Freedom cannot be left unrestricted, and I have come to accept this based on ideas from Locke and Jefferson: That freedom for one can cause a lack of freedom (the state of injustice) for another. For example, if I steal your car, I have a new freedom from that car, but your freedom has been restricted by my actions, which is unjust. However, if I purchase your car from you without coercion or dishonesty on either part, we both enjoy the liberty that allowed the transaction.
Because human nature is inherently selfish, and because some people are truly evil, a political system is required to keep honest people honest and protect us from evil people. We need to restrict some of our own freedoms to protect our whole freedom from others. The trick is to balance protection and freedom within the political system.
Therefore, a political system that would make sense to me would allow as much freedom as possible, while protecting me in the event that another entity or individual tried to restrict my freedom. Democracy provides a means for me to influence the political system that oversees my society; democracy allows the people in a society to make decisions that restrict freedom and oppresses groups of people. Democracy has its pros and cons. Is there a system that provides as much freedom as democracy without as much injustice? My answer to that is, “Not yet.”
I do not think that a new political system is necessary to provide more freedom. The problems that exist in our democracy are not the cause of the system, they are caused by the people. Instead of changing the system, we need to change the people. It is possible that simply by changing a paradigm among the people in a system, they can make better use of that system.
It is possible that the most efficient and effective method to spread a paradigm is through the corporations who are causing so many problems today. That is where I think the value of freedom and the concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility meet. The latter can be used to increase the former.
3 comments:
So, what would be an example of a change in a paradigm? In my workplace, where we share information rather than "horde it for sale" (proprietary), we are often frustrated by the very system that makes it all possible. I often wonder if we aren't growing too large. I ponder 'economies of scale.'
I like how you are gradually building up this topic. It's logical and I can follow it well...
When I hear a conversation like this, I often think of the speech Benjamin Franklin wrote for the Constitutional Convention. He was too weak to deliver it himself, so James Wilson of Pennsylvania read it for him. After an introduction deferring the judgment to others on whether to adopt the document, Franklin says:
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?"
Is our system perfect? Or near perfection? Have we become corrupt as a people, and therefore need a corrupt government? Is the government corrupt? If so, is the government corrupt because of the people's corruption, or is the people's corruption because of the governors of our system?
Wow. Well said Mark. I had not seen this quote previously and have never considered whom is corrupting whom.
Post a Comment