SA reads discussion

Part 9

Blog post week 7: A NATURAL MAN.
http://www.johnmountford.com/blog/

Vicki wrote: "Thanks, John. I have not joined in the discussions much, but I follow your blog posts all the time. Great job, John."

Thanks, Vicki. I have really missed your input, but understand the time constraints of a writer. I will have to get my head down as well after this discussion. I look forward to us doing your follow-up book as a group some time soon - can't wait to find out what Ariel has been up to!

Another insightful blog post, John. I, too, was struck by Mandela's care for that tomato plant. I agree with your assessment, and I think that in a way, the plant was symbolic of his own struggle to keep growing intellectually and humanely while in prison. He does not want to emerge from prison, which he is sure that he will someday do, out of touch with his people and with the continuing struggle. He demonstrates this by listening to and at times defending the young Black Consciousness members who are also imprisoned, and his remarks upon seeing the documentary about Hell's Angels brought this point home: “We may have been stuck in one place, but I was confident the world was moving toward our position, not away from it. The movie reminded me once again that on the day I did walk out of prison, I did not want to appear to be a political fossil from an age long past.”

Another point that stood out to me was Mandela's continued influence even while imprisoned. He was not even allowed to meet with his nephew K.D. Matanzima, and the government took care to try to minimalize his potential influence as much as possible. Obviously he continued to be a vital force even while behind bars.

Sarah wrote: "Another insightful blog post, John. I, too, was struck by Mandela's care for that tomato plant. I agree with your assessment, and I think that in a way, the plant was symbolic of his own struggle t..."

An interesting angle on the tomato plant, Sarah. Yes, one has the impression throughout of Mandela being a man always open to reason, truth and contrary opinions. He never felt threatened by people disagreeing with him; he was never scared of the truth. That is why he continued to learn and grow despite his conditions. The man that finally emerged from prison was a far wiser man than the one that went in.

NM said that he 'saw socialism as the most advanced stage of economic life evolved by man.'

Do you think that his life before, and after, prison demonstrated that?
Do you think that he still believed this after becoming the president of most democratic and capitalistic country in Africa?
Why did he (the ANC) not move SA towards a socialistic form of govt?

Don wrote: "John wrote: "NM said that he 'saw socialism as the most advanced stage of economic life evolved by man.'

Do you think that his life before, and after, prison demonstrated that?
Do you think that ..."

Thanks for an informative response, Don. Socialism is, indeed, just a mask the ANC govt raises to its capitalist face at election time. However Mandela wrote and finalised ALWTF not as a young man, but as an older one. I think your point about practicality is the more likely consideration.

Mandela had an amazingly practical mind, I think. He obviously wasn't afraid of risks, but I think that he always took them when they were necessary and when he also thought that they had a chance of success. I never felt that he compromised his conscience but that he was willing to wait for riper times. If he'd lived another 50 years...

Don wrote: "Not to go off on a tangent, but here it is anyway since you asked the question. In general I think SA, like the greatest part of the rest of the world, is classified as a "mixed economy," that is ..."

Thanks, Don, that's a tangent I'm hoping to remember.

Don wrote: "Not to go off on a tangent, but here it is anyway since you asked the question. In general I think SA, like the greatest part of the rest of the world, is classified as a "mixed economy," that is ..."

Don,
I sense we have entered a territory of interest and expertise for you. Please help me with my thinking for volumes two and three of the Mandela Trilogy, which I am currently writing (and anyone else who would like to chip in):

1) What do you believe the ideal form of government for developing countries (such as SA) should be? Access to equal or equitable economic opportunities being the over-riding consideration.
2) What do you believe the ideal form of govt. ultimately should be for all countries?
3) How do you change the value system of a nation to protect against the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer - as is the case in almost all forms of govt today.

Don wrote: "John wrote: "Don wrote: "Not to go off on a tangent, but here it is anyway since you asked the question. In general I think SA, like the greatest part of the rest of the world, is classified as a ..."

Bravo, Don! I was right. Thank you for an immensely informative and entertaining piece of writing. Your non-partisan, amoral approach to these matters is authentic and refreshing. I will study your words and follow the links provided...and get back to you sometime in the future, if you don't mind.

Don wrote: "John wrote: "Don wrote: "Not to go off on a tangent, but here it is anyway since you asked the question. In general I think SA, like the greatest part of the rest of the world, is classified as a ..."

