My co-worker and I often find ourselves arguing with each other over our differing political ideologies. We generally agree on many issues of necessary liberties, but we disagree on the best way to achieve them. He is a hardline Libertarian, while I would easily opt for a benevolent dictatorship (assuming that I am the dictator, of course). I will, however, settle for democratic socialism. My co-worker argues that a law which restricts any freedom is unjust, while I argue that allowing others the freedom to exploit weaker individuals is unjust. He responds that a truly free society will keep itself in check by the naturally balancing forces of competition. This is a very hypothetical situation he is talking about, but I understand his point. I see it in the distance, obscured by the mists of unattainable utopias. It is because of my empathy for his argument that I've been looking forward to reading a book he's given me, "The Road to Serfdom," and to really contemplating its ideas.
My model of understanding society is moderately complicated: From an observable standpoint, we're always making new rules, laws and customs, seeing them as the solution to the problems of yesterday, today and tomorrow. When a new technology springs up, we create rules to govern it. When a human rights issue rears its ugly head, we slap on protocols to heal it. What we don't see is the multiplicative entropy that creates volatility under the surface of these patches. The more we streamline the surface, the wider the fissure when it ruptures. We make moderate rules under which to govern a diverse population, but the idealism present in human nature drives us away from the middle, polarizing us until we have a fundamental split. The question is not how to avoid this chaos, but how to minimize it.
I have what I call the Lazy Society Conjecture. It is fairly easy to explain: As society becomes more and more complex and diverse, default societal stability becomes only obtainable in absolute environments. There cannot be restful equilibrium within a government comprised of both liberties and restrictions. Going to extremes provides us with theoretical supports on which to lean, providing a standard judgment for any situation, thus making government basic and uncomplicated. Attempting to balance between the two poles of absolute freedom and absolute oppression provides too many theoretical opportunities to make lawful decisions to ever find a "happy medium." When you make a ruling on one front, you are opening yourself up for exploitation on other fronts. Combine this with the natural evolution of human rights, technology and spirituality and it adds up to a fantastic balancing act that a government must perform to keep from corruption. When I think about the goal of society, I consider this along with the concession that neither absolute is ideal. In other words, any utopia requires constant vigilance to balance the two sides.
There is another layer of complexity that I like to add to my conjecture, which is analyzing the steps necessary to convert our current society into the one I wish it were. Currently, our society is a lot like the bundle of wires that leads out from the back of my computer. If you try to disconnect one wire, you need to unravel all of them if you ever hope to completely extricate it from the tangled mess. In fact, the benefit of technology makes society so sensitive to incremental change that any single step in one direction will instantly spur a reactionary movement in the opposite direction. What I'm saying is that a society based on individualism (a democracy of any flavor) ain't goin' nowhere if it don't wanna.
In his lecture about the real difference between liberals and conservatives, Jonathan Haidt highlights 5 pillars of society: Caring, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. In the end, the difference is simple: extreme liberals value caring and fairness in society way above the other aspects, while extreme conservatives favor all five equally high. Alas, society is filled with people who land all over the spectrum and this diversity is necessary for both the sustenance and the progression, despite the fact that both sides would sooner be rid of the other. Without liberals, conservatives will stagnate and be usurped. Without conservatives, liberals will combust through rapid expenditure of energy without foundation. The answer to the question of minimizing chaos is to embrace a moderate society. Then, once you embrace it, you must fight as hard as you can to keep it there.
More extreme government styles can work better in more homogeneous countries where there are fewer outsiders. I've stated before that nationalism is ridiculous, but from a practical standpoint, it can be utilized by governments to push a single-sided government plan. To bring it all together: a diverse society is naturally driven to a moderate government and both sides must fight to maintain this balance. Winner-take-all agendas from either side lead to structural volatility. As a society, we must embrace the challenge of appeasing both sides of the aisle, as this will reduce the chances and effects of otherwise cataclysmic events. Governmental elasticity must be seen as agility, not vulnerability.
Notice, though, that I do not mention how money plays into any of this. It is a different plane of argument that I will tackle when I visit this subject again soon.
2 nibbles: