By way of review, there are three legitimate interests of government which overlap to some degree, but which also stand in opposition to each other to some degree - liberty, equality, and fraternity (human fellowship). Liberty allows for freedom of action, but paradoxically requires restrictions imposed by law. Equality seeks to demolish social stratification and encourages hard work in the lower classes and demands it in the upper classes. Equality strives for equal results, but through hard work and other social improvements, such as universal education. Fraternity demands that the well-being of each member of society be considered and fostered to the extent possible on a systemic level, that each member of society be provided with a purpose if necessary, but also that social structures should be as lateral (non-hierarchical) as possible.
In considering any public policy concern, these are the three factors which must be weighed against each other, and a sort of cost-benefit analysis conducted. Legitimate government allows for this analysis in such a way as to maximize adherence to the conclusion, but also in such a way as to most easily discard irrational and clearly erroneous conclusions. I suspect that there is never one clear answer to any given problem, but rather that there is a set of acceptable answers from which to choose, and that each society must be free to conduct their own cost-benefit analysis and determine their own solutions.
First, these three principles (particularly those of equality and fraternity) indicate a basic governmental system based in a democratic process. However, it does not indicate a pure democracy. Pure democracy would simply mean that the will of the majority prevails in every circumstance brought before it. This can be dangerous, as some of the ancient Athenians would no doubt testify. It was because of the will of the majority that Socrates was sentenced to death, an indisputable failure of pure democracy. Pure democracy can infringe on the liberty interests of others by including clearly erroneous and illogical solutions into the set of possible solutions for society to choose from. Thus, there must be a democratic system, limited to some degree by a Constitution. A Constitution is principally a guarantor of the liberty interests of minorities from the vagaries of a democracy. This restricts the set of available solutions to those which result from a logical cost-benefit analysis. Other elements may be included in any particular Constitution, but this is the primary purpose in a legitimate government.
Second, the liberty interests may be divided into two categories. Transitory vs. inalienable. Transitory rights are those which may vary from society to society and from time to time. For example, France has recently decided to provide its citizens with the right to get faulty breast implants removed at no direct cost to the patient. This may or may not change in France, but certainly varies by society. Other rights are deemed inalienable. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. However, this is largely based on John Locke's philosophy, which seems to me to have some serious flaws. Chiefly, Locke's approach is far too atomistic, taking individuals as the basic unit of society. However, as I've indicated in previous posts, I really disagree with this view. Individuals depend on society and society depends on individuals. Neither is more basic than the other. Thus, society (and government as the rough expression of the will of society), far from being a system perversely imposed upon individuals, is part of an essential relationship. It is in the nature of this relationship that any inalienable rights arise, not in the nature of the "basic" individual. Therefore, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may indeed be inalienable rights, but this should be revisited and reanalyzed rather than taken as gospel truth. To be complete, a Constitution ought to indicate what are recognized as inalienable rights, as well as provide for a means by which any new insights may be accommodated and made part of the Constitution.
Thus, we see that a legitimate government is democratic at its base, limited by a Constitution, which provides for both transitory and inalienable rights. Any other differences in how particular societies solve similar problems and balance the interests of liberty, equality, and fraternity is irrelevant, so long as the process itself is legitimate. This should be the primary goal of each independent state, and perhaps, the goal of our foreign policy.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Fraternite
I have delayed writing this post. I fear that other conservatives might feel that I am off base, that I am actually a "bleeding-heart liberal," and no conservative at all. However, I believe that for the conservative movement in America to flourish, we must accommodate the values which lie at the heart of our classical liberal tradition. Failure to do so will only further alienate others from our cause, or if we are successful politically but have surrendered those values then we will only succeed in moving America towards a dictatorial form of government because the only interest in such political success is merely the possession and exercise of power.
Brotherhood - Fellowship - Family - these are the concepts communicated by the term "Fraternite." "Brotherhood" is a bit too exclusionary of a term for today's world and the term "Family" might introduce unsettling paternalistic tendencies in a discussion of government, law and public policy. "Fellowship," or "Human Fellowship," I think most accurately captures the intended meaning. Two thoughts regarding "Human Fellowship" occur to me; 1) each person has a role, a place in society, a purpose; and 2) the interests of others, i.e. their welfare, plays a role in public policy decisions and in structuring the law.
