Temperament Observed-

The various classification systems relating to temperament are often useful, but hardly exhausting. Most of them have four or five major classifications, and subclasses established by combining two major classes into dominant/secondary pairs. These serve well enough, but are not exclusive as categories that may be observed.

Two types of people I have observed in my career in corrections have been the Regulators and the Enforcers. We tend to have an abundance of both in the law enforcement field, probably due to the many opportunities to practice these proclivities.

Regulators like to regulate, control, or manage things. I suspect they find their way into law making careers, or in another career field find their way into the regulatory branch. They really like rules, and at least from my own perspective they like rules for the sake of having rules. Considering the huge number of laws on the books in the State of California, there is no end to this need to regulate.

In our particular jail setting we have behavior management rules to aid the inmates in knowing how to behave, and to provide a reference for those charged with enforcing the rules. Time and time again I saw an augmented rule created by an officer eventually being enforced as if it were a sanctioned rule, even though that rule was never formally adopted.

Regulators do not like to give up any rules once they have been established and adopted. Over time conditions change and the purpose of a rule or set of rules no longer applies to the new state of things, yet it is nearly impossible to bring about a review of rules, much less practical changes. Rather than being focused on the purpose of our rules our temperamental Regulators simply want to hang onto those rules as rules.

Sometimes the perspective is as if dealing with a sacred thing, these little jail rules. I am sure that readers can find other examples from their own experiences.

Then there are temperamental Enforcers. There is some kind of deep and emotional satisfaction experienced by an Enforcer when he can apply a rule and set up a violator for punishment. I will grant that rules and the enforcement of rules are necessary for maintaining the order in a social order. The Enforcer goes beyond that. Each act of enforcement becomes a personal victory. Engaging such emotion can unbalance the system.

Most temperamental Enforcers love having lots of rules, and enforce even the least reasonable rules with a tremendous zeal. For them the purpose of the rule was less relevant than the existence of the rule and the need being met by enforcing that rule. Many Enforcers working in the jail would establish personal "rules" to serve over the course of their own shifts, and too many of those rules became so entrenched as to be enforced as if sanctioned.

On a larger scale, our State of California has a phenomenal number of laws. Again, Regulators and Enforcers naturally gravitate to positions of power within our social order, and the zeal for acting out their predilections can at least on occasion create laws that are truly counter-productive.

My thoughts tend to go from this point in a lot of different directions. Many examples come to mind, but most are more properly a new thread to the discussion. This hound finds many tempting cotton tails vanishing into the scrub, and so I think that it is time to move toward a conclusion.

 Perhaps the one conclusion I can take from these ruminations is to examine my attitudes and actions to determine if I am acting from a reasoned position, or if I am simply reacting from my own temperament. Such reaction from temperament might not always be bad, but a failure to examine both the temperament and the action for reasonableness and applicability would leave me incomplete and unbalanced.

This conclusion certainly reveals my presupposition that reason has a higher value in choosing actions than instinct or temperament. That, I think, should be approached in another blog.

China-

I am not a China scholar. However, with the advancement of China in the world economy I began watching a bit more closely. I read a history of China, to get background, perhaps a decade ago. At that time I made a prediction based on the long tradition in China of holding the merchant class in low esteem. I predicted a slow development into the world economy because of that prejudice.

I was wrong. China today is where I expected them to be in about thirty more years. They are advancing fast. I have not been surprised by the "communist" Chinese government embracing a form of capitalism and developing a stronger economy as a result. The Russian "communists" had a state capitalism that brought them rapidly into the world economy. The Chinese have done the same.

No, the real impediment I expected was the ancient prejudice toward the merchant class. I really don't know how the dynamics are working at the individual level, but China is a real economic force and moving fast.

What I expected to be a real issue for a repressive government has been the Internet. Though they try to contain the exchange of information and opinion, I expect the Chinese to fail. This article indicates that the erosion is progressing. It will be interesting to see what develops as more and more Chinese acquire ready access to information.

For other nations, such as our own, I see a progression toward reduced freedom. This will be the result of two factors. The first is population growth. Freedom necessarily diminishes with crowding. It is simply not possible to allow unrestrained freedom on an individual level when people are confined to small spaces.

The second factor is the nature of regulatory bodies such as governments. Regulators regulate, and they will naturally move toward greater regulation of societies. Mature and aging governments become choked with regulations due to this trend. Increased regulation will necessarily diminish individual freedom. Hence, as governments mature freedom naturally declines.

These last two are matters for another discussion. My point is that China is becoming progressively more interesting. This particular movement might be repressed, but it cannot now be done quietly. The world of the Internet is aware, and watching.

Influence or Regulation?-

As a Christian and a Philosopher (to whatever degree I am much of either) I have considered my place in society. As either (or both) I impact my world with what I say and what I do. I hold that what we do rises from what we truly believe.

Some of my fellow Christians are activists. They intentionally act to influence our society to become more consistent with Christian principles. I cannot fault them for zeal and active endeavor to realize such ideals. Yet in my own life I chose not to strongly associate myself with these people.

The problem for me is in believing that the best Christian influence is through regulation. Ultimately I see such activism creating a Christian culture in which Christians are comfortable, but non-Christians are likely to be uncomfortable. This would drive unbelievers to move away from such environments, and the influence of Christians on non-Christians would become less by virtue of that distance.

I also often find that the culture of Christians tends to be narrow, shallow and lacking in interest. It need not be so, yet in areas where American Christian culture has deep roots there is often a distinct provincialism. There tends to be a failure to interact with ideas, since so many living together think much alike.

This kind of culture would offend the part of me that is the Philosopher.

For me an ideal culture would be diverse in thought and action. Regulation would be minimal, and ideas and beliefs would be free to interact in an organic and catalytic fashion. It is more of an environment of Influence rather than Regulation.

I cannot help but feel that ideas thrive in environments of freedom and diversity. While tight regulation may make some people feel secure, it seems repressive to me. Freedom on all levels of life allows for freedom of thought.

Such must necessarily be difficult for orthodoxy. To hold believers to beliefs that are consistent with Christian doctrine in an environment of free thinking must necessarily present a great challenge. Yet the opportunity for those believers to interact with unbelievers is much greater in an environment of free thinking.

Or so it seems to me. My love of freedom does not require the abandonment of order and discipline. Indeed, these are needed even more in a realm of great freedom. They are, however, freely chosen and adhered to, rather than simply regulated into being.

So I would say I value Influence over Regulation in the exchange of ideas. It must be what I truly believe, because it is how I live.

My Libertarian Leanings-

At times I have referred to myself as a Mercenary Anarchist. This is a reference my work in corrections and my personal libertarian leanings. Though I lock people up according to law, I don't always believe in those laws for which they are locked up.

I do, however, believe in law and order. Just not a lot of it.

Many of the people I lock up are incarcerated for drug related crimes. I believe that laws protecting persons and their property are necessary. I do not really think that the elaborate and expensive drug enforcement current in our society is similarly necessary. However, the laws are not difficult to abide by. I do not have a particularly difficult time earning a living locking up people who elect to be stupid.

I would eliminate most of the laws regulating the drugs and their marketing. Simplify the system to protect children from predation and easy access, and eliminate any laws that simply relate to drug possession and sales.

On the other hand, prosecution for behavior related crimes would not be mitigated by drug use. Being under the influence would not provide any form of excuse. The choice to use any drug would encompass any consequences of that choice. Laws protecting persons and property would be firmly enforced.

All other laws would be assessed and simplified, as well. Regulation would be minimal, and freedom maximized.

I realize that this is all a pipe-dream.

It is such because of the various natures of people. Some have a temperament to regulate. Once they have regulated what is minimally necessary to insure free human interaction, they will continue to find things to regulate. It is the fundamental compulsion of who they are.

These people make use of a valuable resource. The people with a temperament to enforce. Unless it is taken to extremes, this is a useful pairing. The regulators regulate, giving the enforcers something to enforce.

It is easy to see how this can cascade out of control. More laws. Laws that are well intended, but become complex and sometimes contradictory. More enforcers to enforce the expanding number of laws. All of this creates a greater overhead for regulation and enforcement. The cost of the system grows ever greater.

At this point in my life, I live and work with the enforcers. Most are dedicated and do a great job. However, most do not think much about the laws they enforce. Since more laws feeds the need to enforce, they are often supportive of the regulators.

Everywhere I have lived the regulators have held power by permission of the people being regulated. Over-regulation is at least slowed and minimized by systems that allow for the removal of regulators that become unpopular. That would include regulators that do not control their enforcers.

Still, I see a continuous expansion of regulation in the world in which I live. This is contrary to my love of freedom, and the consequential aversion to regulation.

I have no real hope of seeing a world of true liberty. Perhaps that is not really possible, given the nature of humans.

I must adapt to ever growing regulation, and seek to exercise such liberties as I can.