Forum is now open
Well I am fairly certain that lasts week-long experiment caused some anxiety, frustration, anger and probably several other emotions. It was done to prove a point.
Although some readers believe I am unfair and centered on one topic, I have shown that if I truly wanted to be vindictive and vitriolic (this is a new word for me that a blogger used last week), I would have started my blog with a one-sided commentary spewing negativity and despair. But as with some other blog such as NAC, there if much to learn for everyone. New words, new ideas, differing opinions, and the ability to have a two way discussion that is limited in certain other environments.
I have given everyone the opportunity to comment and have been open to criticism and hateful remarks from mostly anonymous responders. This is more than fair.
I have not blogged on topics without giving documentation or references to base my opinion unlike many of the anonymous commenters. Many things I comment on are based on personal experiences and others are from available facts and sources which may be private individuals whose identity remains confidential for various reasons
You certainly may not agree with me or with my opinions, but for some reason, many of you keep reading and keep commenting.
I believe in open dialogue and it is most beneficial when all the parties and their biases are known. I’ve not tried to hide my biases and feel very comfortable with my opinions even when challenged. How many of you can say the same?
The forum is now open. Let’s try and keep it civil.
Although some readers believe I am unfair and centered on one topic, I have shown that if I truly wanted to be vindictive and vitriolic (this is a new word for me that a blogger used last week), I would have started my blog with a one-sided commentary spewing negativity and despair. But as with some other blog such as NAC, there if much to learn for everyone. New words, new ideas, differing opinions, and the ability to have a two way discussion that is limited in certain other environments.
I have given everyone the opportunity to comment and have been open to criticism and hateful remarks from mostly anonymous responders. This is more than fair.
I have not blogged on topics without giving documentation or references to base my opinion unlike many of the anonymous commenters. Many things I comment on are based on personal experiences and others are from available facts and sources which may be private individuals whose identity remains confidential for various reasons
You certainly may not agree with me or with my opinions, but for some reason, many of you keep reading and keep commenting.
I believe in open dialogue and it is most beneficial when all the parties and their biases are known. I’ve not tried to hide my biases and feel very comfortable with my opinions even when challenged. How many of you can say the same?
The forum is now open. Let’s try and keep it civil.
posted by Anonymous at 6:15 AM
6 Comments:
I would like to comment on last Monday’s post regarding free speech.
I want to focus on a statement you made about the broad concept of liberty. Your debate with the hospital administration (and any other debate regarding our Constitutional protections) will ultimately be affected by your understanding of our country’s Constitution and the history behind its drafting. In your post, you wrote:
“Our country grants us liberties based on our constitution and laws. Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority.”
This statement is fundamentally flawed, and brings to light a misunderstanding of the basic purpose and philosophy underlying our Constitution. Our country does not grant liberties to its citizens. On the contrary, the Constitution is a grant of power from the states (and, in essence, the people of the states) to the federal government. It describes the boundaries of the government’s power. To understand this more fully, you must go back to the years preceding the formation of that founding document.
Prior to the Constitutional Convention that resulted in our current Constitution, our country was composed of individual (and for all purposes, independent) states. These states recognized a need for a central government, primarily for the purpose of defending against foreign threats (at the time, the British throne). To achieve this end, the colonies drafted the Constitution—which provided limited powers to the central government.
Liberty was not created when the Constitution was formed. Liberty is a notion which comes from our Creator and predates any idea of government. To suggest that, “our country grants us liberties based on our constitution [sic] and laws,” is simply wrong. And I’m glad it is. You espouse the mindset of authoritarian regimes—that they decide to whom liberty will be extended. Our Founders were wise enough to recognize that government does not create liberty. The Constitution simply ensures that our liberty is not taken away.
The ever-present debate in human societies is about the proper balance between individual security and individual freedom of actions. Today, the debate in our country is about the willingness of citizens to allow government to encroach on our liberty to provide security from terrorism. The debate begins with the understanding that we have an inherent right, as humans, to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as the Declaration of Independence says. The debate does not begin with the understanding that government grants us the right to liberty. This may seem like a simple difference over semantics, but the implications of that difference are huge.
To analogize the hospital administration to the federal government is to base your argument on a false premise. You are free to protest the administration, but they are not under an obligation to listen based on your contract (unless the contract states differently, which I doubt it does). The federal government, as an organ that represents the people of the country, is inherently under an obligation to listen to its citizens based on their contract—the Constitution.
This is the fundamental difference between what it means to be a citizen of the United States and an employee of a corporation. The corporation grants you rights which, upon agreeing to become an employee, you accept. In the case of the federal government, we—the citizens of the country—are the employer, not the employee. We grant certain rights to the federal government through the Constitution.
Now, regarding your discussion of the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to free speech, there is a different fundamental purpose and philosophy at work. The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution in order to ensure certain liberties were expressly protected. This was the result of a fear by the Framers that the federal government would be tempted to abuse the powers set out in the preceding text. The Bill of Rights was a compromise between those who envisioned a strong central government and those who were wary of granting too much power to that body.
As a whole, the federal Constitution sets limits on the government’s powers. It does nothing to restrict the actions of the citizens. Laws passed by the legislature, on the other hand, often do restrict the actions of the people. But government, in enacting laws, cannot go beyond the bounds established by the Constitution. The rules of the game are set by the Constitution. Legislative acts (laws), executive branch regulations, and judicial decisions are all plays in this game.
Again, this goes back to the fact that the Constitution is a contract between the government and the people. The people allow the government to make laws that fit within the bounds set by the contract. But in the end, the people have the ability to render the contract void. The people are ultimately in charge of the game.
To bring this back to you and the hospital, each side is allowed to make certain decisions and to take certain actions as a result of your contract. But ultimately, the hospital administration is in charge of the game. Your actions must fit within their rules, just as the government’s actions must fit within our rules. That is the starting point for the discussion of what actions are appropriate. Unfortunately for you, the hospital is not a democracy.
I apologize for making this such a long post. I do not purport to defend either side of your debate with the hospital administration as I do not have enough information to do so, but I think this more accurately describes the parameters of that debate. I do not disagree with your statement that “we may not always get our ‘way,’ but we should always get our ‘say.’” But I do think it necessary that you first consider the rules of your game. Those rules will determine what is, and what is not, appropriate.
HB,
I am well aware that I am not the brightest bulb in the box, but exactly what was your point?
"Unless we are willing to blindly follow our leaders, we can never truly be free." -- Major Frank Burns
Your response is very well written and articulated.
That particular description of Liberty came from wickepedia and I personally do not subscribe to it dogmatically.
With my faith, I also believe your statement that “Liberty is a notion which comes from our Creator and predates any idea of government."
Many other readers will disagree with this wholeheartedly.
Most physicians have no contract with the hospital and therefore are under no restrictions other than our Medical Staff Bylaws.
Employees on the other hand are as you describe; Limited and under the authority of the administration.
I am very free to protest and as someone who generates several million dollars to the hospital each year, most smart business people would try and meet the needs of this type of client or customer.
The hospital is "County Owned" and therefore is under some obligation to more than just its Board and administration.
For iamhoosier,
The point was to show how easy one sided communication could have been from the beginning on this blog. Friends really encoraged me to do this so that those who continually critisize about fairness may think differently. I am not holding my breath, but I told them I would do it for a week.
I am glad the forum is open again. I don't comment very often, but I like to read what people think. It can be educational and entertaining.
HB,
Thanks. I still don't really understand but guess I don't have to.
Post a Comment
<< Home