In an order of Human Fellowship, each person has a role, a recognized and valued responsibility, a purpose. The importance of having a valued role in society is demonstrated by the psychological harm to those who are long-term unemployed during major economic downturns. They are rejected in their previous role by society, then effectively told that there is no place for them elsewhere. They are unneeded, undesired. This is a horrible situation which ought to be avoided if at all possible. In a stable social order, the various possible roles in society are well defined, although such a social order often includes limitations placed on individuals' eligibility for those roles. Thus, one's purpose in life is generally defined at birth. Such a system is undoubtedly disconcerting to the modern mind, but we ought not to overlook the positives. There would, I believe, be great comfort in knowing that one's role is valued, has a proud history, and that one need not constantly consider whether their life is "fulfilling." However, we should not over-idealize something which is problematic. In such a system, the talented and skilled would often be consigned to roles into which they do not fit. They would likely experience intense internal conflict between the comfort previously indicated and the knowledge, even if vague, that one is not living up to their potential. Thus, there is great value in allowing individuals to find their own role in society. However, this approach often results in a social order of change, with ill-defined roles, making the search for one's own role incredibly more difficult. Although people have the liberty to choose their own course in life, and what role they will fill, there is near constant anxiety that one is not fulfilling THEIR role. From the above, it may seem to some that a stable social order has more to offer than a changing one. I believe, however, that this is an illusion. There is no such thing as a truly stable social order. The very nature of society is to change and evolve over time as conditions change and the members which make it up change. The values and needs of society are in a constant state of flux, sometimes changing quickly, sometimes slowly, but always moving on to something different. To rigidly hold on to any specific social order and its accompanying roles will only cause society to stagnate, whither and die. Thus, a healthy vibrant society requires a social order which can accommodate such change but still provide a valued role for every member of it.
In terms of the economy, I believe that there is value in the social safety nets which have been created, e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment benefits. However, I think these safety nets can overlook a necessary factor. These programs often focus on the need for people to know that they are valued, even when they are the lowliest of society. This is only half of the picture. They also need to know that they serve a purpose, that their role is valued. Because people identify themselves by the role they play, to indicate that their role is valued is to indicate that they are valued. Thus, in some cases, to truly extend the benefits of the social safety nets, it would also be necessary to extend a role for the beneficiary to play. This leads to my second thought on "Human Fellowship," that the welfare of others plays a role in public policy decisions and the structure of the law.
I will consider here the structure of the law. Interestingly, the basic social structure indicated by "Fraternite" is not hierarchical but lateral. If one were to think of it in terms of an actual family, it might be similar to one in which the siblings have all grown up, and the parents have now deceased. There is no set hierarchy, but there is mutual support and concern, each fulfilling a role according to their abilities and the needs of the others. Is it possible to create a legal structure which approaches such a lateral structure? While allowing anybody to serve in the government and requiring periodic reviews of public servants' performance is possibly the best governmental structure, what of the structure of the law itself? I am struck here by the fact that in such a familial approach, the concern with "justice" is less pronounced. While we all want to be treated fairly, there are times at which it is best to overlook one's own interest in "justice" and look more towards repairing and strengthening relationships. I don't believe that in one's personal life one should overlook when others have slighted you, but rather than being chiefly concerned with oneself and one's own hurt and demand for "justice," one should realize that the slight has harmed your relationship and appropriate measures should be taken to repair it. Sometimes such measures mean to reestablish appropriate boundaries of behavior, but not always, and even when it does, the means by which those boundaries are reestablished are important as it will redefine the relationship. Similarly, the law is chiefly concerned with relationships and the strain and harm done to them by the acts of at least one party. A legal structure based on "Human Fellowship" would focus chiefly on the relationship, considering how to repair it and what means to employ in reestablishing appropriate boundaries of behavior.
This was the basic idea of the prison system when it was first established. Alexis de Tocqueville (the author of Democracy in America) was technically sent to our new nation to study our revolutionary prison system. It had piqued the interest of those in Europe because the theory of our prison system was to reform those who were incarcerated. Historically, offenders were simply punished, often publicly. The punishment itself was meant to reinforce appropriate behavior in others. Those crazy Americans thought that they could reform members of society who had strayed and accordingly abolished cruel and unusual punishments. This interest in reforming wayward members of society, or rather, in repairing social relationships, is I think a proud American tradition that we should bear in mind, and which our legal system should more adequately reflect.
Brotherhood - Fellowship - Family - these are the concepts communicated by the term "Fraternite." "Brotherhood" is a bit too exclusionary of a term for today's world and the term "Family" might introduce unsettling paternalistic tendencies in a discussion of government, law and public policy. "Fellowship," or "Human Fellowship," I think most accurately captures the intended meaning. Two thoughts regarding "Human Fellowship" occur to me; 1) each person has a role, a place in society, a purpose; and 2) the interests of others, i.e. their welfare, plays a role in public policy decisions and in structuring the law.
