Religion has always been a tremendous influence over people in ways that could not be explained by logical reasoning. People who are deeply devoted to religion would be willing to sacrifice themselves, others, and their freedom for the "truth". Religion, whether it is polytheistic or monotheistic, take on similar characteristics. I will focus on monotheistic religions for now, mainly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all three of which trace their root to a common source and all three of which continue to influence the world today at a large scale. What these religions have in common is that they all preach in "truths". They have specific instructions on how to behave oneself, how to think, how to form an opinion of oneself or other people. In Europe, Christianity controls every social behavior and interactions like marriages very strictly. The church even advised on Civilizations formed from these religions were all at first
Most people would agree that religion is possibly the most important attribute of civilization. Ancient Greece, Rome, Aztec empire, etc with distinct religious establishments were highly civilized cultures in terms of their complex social structure and organization. If you compare that with native American tribes of North America and certain tribes in Africa where religion was not regarded more than just part of the unexplained forces of nature, you find less organized cultures. In fact, you wouldn't refer to those tribes as civilizations. In essence, from this you can see how religious establishment and social establishment is directly connected, in fact, some would even argue that religion is society. But how why and how did society and religion form and what came first? To answer this question, a deeper look into the history of society is required. On one side, truly religious people would attribute the creation of society, or even the creation of earth and the universe to "god", the tangible representation of their religious faith. However, a more logical way of answering the question is to look at the history of mankind and understand why people come together.
The greatest accomplishment associated with society is probably its conquest over nature. The first group of people create civilization when they relinquished their nomadic lives of hunting and gathering and settle down around an agricultural land. Indeed, agriculture is the first step of mankind toward civilization and it started a trend of continual effort to convert the sun, wind, water, and other forces of nature into food and energy for people. Although Hobbes and Freud disagreed on whether people consented to live together in society or are under certain external force that compelled them beyond their control, they both seem to agree that society is formed for the benefit of human race, to maximize productivity and find a way top escape from the limitation of the biological regime.
In his chapter "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy", Jared Diamond describes in detail the evolution of the creation of civilization as we know it from nomadic people living in individual family groups, similar to a pack of wolves, to gradually tribes and chiefdom, where multiple families live together. As you can tell from that, people are compelled to settle in larger groups because they realized that they were able to catch larger preys hunting together. After all, finding food to sustain their lives was the most important thing for our ancestors as it is for us. Conflicts was not as prevalent in tribes and chiefdom because people were still settling in relatively small groups with people they hunt with. The discovery of agriculture is perhaps the most important turning point in human history. Small groups nomadic people living in chiefdom gathered and settle down around a common fertile land and the state was formed. However, the gathering of people does not constitute society. Something was missing. Problem arose when people of different tribes began to fight over control over land. The logic was that with more farming land, one can produce more crops for food. These territorial disputes which led to unrest and violence would be regarded by Hobbes and Freud as nature behavior of men. According to them, men are by nature self-serving, violent and irreconcilable. Mutual interpersonal relationships are difficult to establish because of the instinctual nature of men to undermine others through violence and aggression is link to sensual pleasure similar to the feeling from glory and expression of sexuality. Therefore, some form of physical and psychological social control is needed to maintain mutual existence between men. Diamond described that because this form of violence could not be compromised, authority was established to maintain order, setting regulations, and attempt to use physical or psychological means to suppress the violent nature of men which presented challenges to coexistence needed for society to function as well as the safety of every single person.
One form of social control is the police force or military that takes a more physical approach to end the problem. Of course since people could not compromise on whom to blame for particular disputes, they decided to elect a single authority to whose decision everyone must owe respect to. This authority is known as the Kleptocrat. The social economic system is called a Kleptocracy which can vary in form from despotism to bureaucracy. Under this system, the Kleptocrat agrees to gives up his life as a farmer and take on the job of protecting the lives of each men from other men. In return, the people will offer him part of their harvests, better know as the tax, so that he can continue to live and carry on this responsibility. As Hobbes and Freud both argue, men seeks pleasure from power and dominance. Eventually, Diamond explains, the Kleptocrat began to abuse his power for personal gain and people began to challenge his authority. At that moment, the Kleptocrat attempted to find a way to keep the aggression of people under check and also preserves his power - by creating stories and beliefs which will become cultural values.
