Changes, changes

What does one learn from accepting his ignorance? Sometimes, he shouldn't be so opinionated.

Allow me to explain my (former) attraction to left-anarchism: if God can direct people through their hearts, could he not make a society of people who love each other unceasingly? The economic calculation problem is gone in their socialist commune, because God calculates for them, and they obey. God will tell them, and they should be aware of those who do not fit in the commune - more importantly, no one not fit for it would bother to join, believing what everyone else believes about left-anarchy: it's chaos. One could contend that if the society runs smoothly it will then attract the thieves and the murderers, but surely God could save the commune, or at least point out the wicked.

Furthermore - apparent to those who read last post's link by Kropotkin - there's a deep and fulfilling sense of a world without poor. A world where the science of man applies to all men, a world where no one goes hungry, a world where no one is devoid of a chance; surely in such an atmosphere - not to mention one endowed by the Supreme Creator - the hearts of men could change for the better, and the world could live in peace.

Now let me explain why I think that's wrong.

First, one's connection to God through the subjective - though the ultimate provider of truth - is certainly imperfect, and this I've come to more clearly in my recent experience than ever before. Man can try, he can align his long-term path with God, but he remains of the flesh, remains totally imperfect. With imperfection comes error, and with error comes, well, in a lawless society, chaos. This, I believe, is the function of church - to provide a standard for men to live their lives; and I believe, further, I know, that God endows the religious leaders of Earth, who He surely chose by hand - the great ones - with the knowledge to govern the faithful under their direction. But even with this tool - who many, even the religious, choose themselves to ignore (and who can doubt the left-anarchists, of all people, are inclined to disrespect the authority of organized religion?) - we still are of the flesh.

It seems to me that I know what's wrong for politics - I know many things that are wrong - but that I can't necessarily pinpoint what's best. A totalitarian dictatorship is contrary to the will of God - contrary to the free establishment of His churches, and contrary to the use of our God-given agency. Man, under government, must be allowed to choose wrong, and who can doubt that the leaders of government are fallible? Surely we can try, by democracy, to elect those rulers whose countenance and manner appeals to the ethical light within us, but let us never allow them the extreme power of tyranny over our very lives - for what then when they stray? Checks and balances on the authority of mankind - which authority must be restricted in extent to those duties that allow us, protected by law, to lead good, productive lives - is clearly essential for a bright future for the nations of Earth.

The tyrants - the obviously-power-hungry and ruthless dictators - I, perhaps peacefully, oppose. But the authority placed by God and democracy of man, whose power is restricted for allowing freedom in a broad sense, is an authority I humbly respect. Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Jill Stein have various outlooks on the best option for our country, but despite my personal preference for perhaps a candidate like Doctor Paul or the Green Party over the seemingly more violent Romney and Obama, all of these leaders share a general respect for the freedom of the country, and under the rule of various men and women like them, we've undoubtedly prospered. Is our nation perfect? By a fair margin, no. Are there people in need of assistance - public or otherwise? Certainly, yes. Is our foreign policy exactly in line with what might strike one as respectful? Definitely not. But we are all of the flesh and sculpted from a coarse clay; sometimes keeping it all together is the best for which one can ask.

So I'd consider myself moderate. Though decidedly from an American politics perspective.