By Scott McCarthy (CC BY 2.0 AU)
Part 1 _ Liberty
I once tried to figure out the difference between the words “Freedom” and “Liberty” and, apart from matters of scope or interpretation, they pretty much mean the same thing. Because of the nature of the English language and the way it evolved; these two words, one with a German root and one French are pretty much interchangeable in the context of philosophical and political discussion. However, within this one concept with two names lies a very important distinction. On one side there is freedom FROM, the other is freedom TO.
Any political or philosophical concept, when taken to extremes, becomes ridiculous, untenable and destructive. With Liberty and its antithesis; Authority, the dangers are easy for most people to identify. Too much authority leads to totalitarianism, too much liberty leads to anarchy. I have said in the past that I am an anarchist, and I am. BUT it is important to note that there are many different types of anarchy and indeed anarchists. To me, liberty does not mean that you are free to do whatever you want without consequence. Down that road lies what most people think of when they hear the word “Anarchy”… chaos.
“Freedom from..” or “Negative Liberty” is the condition in which and to which a person or society is without authority or leadership. Where no one is the boss of you and you are the master of your own destiny. Where power, control, ownership and responsibility are ideally not absent, but dispersed throughout the community. Where We are in charge, not He. This is essentially the point of democracy, however in it’s current form “Representative Democracy” the People only decide unto whom the authority and power are bestowed. This unfortunately creates cliques, cartels and cabals of powerful people who put the interests of themselves, their friends, and their benefactors ahead of the constituencies they are supposed to represent. This, needless to say, is not what was intended by the founders of our current political system.
“Freedom to..” or “Positive Liberty” is the quality of a person who is able to pursue their own desires and plans. Who can do what they want, so long as it doesn’t negatively affect anyone else. That clause is vital. There is no good reason to stop someone doing something that makes them happy UNLESS it makes someone else unhappy/injured/hungry/dead. This gives rise to laws and law enforcers, who are not leaders but do have another kind of authority. Laws are vital to any political system because no matter how idealistic you are, you would be foolish to think that no one will try to further their own interests by injuring someone else. However, in many parts of the world today, democratically elected legislatures and executives, by way of unjust and undemocratic laws and orders, force their police forces into direct confrontation with the citizenry. For the majority of people in a well functioning democracy, the law would be of little concern to them. Most people, I would like to believe, would not want to ruin someone else’s day or take from the community what they don’t deserve (though I’m not as sure about that last part).
You could argue that these two types of freedom are the same thing observed from different angles. That one is only “free to” do something once they are “free from” someone to stop them doing it. Regardless, I think it is important for everyone understand what freedoms they have, compared to what they believe they should have. If the law is (as it should be) applied equally to everyone, then you may say that we should all be free to do certain things that are now illegal. Or you might think that some people get away with things that, while perfectly legal, you find morally reprehensible and destructive to society.
You are at liberty to decide for yourself. Because no one can censor your own thoughts.
Part 2 _ Equality
When deciding how to go about addressing this week’s topic there were a number of possibilities I toyed with. I could talk about distribution of power, racial or gender equality, inequality on different scales and in different environments. I could hypothesise about whether true equality is even possible and if it is, do we really want that? But really there’s only one topic that fits in this spot. It’s a contentious issue that has divided society for about the last hundred years, if not longer. I’m going to talk about economics.
Like many political concepts, economics is traditionally represented as a dichotomy. As two totally opposite ideologies that form a spectrum, with two radical absurdities at either end and infinite shades of middle ground. These two economic ideologies are “Capitalism” and “Socialism”.
Behind capitalism is the idea that everything you have must be earned. That no one is responsible for anyone else’s well-being. No one needs to compensate for the inadequacies of anyone else. No one should be forced to work solely for the benefit of someone else at their own expense. That what you have is yours and cannot be taken from you, only traded for mutual benefit. Central to capitalism is the idea of a currency, that everything can be given a quantitative value and traded by means of a medium of exchange. This goes for a person’s time and labour as well as any material goods they may own. Capitalism necessitates private ownership of the means of production (machinery, buildings, vehicles) and private employment, where an agreement is made to trade labour on a regular basis. It also assumes that these privately owned companies of people will compete with each other to provide the best goods or services and thus make the most profit. However, competition presupposes a winner, that the superior corporate entity will defeat its rivals and claim it’s monopoly, freeing it from the need to compete and allowing it to collect profit unhindered. It’s easy to see how this system can, and has, spiralled out of control to create faceless mega corporations which wield more power over the world than any medieval king ever did. Like any capitalist entity, these corporations are designed to continue to make profits ad infinitum, and how they go about doing that is dictated by whoever is currently in control of them. Modern corporatism creates massive power disparities and wealth inequality, as the most powerful corporate entities are able to influence sympathetic legislators to change the rules in their favour. So much capital gets sucked into these companies as profit that privately owned central banks need to create more money all the time to keep the economy liquid. As a worker, how much chance do you think the average person has to create anything more than a modestly profitable income for them self? And that’s a best case scenario, many people break even every pay cheque, struggling to survive as they decide what they can go without this week.