In an order of Human Fellowship, each person has a role, a recognized and valued responsibility, a purpose. The importance of having a valued role in society is demonstrated by the psychological harm to those who are long-term unemployed during major economic downturns. They are rejected in their previous role by society, then effectively told that there is no place for them elsewhere. They are unneeded, undesired. This is a horrible situation which ought to be avoided if at all possible. In a stable social order, the various possible roles in society are well defined, although such a social order often includes limitations placed on individuals' eligibility for those roles. Thus, one's purpose in life is generally defined at birth. Such a system is undoubtedly disconcerting to the modern mind, but we ought not to overlook the positives. There would, I believe, be great comfort in knowing that one's role is valued, has a proud history, and that one need not constantly consider whether their life is "fulfilling." However, we should not over-idealize something which is problematic. In such a system, the talented and skilled would often be consigned to roles into which they do not fit. They would likely experience intense internal conflict between the comfort previously indicated and the knowledge, even if vague, that one is not living up to their potential. Thus, there is great value in allowing individuals to find their own role in society. However, this approach often results in a social order of change, with ill-defined roles, making the search for one's own role incredibly more difficult. Although people have the liberty to choose their own course in life, and what role they will fill, there is near constant anxiety that one is not fulfilling THEIR role. From the above, it may seem to some that a stable social order has more to offer than a changing one. I believe, however, that this is an illusion. There is no such thing as a truly stable social order. The very nature of society is to change and evolve over time as conditions change and the members which make it up change. The values and needs of society are in a constant state of flux, sometimes changing quickly, sometimes slowly, but always moving on to something different. To rigidly hold on to any specific social order and its accompanying roles will only cause society to stagnate, whither and die. Thus, a healthy vibrant society requires a social order which can accommodate such change but still provide a valued role for every member of it.
In terms of the economy, I believe that there is value in the social safety nets which have been created, e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment benefits. However, I think these safety nets can overlook a necessary factor. These programs often focus on the need for people to know that they are valued, even when they are the lowliest of society. This is only half of the picture. They also need to know that they serve a purpose, that their role is valued. Because people identify themselves by the role they play, to indicate that their role is valued is to indicate that they are valued. Thus, in some cases, to truly extend the benefits of the social safety nets, it would also be necessary to extend a role for the beneficiary to play. This leads to my second thought on "Human Fellowship," that the welfare of others plays a role in public policy decisions and the structure of the law.
I will consider here the structure of the law. Interestingly, the basic social structure indicated by "Fraternite" is not hierarchical but lateral. If one were to think of it in terms of an actual family, it might be similar to one in which the siblings have all grown up, and the parents have now deceased. There is no set hierarchy, but there is mutual support and concern, each fulfilling a role according to their abilities and the needs of the others. Is it possible to create a legal structure which approaches such a lateral structure? While allowing anybody to serve in the government and requiring periodic reviews of public servants' performance is possibly the best governmental structure, what of the structure of the law itself? I am struck here by the fact that in such a familial approach, the concern with "justice" is less pronounced. While we all want to be treated fairly, there are times at which it is best to overlook one's own interest in "justice" and look more towards repairing and strengthening relationships. I don't believe that in one's personal life one should overlook when others have slighted you, but rather than being chiefly concerned with oneself and one's own hurt and demand for "justice," one should realize that the slight has harmed your relationship and appropriate measures should be taken to repair it. Sometimes such measures mean to reestablish appropriate boundaries of behavior, but not always, and even when it does, the means by which those boundaries are reestablished are important as it will redefine the relationship. Similarly, the law is chiefly concerned with relationships and the strain and harm done to them by the acts of at least one party. A legal structure based on "Human Fellowship" would focus chiefly on the relationship, considering how to repair it and what means to employ in reestablishing appropriate boundaries of behavior.
This was the basic idea of the prison system when it was first established. Alexis de Tocqueville (the author of Democracy in America) was technically sent to our new nation to study our revolutionary prison system. It had piqued the interest of those in Europe because the theory of our prison system was to reform those who were incarcerated. Historically, offenders were simply punished, often publicly. The punishment itself was meant to reinforce appropriate behavior in others. Those crazy Americans thought that they could reform members of society who had strayed and accordingly abolished cruel and unusual punishments. This interest in reforming wayward members of society, or rather, in repairing social relationships, is I think a proud American tradition that we should bear in mind, and which our legal system should more adequately reflect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)