"and the indians, give them whatever they want"

One of the most interesting passages in the John Grisham novel, the Pelican Brief, is the scene where the fictional Supreme Court justice Abe Rosenberg, is looking at a varied collection of protestors, each with their own set of issues:

`Biggest crowd ever!' Rosenberg yelled at the window. He was almost deaf. Jason Kline, his senior law clerk, stood behind him. It was the first Monday in October, the opening day of the new term, and this had become a traditional celebration of the First Amendment. A glorious celebration. Rosenberg was thrilled. To him, freedom of speech meant freedom to riot.
`Are the Indians out there?' he asked loudly.
Jason Kline leaned closer to his right ear.
`Yes!'
`With war paint?'
`Yes! In full battle dress.'
`Are they dancing?'
`Yes!'
The Indians, the blacks, whites, browns, women, gays, tree lovers, Christians, abortion activists, Aryans, Nazis, atheists, hunters, animal lovers, white supremacists, black supremacists, tax protestors, loggers, farmers - it was a massive sea of protest. And the riot police gripped their black sticks.
`The Indians should love me!'
`I'm sure they do.' Kline nodded and smiled at the frail little man with clenched fists. His ideology was simple; government over business, the individual over government, the environment over everything. And the Indians, give them whatever they want.

I don't think I've ever seen a "complex" political philosophy, encapsulated so briefly. I occasionally wonder if I can sum up my own beliefs as concisely. Sometimes I feel like my views are more the product of ad hoc sympathies and "teams" that I root for than the product of an objective overarching political ideology. (Would it be fair to say that Muslims are especially susceptible to this?) But then again, I think my views do tend to fit into Rosenberg's list above.

I've recently come to realize that I value freedom of speech more than the average person. A free marketplace of ideas is necessary for the truth to come out. Especially when it comes to criticizing government policy.

"'What kind of jihad is better?' He replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!'"
(Sunan Al-Nasa'i , No. 4209)

Obviously on religious grounds one should strive for adab (good manners) and treat people well, and not gossip, lie, back-bite, slander, etc. One should speak in the best of terms.

But if someone is going to use a racial slur against me, for example, I think I would much rather to have the right to call them out as a racist prick than have the legal authority to punish them for their words.

The other response I would have to Rosenberg's list would be to make the part about "Indians" (dispossessed refugees, pro-independence, pro-autonomy forces) much more central. Whether you are talking about Puerto Rican nationalists, Kurds, Kashmiris, Chechens, Palestinians, etc. I think government should depend on the consent of the governed and there are certain places around the world where some groups have clearly withheld their consent. At the same time, there are clear advantages to international organizations like the UN or NATO or OAS etc.

I guess if I were Emperor of the Planet, I would cut up countries into smaller pieces according to national/ethnic/linguistic/religious boundaries but then at the same time I would like to encourage cooperation within voluntary international organizations of nations.