Socialism on the other hand is the idea that if we don’t compete with each other we can accomplish more. That though cooperation and sharing everyone can be provided for without creating inequalities of wealth. Socialism is a part of modern society even if you don’t realise it. Many services are provided by the government which you could technically say is owned by the people. Capital is pooled through taxation and used by the government for the benefit of the people. The most needy among us are (theoretically) cared for, given an income at the expense of those of us who can work and pay tax. Taken further, socialism would entail public ownership of the means of production, government control of industry and even the abolition of private property rights. Socialism certainly is more equal, but you could argue that it’s less fair. “From each according to his means; to each according to his need.” which means that you need to do everything you possibly can for the good of the country, which will in turn give you what you need. If you are more needy, you will get more. The argument is that under this system, the hard working; the intelligent; the resourceful are exploited for their strength. Forced to work for the good of “The People” who are the people? Everyone but you. Conversely, it gives people an incentive to be unproductive, as someone who doesn’t work very hard will get much better value out of an extreme socialist environment.
I believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. With private enterprise driving innovation and productivity and government organisations providing services where competition and monopolisation would be detrimental to society. For now, I believe that the pendulum sits too far to the Right (towards capitalism) and to correct the destructive profit seeking of the world’s corporations, The People need to create more restrictions and regulations on how they operate within our countries. If they play fair, we will have equality.
Part 3 _ Brotherhood
I’ll try to write this part without sounding too much like a Care Bear. Also please excuse the use of male pronouns, in my view the brotherhood of man includes females, males and everyone in between or outside of those two genders. What makes you a person has less to do with physical appearance or even chromosomal genotype and more to do with having a certain level of sentience and reason.
Humans are social creatures. Throughout history we have organized ourselves into communities and societies of increasing size and complexity. Our ability to coordinate and to communicate complex ideas; to share plans and resources; to care for each other’s young and construct tools and shelter for each other, has allowed us to become the dominant species on this planet. More so than the astounding intelligence possessed by any individual, the ability of humans to pool their knowledge and cognition is our most powerful asset, making a group of humans potentially much more potent than the sum of its members.
But alongside the human imperative to cooperate exists the impulse to compete. Whenever a human or group of humans meets another they must quickly decide whether to join forces with the others or to attempt to kill or disperse them and take their resources. The former has proven to yield a greater long term reward in most cases, but a short term reward is far more tangible and indeed tempting. There is a third option, where both parties withdraw without confrontation or interaction. This is the least risky and thus preferred option, though it offers no advantage to either party.
It should be pretty obvious that the best results will be achieved if humanity as a whole coordinates and cooperates. Which is why it is so pointlessly illogical that there is so much conflict and competition in the world. From large scale wars over resources and ideologies to people who take and hoard what they want at the expense of people who are more needy and deserving. I suppose it’s human nature. After all, you can always count on yourself to look out for your own best interests, whereas you must put your trust and faith in the community to provide for and protect you.
If you take only one thing away from reading this note, I want it to be this: Politics is the science of human interaction. From the scale of your home or work environment, up to your city, country and the whole world. You may say you don’t like politicians, but you are one! How you interact with people in your own little sphere is usually a pretty clear indication of how you think society should be. If you want the world to be compassionate, generous and reasonable, then so should you. The world cannot be changed without first changing the minds of the people within it. Many people are right now looking at the world with a critical eye, myself included. We are diagnosing it’s sickness and researching a cure. But we need all the help we can get. In my own small way I hope that I have encouraged you to question your life and the world around you. It does not have to be this way.
With Love and Respect
Scott McCarthy
2014
Artificial Integrity 