OR: Is this the Way You Want Government to Operate?
Published on August 19, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
(I wrote an article "There Ought to Be a Law" to express the opinion that I felt that maybe our society should pull back a bit on making sports such a central feature of our kids life and provide a level playing field for maybe (if their parents chose) getting them involved in Sunday Schools by making Sunday mornings sports free. Many respondents (and I appreciate all views, even those 180 degrees opposed to mine) expressed outrage about interference into their lives by doing something like this. This article is, in a way, why those who think that government isn't already "guiding" their lives should reconsider.)

Citizens in an open society (like the United States) prize the concept of freedom almost above any other. There is freedom of speech, press and religion, a right to bear arms, to not have to testify against yourself. There is freedom of movement around the country and changing jobs is not against the law. You are not conscripted into the armed forces and if you want to protest, so be it. But that doesn't mean that government is not guiding society or that you are free as much as tolerated for behavior government decides is in your best interest.

When you are born in this country you quickly (if your parents want to use you as a tax deduction) will receive a social security number and a place in the government records that identifies you until the day you die. The government has records on you if it wants to look at them from height and weight to educational qualifications to marital status. Your fingerprints may or may not be available if you get into trouble with the law, try to buy a firearm or even apply to become a stock broker. You are tracked, computed for probability that you will die at a certain age and even classified as to probability of how.

Government can track your internet usage and indeed, what you up and download. If you frequent pornographic sites, the government can tell, and if you download images, it will know that. Recently a doctor in Rochester, New York found this out when he was arrested and convicted of having child pornography on his home computer. He will have between 24 and 36 months to think about how private his private life was.

The government encourages education through tax breaks, use of military service (veterans receive educational aid), student loans subsidized by government agencies and provides schools with money and "guidelines". A state test for math or social studies is a guideline for what you are to know. Considering it a qualification for having "learned the fundamentals of any course" is plain fantasy. You learned what the government wanted you to know.

The government encourages savings and home ownership. Tax breaks, loan incentive programs and many government agencies spend billions of dollars so that home ownership is high and savings are done. You are even taxed into a savings program called social security so that you won't be destitute in your old age. Even there, the government constantly evaluates the situation for every group of citizens, young and old so that society can be guided.

The government guides what you see in the media. It looks at content, presentation and suitability. Ratings systems for movies define how old you must be to watch a certain movie and sensors can act unilaterally to stop you from seeing what they think is "inappropriate" anyway they so desire.

There is no doubt that this article could continue for the next several days with ways that our society is guided, prodded, and rewarded for "the good behavior" and punished for "the bad behavior" by government but it should seem obvious at this point that your belief in freedom is really based on what you perceive as "non-interference" in your daily lifestyle. But even that is an illusion. You travel on roads owned, maintained and regulated by the government. Speed limits are not the numbers posted on signs, they are what you the driver think you won't be arrested for. If you think you can go through the red light with impunity, many will do so. You go to work and many of you work under rules established by a government agency. OSHA, SEC, FDA, and many others guide and control how, where and when you do your work.

You see, non-interference means freedom to most people. They understand they are "guided" in what they do and see, but that is ok. We accept the concept that government acts in our "own best interest." Laws that act on our behalf are passed to ensure social viewpoints that we might question but feel powerless to change. So we have laws like the minimum wage which artificially force business owners to pay us what the government sees fit. We must wear proper clothing or protective gear on the job because the government sees fit. We must not work any more than the government sees fit.

Get the picture?

You see, government guides and controls society and this country is no different than any other. The guidance is different because those guiding have different viewpoints. This country prizes the illusion of non-interference so the government accomodates the illusion.

But don't lose sight of the truth. You are being watched. You will continue to be watched in the future.

Sorry if this caused you any pain, watchers.

Comments
on Aug 19, 2004
The fact that the government DOES watch you doesn't make it right.

If you want a totalitarian society, I am sure there are many countries who will accept your application for a VISA. If you want a government where Christian worship is mandatory, perhaps you should read your bible a little closer. Christianity is supposed to be about a worship of the heart, not one of mandate.

To desire to create legislation designed to give the government oversight into the daily lives and activities of the individuals within is inconsistent with the aims of the constitution. This was to be (though it is not in fact) a government "...of the people, by the people and for the people." Many of the Christian right have made the government into their God; they seem to be unable to muster morality on their own without government mandate. I contend that such faith is weak, and at best, lukewarm.

Good post, though, crispe. Don't take our differing views to mean a disrespect for you as a blogger in any way.
on Aug 19, 2004
Scored another Insightful for yourself here. I cede that your individual points in the article are all valid, in that the government does in fact monitor/control the actions/behavior of citizens. I would say though, that there is a difference (going back to your 'There Ought to Be a Law' post) between youth football and true crimes (as in your example about the pictures on a home computer) or mandating that people can do basic math (although our school systems often fail on that one - but that's a different onion). Just my opinion.

Just to add in - While I may disagree with you on things, I do appreciate the nature in which you post. I very much enjoy reading your posts as they are well written, your opinion is supported by your examples, and you attempt to engage in debate in a mature/respectful manner (something not all the commenters on your posts seem to be able to do). Keep posting and I'll keep reading (and debating).
on Aug 19, 2004
Just to add in - While I may disagree with you on things, I do appreciate the nature in which you post. I very much enjoy reading your posts as they are well written, your opinion is supported by your examples, and you attempt to engage in debate in a mature/respectful manner (something not all the commenters on your posts seem to be able to do). Keep posting and I'll keep reading (and debating).


I second that, wholeheartedly. Well stated, chip!
on Aug 19, 2004
Gideon:

I'm not trying to carry on the debate here about the proposal in the previous article. I think the response that I got was pretty convincing to me of the kind of reaction such a proposal would get. I am not a proponent of government getting involved in the practice of religion. I do favor government backing off of social legislation whenever possible especially when it empowers police to enter areas of our private lives.

However, your comment that "To desire to create legislation designed to give the government oversight into the daily lives and activities of the individuals within is inconsistent with the aims of the constitution." is frankly contradicted by the writings of the founding fathers. Even the bill of rights is government oversight which is interpreted (along with the rest of the Constitution) by the Supreme Court. Freedom of press doesn't mean a source can be protected in most police investigations (for example). That is government oversight. How about segregation? In 1890 the Supreme Court rules separate but equal is acceptable and then in 1954 reverses and says it is "inherently unequal". That is oversight. Control. Guidance.

BTW: I appreciate the compliments. I respect all opinions as valuable. Thanks!
on Aug 19, 2004
chiprj:

If the number of governmental laws regarding crime were removed from the code of law of the United States it would reduce the code by less than half. More code and regulation is written to encourage, support and guide. Consider for example the marriage controversy. No one is suggesting that we simply throw out the law, period and get government out of the marriage situation as a violation of the "separation of church and state" consideration. Instead, we accept the guidance and indeed in the current situation want to use it as a determinant of moral precedent. Those for "a union of one man and one woman" aren't saying gays should be punished for wanting to be married. No crime is committed. Those for "a union of 2 persons" aren't saying a man and a woman is wrong or criminal. Just that they should be allowed to pursue love where they find it, regardless of the sex of the person they love.

If the people responding to "There Ought to Be a Law" were consistent, they should say "throw out all laws regarding marriage." Who needs government to tell us who we can and can't marry? Isn't that one of the most moral and religious issues?

BTW: I'm blushing from your praise. Thanks!
on Aug 19, 2004
Hmm, between Gideon and chip, anything I was going to say has probably already been said >8).