Many attempts has been made with varying results. One of which makes the Kleptocrat seem as a "divine" superhuman being whose power surpasses that of the nature and whose authority cannot be challenged. Another attempt induce fear in believers that if they do not do as they are told, they will be punished by an eternity of torture. Other attempts urge "love thy neighbor as thyself" to encourage collaboration and mutual respect between people so that their instinctual nature of egoism and violence would not overcome them and bring the end of society in a pool of blood. Usually, these stories were easily molded into the minds of the young so that people would be convinced from that start of their life that what they are hearing is the truth. As more people began to believe in these stories, they became dedicated to these beliefs and are willing to spend their entire life erecting a monument for their "god", the pharaoh, sacrificing their lives for these beliefs, and burning and massacring those who disagree.
This is Religion. Without it, there is no society. Everyone would just kill each other for self-benefits and to satisfy their instinctual pleasure. With it, we have civilization, mutual relationships and collaboration between people who share the same faith, progress, technological advances, and dominance over nature and over those who disagree with our version of the story.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
my opinion on HEALTH CARE
So today, Obama made history by signing the health care reform into law. For the 16 million people that are going to receive benefits under the new law, it's a dream come true. For the other people who are already under a health care plan, disagreement continues. Proponents of the universal health care believe that the health care reform will move America closer in competition with Europe in terms of social benefits and general happiness of citizens but opponents objects that universal health care is a form of socialism that is not only un-American but also undermines individualism and encourages personal irresponsibility.
My opinion on health care is that in theory, it is a good idea because if executed correctly, it can benefit everyone. However, in America, universal health care is not only impractical, but also fundamentally impossible for the following three reasons:
1 - large social programs cannot be successful without abandoning the American ideal. America is founded on the principles of the declaration of independence, which is a proclamation to individualism and the escape of the "children" (the colonies) from the "parent" - Great Britain. Thus, America is founded upon the ideals of individualism and self-dependence. With that being said, 9 out of 10 Americans today is an individualist, meaning that they value self-development and personal goals over that of the community. This kind of social irresponsibility can be seen from the lack of interest of most Americans in politics and lack of communal engagement. Many people are more interested in learning about Tiger Wood's affairs than debates over a new legislation in congress, and it shows in the emphasis of the media in popular culture. Because of this lack of engagement of average Americans in the community and an emphasis on "my rights" and "my interests" over "what is best for the community, social policies fail in most cases because it is always focused on pleasing particular interests of an individual or a group of individuals but never manages to solve the bigger issue. Individualism is not only a recent trend in American society but it has always been a cultural value since the creation of the country. To make matter more difficult, America is by far the largest conglomeration of different cultural, ethnic, and racial group. It is more difficult for Americans from different social backgrounds and different interests to collaborate and agree with each other than in homogeneous countries like Norway. Any policy pertaining to social programs or social establishment require the compromise and collaboration of everyone to give up a part of their interests in recognition that it will benefit society as a whole. However, that is impossible if Americans continue to behave selfishly like individuals. Communal participation and loss of part of individualism are closely connected, but to most Americans, individualism is the very meaning of America so it would be contradictory to favor socialism or humanitarianism over that which has been idealized, practiced, and endorsed over centuries. So ask yourself this - Am I willing to abandon freedom as an individual and all my cultural ideals as an American for the benefit of others?
2 - Universal Health Care is costly enough that it cannot be successfully maintained without changes in the existing economic and social policy on a mass scale.
If you would look at countries with universal health care, like Germany, it is almost impossible to immigrate there and once there, unemployed people are mandated by the government to find a job. I had the pleasure of discussing the differences between social systems with a person who lives in Germany. He told me the following things that people would find in Germany:
- Recent immigrants are required and will be offered free admission to a program to learn the German language within two years and must pass a comprehension test in order to continue to stay in the country.
- People who have graduated from secondary education must obtain a job, unless they are enrolled in higher education. Failure to find employment results in the assignment of a job at the choice of the government. Continue failure to maintain a job will result in the withdrawal of all social support, including welfare and health care.
- All males are required to serve 9 months in the military, or with legitimate medical or personal excuses, work for a government agency.
-All education, secondary or higher, is subsidized by the government. Students living independent from their parents will be given a monthly stipend that will ascertain coverage for housing, food, and other necessary living expenses.
