Comments on: David Foster Wallace on the Freedom vs. Security Discussion America Isn’t Having

By: Cameron Schaefer

Cameron Schaefer — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:03:42 +0000

@ Justin,

The system is in need of an overhaul, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Too many people have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:59:22 +0000

I too would agree that concerning the debate it’s hard to really know where to begin. I think the biggest problem is the two party system that has arisen, forcing Americans to chose this or that. With Food we can vote on a regural basis with our pocketbooks; but all we’re able to provide for our government is a vote every two years. The spacial gap, the and the number of votes is astronomical (if you go to the store 2 times a month that’s 48 votes to 1 government vote in two years). I know that we can’t really switch candidates two times a month, that makes no sense. But maybe there’s a better way of accountability, so that the government doesn’t get too big that the people no longer feel as though they have control.

I’d love to run for government, but I’d rather have somebody else! I don’t want to raise the money or have my whole life on display. It’d be nice though to have some real revolutionists run!

By: Cameron Schaefer

Cameron Schaefer — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:23:16 +0000

@Badski,

“It is not to say we should stop trying to decrease murders and terrorist attacks, we should just stop the often politically charged rhetoric that we will do whatever it takes to completely eliminate terrorism and the like.”

Spot on my friend, public discourse needs to be seasoned with reality every once and a while.

@Collin,

I agree that the role of the American public in protecting our country is under-emphasized. I think it has a lot to do with how much the govt promises to take care of things themselves.

Even though they always bite off way more than they can chew, the govt’s rhetoric often causes a general exhale of relief from the public and causes them to check out of the debate since it’s supposedly being taken care of by “the experts.”

@Akshay,

I must admit, I actually hijacked (poor word choice) that idea from the documentary “Food, Inc.” where Polyface farmer, Joel Salatin, uses it to describe the food/agricultural industry. It’s indeed an idea that crosses over to many fields.

By: Akshay Kapur

Akshay Kapur — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:34:00 +0000

“The problem with most of that national security apparatus is that it is full of technicians, but few philosophers. ” True for multiple industries, including healthcare. We’re seeing more of the same amplifying the one-track mind, whether it’s protection or access to insurance.

Global, hybridized views are hard to come by. I also understand there’s more value to being a technician than a philosopher since the former is just paid more. The choice is to either speak up and be ignored or vilified or keep your head down and be monetarily compensated.

The incentives aren’t setup correctly. In fact, if they don’t change, we are UNKNOWINGLY perpetuating a death spiral.

By: Collin

Collin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:56:22 +0000

Hey Cameron, that is some fine writing, not to mention some excellent and thought provoking questions. It reminds me of an editorial I read recently. The author was making the point that the government has refused thus far to acknowledge the fact that the American public is the most under-emphasized terrorist fighting force we have. For example, the Nigerian who tried to blow up the NW flight was stopped and apprehended by passengers on the plane. However, such passengers are given 15 seconds of fame in the media, questioned by the authorities, and then fade into memory without the government ever learning the valuable lessons that could be learned from such people. The public should be seen as an asset by the government, and trained to be ready and vigilent at all times. Instead, after such attacks we get promises from the president that reviews will be made, changes implemented, and hopefully we will soon be able to assure the American people that the odds of a terrorist attack will be slim to none. I’m not so sure I like that promise, but it’s what the media and the electorate are demanding, so the politicians acquiesce.

I also liked your point about a defense industry that is bursting at the seems with technicians, but dangerously low on philosophers. I’m not going to lie, I’m not terribly optimistic for our country over the next century. Praise God my ultimate hope isn’t in her!

By: Badski

Badski — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:39:31 +0000

Schaef,
Great discussion. I posted a link on my Twitter not long ago with a video Andrew Sullivan, also from the Atlantic, dicussing the exact same thing on an episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. You can probably go to tweetmeme and search BadskiBlog and find it. He actually utilized the exact same car argument. I think the concept extends well beyond terrorism, although that is certainly one of the most glaring and pressing topics. Watch everytime someone gets murdered. Typically it is a young beautiful white female who gets the media coverage but that is another issue all together. Watch the frantic search for an explanation, something or someone to blame. It was the killer’s parents fault, the school’s fault, TV’s fault, etc. Can we not except that there are just some crazy people out there who will kill regardless of what we do to prevent it, whose fault it is, and the circumstances surrounding the murder? I am not trying to make these tragic loss of lives meaningless in any way, but in the real world is it too outlandish to think that there will be a certain number of “tragedies” no matter what? Accepting them for the sake of liberty and as a cost for freedom is one thing, but what about just acknowledging the fact that reality assures us that we can never eliminate these instances regardless of how hard we try. It is not to say we should stop trying to decrease murders and terrorist attacks, we should just stop the often politically charged rhetoric that we will do whatever it takes to completely eliminate terrorism and the like. Not realistic first and foremost. And often, as history dictates and as you have so eloquently put it, not worth “(how) much time, blood and treasure (we spend) doing the aforementioned in the first place.”

Great post man! I need to get you to start sending me topics to blog about because my brain gets going more reading your stuff than when I try and do my own. I guess that is the part of me that likes discussion more than soap boxing.
Badski

By: Cameron Schaefer

Cameron Schaefer — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:35:17 +0000

@ Greg,

Yes, the question caused me also to take a step back when I first encountered it. Yet, when examined for more than just a brief moment it begins to exhibit a great depth that demands further exploration.

By: Greg Molyneux

Greg Molyneux — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:40:46 +0000

Wow. Now this is something worth thinking about. Although I suspect many would be instantly turned away, appalled even, by the over-arching question asked by Wallace. It is perhaps unfortunately ironic that while we, the common man, have the freedom to discuss such a question, that it would appear politically suicidal for our politicians to do so. Even though as you say it is a conversation that absolutely needs to take place more publicly from our leadership.

On some levels I could see how adopting such national principles could lead to a far more unified front among our countrymen. No longer would it be just our soldiers fighting an ideal, it would be an ideal fighting an ideal—and that would almost certainly strengthen our resolve.

Good stuff Cameron.