By Dan Coleman
Individual freedoms are sacred in this Land of Opportunity that we Americans call home. Poll a cross section of the population asking what freedom means and the responses would be expected to be as varied as the demographics. Freedom of speech, religion, movement. Free enterprise. The opportunity to dream and to pursue those dreams. No one man can tell another he is unimportant or that his dreams are insignificant. The opportunity to be one’s self without hindrance or restraint is sweet to the soul. Freedom to do or be what?, a naturally curious mind might ask. Freedom is not a license. It is not a permit to behave as if no one else exists. That is true in the home office and even more so in the Oval Office.
A series of articles about the political theory, Isolation Moderation, and its amazing potential for problem resolution around the globe have been previously published. The solutions globally possible are not possible because the theory calls for political, ideological, and cultural uniformity. They are possible because individual entities from sole citizens up the ladder to individual nations seek sustained prosperity as much as possible for everyone. Self analysis and a willingness to help group peers are the most common tools for doing so.
Part of the theory’s call for entities to help each other is the realization that patent answers are unlikely. Included in that realization is the fact that the right answer for any given group will depend on the group as well as the question at hand. Identical to political and legal issues raised in 2022 in the U.S., there are valid arguments on both sides of any question.
Additionally, a previous article relayed the story of a small boy whose decisions had the power to impact more than one hundred people and that his options were not clearly right or wrong, legal or illegal. They were simply a question of the boy’s social responsibility. Would he exercise his legal rights carelessly and put others at risk?
A more recent one was again about social responsibility – how people in power circumstances like celebrities, athletes, and heroes, may be within their rights to act or take a stance yet be detrimental to the efforts to maximize potential for that group.
This article proposes a look at a third aspect of social responsibility – decisions that power nations make. The last article was about the social responsibility of celebrities in having a sober estimate of their places in the world. Having a sober estimate of self is also crucial for individual nations. Sometimes the distinctions are called first-world or third-world. Regardless of the descriptive term employed, there are countries whose decisions draw as much attention as individuals whose lives are the same.
In the talent search show, America’s Got Talent, when asked why they are on the show, foreign auditionés often respond, the U.S. is the biggest “stage” in the world or due to restrictions in their homelands some interests are seen as an impossibility. The young and easily impressionable pay attention to the influence of American words, actions, and attitudes.
This writer does not categorize America as a power nation out of a haughty spirit. The self-inventory, and sobering look at this country, has been taken by at least one American-born writer. Americans tend to be ethnocentric. Few Americans are bilingual or polylingual. Tourists, immigrants, and refugees are expected to know English or hire a traveling interpreter. The reverse mentality is apparent when Americans travel to other countries. While English is considered to be a Lingua Franca, the demand for accommodation by Americans can feel patronizing and reek of entitlement.
Countries and identified foreigners have taken on this demand and oftentimes exceed the standard of proficiency; acceding to our hypocritical expectations and speaking and writing our language more correctly than we do! How many Americans are able to write a page of reasonably complex ideas with few to no grammatical errors?
Do our habits make friends or critics? The challenges to world leaders from the young political activist, Greta Thunberg, could have been delivered to Congress with only a few edits. We over pollute the environment because we can afford to do it. But does that mean we should? We build houses of thousands of square feet with systems that foolishly waste energy trying to keep all the living space temperatures moderated at the same time. Have you ever considered the fact that grand old mansions were built with a fireplace in each room for reasons beyond the absence of electricity? Is not heating or cooling the room being used more environmentally friendly than doing so to thousands of feet of unoccupied space? Again, we do it because we can handle it but which way does the pendulum swing in the end in trying to help all nations stand on their own feet and do their best?
Let the world learn from the Japanese how to recycle and minimize waste! We throw away loads of food simply because it loses its appeal and timeliness – because we can afford the practice. Is the Indigenous Native American attitude of taking from the Earth only what is needed a more Earth-friendly attitude and practice?
Which will you be? The country that squanders, wastes, and destroys or the one that peaks itself, prospers while helping other countries to thrive and respect themselves by carrying their own weight?
Intrigued… check out the next application of this theory
Lost… refer to the previous explanation