When I read serious literature, be it fiction, history, science or mainstream media[1], I tend to contextualize the information around various inter-related themes that are constantly rotating through my consciousness. Lately I have been concerned with ideas on the extensiveness of individual freedoms in an increasingly connected global community.
Our ability to understand the world around us, communicate with high efficiency, mobilize information, physical materials, resources and economic activities has created a multi-layered and highly complex global system of interdependent activities that define most humans' welfare. This high degree of interconnectivity suggests that systems of thought and action are inevitably imposed on other cultures in a significant way; the proximity of our actions to distant cultures -- and even our own (culture), given the empowerment brought to us by information technologies, the most significant, of course, being the Internet -- inevitably raises difficult questions with respect to human rights and personal freedoms.
Personal freedoms that did not appear to be detrimental to society at large are now being reevaluated by both the state and local communities because of the interconnectivity I described above. Some obvious examples include resource usage and the freedoms given to individuals in terms of its usage. A local community, for example, may now fear that unrestricted usage of a certain local resource will be detrimental to the entire community, so the community might impose restrictions on its use. Another obvious example is our ability to own guns in a city; living in such close proximity to each other in an urban environment like Toronto presents a much different set of problems if gun ownership (and possession in public places) were permitted. You will note that both of these examples are based on perceived threats -- it is not the case that gun possession will necessarily be detrimental to a community, however our ability to perceive that threat and measure its risk often determines whether or not a restriction is imposed.
Fear amplifies these risks and the state will often use this quite effectively to impose self-serving laws on its citizens. The recent debacle surrounding personal information and privacy in the United States is a perfect example. The state uses socialist arguments in order to serve its own purpose ("we're here to protect you from threats!") and yet promotes individualism in an effort to make you dependent on (and serve) the state and its machinations.
The flipside of this is that such interconnectivity obviates the need for individuals to reconsider the emphasis we place on communities, cooperation and mutual sacrifice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it antiquates individualism (and certain Libertarian ideals) in favour of social constructs that are severely under-discussed in our current era of governance. So I think the Yin of this argument is summarized by demonstrating how the state has a negative impact on our way of life by stripping individual rights according to self-serving interests, while the Yang is represented by an increasing demand for social constructs to enter the language of every day life, hopefully encouraging community and cross-cultural groups to begin a dialogue of cooperation in recognition of the interdependence we have on each other.
Our ability to understand the world around us, communicate with high efficiency, mobilize information, physical materials, resources and economic activities has created a multi-layered and highly complex global system of interdependent activities that define most humans' welfare. This high degree of interconnectivity suggests that systems of thought and action are inevitably imposed on other cultures in a significant way; the proximity of our actions to distant cultures -- and even our own (culture), given the empowerment brought to us by information technologies, the most significant, of course, being the Internet -- inevitably raises difficult questions with respect to human rights and personal freedoms.
Personal freedoms that did not appear to be detrimental to society at large are now being reevaluated by both the state and local communities because of the interconnectivity I described above. Some obvious examples include resource usage and the freedoms given to individuals in terms of its usage. A local community, for example, may now fear that unrestricted usage of a certain local resource will be detrimental to the entire community, so the community might impose restrictions on its use. Another obvious example is our ability to own guns in a city; living in such close proximity to each other in an urban environment like Toronto presents a much different set of problems if gun ownership (and possession in public places) were permitted. You will note that both of these examples are based on perceived threats -- it is not the case that gun possession will necessarily be detrimental to a community, however our ability to perceive that threat and measure its risk often determines whether or not a restriction is imposed.
Fear amplifies these risks and the state will often use this quite effectively to impose self-serving laws on its citizens. The recent debacle surrounding personal information and privacy in the United States is a perfect example. The state uses socialist arguments in order to serve its own purpose ("we're here to protect you from threats!") and yet promotes individualism in an effort to make you dependent on (and serve) the state and its machinations.
The flipside of this is that such interconnectivity obviates the need for individuals to reconsider the emphasis we place on communities, cooperation and mutual sacrifice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it antiquates individualism (and certain Libertarian ideals) in favour of social constructs that are severely under-discussed in our current era of governance. So I think the Yin of this argument is summarized by demonstrating how the state has a negative impact on our way of life by stripping individual rights according to self-serving interests, while the Yang is represented by an increasing demand for social constructs to enter the language of every day life, hopefully encouraging community and cross-cultural groups to begin a dialogue of cooperation in recognition of the interdependence we have on each other.
) has made physical transportation much easier so that community lines begin to blur. No longer is the provision of police service in the interest of every town member as the bourgeoisie are able to buy cars and move to suburbs that are removed from the desperate classes who might be tempted to break a window and grab a stereo.