Showing posts with label hong kong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hong kong. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Chatting on the Road Trip: Freedom and Equality

(Berlin Wall Coming Down)

Now, you may have noticed that I have not written anything for four days, which, while unfortunate, hopefully did not cause any lasting damage to anyone's worldview. I had a good discussion yesterday while driving back from San Francisco to Provo. I cannot say my excuse is that I was having a four day long conversation in the car, but I will say that camping out on California beaches is not particularly conducive to blogging. Our conversation was expansive and we talked about government, the economy, freedom, purpose, and life in general. I wish you were all there. You probably would have learned something. We had some interesting view points from all sides. The two people who led the conversation were me and my friend from Hong Kong (so this was not just a domestic politics discussion, but became international as soon as my friend opened his mouth). Another contributor lives in Utah but was raised in Oregon. So, while not all demographics were equally represented, I think we dug pretty deep when it came to what really matters.

But, that being said let me just say something that might shock you. THE GOVERNMENT OWNS YOUR SOUL. Some might find that ridiculously unfounded and over the top. In some ways they would be correct. In other ways perhaps not so much. Nothing is ever as superficial as it seems. Other than the fact that the government has spy planes watching your every move, and puts mind controlling drugs in our water supply, the government is not just about politics. And, even if they were, politics is invasive (Like a root canal that somehow turns into open heart surgery).

The government in the US, and in any country for that matter, is supposed to provide some sort of semblance of order and provide basic protections for individuals, families, and groups. But, unfortunately, the government quite often does a fairly shoddy job. Part of this stems from the efficiency-corruption continuum, and part because of how democracy and bureaucracies work. In the efficiency-corruption continuum you have on one side the most efficient form of government, a dictatorship, but with the possibility that it could be entirely corrupt and affect changes that completely annihilate human virtue. On the other side you have a socialized democracy that has so much red tape that it never gets anything done, but does not do so much damage if it is corrupt because there are so many voices and none can do more harm than another. Neither case exists in the US. We have a melange of the two that leans both ways. But here's the catch. You don't have to lean just one way. It's not really a continuum. 
As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in his famous book Democracy in America, democracy's greatest tendency is towards centralization, bureaucratization, and consolidation of federal power. This is because in a modern democracy the desire for equality supercedes the desire for freedom. That is because democracy tends to flatten people. Not literally, but spiritually. In a democracy without any aristocratic vestiges like juries, courts, religion, free associations, or high ranking people to look up to, people tend to look in three directions. They look to themselves for guidance, the majority for guidance, or history for guidance. All three lead to the same conclusion. "I am insignificant and I am just a grain of sand awash in an endless sandstorm, therefore I follow the sandstorm." Instead of people finding something substantive to back their desire for equality like human virtue or God, they only want freedom to express an undefined vision of themselves that is defined by history and the majority. It is equality by default. Equality for the sake of equality. "What is good for me is good for me, but not necessarily good for you, and we can both be equal because no one's opinion matters more than anyone else's - they're all good!" It is simple relativism.

So what is the solution? How can we prevent people who, in their weakened self-deluding state, give the government more power over their lives because they want equality at all costs? How can people find meaning and purpose in their lives? Well, there is no simple equation. There is no all-encompassing theory. And guess what? That's okay. In a general sense we can see a need for aristocratic freedom. Rights have value because we are all human and there is something transcendentally good within us, whether you believe it comes from God or elsewhere. We need to believe in a foundation. And, we should all get involved, form groups, associations, coalitions, and provide some vertical lumpiness to our otherwise flat and unguided democracy. We need lawyers, judges, juries, newspapers, federalism, God, and upstanding strong-willed and morally ethical citizens to look up to. We need to believe that there is value in tradition and in the past while looking open to the future. However, we cannot sacrifice meaningful freedom and equality with the mantra of "change" or "progress" for the sake of progress and change. There must be purpose. 
This is an analogy that should help it all settle a little better for you. Let's suppose you have a house. But the house has no walls, no doors, no windows, no roof, no yard, but is just a vacant lot. To have freedom in that home is meaningless. What are you free to do? You are free to be free, but without any stairs, chairs, or doors, there are no real possibilities of exercising freedom. So, your house must have furniture, rooms, walls, windows, and maybe even a nice garden. With substance you have real freedom. With substance you have real equality. Without it you have relativism.

Monday, January 19, 2009

An Unimportant Role in a Short Film

Today I played an unimportant role in a short film. I was a piano mover. And, as realistic as it probably looked with me wearing a Ralph Lauren sweater and boat shoes with a splint on my hand, the real genius in my part was that they never saw my face. My co-unimportant actor/piano mover friend Brian was on the back end of the piano and I faced him as we moved it onto an elevator. 

All we were supposed to do was get in between this guy who was desperately trying to talk to a girl in the elevator, but we hammed it up. We took several takes and each time we changed either the accent, the language, or the dialogue. On the last take I spoke Cantonese saying, "Thanks trash," and "I love you," while Brian stared longingly into the eyes of the main character. On another two takes we both spoke portuguese and talked about football and the sexuality of the main character. In another take Brian started talking with a cockney accent and I was speaking in French. He said, "So what did you think of her then?" To which I said in French, "Excuse me madam, I am cheese." And on another take I said in a South London accent, "Pardon me love," to the elevator girl and then talked about the English Premier League.

All in all it was good fun and I hope we provided the film makers with some stuff that won't get them kicked out of their film class. I also suggested that they enter it into an international film festival. Then the world could get to see the back of my head in Hong Kong, France, the UK, and in Brazil. 

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Chicken Extermination Order


So a couple days ago there were marching orders in Hong Kong to kill all the chickens. Apparently they were afraid of the bird flu again, and rather than take any chances, they ordered all the chickens that are typically bought and sold at markets and the like, slaughtered. I mean, sure, they were going to be killed anyway, but now they are being killed and going to waste. When I heard about this I began to wonder. What if there was some deadly disease that threatened to wipe out mankind and the carriers were our favorite flea bags, man's best friend, the dog? Would we, consciously make an extermination order? I mean I know some of you who hate dogs are awaiting the day, but for the rest of us, could we do it?

And, on a similar, albeit entirely different vein, what if a certain section of society had some incurable illness that threatened to decimate the world population? Would we exterminate them? Chances are good that the answer is no, however, there was at one point a leper colony on the island of Molokai in Hawaii, so maybe we'd just isolate them. Maybe we'd build them a fortress of solitude like the one Superman has in the north pole. There are so many possibilities.

I think many of us might cringe about the prospect of such things, but the fact is, chickens are being killed in Hong Kong. An entire population of chickens will be forever erased. It's true that they were all on death row anyway, but what if some of those chickens were innocent? What if some of those chickens were free from bird flu? What if there is a cure, and if we had only invested some time we could have saved the chickens? Save the chickens, save the world. Save the cheerleader, save the world. Sounds eerily familiar.