I haven't finished Little Brother yet, but I do love the book so far.
What's interesting to me is during the 13th (ish) chapter the discussion between the teacher (Mrs. Andersen) replaced Ms. Galvez and Marcus have concerning the Constitution and it's guarantees and freedoms.
Specifically, I was wondering what everyone's views were on this part of the novel which is dialogue from Mrs. Andersen - "The role of government is to secure for citizens the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In that order. It's like a filter. If the government wants to do something that makes us a little unhappy, or takes away some of our liberty, it's okay, provided they're doing it to save our lives. That's why the cops can lock you up if they think you're a danger to yourself or others. You lose liberty and happiness to protect life." -- pg 209 in the printed edition.
It seems to be this highlights the main difference between those under 25, and those above (generally speaking). I, personally, think this section alone describes basically the entire conflict within the book. Adults that see freedoms as optional for the government to protect and the under 25 crowd see the Constitution as absolute.
Do you all think this is difference due to age or experience? Do adults grow so comfortable with their freedoms, they think their safety is more important, or do their experiences with past wars and tragedy give a reason for their mindset?
I think that the difference has to do with experience and age. When we're young all we have are rules and we resent them because everyone and everything has a rule hanging over us and we can't do anything about it. I think we latch onto the Bill of Rights in the Constitution because it states very clearly that we have certain rights that "the man" cannot infringe on.
ReplyDeleteAdults only have the government, their jobs, and self imposed rules over them. They have a say in what those rules are or at least the illusion of a say. Adults also have more responsibility, more often than not, they aren't just thinking of themselves and their own well being. They're thinking about their spouses, their elderly parents, and their children. When something threatens, not just their safety, but everyone they love, they are more likely to latch on to something they believe can protect them.
I dunno. One of the overarching problems that I have with the book's viewpoints is Marcus's extremity. I think that the spirit of the law and the letter of the law clash pretty often, and one side has to win out over the other.
ReplyDeleteI think that experience is a large part of it. In school, teenagers are taught abstractions. "Here is the Bill of Rights, it is the backbone of American freedom. You can say and do whatever you want and the government can't stop you, unless you're hurting people."
But that is kind of a loaded definition. Ms. Andersen actually touches on a few very valid real world examples, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, that Marcus disagrees with on principle, but is actually a pretty solid exception, in my opinion.
I think the big distinction is that as you gain real world experience, you learn that there is freedom from a lot of things, but there's never freedom from consequences. I use the Chick Fil A example a lot. They have the freedom to support and say whatever they want, so a lot of people feel like boycotting them is short-sighted and against the spirit of free speech. But no one ever said that the freedom to say what you want includes everyone agreeing with it, or even respecting it.
That example remains legal, and I feel like I deviated a bit, but it still feels related. Mostly, this makes me contemplated the existence of the ACLU. The ACLU seems to effectively exist to make sure that people who would use their rights in ways that everyone would nearly unanimously find offensive (a la Neo-Nazis or the Westboro people) are still protected.
I dunno. One of the overarching problems that I have with the book's viewpoints is Marcus's extremity. I think that the spirit of the law and the letter of the law clash pretty often, and one side has to win out over the other.
ReplyDeleteI think that experience is a large part of it. In school, teenagers are taught abstractions. "Here is the Bill of Rights, it is the backbone of American freedom. You can say and do whatever you want and the government can't stop you, unless you're hurting people."
But that is kind of a loaded definition. Ms. Andersen actually touches on a few very valid real world examples, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, that Marcus disagrees with on principle, but is actually a pretty solid exception, in my opinion.
I think the big distinction is that as you gain real world experience, you learn that there is freedom from a lot of things, but there's never freedom from consequences. I use the Chick Fil A example a lot. They have the freedom to support and say whatever they want, so a lot of people feel like boycotting them is short-sighted and against the spirit of free speech. But no one ever said that the freedom to say what you want includes everyone agreeing with it, or even respecting it.
That example remains legal, and I feel like I deviated a bit, but it still feels related. Mostly, this makes me contemplated the existence of the ACLU. The ACLU seems to effectively exist to make sure that people who would use their rights in ways that everyone would nearly unanimously find offensive (a la Neo-Nazis or the Westboro people) are still protected.
I think the best analogy for why there seems to be a divergence in opinion between those over and those under 25 (as a benchmark) is to compare life to an investment of sorts. The longer one has lived or the more one has experienced, the more they have to lose. Mortality becomes a much more tangible concept as one grows older thus the idea of defending 'life' becomes more important. Life is certainly easier to define than liberty or the pursuit of happiness. These final two concepts seem more 'future' oriented. That is to say, they have greater appeal for people who still have much of their live ahead of them and are not tied down by commitments.
ReplyDeleteAnother point on this I would like to make is that as one grows older, it becomes common to believe you know what is in someone's best interest. I am certainly guilty of this, however it becomes troublesome when a group of elites (social, political, etc) impose a viewpoint across society thus depersonalizing any wisdom than can be gleamed from experience.
I would be interested in applying an 'alignment grid' (lawful, neutral, chaotic, etc) to people based on their opinions on these issues.