--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
2 comments: