The Price Of Liberty
What is liberty? There are so many ways to approach this question, not just because different fields of study have their own methods of defining the term, such as politics, economy and philosophy, but also because the term itself is interpreted in many varied ways with very nuanced differences.
Image by TheDigitalArtist - source: Pixabay
The word "liberty" is often primarily associated with "natural rights" as opposed to "legal rights." This immediately opens up a whole can of worms, because I've never understood what "natural rights" are. I know what the definition is, but when I read that, I see a description of something that doesn't exist. They are supposed to be eternal and unalienable, we're all born with the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Well, I'm sorry, but that's just fantasy island; if you're born in the wrong place or time, you just die, or become a feral child, or stay bound to a fate of a life long struggle for survival. There are no natural rights, so sorry, Locke, Rousseau et al, you're just wrong. There are only the rights we permit each other to have.
So, what is freedom? Broadly speaking it is the ability to do as one pleases, which implies the absence of any elevated power. But as we're talking about "the ability" to do something, we should add that liberty is what one has the power to do. Since freedom implies the absence of any elevated power, the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people can be achieved only when all individuals can wield the same amount of power; in a free society power needs to be distributed as evenly as humanly possible. We've devised a tool to approach this ideal situation and it's called "democracy."
Actually it's not a tool, but much more a cultural trait; we've been raised with the myths of freedom, the aforementioned "natural rights" being a part of that mythology, as well as the fairy tales about benevolent kings and sleeping beauty princesses and future kings turned amphibian. It's a mishmash of stories, memes and societal structuring in which free people are married to age old power structures. But we're nevertheless raised with a strong sense of our individuality, agency and freedom, and the democratic principle begins within the family. Gone are the days of the authoritarian families, when dad earned all the money and made all the decisions; now even something as important as which school to visit, or as trivial as where to go on vacation, are all discussed between the partners and even the children have a vote when they're old enough. A democracy isn't just a form of political organization, but much more than that; it's our human approximation of the natural rights we imagine we're born with.
Tribute To Rockefeller (1937)
The story of the benevolent king now has a modern counterpart; the philanthropic billionaire. It's just one of the many memes that fools us into believing the impossible; that freedom can be achieved in a society with a rigid power structure. Material wealth is the foundation upon which all power rests and it doesn't matter if it's the king or the billionaire who wields it; the ultimate goals is ALWAYS to keep the structure intact, to not shake it's foundation. That's why benevolent kings and philanthropic billionaires are such an integral part of our shared cultural headcanon; in the video above you can see how John D. Rockefeller, one of modern history's greatest criminals who became the world's first billionaire in 1916, is depicted as a genuine saint. This saint learned how to do business from his father, William Rockefeller Sr., who was a traveling snake-oil salesman; traveling because he was always on the run from customers whom he had cheated. For a more accurate description of the world's first philanthropic billionaire, see the video at the end of this post.
Eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty, and being aware of the memes that support the plutocracy is step one. Capitalism is founded on the accumulation of material wealth, and thus power. It's just the newest iteration of the justification of the age old power structure that has been with us all through human history and has had many social manifestations, like slavery and feudalism. Traditionally, the most famous use of "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" that’s included in books of quotations is from a speech made by the American Abolitionist and liberal activist Wendell Phillips on January 28, 1852.
Speaking to members of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society that day, Phillips said:
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity."
source: this day in quotes
So little has actually changed. Democracy exists in our culture, in our heads and as a way of doing things on very small scales, but not as a political or economical reality because we still believe in benevolent kings and abide by the rules of the game that creates their modern counterparts through the accumulation of individual wealth. As long as this is the case, we will never achieve a state maximal freedom. "Eternal vigilance" in this reality entails the redistribution of wealth from top to bottom. Many will recoil at the thought of "wealth-redistribution," but I ask you to consider what an economy is. I'll help you: economy in itself IS the redistribution of wealth, it's just that we've foolishly agreed upon a method that redistributes from bottom to top, a trickle-up economy.
The Last Word on Snake Oil
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!
Recent articles you might be interested in:
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | Ariel Got A Tan |
|---|---|
| Democracy For Sale | Desirable Incarceration |
| Would You Like To Know More? | Kildall & Kramer |
| Kindergarten Panopticon | How Big Is The Observable Universe? |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!
Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:
Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO
@helpie is a WITNESS now! So please help @helpie help you by voting for us here!
Actually, I would say that no one really believes in a benevolent king or millionaire, nor ever has. The majority of people are either too busy to think about or too realistic to fall for the fact that there are many humanists among the established structures. We all know that grown structures tend to want to preserve themselves, we ourselves are no different. If someone were to ask us to give up the family or professional advantages we have created through relationships, we would say "no" to that too. Why give up something that took a long time and a lot of energy? I see it that you speak of a cultural phenomenon, since it is ideal figures from film and cinema and the media in general who portray a good-hearted ruler. But surely these humanists have existed and will continue to exist. They are the bright exception to the rule and their radiance and influence should not be underestimated, precisely because they represent a minority and can move a lot that the masses never moved or aspired to, but merely imitated or followed in parts. So now the uncovering and denigrating of black sheep, capital locusts and so on belongs to the good tone of investigative journalism, just as the reporter wants to report about it when something good happens in a society.
Since we live in an age of great scales and central elements control people's destinies, there is probably no really good and plausible way to turn a central power structure into a decentralized one, except to make global peace and allow local solutions to energy and supply issues to evolve. The one often contradicts the other and so over the centuries we experience a wave movement that sometimes expresses itself in conflict and war.
Capitalism has many downsides. But without this form of economic activity nobody could afford a health system and people would have to pay their doctor's bills and operations themselves or die or remain ill like before.
In fact, I would like to contradict you repeatedly as far as the faith of the populations in benevolent kings is concerned. Much more is criticized, questioned, demonstrated, researched, published and what the classical media no longer produce is now taken over by the citizens themselves. But the question is whether the citizen is really so much better than what he reproaches the rulers for.
The Internet age is just like the newspaper and television in its infancy. People try themselves as journalists and television makers in all kinds of fields of interest and learn that television makers require certain professional qualities. It's interesting to see how dilettantism alternates with professionalism on the channels and people who really want to make quality realize how expensive it is. Not so much in technical equipment, but in time. So those who have this time live from the goodwill of others who still earn their own money in classical works. Most of it is uninteresting and boring or very stressful and full of time constraints.
I suppose about five percent of the population manages to make a living from their creative ideas and designs, the rest would like to, but can't. Nevertheless, we have much more freedom than people had in the Middle Ages, and perhaps much less freedom than people had in the days of hunter-gatherer communities.
Inasmuch as you know a charismatic and kind-hearted both immaculate person, I would suggest that you support them as much as you can and support their influence in spreading it. In fact, this is no easy question: Who is such a person? Do we know him personally? How can one even judge such a person? I suspect that people who are not guilty of malice and other vices could step into the light all by themselves and be supported by the masses, because what is real and true is actually much more interesting to support. It's a personal question of focus.
You're addressing fundamental questions, I think that's necessary. On the other hand, it distracts from detail. These details are often very interesting, such as organizing democratic structures differently, for example through systemic consensus. But things first have to be put into practice and you have to report on them. Only companies or associations have practical examples to offer. Such examples can be researched and disseminated as examples in a publication.
Thanks so much for this well thought out and eloquent response my friend :-) I agree with a lot of what you're saying here; I just draw very different conclusions.
Yes, much more freedom through technological progress, not due to essential differences in the economies of these eras. Slavery, feudalism and capitalism are all predicated on the same class structure, nothing fundamental has changed; still the masses work for the benefit of the few.
Nah, you're way too optimistic here. Capitalism has almost no upsides and produces the sociopaths who sit atop Mount Plutocrat.
It's the opposite; too much attention to detail distracts from the systemic failures that can only be detected from the helicopter-view. And the choice of detail to focus on is skewed heavily toward said distraction as to uphold the myth of the benevolent king.
I've bookmarked the link on systemic consensus and will read that later; thanks for bringing that to my attention :-)
Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate a discussion partner who accepts different views or cultivates an elegant debating style.
I would once again contradict the mention of the myth you say is consistent. In no historical record does there seem to be evidence that there were benevolent rulers who ruled their people justly and for the good of all. From a certain magnitude - in which we live today - a consensus-oriented community does not seem possible. We all know the situation where no consensus can be found when the debate is hot and the result is inability to decide, even hostility. However, the fact that consensus can very well be found by means of a formal method and that these ideas have to be made public as practical examples in order to be understood and established in the long term is the detail I am talking about. I am not talking about distraction and compensation, but about innovation of social coexistence. Only when the meta-view has taken place and one looks at the systems a little emotionless (but not without compassion) can one move calmly in them. This view should, however, lead to practice, less in discussions about the new practice, but more in real experience.
Apart from that: The majority of the people, i.e. the citizens, are either tired or upset. I rarely see people who don't get upset, who read the headlines full of worries, who talk about injustice and dissatisfaction, who at the same time radiate an aura of inspiration and charm. Ordinary people know little or nothing about details. Now you don't have to accuse anyone of it, because the accusation is of little use.
The average person is the one who likes to criticize innovation the most, because he deals with the usual and familiar and doesn't want it any other way. I live with people in a city who want virtually nothing to do with what has not yet gained popularity and who simply reject ideas that are heard before their time because they are not interested in thinking them through in detail and consistency or do not understand them at all from the outset. Nobody can blame them for this either. I say this because I, too, am an ordinary person who, in parts, has conservative attitudes without perhaps really knowing about them. You can't investigate everything. That's why I've given up searching for culprits either horizontally or vertically; or try to :).
But if you ask me, the citizen is often enough himself the strongest enemy, less the rich or the unknown millionaire. Look at people's living rooms and gardens, their books, their furnishings, their desires and needs: You will find that they are very similar and the urge to adapt is very strong.
I remember when nobody knew UBI I was looked at very funny and smiled at. But I was only fascinated by it and went into a deep study of matter. This led me to take a far more differentiated view than I would have initially suspected. It was only after the confrontation that it became clear to me that there were no simple solutions. Not because they don't exist, but because people don't like to believe in them.
I like experiments and therefore I also like the idea of systemic consensus. It doesn't sound spectacular at all in theory. It's a very dull and seemingly incomprehensible word. But in practice! Oh, how nice it is to be a witness and experience such things!
This is an aspect of freedom that everyone in their group can try out. An experience and an idea that is so practical that you can try it everywhere. In the long run this may change something about capitalism.
Wow... Much respect my friend, not only for exhibiting such innate curiosity about all different angles from which this subject can be approached, but also for your ability to put such important concepts, like "real change is a bottom-up process" and "democracy can't work without a basic consensus-model," in such plain words. I love your attitude and have much respect for the way you face life and humanity. In the end I believe that we agree much more than we disagree, and that we would have to dive deeper into what all discussed terms mean to us personally, for example what capitalism is exactly, or economy in general for that matter...
I see that you write quite regularly, so I've started following you :-)
I really love this response @erh.germany, and I encourage everyone to read it :-)
Wow here, too! I am delighted that you read so accurately between the lines and communicate back to me the messages I wanted to cover, in particular what you called "democracy can't work without a basic consensus-model". That hits the nail. I am certain of the fact that majority voting methods work against democracy and leave room for many dissatisfactions.
I so hope you will react on my article I linked in my first comment here. For the experiment I need much more data and feedback. But maybe you have time and interest to open up a new round with maybe another proposals. As maybe the theme I discussed an wanted to vote for was too complicated. Please let me know what you think. Thank you.
I'm chronically out of time, so I can't delve too deep in there with you ;-) I did read your article however, and must say I like the premise a lot. I don't think the theme you chose is too difficult. I believe you explained very clearly what "risk journalism" entails and the 13 "resistance choices" you lay out are pretty straightforward too; as they should be in a functional democracy :-) Here's my score:
Like I said: the premise is great and I agree that this more nuanced way of making choices should lead to a lot less friction in the democratic process. Makes one wonder: why don't proposals like these ever really see the light of day?
Cool, thank you!
As we are now 4 people, I evaluated our results and here they are:
The least resistance was here:
"Risk journalism is needed"
which obviously doesn't say a thing about the quality. But included other statements, it does give also information about it, as the second place with the least resistance is:
"Risk journalists should consider scientists as well as laymen and other professionals in their reporting"
And rank 3 in the least resistance is this proposal, which I find really interesting:
"Sensationalism is harmful to every publication in risk journalism, even though a reporting contains correct facts & figures".
How on earth can majority voting come to such a result if one is forced to choose for only one thing? I am glad you got the idea immediately. So, if a chief editor makes a research on what his readers would like to read, this would be a great method to find that out.
For the sake of better seeing our dialogue I give myself a vote. Which I normally don't do.
Again, thank you so much!
I wonder. Maybe because people only follow what they already know?
Internet is empty on this term. It's an unused one. And maybe people mostly talk but don't invest time in things which need more effort than usually.
We would have to question some things.
Could a drug addict be considered free if the law allowed him to buy drugs without restrictions?
We could say that he buys because he wants it, but we could also say that his will is even more subordinated to a narcotic than an employee is subordinated to a boss, that is, there can be a dependency relationship even though it is an object inanimate.
On the other hand, what happens if someone does what they want only because someone else is allowing it? we could have a perfect illusion of freedom, but this illusion would only be sustained on the premise that whoever has the power voluntarily decides not to use it. As Bolivar said: we should not confuse license with freedom.
I am not sure of that, in fact, some might say that material wealth is a consequence of power, and this always resides in force or the illusion of force.
Finally, we would have to define democracy, because what exists right now in the West is just a representative government that sometimes uses moderately democratic criteria to choose its rulers, but it is not really a democracy, not even the Greeks of ancient Athens had a real democracy in their society.
Interesting publication by the way.
I'm glad you found it interesting my friend :-) And thanks for the added nuance; to properly address this topic I guess nothing less than a series of books will suffice... That's why I started with the simplest and most used short definition of freedom, democracy, power and so on, and only from one perspective of course ;-)
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
Hi @zyx066!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.508 which ranks you at #6348 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 24 places in the last three days (old rank 6324).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 266 contributions, your post is ranked at #124.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server