Feeling Around the Dimension of Political Liberty
By John Taylor; 2009 Aug 22, Asma 03, 166 BE
This summer I am writing, day by day, what I hope will become a draft of a longer book about how a world government may transform democracy, consultation and architecture. A few days ago I wrote the following sentence:
"Just as we inhabit space that can be mapped in three dimensions, every choice we make in our lives must negotiate a position in three dimensions of freedom, religious, scientific and political."
Going over my notes on freedom it has become clear that I will have to forget about the book for the time being and write in my normal way about these three dimensions. I will start today with a chronological overview of the political dimension of liberty.
Political Freedom
The first brief but brilliant experiment in democracy took place in Ancient Athens. Pericles, in his famous Funeral Oration praising the freedom that he had helped his city attain, declared that the freedom to know is one of the foundations of democratic freedom.
"We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy, than to the native spirit of our citizens." (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book II, 39)
The open access to information that Athens pioneered has now become the heart and soul of the computer and internet revolution.
Another foundation of freedom is moderation. The Golden Mean always was and still remains the basis of any successful religion and pious life. In a play written for a religious festival, Aeschylus wrote,
"Neither a life of anarchy nor one beneath a despot should you praise; to all that lies in the middle a god has given excellence."
In politics, the same rule applies. A swing to the far left or the far right lands up in the same place: slavery and tyranny. Plato in the Republic explained how this principle extends throughout nature, from the balance of nature in an ecological system to the ways of men,
"The excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and the vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government. The excess of liberty, whether in states or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery." (Republic, Book IX. p. 311)
Unfortunately, in any group, the immoderate tend to outnumber the temperate, and even when they are few they inevitably shout louder. Thus, the strident easily dominate the discourse and the next step is reaction against the free discussion that is the foundation of democracy. Aesop told a fable about this called "The frogs desiring a king." The frogs tired of the anarchy of their life and petitioned Jove to send them a king. Jove threw them a log, but they soon lost their fear and jumped all over it.
"But this did not suit them, so they sent another petition to Jove, and said to him, `We want a real king; one that will really rule over us.' Now this made Jove angry, so he sent among them a big Stork that soon set to work gobbling them all up. Then the Frogs repented when too late. Better no rule than cruel rule."
Nor is there any need for cruelty. The very fact that the fate of a people is entrusted to the hands of an individual is usually enough for injustice to be done, especially when that people confronts a larger, far wealthier developed country. For example, I live on land that in the 18th Century was granted by the British to the Six Nations Confederacy. Title to the land was entrusted to its leader, Joseph Brant, who gradually sold most of it off to white settlers. Today Brant's name is understandably anathema to his people, in spite of the fact that what he did was understandable, since he had something like 16 children to feed. It would have taken great integrity to keep his hands off his people's heritage.
This story of graft, greed and corruption by trustees has been retold throughout the so-called Third World. The precious wealth of hundreds of hapless peoples and sovereign nations are routinely exchanged for a surreptitious suitcase of cash. Truly, Pericles was correct when he said that benefits of open access to information far outweigh the losses.
However, assuming that there is honesty and dependability in individuals, we often best serve freedom by letting others go about their business unhindered. The Laissez Faire approach so prevalent in capitalism today has its philosophical roots in stoic philosophy and Far Eastern sages. For example, Lao-Tzu wrote,
"If a ruler abides by its [the Tao] principles,
then her people will willingly follow.
Heaven would then reign on earth,
like sweet rain falling on paradise.
People would have no need for laws,
because the law would be written on their hearts.
(Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tzu, J. H. McDonald, tr., ch. 32)
The contribution of Christianity to our understanding of political Laissez Faire was its emphasis that freedom is an essential element of love. "Set free that you may be freed." God makes us free, so we in gratitude should follow the same example,
"Which of you, by being anxious, can add one cubit to the measure of his life? Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They do not toil, neither do they spin, yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these." (Matt 6:27-29, WEB)
Although Marcus Aurelius was a Roman Emperor and a persecutor of early Christians, he reflected this spiritual principle of freedom as letting human nature run its course when he wrote,
"The universal cause is like a winter torrent: it carries everything along with it. But how worthless are all these poor people who are engaged in matters political ... All drivellers. Well then, man: do what nature now requires. Set thyself in motion, if it is in thy power, and do not look about thee to see if any one will observe it; nor yet expect Plato's Republic: but be content if the smallest thing goes on well, and consider such an event to be no small matter. For who can change men's opinions [or: principles]? And without a change of opinions what else is there than the slavery of men who groan while they pretend to obey?" (Meditations, 9:29)
Marcus was a philosopher with the power, theoretically, to be the philosopher king to which Plato's Republic was dedicated. Yet here he renounces even the dream of the Republic coming about in his lifetime. As he says, human power, especially in the hands of an individual, is severely limited and has little influence over the principles by which politics operate. The only choice we have as individuals is to look to what little freedom is given us. Beyond that, let God or nature do the rest. Such is the greater part of political freedom.
Today it is recognized that we can influence men's principles, albeit slowly and indirectly, by means of universal public education. At the same time, though, public education serves the interests of the state, which are not the same as those of the people, or for that matter, of freedom. Let me close with the warning that J.S. Mill gave in the last paragraph of his classic, On Liberty.
"A government cannot have too much of the kind of activity which does not impede, but aids and stimulates, individual exertion and development. The mischief begins when, instead of calling forth the activity and powers of individuals and bodies, it substitutes its own activity for theirs; when, instead of informing, advising, and upon occasion denouncing, it makes them work in fetters or bids them stand aside and does their work instead of them. The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish." (Mill, On Liberty, p. 186)
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.comblog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment