! I had "misunderstood" Peterson's
case, the alleged tyrant's judgment and Thinkspot's Essay-judges were also in
error! He “proved” those theses by his
response. I replied that an actual Platonic
Dialogue could settle the dispute. Did
he want to ask or answer questions? His silence
thereafter is called a "Socratic Elenchus" --- a refutation. His alleged “proof” was “not a proof” ---
thus, a breach of LOGIC’s law of contradiction.
[Some say “Law of non-contradiction”] Socrates relied upon that law to demonstrate that dialogue
partners were contradicting or refuting themselves. This basic law of thought is the foundation
of all Western values. It is the same
law demonstrated by religious leaders, like Christ, in proving the hypocrisy of
“Scribes and Pharisees” who also contradicted themselves. Hypocrisy is not exclusively religious. Political, business and academic hypocrites
abound in every civilization. SOCRATES: "For
I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take
thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care
about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given
by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public
as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which
corrupts the youth, my influence is ruinous indeed. But if anyone says that
this is not my teaching, he is speaking an untruth." [Plato; Apology 30a-30b] Thus, for Socrates, in one
Athenian State, all citizens should “improve their souls”, by cultivating
virtues and benefiting thereby. Should
all “Western civilization” adopt that “value”?
Aristotle thinks so! ARISTOTLE: “[State
activities] … are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the
work of a ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in
order to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices
according to merit it is necessary for the citizens to know each other's
personal characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the
business of electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly;
haphazard decision is unjust in both matters, and this must obviously prevail
in an excessively numerous community.” [Politics BK VII, Ch. 4; 1326b lines 13-20] One thousand words does Aristotle
no justice. But for the sake of
necessary brevity, and consistent with Socrates’ thesis on virtue, one should
focus on Aristotle’s assertion that “citizens (ought) to know each other’s
personal characters” or else “electing officials” and “judging law suits” will
“go badly”. Sound familiar to
anyone? Have you heard any recent
arguments about the characters of Trump, Biden or Harris in America or Trudeau
in Canada? Have you heard any complaints
about legal decisions? I recently
complained about 1 legal judgment involving a Thinkspot founder. DDBOW disagreed. But not for long. So much for recommended historical and contemporary examples. As to the
criterion of “well-reasoned arguments”:
They can’t be done with 5 so-called “theories” of truth when all have “well-reasoned”
criticisms. See the essay entitled TRUTH
at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Five truth “THEORIES” are discussed ad
nauseum. For scientists a theory is a
repetitively confirmed hypothesis. It may
be confirmed by anyone repeating the same scientific method anywhere in the
world. The method consists of observation, hypothesis, experimental test and a
conclusion from observed test results. Experimental
test observations may lead to more hypotheses and more experiments. Repeat “ad nauseum”. Given 5 “theories” of truth,
hear Aristotle refute all 5 of them from 2400 years ago! Quote: ARISTOTLE:- “ … the attempts of some of those who discuss
the terms on which truth should be accepted are due to a want [i.e. lack; KB]
of training in logic; for they should know these things already when they come
to a special study [e.g. philosophy; KB] … [Aristotle says philosophers
know them, then argues] … the most certain PRINCIPLE of all is that
regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken; for such a principle must be
both the BEST KNOWN (for anyone may be mistaken about things they do not know)
and NON-HYPOTHETICAL. … For a principle
… is NOT A HYPOTHESIS;” etc. [Metaphysics;
BK IV, Ch. 3., 1005b lines 2-16] Aristotle
states the principle of (non)-contradiction about 2 lines later. But since I’m approaching the word limit,
anyone who argues for so-called “theories” of truth is arguing irrationally
from bogus “hypotheses” concerning the truth.
The sophists who wrote on TRUTH love the bi-conditional hypothesis --- the
“IF and ONLY IF” hypothesis. Thus modern
metaphorical “scribes and Pharisees” obfuscate Aristotle’s true statements
about both logic and philosophy. For Aristotle a state
had to be relatively small so that one could learn the characters of law makers
and judges, either personally or from the reliable 2nd hand
experience of trustworthy friends who knew those person’s characters. But with the 7 liberal arts --- especially
logic --- the characters of such people could be known by comparing their words
to their acts. Those well taught 7 “arts”
(when well taught) enabled the building of much larger, more prosperous states,
which we call “Western Civilization”. A
renaissance of those arts will occur or we’ll collapse.
Origins, values and threats and renaissance. Western civilization encompasses a rich tapestry of social norms, ethical values, customs, and belief systems that have evolved over centuries. With its early origins in Minoan, Greek and Roman civilisations, these values were enriched by Viking culture in the 9th century who enhanced the values of individual responsibility and trade to Europe. Throughout its history, Western values have been influenced by Christianity and individualism was further advanced by the Catholic edict on not allowing near-relative marriages. The Renaissance in the 15th century revived the science and art of Rome and laid the foundation for the Scientific Revolution later. The shift towards individual responsibility was also boosted by the protestant Reformation in the 16th century. With it's modern beginnings in The Netherlands in the 16th century, the centre quickly moved to England from where the same set of values spread to modern-day USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Characteristics of The West At the social level, The West values individual freedom, personal responsibility, freedom of speech, democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. It was the first civilisation to abolish slavery and to champion women's suffrage. Artistically, it built on the Renaissance revival of sculpture and architecture, creating, for example, European cathedrals. The West values the scientific, evidence-based, empirical approach to discovering the secrets of the natural world and values engineering, industrialisation and technology to drive progress. In economic matters, it values the free-market and an enterprise culture which enables scientific discoveries to be translated into products for market. However, its strength lies in taming the market for social good rather solely for individual wealth. Threats to Western values Over the last few decades, however, serious threats to these values have emerged from withing Western society itself. These include 'cancel culture', a new for of feminism which has an anti-male narrative, mass immigration of people with different values, the breakdown of the family and, in particular, fatherhood. More and more citizens have become reliant, both financially and mentally, on welfare. We have become 'health and safety' over-sensitive and the values of personal responsibility and resilience are in decline. The primary driver of these changes has been the subtle replacement among intellectuals of the empirical method with post-modernist approaches which denigrates evidence and replaces it with 'lived experience'. Hidden from view, this shift also leads to a denigration of the past, focussing on the negative in Western history. Individuals in the West are becoming demoralised with more and more claiming mental illness, 'neurodiversity' and a withdrawal from active participation in society. The need for a New Renaissance. The first requirement is that far more people understand and see the bigger picture of what is happening. We need a wide movement to restore our values outlined above. Without this The West will continue its steady decline. With less-than-replacement birth-rates, our society will become dominated by people from other cultures and The West will slip into history. For this it valesand see the bigger picture
The left
goes too far when the misfortune of some gets wrongly blamed on the fortune of
others with a resulting restriction of the freedom, rights, opportunities and
abundance of the latter to balance misattributed disparities. This unpragmatic
tendency of left-wing governments became obvious to many citizens of western
countries with democratically elected leadership, which had the consequence of
a widespread shift away from left-wing parties towards more conservative
alternatives. This is cause for a reexamination of which values are the core
foundation blocks of western countries, which are generally called liberal democracies,
as the left-wing is colloquially associated with the term liberal. As voting
patterns internationally steer away from the left-wing, does that mean that
liberal values are no longer the dominant determinants of western countries? No,
it is actually a misnomer to associate the term liberal democracy, which the
majority of western countries is typically thought of to be, with left-leaning
governmental rule. Its core tenants as defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica -
“limited governmental power, pluralism, toleration, resolution of political disagreement,
separation of powers and the protection of civil rights and individual freedom”
(https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-democracy) - are disjunct from right-wing
or left-wing ideology but fundamental aspects of free societies. The oppressive
genocidal tyrannies of Germany and the UDSSR (among many others) in the 20th
century prove that left/right ideological leaning does not directly correlate
with liberty within a state. These examples of recent historical atrocities
instead clearly show the danger that top-down rule perennially poses. When ideas
are pursued without the openness to examine their real-world consequences,
spirals of destruction follow more often than not. This could
be explained by the simple fact of adaptability being akin to a natural law,
requiring of any system, be it biological, societal, economical or digital, to change
its processes based on feedback about its functionality. Hence, democratic
systems of governance have become the dominant form of rule in developed
nations because it is a reflection of deductively determining the directions
that a civilization wants or needs to move in. Inductively
imposing ideas for which outcomes shall be enforced typically happened under tyrannical
rule by monarchs, oligarchs, dictators and theocrats. Governance works well if
the optimal ensuring of liberty and prosperity for all citizens gets maintained
and improved via a continually adapting process that considers changing
internal and external circumstances. The imposition of any ideologically
derived goals that are distinct from that is damaging to the fabric of a civilization. The rift
between the left and right political ideals forms the basis for reactionary
shifts towards extremes of either spectrum because of the oscillation of
majority rules. Were there more opportunities for consensus-forming between
these genetically predetermined normally distributed personality derived sociopolitical
leanings, these reactionary exacerbations of disadvantages, which either end of
the spectrum contains, could be curtailed. Due to negativity
bias being a dominant trait of human nature, differences in these personality-based
political leanings are getting overemphasized because of the threat which the extreme
ends of each represents. Therefore, the most potent force for deradicalization
against each other would be to culturally engrain a focus on the commonalities that
the majority of either political leaning actually has with the other. These commonalities
are excellently encapsulated in the original definition of “liberal democracy”.
If the general public and politicians were more informed about what that means,
a wide-ranging subscription to these ideals would probably follow, laying the
groundwork for more consensus rule. This would be advantageous over currently
dominant tribally informed all-or-nothing decisions that generally negate the
position of circa half of voters. Politics
are informed by popular culture unless special interest groups or individuals
interfere via propaganda and lobbyism. The checks and balances of governmental
structures and processes have sufficiently ensured the inhibition of
dictatorial tendencies taking shape in western countries since World War 2 ended
but it is overdue that they are extended to prohibit the influence of corporate
or other undemocratic interests. When the
cultural factor of focusing on the commonality of ensuring individual freedom
and prosperity takes better hold as well as prohibition of political
interference by special interest groups gets instituted, the fundamental tenants
of liberal democracies will consequentially bring forth a continually
optimizing path to the best possible living conditions for citizens in the same
way that natural systems optimize for efficiency and sustainability via evolutionary
forces. In short, if unconstrained by inductive forces and unnecessary
in-fighting out of tribal fear, the deductive process of real democracy naturally
develops what is best for citizens over time.
In many current debates about Western values we see that these are
often labelled ‘Judaeo-Christian’ values; but this is not
entirely correct. There are parts of the world, such as Ethiopia and
south India, that have a still older bond with Christianity than most
of what we today consider the West; yet nobody would seriously argue
that these are parts of the ‘Western world’. Also, a quick glance at
the religious history of Europe, the original homeland of the West,
shows that the nature of lived Christianity has changed in the course
of many centuries. Nobody in today’s West wishes to return to the
Middle Ages or to the times of the great religious wars of the 16th
and 17th centuries that were fought in the name of Christianity.
Westerners today believe that every person should enjoy religious
freedom and not have religious beliefs and practices forced upon one
through wars or other powers which the state has. Religious
discrimination and persecution by any person or group of persons are
considered things of the past. Today’s Western respect for
religious freedom can be seen as a logical extension of the
Judaeo-Christian belief in the bond between each individual and God
as a personal and indeed individual one; but influences from the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment played a huge role in making this a
socio-cultural reality. Core Western values are
found also in societies where traditionally other religions were
dominant. This is the reason why the ‘Westernization’ of such
other societies is not only possible but is also felt to be
beneficial. The core values of the West are fundamentally human and
actually universal, in the sense that any person can live according
to those values without harming other values which one may have
inherited in another social and cultural environment. The West merely
brought these core values more to the forefront, and as a result the
West became the most dynamic, innovative, prosperous, equitable, and
envied part of our world. So what are these core
values? The most basic of these values is the dignity of the
individual human being. If one thinks about this for only a minute,
one recognizes that practically all other cultural values are based
on this. Any functional society is a large group of individuals who
cooperate with each other for the benefit of all. What is
characteristic for modern Western culture is the awareness that all
knowledge (also shared collective knowledge) originates with an
individual: a thinker, a researcher, a discoverer, an inventor.
Philosophers and scientists are individuals, as were the prophets of
the Bible. All such people need individual liberty to think, to
express themselves, and to discuss publicly: this is the foundation
of all cultural progress. This does not mean,
however, that ‘anything goes’. In a free exchange of ideas
between responsible and respectful individuals, certain ideas gain
wide appreciation and acceptance and become a part of public life
while other ones do not, and old ideas may lose acceptance because
certain newer ideas are recognized as better. Western culture is
optimistic and believes that ultimately, humanity as a whole is able
to recognize what is truthful and beneficial. The superiority of an
idea can be demonstrated by its being based on verifiable, objective
facts and on reason: logic and coherence. But there is also the
precious ‘grey area’ of the private: I may hold certain ideas as
valid and good without being able to convince others of their
validity; and I can live according to those ideas in my very own,
private life, without forcing them upon others. I respect the public
sphere, which is based on rational debate and consensus, while others
respect my private sphere where I can largely live as I want to. This
private sphere is of immense importance for individual, subjective,
emotional well-being, a space of great individual freedom that does
not need to answer questions of objective, universal, public truth
and validity. Among other things, it is the sphere of religious
beliefs and of aesthetic preferences. Western cultural values
are under threat from within when the individuals that form society
lose faith in what they have or in what they are: when they are
afraid of their freedom, afraid of responsibility, afraid of
themselves. Such individuals are willing to surrender their freedom
and their cultural emancipatory possibilities of self-realization.
Such persons are the pessimists who neither allow themselves to think
and to take responsibility for their actions, nor trust the majority
of their fellow human beings either. For them it is more attractive
to blindly follow a supposedly strong leader or a supposedly
protective, totalitarian organization, such as certain political
movements or religious sects.
A modern Western
society that seeks to protect its value base must see to it that not
only its judiciary safeguards those core values that protect and
support the individual, but also that its entire educational system,
from kindergarten through highest academia, instills in its pupils a
respect for and love of those values: values that guarantee
self-expression, self-development, and growth not only of each
individual but of entire societies through free exchanges of ideas
and fair and respectful discussion. Schools should be not just places
where pupils learn some useful technical skills, but where pupils
also acquire tools for building their own character as responsible,
respectful, respectable and productive members of their societies. It
is necessary in a functional liberal democracy that everyone learns
how to recognize objectivity and objective knowledge, as well as the
essentials of logical reasoning, because these are the foundation of
civil discussions about anything. When young people are in possession
of these fundamental tools of thought and have learnt the immense
importance of free speech in an environment without ideological
pressures (like the various forms of ‘cancel culture’, which is
fundamentally un-Western), they will be able to recognize dangerous
nonsense when they see it, and the world will be a better place.
Just
one look at today's polarized, divided cultural landscape tells us
that, if Western civilization is to survive, the people of the West
need a solid, united vision, a vision that both preserves the
productive elements the West has already developed, while making room
for advancement.
Our
Western value system is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, and it's
inevitable consequence, classic liberalism. Though it is sometimes
criticized by so-called “progressives” as archaic or attached to
religious dogma, this ethos has served us well, forging the
democracies of the West into the most successful, advanced, and
prosperous society the world has ever known.
“Liberalism”
in it's classic sense, (not to be confused with politics of the
modern left,) is a fundamental belief in individuality, freedom, the
pursuit of differing interests and motivations. The liberal mindset
understands that humans can be self-interested, and that is in our
nature.
Liberalism
flourished in Britain and Western Europe in the 18th
century, and those who settled North America brought those ideals to
the New World. As political scientist, Dr. Eric Kaufman, stated in a
recent lecture, “The American constitutional
motto, 'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' is a good
example of liberalism... that individuals should be treated equally
under the law.” As humans, we design our own plans for our lives
and pursue our own goals. In other words, we desire freedom.
The
“American Experiment” has proved to be an outstanding success, in
that the US has held the status as a dominant world power during the
entire course of it's existence, militarily, economically, and
culturally. The aspects of freedom that the US Constitution framers
envisioned are still important fundamentals that Western society
could do well to re-instantiate.
Freedom
of speech was made the FIRST amendment for a reason, which is that
all other freedoms depend upon it. Modern attempts by politically
motivated players to diminish the freedoms associated with speech,
such as concocted concepts like “misinformation”,
“disinformation”, and “malinformation”, are thinly veiled
machinations to undermine the freedom of the speech of individuals,
journalists, and commentators, and are a direct infringement on free
speech. As
with the first amendment, the US second amendment is a right that is
God-given, and not to be infringed upon by the government.
Other
foundational values of a free society include the right not to be
arrested or imprisoned without a fair trial, the acquisition and
ownership of property, political pluralism, a democratic political
apparatus, where citizens vote and elect their leaders.
In
the minds of many, it may seem that I am merely stating the obvious,
but unfortunately, these basic tenets of freedom are under attack in
our contemporary culture war. We can no longer take our individual
freedoms for granted, and the creation of a sensible, powerful vision
of a free West is critical.
One
such movement that is gaining traction is ARC, The Alliance for
Responsible Citizenship. The mission of the movement is stated on the
ARC website, “The Alliance for
Responsible Citizenship is being established as a global movement
with a vision for a better world where empowered citizens take
responsibility and work together to bring flourishing and prosperity
to their families, communities, and nations.” Founded as an
alternative to the destructive ideologies of Marxism, racial
division, and anti-patriotism that are saturating our universities
and institutions, ARC is a wellspring of optimism and hope for the
future of the West.
Which
values do we in the West need to consider in order to maintain the
constructive and beneficial principals our long, successful
civilization has established, and what values must we enhance so that
our society as a whole does not stagnate, but instead may flourish? Among
the tried and true values that the West must consider bolstering, and
in some cases restore, into our new collective vision are unfettered
freedom of speech, property rights, truth, the rule of law, the right
to bear arms, limited government, and a free market economy. National
Sovereignty and controlled immigration are essential for any culture
to prosper. The unchecked immigration imposed upon citizens in the
West by globalist interests are inflicting a decay on native
populations, and must be reined in. Unrest in the UK over mass
immigration, violent gangs overtaking properties in the US and
rampant government spending to house and feed illegal immigrants is
causing chaotic situations that will be both expensive and difficult
to amend.
Other
considerations that should make up a positive vision for the West are
economic. A citizenry that is educated regarding the true nature of
the free market economy may enlighten those who have fallen for the
trap that the surface ideas of socialism and Marxism can impose. In
a famous debate with Slavoj
Žižek, Dr. Jordan Peterson provided amazing statistics regarding
the benefits of free market capitalism. “We are eradicating
poverty in countries that are adopting free market policies at a rate
that is unparalleled... One of the UN millennial goals was to reduce
the rate of absolute poverty by 50% between 2000 and 2015... the goal
was reached... 3 years ahead of schedule...The rich may be getting
richer but the poor are getting richer, too, under capitalism.”
What
about our vision for a changing future? We must reckon with changing
attitudes and perceptions of life itself. In the US, the much
politicized issue of abortion can now be decided by the people of
individual states, since the reversal of Roe v Wade. Robotics are on
the verge of becoming automatized. The new Neurolink technology being
developed by Elon Musk is simultaneously controversial and exciting.
Falling birthrates can undermine entire economies, and must be
addressed.
Advanced
technologies in agriculture,
food production and medicine, which have been poisoned by special
interests and lobbyists, must be “on the table” for
consideration, (pun intended.)
Our
vision for the future must entail space travel and the possibility of
colonizing mars.
Our
new vision for the West must include both foresight and hindsight,
and leave us with a sense of security and hope.
We don't need to look far to come up with not only western, but universal values. The best book of values I have found is the Bible. The derivative works of this ancient text cannot be counted. We have access to it as a result of increased literacy, translation, the invention of the printing press and world-wide distribution. Translation of the original Greek and Hebrew into Latin began around 200 A.D. with the resulting Latin Vulgate completed by Jerome approximately two hundred years later. Around the same time the Roman Catholic Church was established under the rule of Constantinople. The Latin Vulgate text remained within the church and was primarily inaccessible to the public. About a thousand years later attempts to translate the text into the language of the people in England and Germany met with severe resistance from the church. New translations were banned and destroyed. One prominent translator, William Tyndale (1494—1536), was burned at the stake. Tyndall declared his intent: “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!” According to this source, "Tyndale’s dying prayer was answered. By 1539 every parish in England was required to have a copy of the Bible in English and to make it available to every parishioner. Over the next seventy years, two million copies of the Bible were sold in England. And when the translators of the King James Version produced their Bible in 1611, they relied heavily on Tyndale’s wording. In fact, about 90 percent of the phrasing of the KJV matches Tyndale’s." The Bible was translated into German around the same time by Martin Luther (1483-1586) who is known as the founder of the Protestant movement. The Bible is a book about God's interactions with human beings. In the first story, God created the world, a belief which, in itself, has enormous ramifications. God breathed life into humans who were to have dominion over the earth and be stewards of creation. The God who shaped humans from the dust and communed with them in the Garden of Eden continues to interact with his creation today. Stories in the Bible reveal that persistent violation of God's laws will incur wrath and judgement of God. God delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses, leader of the Israelite nation whom he rescued from slavery in Egypt. The first command was "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." KJV In the Bible it becomes evident that, "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 reads, "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." Psalm 110:10 states explicitly, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments.... " Ecclesiastes 12:13 reads, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." The values laid out in the commandments are summed up years later by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of a virgin. In the New Testament writings we read in Matthew 22 that Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment. He replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." From beginning to end, the Scriptures instruct us on how to live. The prophet Micah lays out God's plan for living in Micah 6:8: "He hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." This is what God values. We are to worship God and humbly follow his decrees. Christ himself taught us to pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." We are to emulate our Maker and "seek first his kingdom and his righteousness." Matthew 6:33