The US Congress is engaging in political game-play by engaging in empty symbolism and painting the notion that Loughner was mentally ill. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that he was mentally ill. On the contrary, he strikes me as a person who was 'morally ambivalent' and 'disempowered' by a political system which gave him no real or effective participation, and more importantly, a system which does not offer a say to people who have more to contribute that these 'symbolic idiots' in parliament. This is what happens when you push people in a corner; they get violent. Just look at Tunisia. Their lack of rights is no less real than ours. We have a government which totally disregards the interests of its citizens, and so do they. The only difference is that they have nothing to lose, and many of them have a more deeply collectivist value system which makes suicidal gestures noble. That is not crazy, its just poor decision-making. But you can expect that in a country where a great many people are utter collectivists.
Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York:
“We believe in discourse in America. We believe in strenuous discourse. We don’t sweep differences under the rug".
I would not be surprised if this is the next target of some 'crazy man'. The guy is in utter denial. Does he imagine that his politics are having no impact on real people? It is blatant evasion and probably dishonesty to suggest that such actions - as the assassination attempt by Loughner - was nothing more than the actions of a madman....easily resolved by revision to some mental health act. Reading on, you realise that they just don't get it. They are akin to other public servants like academics who do not realise how detached from reality they are:
“Tom and I have real differences. But we can do it civilly. I will say, to Tom’s credit, we have disagreed on a whole lot of stuff, but he’s always been civil, he’s always been a gentleman. And that’s an example that people should follow — politicians and the media.”
It is not that you disagree. It is the fact that your policies and parliamentary antics have no depth, no philosophy. You deal in 'numbers' not 'ideas'. You deal in extortion, and not the principles or rights which protect people. Who wants servility? Politics is about conflict, but it is the nature of your conflict. It does not make a difference. It is like negotiating a home rental contract which takes a year because the lawyers are concerned by incidental details, knowing that whatever happens they will be supported as 'middlemen' by the process. You are destined to find that contempt for lawyers and politicians is likely to fester. That is what happens if people are so deluded and indifferent to the suffering of others. There attempts to minimise their responsibility is only evasion which is only going to result in political instability. Anyway instability is good...it brings about change...and the loss of lives is probably necessary. We go to war for freedom...why not civil uprising? There is an important distinction to be made between rights which impose on others and those which are a protection. The distinction is not clear for most people because we live in a highly coercive society where there is no clear boundaries between your entitlement and your neighbour's obligation...so let me make the distinction...your rights end when you initiate the use of force against others. Taxation is a good example. That does not however justify killing people. Why? Killing a person will not achieve your ends. There is no education, there is no prospect of change. You have to serve your legitimate objectives, and not engage in mindless 'venting of anger'.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