In your first paragraph, Don, you mention that you believe that the condition of the poor improves most in cultures that honor and respect innovators and "virtuous wealth creators". And I think that you've hit the ol' nail on its head. When people (whether individuals or corporations, which are made up of people- a fact not often thought about) don't care what happens to "other" people as long as the profits continue, the poor do get poorer. Sometimes the poverty is in actual wealth, but often it's in less quantifiable things, like clean water, clean food, clean air, even clean thinking, by which I mean reasoning ability and knowledge.

"Virtue" can be thought of as a kind of willingness to hold oneself accountable to the rest of the human race, can't it? When a government is lacking in that silly old word "goodness", the kind of government it is becomes a moot point. Is a good monarchy better, economically at least, than a bad democracy?

It might be easier to elect better representatives than it is to get a better monarch on the throne, right? But it often seems as though the only public "servants" who are willing to go into government do so out of self-interest, so all of that "choice" a democracy or republic has is limited! And the public which doesn't want to serve is a matter of virtue, too.

The old, old story of good and evil never really changes, does it? No matter whether we're talking about political, economic, or just plain philosophical systems the fact remains that virtuous men, those who care about others more than themselves, create a climate of virtue which encourages equality.

Thanks, you two, for making my day!

Karlyne wrote: "Don wrote: "John wrote: "Don wrote: "Not to go off on a tangent, but here it is anyway since you asked the question. In general I think SA, like the greatest part of the rest of the world, is clas..."

Karlyne,
Thank you for applying your heart and mind to this debate.
You make such a good point! In the final analysis of all things, long-term efficacy is always linked to intent; and intent is linked to morality. Individuals, and governments, make 'right' choices because they care about others and not just themselves. It is inescapable.
I have also considered the irony that an enlightened despot is better for the people than a corrupt democrat. The form of govt. is less important than the intent. Hence my question, how do we change the value system of an entire nation - or is it more a matter of helping nations to re-discover an age-old value system that has been obscured by 'progress'?
Your point about the dearth of self-sacrificing public servants in democracies is insightful. I have often thought that even in the 'bad old days' of apartheid in South Africa, we had a dedicated civil service whose primary intention was service and not self service (albeit to a selected part of the population).

Don, I don't believe at all, even a tiny bit, that a government can legislate virtue. It won't work. Even "promoting" it is suspect, because we have self-interest at work in all government agencies. (I seem to remember Jefferson saying that a government can't legislate virtue, by the way?)

But what I mean is that virtuous people who go into government make a huge impact for what I think is the better. I wish that we had a virtuous citizenry so that government didn't have to police us, but that kind of ranks right up there with wishing that I could grow avocado trees in my back yard. Pretty much a fantasy! I do think that the more the government goes into compulsion, whether in schooling or health care or deportations or taxes or even prison time for drug use, the more we breed a huge bureaucracy of people who benefit from that very thing we are trying to protect the citizenry from.

I completely agree that each group of situations and cultures and times are what needs to be taken into account, and hitting on that sweet spot is what makes a government good or bad.

I am looking forward to reading your links, and as soon as I get done with my virtuous behavior for today, which consists of wiping soupy noses and rocking babies and reading countless stories (spring colds are the worst!), I'm off to enjoy them!

Karlyne wrote: "Don, I don't believe at all, even a tiny bit, that a government can legislate virtue. It won't work. Even "promoting" it is suspect, because we have self-interest at work in all government agencies..."

Well done and thank you, Don and Karlyne, for some of the most stimulating exchanges of the past seven weeks.

Sarah wrote: "Another insightful blog post, John. I, too, was struck by Mandela's care for that tomato plant. I agree with your assessment, and I think that in a way, the plant was symbolic of his own struggle t..."

Beautifully put.

Thanks! :)

Don wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "Don wrote: "John wrote: "Don wrote: "Not to go off on a tangent, but here it is anyway since you asked the question. In general I think SA, like the greatest part of the rest of th..."

I like this article, Don! It definitely helps to have terms defined as he does at the very beginning: hard-line libertarians as opposed to classical liberals. Really, today, "liberals" are not perceived as anything different from "Democrats" in the popular mind, are they? Sometimes it's a shame that words change so quickly in the common tongue!

He makes some good points about the need for taxes to support society so that it can protect the individual, especially the flat tax which Senator Rand does endorse.

My problem with politics in general is a personal one.I don't like sweeping generalities, but my perception of politics is that it is devoid of humanity and ethics, two things that do interest me!

So, thanks for reminding me that there are thinkers and doers still alive and well, albeit in the minority, in the political sphere.

(And I had to laugh at the quote from Norquist which hopes to shrink the government enough "to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub")

I'm hoping to get back on track with LWtF soon, too, by the way! (I finished it, but I get to keep it for an extra week- which is a perk to being on the library board!)