"Antenna-gate", Fanboys, and Trolls

I just saw a good post on this from the Google Testing Bog.

Despite my dislike of Apple and their treatment of developers (and my disgust that developers are flocking to receive their flogging) I think we should be careful how we react to this.  Problems happen.  There is both good and bad to how Apple handled this. If we feel a bit annoyed in how they handled this we should have that same annoyance no matter the source rather than giving in to fanboy-ism

Do we look at this and think how much better our platform is but get annoyed when others point out the problems with our platform of choice?

This is a general problem whether it be long standing technology flamewars (VI is better btw), to religion, or to politics.  Sometimes the very nature of having two groups forms an automatic antagonism (see also George Washington's Farewell address).

I find Krister Stendahl's rules for religious understanding to be very applicable to all of these areas of our life:

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy."

Mordecai

In my previous post I quoted from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints's Articles of Faith.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Article of Faith 12

I wanted to clarify what this means for when those beliefs are in contradiction to the law that we are meant to sustain.

Some aspects of our belief are encouraged practices and precedence is given to local law, like how we bury the dead.  Others are essential but not contradictory like when laws require a civil marriage to be performed, couples have performed separately their civil marriage and their sealing of their marriage for time and all eternity.  Even though we see the Gospel as being essential to everyone's happiness and eternal salvation, we proselyte only in countries that legally allow it.

Mordecai, Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-nego are great examples for when the Kings and laws contravenes our right to worship.  Rather than rising up in rebellion, Mordecai and the people fasted, prayed, and petitioned the King.  Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-nego all broke the law but honorably faced the consequences of their decision to do that without losing faith.

Please note, these observations are mine alone and are not meant to represent any of the people I am quoting

True Leadership

Around the world last Sunday is marked as July 4th, well, as long as you use the Gregorian calendar.  For the United States it is the celebration of declaring independence from Great Britain.

One of the Articles of Faith that I adhere to is

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Article of Faith 12

This was the focal point of a lesson someone gave recently and we talked a bit about what it means to obey, honor, and sustain the law.

Its amazing what effect the words we chose have on what others say and what we all think.  Someone slipped in a comment about "leaders".  Nothing outright was said but small feelings I got where the conversation led made me worry a bit for two reasons, 1) what are "leaders", and 2) how we view our "leaders".

For (1), as I quoted previously from Hugh Nibley

Leaders are movers and shakers, original, inventive, unpredictable, imaginative, full of surprises that discomfit the enemy in war and the main office in peace. For managers are safe, conservative, predictable, conforming organization men and team players, dedicated to the establishment.
...
For the manager, on the other hand, the idea of equality is repugnant and indeed counterproductive. Where promotion, perks, privilege, and power are the name of the game, awe and reverence for rank is everything, the inspiration and motivation of all good men.

Leaders and Managers by Hugh Nibley

How many of our representatives, executives, and judges are truly leaders?  Personally, it makes me feel dirty calling them "leaders".

Now for (2) which makes me feel even dirtier.  Reading Thomas Paine's comparison of representative governments to monarchical governments in "Rights of Men" has given me cause to reflect.  When reading how people view and treat the monarchical court's I wonder if in part we carried too much of that tradition with us and if we also in part reverted back to previous bad habits?

The elected and nominated officials are our representatives.  We are the United States government, not those people filled in their buildings in Washington.  They are our employees.  Yes, we would love for them to be leaders for that is what is needed to face the challenges they do.  Yes, we need to sustain them, but not as some lord or duke but as underlings that we are to empower and provide needed support and correction to.

Why is it that we use the Peter Principle and Dilbert Principle in offering "promotions"?

Why is it when we have two underlings vying for a promotion that we view it as a competition between the better of two evils? In business when there is no suitable internal candidate for a position, do we still higher one of the unsuitable ones or do we do take the risk of the unknown and perform an external hire to some third party?

Please note, these observations are mine alone and are not meant to represent any of the people I am quoting

On Representation

There is a bastard kind of generosity, which, by being extended to all men, is as fatal to society, on one hand, as the want of true generosity is on the other. A lax manner of administering justice, falsely termed moderation, has a tendency both to dispirit public virtue, and promote the growth of public evils.

Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Other Writings of Thomas Paine
pg 81

Lately (as in over the last year or more) I've been reading various writings of Thomas Paine. In Rights of Man he defends free governments against Edmond Burke's attacks and Paine himself attacks back against monarchy.

