From democracy to omniocracy - politics

Clint Eastwood a short time ago plunged into the murky following pond with his statement, "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far an adequate amount to the right, you meet the same idiots advent about from the left. "

Is it easy to be an extremist, and is the opinionated scale truly circular, so that the "far right" clasps hands with the "far left"? Does the left-right continuum serve as a constructive example upon which citizens can be structured?

Today's "extremists" are in good company: Jesus, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Baruch Spinoza all bore this label at one time. Jan De Witt and his brother Cornelius-17th Century Dutch politicians-were hacked to death by the populace, basically due to their "radical" and "unsavory" supporting perspective. Their crime? They were proponents of democracy. Their body parts were displayed in storefronts all over town.

Who shall we call extreme? The vigilantes who did the lynching? The shopkeepers who showcased the body parts? Or the De Witts with their pro-democracy stance?

Do "extreme" beliefs emit from a mechanical belief process, as Eastwood suggests, moderately than an intense philosophical journey? It arguably requires contemplation and fault-finding examination to defend ones theories alongside the cloned, echoed and mass formed judgment of the collective folk; it requires conviction to risk communal exclusion and other forms of retaliation.

The "approved" or common view is more liable to be perfunctory. Why think when one can plagiarize? Why go out on a limb when one can cling onto the tree or never climb in the first place?

Eastwood may view those on the "far right" and "far left" as moralistically shrill, as manifesting a tone level of fear and anger. Perchance this is how the "right" and "left" overlap or come full clique in his mind. But this is a gross generalization, since the "extremes" are subjective and the biased continuum fallacious.

Suppose we acknowledge the generally acknowledged exemplar of a left to right supporting continuum, as Eastwood offers. If we delimit the "left" as the group that protects the voiceless, the powerless, and the forgotten, then the artless chain would be to defend the truly unvoiced - animals and nature.

Nonhumans are disqualified from our opinionated system, lacking representation. They have no duration in court; yet corporations do. In fact, nonhumans are in effect lost from the chat in our anthropocentric and speciesist society.

A move "left" arguably means to move away from Democracy--which is certainly just a rule by the elite (humans)--to an Omniocracy (which I depict as a authority of, by and for all breathing beings). The European Union has added nonhumans to their Constitution, as have Switzerland and Germany. New Zealand, India and Reggio Emilio, Italy have banned using animals in ways we as usual think adequate in the U. S. (boiling lobsters alive, care fish in small bowls, vivisection, etc. ).

We are trailing after other nations, but it would be arduous to sell a Constitutional amendment to our "What's the Be relevant With Kansas?" countryside at this time. It would be easier to assure a number of states. You may be accepted wisdom what would stuffing a few extra words in a state Constitution actually do. Well, words are a athletic tool and an central start.

Lastly, does this move to the left spit us out on right? Probably. One could argue that established "right" politics prompts a gap among the rich and poor, thus culminates in the rule by a few, such as corporations. To execute policies that advance the idea that nonhuman species have value "in and of themselves," a "top down" authority or rule by a few (although not corporations) again seems required.

People are self-interested (as are all species) thus cannot be predictable to vote adjacent to their desires. Legislators, however, are another (or be supposed to be) for the reason that they attain self-worth from portion others, being fair and inclusive, and consulting the "big picture. " There will artlessly be conflicts of appeal connecting species and individuals; but government's job-in an omniocracy as in our in progress system-- will be to arbitrate and intercede these "disputes. "

We are skilled democracy is the most inclusive, just and beneficent following arrangement in the world. It is time to re-evaluate. Booming ideas develop all through three stages: first ridicule, then discussion, at length adoption. I say we begin the argument to which Eastwood's words have provided a first point.

The Clint Eastwood quote is posted on Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown's blog and is taken from Feb 28, 2005 issue of Time Magazine. Charlotte Laws explores this topic in superior depth on the blog.

Charlotte Laws, Ph. D. is a component of the Larger Valley Glen Assembly and the Leader of the League for Earth and Bodily Guard (LEAP). Her website is http://www. CharlotteLaws. org