The debate -- six years or six decades? -- is one worth having. The guy who works on the same floor of the building where I work still insists that six decades is the safer bet when it comes to the longevity of the status quo. My position is six years. Violence is now ever present. The state, with all the wonders of technology at its disposal, is unable to guarantee peace. Going back to Hobbes' Leviathan (1651), the primary rationale for the state is security. Security breaks down, and we are allowed to declare the state a failure and withhold our allegiance.
There are many kinds of security other than protection from physical violence. Affordable housing and medical care, meaningful, remunerative employment -- these are as important to the security of a state as safe streets. In no way are we more secure now than a decade ago.
I read something yesterday that under Obamacare, "A conservative projection shows that premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures for the average family will equal half of the average family income by 2019 and the full average family income itself by 2029." A perfect example of the unsustainable nature of the status quo (though in this gauge, the sustainability of Obamacare, 13 years, not six, is the estimate).
War rages in the Middle East. Eventually the Israel/GCC/U.S. axis is going to tilt at Iran.
It is all coming apart before our eyes and we don't have the ability to knit it back together.
No comments:
Post a Comment