1537 Paper Street: Thought Club

This is about the ongoing debate over proposed extensions to the period in which terror suspects can be detained without trial. The BBC’s coverage is at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7432685.stm

This issue feels like it’s being misrepresented to me. I don’t think it’s something that can be decided on principle: rather it comes down to the specifics. If the public forces tasked with preventing terrorist activity ask for, and can prove a need for, more time to detain suspects, then they should be given it. Note that I say a ‘need’. You can always have more security and less liberty – that’s called a police state. What we need is to have as much liberty as we can.

What I mean exactly by that is that people should be given as much liberty as they can responsibly exercise. For example, a convicted murderer has shown that they cannot responsibly exercise the freedom of movement. So he (or she) is imprisoned. When we are looking at the methods by which we establish guilt, we need to look at the moral character of our society, and assess how generous we can be with our assumptions toward any given individual.

I don’t see why any special status should be given to terrorist activity over and above any other form of crime. It’s a lot easier to prove than something like white-collar crime, and has happened a lot less often and likely to lesser direct impact on people’s quality of life (think about duration and scope here. Is one death worse than a hundred lives of suffering?). So I don’t see why this whole debate needs to be put in that light though it sure could make a neat justification for unwarranted changes.

If it’s the case that the moral character of the public at large has deteriorated, then give more time to allow more surety in checks as necessary. If not, don’t. This is a complicated question that needs to be posed to eminent sociologists and philosophers, so yes I don’t have an answer. I think it’s more constructive (and easier to be objective about) establishing what data will sway you than making your mind up on principle on an issue like this.

What I do think is the fact that this question is being asked at all shows that what should be the first priority of any society – the quality of the individuals who compose it – is being neglected. Quite awhile ago I commented on a speech by Mr. Blair:

(http://1537paperstreet.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F10C24482E36D50F!145.entry)

He showed a negative and non-progressive attitude towards the primary social ills of our time throughout. I am deeply concerned that, whether the conservatives or labour take power, they will fail to address this burning issue.

It’s not sexy. It has little appeal to voters. It won’t win any headlines. But it should be front and centre of any responsible government’s approach. Government is a duty, a solemn responsibility to exercise as little power as necessary to as great a gain as possible, to work ultimately toward a populace capable of its own governance. It saddens me to think how little such a view is reflected in the realities of modern politics.

Whoa, wandered a little off topic there. I guess this issue cuts to the fundamentals for me, which is why i tend t see it back-lit like that. I’ll get back to ascetic living soon (why am I always saying that to myself? Ho hum).

So, I was thinking recently about what the best approach to employment is. It’s a sad fact that pretty much every adult in my country will, at some stage, have to take a job they don’t really want to do. This isn’t sad so much because they aren’t free to sit on their ass all day so much as because it’s a huge missed opportunity.

I spend over half my awake time, on a weekday, at work. And during this time I’m not improving myself. I’m not becoming a more moral person, or working on the quality of my thinking, or anything else of value. I’m just moving stuff about, and taking people’s money, mostly. Sometimes I get to help people out, which is nice.

It seems like I could be doing a hell of a lot more, really. I’m pretty sure that the best I have to offer the world will be my thinking, in narrative form. I spent a long time coming to that conclusion, and I’m going to stick with it until compelling evidence otherwise emerges or it gets too old. As an aside, the lifespan of most of my thoughts is about five years. If I haven’t changed my mind by then, I tend to go back and review why I thought what I thought, and see if I still agree. I can recommend this as a good standard philosophical operating procedure.

The main way that over half my time contributes to this goal is by making sure I have food and shelter. Yes these are important. But perhaps it would be better if I were able to get them in a way that pushed me forward more? It’s easy to blame society for being set up in a way that doesn’t foster personal growth. But lately I’ve been thinking that maybe that’s a bit of a cheap way out.

Maybe it’s the point of personal growth that it takes personal effort. Without investment, without putting something on the line, you’re not really going to value the returns. As Heinlein pointed out so well in Stanger, It takes a lot of maturity to value something that’s free. To get to that point, you have to work for it. Maybe I need to try harder to find a way to make what I do matter.

So, a new resolution. I will look for ways to do things of value at work this week, and report on my findings soon. Perhaps this little, statistically insignificant experiment will help me put the whole issue in better perspective. At the very least, I will make some people very happy by being damn helpful.