These are just examples of mandatory obligations and social supports that a person, who lives in a country with free health care will expect. Germany also regulates taxation very tightly so if you know someone who holds a job and get paid "under the tables", he would not enjoy such an easy time hiding his income from the government in Germany. Social obligations comes hand in hand with social support. A comparisons between German policies and American policies shows that America lack the kind of policies that regulate people's involvement and responsibilities in society. Some of these policies above will sound absurd to some Americans and will be accused of as a form of social control and undermine of individuality. However, what most Americans fail to see is that these are the exact costs of social benefits. You cannot expect to benefit from society unless you make some personal sacrifices.
3 - The current condition of the American economy makes it very difficult to extend such an expensive program to every single person.
In case you haven't noticed, the government is making history by running the largest deficit in American history. It would perhaps take decades to get out of the debt, but slapping an expensive social program on top makes the future seem grim and hopeless. Most Americans are already under a health care plan through their employers. Many who are not covered are mostly those who are unemployed, refuse to get a health care plan, have extreme medical conditions that invalidates their acceptance by a private health care company, or are undocumented. They proclaimed that they have the rights to sustain their life just as the ensured people do. It's correct to think that way about yourself, that you deserve to live on earth and that your life is just as valuable as other people. That is the correct way to think for what is best for yourself but what about what's best for the community? Perhaps to compromise the economic problem we have with the large expense of health care program, we should consider that maybe some needs the free health care more than the others. Of course for different un-ensured people with different scenarios, there are many ways to argue this and some arguments are more valid and justified than others in sense of what is best for America as a whole. The most justified reason is that of the people with disqualifying medical conditions. In my opinion, they should be able to receive free medical care because their sickness is something that that they have no control over. However, as for self-chosen unemployed people and undocumented people, it is not as justified for them to receive benefits from society since they are contributing nothing to society in form of taxes or in form of service. This relates to my previous argument that social obligation and social benefits come hand in hand. A person choose not to find employment although he has the physical and mental ability to work is not only neglecting responsibility to himself, but also responsibility to society that he receives benefits from. On the other hand, undocumented people do not deserve benefits at the expense of American tax money because they have made the choice to come to this country knowing all the risks and they have weighed and recognized the benefits and losses that they will encounter living illegally in America and have chosen to come to here knowing that they will live a better life in America. It is their personal choice to come to this country and they should be satisfied with their better lives in America instead of being greedy and expect more benefits. If they are so dissatisfied living here, no one is stopping them from leaving. Self-chosen unemployed people and illegal immigrant do not have valid reasons to complain about social systems because they chose not to participate and contribute to society. My father always tells me "if you did not participate in the presidential election, you have no rights to complain about anything that the president does". Giving these people privilege to social benefits will only achieve the goal of creating more social responsibilities, adding more burden to our suffering economy (social capital), taking away benefit from responsible Americans who really deserve it.
My opinion on health care is that in theory, it is a good idea because if executed correctly, it can benefit everyone. However, in America, universal health care is not only impractical, but also fundamentally impossible for the following three reasons:
1 - large social programs cannot be successful without abandoning the American ideal. America is founded on the principles of the declaration of independence, which is a proclamation to individualism and the escape of the "children" (the colonies) from the "parent" - Great Britain. Thus, America is founded upon the ideals of individualism and self-dependence. With that being said, 9 out of 10 Americans today is an individualist, meaning that they value self-development and personal goals over that of the community. This kind of social irresponsibility can be seen from the lack of interest of most Americans in politics and lack of communal engagement. Many people are more interested in learning about Tiger Wood's affairs than debates over a new legislation in congress, and it shows in the emphasis of the media in popular culture. Because of this lack of engagement of average Americans in the community and an emphasis on "my rights" and "my interests" over "what is best for the community, social policies fail in most cases because it is always focused on pleasing particular interests of an individual or a group of individuals but never manages to solve the bigger issue. Individualism is not only a recent trend in American society but it has always been a cultural value since the creation of the country. To make matter more difficult, America is by far the largest conglomeration of different cultural, ethnic, and racial group. It is more difficult for Americans from different social backgrounds and different interests to collaborate and agree with each other than in homogeneous countries like Norway. Any policy pertaining to social programs or social establishment require the compromise and collaboration of everyone to give up a part of their interests in recognition that it will benefit society as a whole. However, that is impossible if Americans continue to behave selfishly like individuals. Communal participation and loss of part of individualism are closely connected, but to most Americans, individualism is the very meaning of America so it would be contradictory to favor socialism or humanitarianism over that which has been idealized, practiced, and endorsed over centuries. So ask yourself this - Am I willing to abandon freedom as an individual and all my cultural ideals as an American for the benefit of others?