Still, I should mention that I think there's a big difference between the sort of incentive you mention, be it to enter the military or whatnot, and incentive for people to practice religion and Sunday School morality, since our government is supposed to be based on the concept of seperation of church and state.
on Aug 19, 2004
Lord Shitzu:

Separation of church and state as defined by whom? Well, government, actually. The founding fathers wanted to create a government not free from influence of religion (a good thing by their reckoning) but rather free from domination of one religion (a bad thing by their reckoning). There were several possibilities that they were worried about including Puritan New England, Catholic Mid-Atlantic and the Anglican tradition in the South. So, instead of am embroiled dogfight over an "official church" they choose to have a separation of church and state. It was never intended as we see today that church and state should be separated by a barrier of words protecting neither church nor state. Nice social studies classes we teach in government run high schools and colleges, hmmmm? Remember, you learned what they wanted you to know.


Interestingly, in regards to church-state cooperation, I find myself in agreement with the faith based initiative for distributing social welfare. EXCEPT that as of my last check, the only groups the Bush administration has allowed to be involved in the programs are Christian churches (no Muslim, No Jewish). The poor need a better system of distribution and care than social services.
on Aug 19, 2004
Nice social studies classes we teach in government run high schools and colleges, hmmmm? Remember, you learned what they wanted you to know.


Actually, I am well aware, both from the public school system you subtly deride, and from my own studies, that the primary source of "seperation of Church and State" is rather the First Amendment's clause about establishing no official religion.

If no religion is to be the official, then government should by extension favor no religion, and therefore be secular in nature.

I won't argue here the religious leaning or motives of the so-called founding fathers, since I'm not necessarily convinced that they were not religious people, and I haven't the time to look up direct evidence right now.

Anyway, regardless of the wording at the time the Bill of Rights was written, the modern perception is that America is to have a seperation of church and state, and in most issues at least, it does indeed have that.
on Aug 19, 2004
Lord Shitzu:

I guess the important thing is the actual operation of the separation. Recent years have seen rulings like no Christmas decorations on government property (strict interpretation) and no ten commandments monument (strict interpretation) but no challenge at all to the faith based initiatives of the Bush administration (loose interpretation). I think conservatives are more concerned with the how separation issues effect society and liberals are more concerned with making religious institutions separate from social issues.
on Aug 20, 2004
I guess the important thing is the actual operation of the separation. Recent years have seen rulings like no Christmas decorations on government property (strict interpretation) and no ten commandments monument (strict interpretation) but no challenge at all to the faith based initiatives of the Bush administration (loose interpretation). I think conservatives are more concerned with the how separation issues effect society and liberals are more concerned with making religious institutions separate from social issues.


Well put on the last part, though by my own beliefs I can't see any reason to worry about seperation issues affecting society, to me seperation is inherently beneficial on every level, but that doesn't mean I don't see where they're coming from, and the issues they have with seperation affecting tradition.

I'd really rather not get into the whole "ten commandments, pledge of alliegiance, etc." issue. If you want my stance in-depth stance on it, you can look in the "Gay WHAT???!" comments, though the discussion there got so long, it may be a waste of your time.
on Aug 20, 2004
Lord Shitzu:

There is always a concern over the disconnect between morality and ethics and the operations of society. Even if you don't choose to believe in God some basis for ethical decisions must be formed. Otherwise, what's the point of society? Govenments without ethics will act expediently only, leading to Nazi "final solutions" to every question. What would be the point of an ethical decision?

It is interesting that the operation of churches (of any form) are seen from the perspective of being a limiting factor in society. So many of the posters for the previous blog wrote as if they were being threatened by the church. But indeed, the church protects rights and works very hard for the poor and underpriveleged that you might wonder whom the posters thought the church was.

on Aug 20, 2004
As for holiday displays, etc, on public lands, it is my view (infortunately, not SCOTUS') that, as the public lands belong to the people, holiday displays should be allowable inasmuch as they don't constitute an undue harassment of someone else's religion (example: an Easter themed display of the crucifixion of Christ showing a bunch of Jewish leader surrounding him would be an example of just such a harassment). The stipulation should be made, however, that "equal time" and equal visibility be given to other religions in such a way that no religion is shown preference over another. Frankly, we don't know enough about Ramadan in this country; as with other aspects of Islam, all we are shown is a media slant on this holiday. Unfortunately, the same laws that keep the nativity off the courthouse square keep the Muslim displays equally separated.