How do we compare today with what the propagandist claims us to be on transparency, the role of our "leaders", and taxes:

But the case is, that the representative system diffuses such a body of knowledge throughout a Nation on the subject of Government, as to explode ignorance and preclude imposition. The craft of [royal] courts cannot be acted on that ground. There is no place for mystery, nowhere for it to begin. Those who are not in the representation know as much of the nature of business as those who are. An affection of mysterious importance would there be scouted. Nations can have no secrets; and the secrets of courts, like those of individuals, are always their defects.

In the representative system, the reason for everything must publicly appear. Every man is a proprietor in Government and considers it a necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest, because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it with the advantages, and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what in other Governments are called LEADERS.

It can only be by blinding the understanding of man, and making him believe that Government is some wonderful mysterious thing, that excessive revenues are obtained. Monarchy is well calculate to ensure this end. It is the popery of Government, a thing kept up to amuse the ignorant and quiet them into taxes.

The Government of a free country, properly speaking, is not in the persons, but in the laws. The enacting of those requires no great expense; and when they are administered the whole of civil Government is performed - the rest is all [royal] court contrivance.

Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Other Writings of Thomas Paine
pg 293

How much mystery do we have in our government? The race to declare negotiations of counterfeiting treaties as state secrets, the convoluting of processes, back room deals, hiding pork in large "public good" bills. How do these things take affect and how do we stop it? I've heard Tocqueville would attribute it to apathy and I believe that would be a good chunk of it. What do we do about it though?

Also look how we inflate the role of public servants from being represenatives, judges, and executors to the great epitaph of Leaders. Most do not deserve that moniker and are at best managers working for their own good. I turn to Hugh Nibley for a good description of the difference between Leaders and Managers

Leaders are movers and shakers, original, inventive, unpredictable, imaginative, full of surprises that discomfit the enemy in war and the main office in peace. For managers are safe, conservative, predictable, conforming organization men and team players, dedicated to the establishment.
...
For the manager, on the other hand, the idea of equality is repugnant and indeed counterproductive. Where promotion, perks, privilege, and power are the name of the game, awe and reverence for rank is everything, the inspiration and motivation of all good men. ...

"If you love me," said the Greatest of all leaders, "you will keep my commandments." "If you know what is good for me," says the manager, "you will keep my commandments, and not make waves." That is why the rise of management always marks the decline of culture.

Leaders and Managers by Hugh Nibley

I highly recommend reading the rest of that commencement address he gave.

Another great quote to contemplate on representative governments accomplishing good:

It is always the interest of a far greater number of people in a Nation to have things right than to let them remain wrong; and when public matters are open to a debate, and the public judgment free it will not decide wrong, unless it decides too hastily.

Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Other Writings of Thomas Paine
pg 301

With managers representing us, we have those who create, pass, and sign laws that contain the worst of both sides to an argument without the benefits of either rather than working from principle and compromising for the greater good. How many politicians have passed laws so hastily that they have not read the very law they are passing? How long will we be hurting from this haste when these laws are such wide sweeping things as covering outrageously sized stimulus plans or national health care?

Laws of the Land

He thought it proper however that the true nature of the existing confederacy should be investigated, and he was not anxious to strengthen the foundations on which it now stands.

The Anti-Federalist Papers, Opposition to the New Jersey Plan, pg 81
by James Madison

On social news sites I came across an interesting article "Do laws even matter today?".

Cushioning the consequences of people's bad decisions from hurting themselves makes me wonder sometimes why I bother to be careful. If everyone else is in debt and has no savings, why should I maintain self-discipline to not get into debt and save for retirement? The government will cushion the pain for people. If it can't then it is probably because it is buckling and breaking from its own paternal nature. At that point what good will my self-discipline have done me if money isn't even worth anything (fiat or otherwise)?

Another area I find interesting in this the effect of unavoidable law breaking has on the mores of a nation. I came across a quote from Bastiat (who I've now added every book of his to my reading list) that says

When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The Law, by Bastiat

In college I took a course titled "History of Creativity" to fulfill my Civilization credit. One of the things we discussed was the affect of prohibition on the mores of the nation. Overnight the nation became a nation of criminals. When this happens people turn a blind eye to other crime. How can they condemn others in the court of law when they are criminals themselves?

This leads me to wonder about other things like the "War" on Drugs and Speed Limits. Are we making people tolerant of worst crimes by outlawing these? If we legalized these and other crimes become the new rage where do we draw the line on legalizing these verse taking a stand for what is right and what is wrong?