Guest Blog from Chuck Shoopman

Recent legislative proposals by members of the Tennessee General Assembly regarding gun rights, property rights, and the role of governments in regulating the exercise of our rights offers a reminder of the importance of open communication and dialogue to the experiment of self-governance. There are many ways to express frustrations, as demonstrated by the Arab Spring, the Tea Party Movement, and the Occupy Movement.

Clearly, opening a window and shouting, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore", calls attention to one's exasperation. However, in a community that chooses to govern itself primarily by the rule of law rather than the use of force, effective communication between people of differing opinions is needed to resolve our conflicts in a way that preserves goodwill while managing the conflict. A community's ability to preserve goodwill while resolving its conflicts will ultimately influence the desire of its members to continue living by rule of law rather than rule of force.

In our state and nation, we hold a number of conflicting values, e.g. individual freedom vs. majority rule. We struggle to find the proper balance between what is best for the individual and what is best for the community at large. Recent proposals from the Tennessee General Assembly regarding where gun owners can legally carry their weapons and whether local governments, or any government, can regulate the use of private property, serve as reminders that our conflicting values remain with us and require our constant attention. We should also be reminded that we still get to choose how we resolve these conflicts. We can beat one another with our language and use the power of positions to impose a temporary resolution. Or, we can energetically and respectfully discuss our differences of opinion and decide how to best resolve them for the moment.

The challenge isn't whether we will permanently resolve all our disputes, for many questions must be re-visited periodically to best meet the realities of the day. The question is whether our model for resolving our disputes will strengthen or erode the confidence of future Tennesseans to perpetuate this experiment in self-governance, or simply allow the strongest of the moment to have the final word.

Thoughts?