The Onion Ringer
Second an excerpt from The Spine of the World by R.A. Salvatore.
I Have lived in many Societies, from Menzoberranzan of the drow, to blingdenstone of the deep gnomes, to Ten-Towns ruled as the most common human settlements, to the barbarian tribes and their own curious ways, to Mithral Hall of the Clan Battlehammer dwarves. I have lived aboard ship, another type of society altogether. All of these places have different customs and mores, all of them have varied government structures, social forces, churches and societies.
Which is the superior system? You would hear many arguments concerning this, mostly based on prosperity, or god-given right, or simple destiny. For the drow, it is simply a religious matter-they structure their society to the desires of the chaotic Spider Queen, then wage war constantly to change the particulars of that structure, though not the structure itself. For the deep gnomes, it is a matter of paying homage and due respect to the elders of their race, accepting the wisdom of those who have lived for so many years. In the human settlement of Ten-Towns, leadership comes from populatrity, while the barbarians choose their chieftains purely on physical prowess. For the dwarves, rulership is a matter of bloodline. Bruenor became king because his father was king, and his father's father before him, and his father's father's father before him.
I measure the superiority of any society in a different manner, based completely on individual freedom. Of all the places I have lived, I favor Mithral Hall, but that, I understand, is a matter of Bruenor's wisdom in allowing his flock their freedom, and not because of the dwarven political structure. Bruenor is not an active king. He serves as spokesman for the clan in matters politic, as a commander in matters martial, and as mediator in disputes among his subjects, but only when so asked. Bruenor remains fiercely independent and grants that joy to those of Clan Battlehammer.
I have heard of many queens and kings, matron mothers and clerics, who justify rulership and absolve themselves of any ills by claiming that the commoners who serve them are in need of guidance. This might be true in many long standing societies, but if it is, that is only because so many generations of conditioning have stolen something essential from the heart and soulof the subjects, because many generations of subordination have robbed the common folk of confidence in determining their own way. All of the governing systems share the trait of stealing freedom from the individual of forcing certain conditions upon the lives of each citizen in the name of "community."
That concept, "community," is one that I hold dear, and surely, the individuals within any such grouping must sacrifice and accept certain displeasures in the name of the common good to make any community thrive. How much stronger might that community be if those scrifices came from the heart of each citizen and not from the edicts of the elders, matron mothers, kings, or queens?
Freedom is the key to it all. The freedom to stay or to leave, to work in harmony with others or to choose a more individual course. The Freedom to help in the larger issues or to abstain. The freedom to build a good life or to live in squalor. The freedom to try anything or merely to do nothing.
Few would dispute that desier for freedom. Everyone I have ever met desires free will, or thinks he does. How curious then, that so many refuse to accept the inverse cost of freedom: responsibility.
An ideal community would work well because the individual memebers would accept their responsibility toward the welfare of each other and to the community as a whole, not because they are commanded to do so, but because they understand and accept the benefits to such choices. For there are, indeed, consequences to every choice we make, to everthing we do or choose not to do. Those consequenes are not so obvious, I fear. The selfish man might think himself gaining, but in times when that person most needs his friends, they likely will not be there, and in the end, in the legacy the selfish person leaves behind, he will not be remembered fondly, if at all. The selfish person's greed might bring material luxuries, but cannot bring the true joys, the intangible plearsures of love.
So it is with the hateful person, the slothful person, the envious person, the thief and the thug, the drunkard and the gossip. Freedom allows each the right to choose the life before him, but freedom demands that the person accept the responsiblity for those choices, good and bad.
I have often heard tales of those who believed they were about to die replaying the events of their lives even long past occurrences buried deep within their memories. In the end, I believe, in those last moments of this existence, before the mysteries of what may come next, we are given the blessing, or curse, to review our choices, to see them bared before our consciousness, without the confusion of the trappings of day-to-day living, without blurring justifications or the potential for empty promeises to make amends.
How many priests, I wonder, would include this most naked moment in ther descriptions of heaven and hell?
Which is the superior system? You would hear many arguments concerning this, mostly based on prosperity, or god-given right, or simple destiny. For the drow, it is simply a religious matter-they structure their society to the desires of the chaotic Spider Queen, then wage war constantly to change the particulars of that structure, though not the structure itself. For the deep gnomes, it is a matter of paying homage and due respect to the elders of their race, accepting the wisdom of those who have lived for so many years. In the human settlement of Ten-Towns, leadership comes from populatrity, while the barbarians choose their chieftains purely on physical prowess. For the dwarves, rulership is a matter of bloodline. Bruenor became king because his father was king, and his father's father before him, and his father's father's father before him.
I measure the superiority of any society in a different manner, based completely on individual freedom. Of all the places I have lived, I favor Mithral Hall, but that, I understand, is a matter of Bruenor's wisdom in allowing his flock their freedom, and not because of the dwarven political structure. Bruenor is not an active king. He serves as spokesman for the clan in matters politic, as a commander in matters martial, and as mediator in disputes among his subjects, but only when so asked. Bruenor remains fiercely independent and grants that joy to those of Clan Battlehammer.
I have heard of many queens and kings, matron mothers and clerics, who justify rulership and absolve themselves of any ills by claiming that the commoners who serve them are in need of guidance. This might be true in many long standing societies, but if it is, that is only because so many generations of conditioning have stolen something essential from the heart and soulof the subjects, because many generations of subordination have robbed the common folk of confidence in determining their own way. All of the governing systems share the trait of stealing freedom from the individual of forcing certain conditions upon the lives of each citizen in the name of "community."
That concept, "community," is one that I hold dear, and surely, the individuals within any such grouping must sacrifice and accept certain displeasures in the name of the common good to make any community thrive. How much stronger might that community be if those scrifices came from the heart of each citizen and not from the edicts of the elders, matron mothers, kings, or queens?
Freedom is the key to it all. The freedom to stay or to leave, to work in harmony with others or to choose a more individual course. The Freedom to help in the larger issues or to abstain. The freedom to build a good life or to live in squalor. The freedom to try anything or merely to do nothing.
Few would dispute that desier for freedom. Everyone I have ever met desires free will, or thinks he does. How curious then, that so many refuse to accept the inverse cost of freedom: responsibility.
An ideal community would work well because the individual memebers would accept their responsibility toward the welfare of each other and to the community as a whole, not because they are commanded to do so, but because they understand and accept the benefits to such choices. For there are, indeed, consequences to every choice we make, to everthing we do or choose not to do. Those consequenes are not so obvious, I fear. The selfish man might think himself gaining, but in times when that person most needs his friends, they likely will not be there, and in the end, in the legacy the selfish person leaves behind, he will not be remembered fondly, if at all. The selfish person's greed might bring material luxuries, but cannot bring the true joys, the intangible plearsures of love.
So it is with the hateful person, the slothful person, the envious person, the thief and the thug, the drunkard and the gossip. Freedom allows each the right to choose the life before him, but freedom demands that the person accept the responsiblity for those choices, good and bad.
I have often heard tales of those who believed they were about to die replaying the events of their lives even long past occurrences buried deep within their memories. In the end, I believe, in those last moments of this existence, before the mysteries of what may come next, we are given the blessing, or curse, to review our choices, to see them bared before our consciousness, without the confusion of the trappings of day-to-day living, without blurring justifications or the potential for empty promeises to make amends.
How many priests, I wonder, would include this most naked moment in ther descriptions of heaven and hell?
--- Drizzt Do'Urden
I found it completely interesting, one of my favorite fictional characters speaking of Individual Freedoms and The Responsibility those freedoms bare. How i wish, today's society would be given the opportunity to prove it strong and wise enough to make decisions for itselves. I believe, in the end, the decisions, the majority would make, would best serve their community, and then our nation as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment