alexandraerin (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
alexandraerin) wrote2009-09-02 12:49 pm
alexandraerin) wrote2009-09-02 12:49 pm
Entry tags:
Collectively yours.
Alright, I think that if anyone has been reading my work for any time at all, then they are sure to definitely know that pedantry is among a couple things I just won't put up with. But, I'm going to take a moment to address a somewhat pedantic point that I think is worth emphasizing:
"People", you see, is a collective noun.
In day-to-day conversation, the distinction's hardly worth noting. But when the foundational legal document of our nation begins "We the People", I think it's important to reflect on what that means. Legal documents are one of the few places you will see "persons" being used on a regular basis, because it has a distinct meaning separate from "people".
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Not "We, a bunch of persons". "We the People".
They built an entire episode of Star Trek around this, folks. That's how important it is.
I believe in individual liberties. I believe in privacy and freedom from interference. I believe in the power of the market and the right of persons to individually and collectively utilize it. I believe that when this happens, there will be a general trend towards the betterment of all. The poorest segment of the population of the United States today are generally better off than the poorest segments of the population a century ago.
But I also believe that there are times when our individual strengths aren't enough, there are times when masses of persons following immediate and obvious self-interest conflicts with the common good, and that in those times, We the People must come together.
Imagine if we tried to run a country where each person was responsible for the safety of themselves, their families, their homes, and their possessions. I don't just mean a reasonable level of personal responsibility. I mean that there are no police, no fire departments, no armed forces... if your house is attacked, by robbers or murderers or religious zealots or people who want the land it occupies, you are on your own.
Could you live the life you now live if you were solely responsible for your own protection? Even if you think the answer is yes, do you think the society you live in and the benefits you enjoy from that society could exist under those conditions?
Sure, your answer might be that if the government just disappeared we could all just band together with our neighbors and establish patrols and watch groups and fire brigades and militias... you know, come together for the common defense and promote the general welfare and... hey, this is starting to sound familiar, isn't it?
We the People.
It's easy to get people to agree with the benefits of collectively facing some threats. When your neighbor's home is on fire, yours is in danger. When your neighbor's home is burgled, your home could be next. When your neighbor is threatened by tyranny, what's to stop that tyrant from doing the same to you?
So how about when your neighbor is sick with an infectious disease?
What about when your neighbor is bankrupted by paying for a surgery?
What about when your neighbor can't afford the surgery in the first place?
Sure, you might be thinking, "I can't catch a broken leg.", but if the economy falls, it's taking you with it, and each person taken out of work or rendered destitute is a blow to the economy.
This looks like a job for... We the People.
Using large corporations to insure us against the cost of health care services is a poor substitute for using our collective power as "We the People" to ensure that each of us the persons has access to health care.
I don't know how we can have domestic Tranquility, common defense, or general Welfare when we won't to come together as a People to ensure the health of our population.
The plural of "person" is "persons", not "people".
"People", you see, is a collective noun.
In day-to-day conversation, the distinction's hardly worth noting. But when the foundational legal document of our nation begins "We the People", I think it's important to reflect on what that means. Legal documents are one of the few places you will see "persons" being used on a regular basis, because it has a distinct meaning separate from "people".
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Not "We, a bunch of persons". "We the People".
They built an entire episode of Star Trek around this, folks. That's how important it is.
I believe in individual liberties. I believe in privacy and freedom from interference. I believe in the power of the market and the right of persons to individually and collectively utilize it. I believe that when this happens, there will be a general trend towards the betterment of all. The poorest segment of the population of the United States today are generally better off than the poorest segments of the population a century ago.
But I also believe that there are times when our individual strengths aren't enough, there are times when masses of persons following immediate and obvious self-interest conflicts with the common good, and that in those times, We the People must come together.
Imagine if we tried to run a country where each person was responsible for the safety of themselves, their families, their homes, and their possessions. I don't just mean a reasonable level of personal responsibility. I mean that there are no police, no fire departments, no armed forces... if your house is attacked, by robbers or murderers or religious zealots or people who want the land it occupies, you are on your own.
Could you live the life you now live if you were solely responsible for your own protection? Even if you think the answer is yes, do you think the society you live in and the benefits you enjoy from that society could exist under those conditions?
Sure, your answer might be that if the government just disappeared we could all just band together with our neighbors and establish patrols and watch groups and fire brigades and militias... you know, come together for the common defense and promote the general welfare and... hey, this is starting to sound familiar, isn't it?
We the People.
It's easy to get people to agree with the benefits of collectively facing some threats. When your neighbor's home is on fire, yours is in danger. When your neighbor's home is burgled, your home could be next. When your neighbor is threatened by tyranny, what's to stop that tyrant from doing the same to you?
So how about when your neighbor is sick with an infectious disease?
What about when your neighbor is bankrupted by paying for a surgery?
What about when your neighbor can't afford the surgery in the first place?
Sure, you might be thinking, "I can't catch a broken leg.", but if the economy falls, it's taking you with it, and each person taken out of work or rendered destitute is a blow to the economy.
This looks like a job for... We the People.
Using large corporations to insure us against the cost of health care services is a poor substitute for using our collective power as "We the People" to ensure that each of us the persons has access to health care.
I don't know how we can have domestic Tranquility, common defense, or general Welfare when we won't to come together as a People to ensure the health of our population.
no subject
It's all a game of words, and it doesn't change. The words change, the implications change, but the game remains the same. The end result remains the same. Good and bad, right and wrong- there's some points we all agree on, but for many things all the evidence simply boils down to someone telling someone else, and being trusted on it. Even the burden of proof becomes part of the game- the study you use as proof doesn't stand up to scrutiny because of this problem. The study I use doesn't stand up to scrutiny because of that problem. The margin of error is too large, the sample size is too small, we shouldn't do anything until there's more testing.
The mid-20th century cemented American cynicism and paranoia. The rise of the Religious Right and the strategies to grab the South helped polarize things. The unions, populism, and the mantra of corporate greed pushed from the other side. We've been playing on fear, doubt, and hate for decades, if not centuries. We blame everything on the other guy. We condemn because we are told to by people we trust because we are told to.
It's not hard to see why there are countries who hate the US; we've done a brilliant job of not only learning to hate everyone else, but hate ourselves as well.
no subject