2 - Universal Health Care is costly enough that it cannot be successfully maintained without changes in the existing economic and social policy on a mass scale.
If you would look at countries with universal health care, like Germany, it is almost impossible to immigrate there and once there, unemployed people are mandated by the government to find a job. I had the pleasure of discussing the differences between social systems with a person who lives in Germany. He told me the following things that people would find in Germany:
- Recent immigrants are required and will be offered free admission to a program to learn the German language within two years and must pass a comprehension test in order to continue to stay in the country.
- People who have graduated from secondary education must obtain a job, unless they are enrolled in higher education. Failure to find employment results in the assignment of a job at the choice of the government. Continue failure to maintain a job will result in the withdrawal of all social support, including welfare and health care.
- All males are required to serve 9 months in the military, or with legitimate medical or personal excuses, work for a government agency.
-All education, secondary or higher, is subsidized by the government. Students living independent from their parents will be given a monthly stipend that will ascertain coverage for housing, food, and other necessary living expenses.
These are just examples of mandatory obligations and social supports that a person, who lives in a country with free health care will expect. Germany also regulates taxation very tightly so if you know someone who holds a job and get paid "under the tables", he would not enjoy such an easy time hiding his income from the government in Germany. Social obligations comes hand in hand with social support. A comparisons between German policies and American policies shows that America lack the kind of policies that regulate people's involvement and responsibilities in society. Some of these policies above will sound absurd to some Americans and will be accused of as a form of social control and undermine of individuality. However, what most Americans fail to see is that these are the exact costs of social benefits. You cannot expect to benefit from society unless you make some personal sacrifices.
3 - The current condition of the American economy makes it very difficult to extend such an expensive program to every single person.
In case you haven't noticed, the government is making history by running the largest deficit in American history. It would perhaps take decades to get out of the debt, but slapping an expensive social program on top makes the future seem grim and hopeless. Most Americans are already under a health care plan through their employers. Many who are not covered are mostly those who are unemployed, refuse to get a health care plan, have extreme medical conditions that invalidates their acceptance by a private health care company, or are undocumented. They proclaimed that they have the rights to sustain their life just as the ensured people do. It's correct to think that way about yourself, that you deserve to live on earth and that your life is just as valuable as other people. That is the correct way to think for what is best for yourself but what about what's best for the community? Perhaps to compromise the economic problem we have with the large expense of health care program, we should consider that maybe some needs the free health care more than the others. Of course for different un-ensured people with different scenarios, there are many ways to argue this and some arguments are more valid and justified than others in sense of what is best for America as a whole. The most justified reason is that of the people with disqualifying medical conditions. In my opinion, they should be able to receive free medical care because their sickness is something that that they have no control over. However, as for self-chosen unemployed people and undocumented people, it is not as justified for them to receive benefits from society since they are contributing nothing to society in form of taxes or in form of service. This relates to my previous argument that social obligation and social benefits come hand in hand. A person choose not to find employment although he has the physical and mental ability to work is not only neglecting responsibility to himself, but also responsibility to society that he receives benefits from. On the other hand, undocumented people do not deserve benefits at the expense of American tax money because they have made the choice to come to this country knowing all the risks and they have weighed and recognized the benefits and losses that they will encounter living illegally in America and have chosen to come to here knowing that they will live a better life in America. It is their personal choice to come to this country and they should be satisfied with their better lives in America instead of being greedy and expect more benefits. If they are so dissatisfied living here, no one is stopping them from leaving. Self-chosen unemployed people and illegal immigrant do not have valid reasons to complain about social systems because they chose not to participate and contribute to society. My father always tells me "if you did not participate in the presidential election, you have no rights to complain about anything that the president does". Giving these people privilege to social benefits will only achieve the goal of creating more social responsibilities, adding more burden to our suffering economy (social capital), taking away benefit from responsible Americans who really deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
