Original Thought · Self Improvement · Teamwork · Uncertainty

Freedom

In Alberta, we are on the cusp of an election campaign where predictably freedom will be a buzzword; where each party has their own conception of how freedom is represented in society.
One side sees that freedom is freedom from interference, You are free to do what you want, where and when you want without interference from authorities. I have free speech so no one should interfere with my exercising it. The sentiment seems reasonable and I subscribe to a personal responsibility mantra but absolution from actions that impact others feels wild west. The pendulum swings from laissez-faire to over-regulated without pausing long enough to test a stasis of acceptable accommodation.

The other side talks about freedom to act with free will. In the west, most of us have more personal freedom that royalty had 200 years ago. Economic and cultural shifts have afforded us with almost unbridled liberty – or so it seems. But if I don’t have economic means and opportunity, education, aptitude, or connections then I fall into servitude and those freedoms are out of reach, Authorities promoting positive freedom also promote institutional and legal frameworks to attempt to mitigate the disparity.
Again the application swings wildly and we move from ‘pulling yourself up’ to ‘ you aren’t capable so we need to protect you’. Neither seems effective or fair.

For me, freedom is an ongoing experiment where we use reasonable accommodation, meritocracy, empathy, and limited rules to make the application of liberty equitable. Where I need a hand, one is available. Where I expect too much based on someone else driving a Lamborghini, I am advised that isn’t reasonable. There isn’t/shouldn’t be hard and fast one-size-fits-all rules.

B

Original Thought

Tribal Discomfort

I am a fan of Seth Godin and Jeff Goins’ interpretation of tribe. A place where we belong, where we add value, where we are challenged and where we are cared for. The world I watch in mainstream media seems to leave a different impression of tribal membership.

It seems that if you align, affirm or sign up for anything that is ideological or partisan, you need to shut off your brain and accept a complete package no matter how unpalatable it might be. I have been accused of heresy, treachery, and disloyalty when I criticize or question an idea, an intention, an action or an individual that is part and parcel of the doctrine, dogma, plan for domination.

I have been introduced by zealots, conservatives, liberals and environmentalists as “the most ideologically promiscuous person they know”. In each case I think it was meant to be a slight but I have celebrated that they noticed and that I was transparent in my confusion and curiousity.

The current US presidential race has seemed to this outside observer to be void of content and full of tribalism. Supporters and detractors are wedge uncomfortably in one camp apologizing for behaviour or ignoring inconsistency but not wavering or reconsidering. It seems that the candidates could say, do, or be accused of anything and the tribe still aligns with the original investment.

Do we get so far down a road that retreat is too big a pill to swallow? Can we invest time, money and reputation and then find it impossible to admit that our decisions might be wrong? I worry and wonder where I am intransigent. Am I blinded by the mantra and message in some area of my life and unable to be interested and inquisitive?

The concern I am expressing seems exemplified in the current political arena but could be as easily seen in religions, activist organizations, team fan clubs or anywhere else we profess allegiance. I hope to strive to be pan-political, pan-religious, pan-issue, and agnostic about the home team.

That’s as close as I am getting to posting about the US Presidential race.  I trust that the system will pick the right person and if it doesn’t that the self correcting mechanisms of democracy will apply a correction.

 

Make Today Remarkable, by being less strident,

B