        _________________________
        |File by: Dr. .narchist | 
         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this section is to define liberalism, and the differences 
between it and other political ideologies.

In defining the differences between liberalism and conservatism, there are 
five main political spectrums to consider. These are:

1. Individualism vs. Altruism 
2. Anarchy vs. Organization 
3. Democracy vs. Constitutionalism 
4. Equality vs. Merit 
5. Competition vs. Cooperation 

Let's define each spectrum, and see where liberalism and conservatism 
reside on them. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spectrum One: Individualism vs. Altruism 

An individualist (in this case) is someone who is 100 percent 
self-interested. An altruist is someone who is 100 percent interested in 
the well-being of others. Of course, there is a spectrum between these two 
positions.

There are many ways to believe in pure individualism and still allow that 
individuals can cooperate in the sort of interdependent, specialized 
society that makes us all richer. Libertarians and extreme conservatives 
believe in the "invisible hand," a term coined by 18th century economist 
Adam Smith. In his desire to get rich, a baker bakes bread for hundreds of 
people, and in this he is led by an "invisible hand" to feed society, even 
though such altruistic notions were not part of his original intention. 
When individuals are allowed to seek their own rewards, the argument goes, 
the common interest naturally takes care of itself. No central authority 
needs to consciously promote the common interest.

But liberals can be pure individualists too. They point out that the 
"invisible hand" is an important concept, but it hardly works in all 
cases. The criminal seeks his own self-interest, yet causes harm to 
society. A polluter finds it cheaper to dump pollution than to treat it, 
and this self-interest is equally harmful to society. Because it is in the 
self-interest of individuals to live in crime-free and pollution-free 
societies, they have a need to defend the common interest. In short, there 
are selfish reasons to promote the common good through government.

A good many other people, however, believe that humans are not 100 percent 
individualists; rather, they naturally possess a degree of genuine 
altruism as well. Perhaps the clearest example is romantic and sexual 
behavior, which is genetic (hormonal). The resulting social union of man 
and woman is responsible for the creation of new individuals in the first 
place. And nature has given us maternal and paternal instincts which cause 
us to sacrifice unselfishly for the survival of our children. This school 
of thought claims there are also non-family examples of natural altruism 
as well. These arguments will be addressed in a later section.

Spectrum Two: Anarchy vs. Organization

There are many definitions of anarchy, but for our purposes here let us 
define it as no laws and no governments. Competition is the main 
characteristic of such a society. It's survival of the fittest -- kill or 
be killed.

This is not to say that order and cooperative groups do not arise in 
anarchy; after all, order and cooperative groups seems to have arisen 
spontaneously in the anarchy of nature. It's just that they are not 
centrally planned.

In a perfectly organized society, a central organization plans every 
aspect of life. Cooperation and coordination are its primary traits. Most 
people entertain the mistaken belief that the centralized government 
needed to run such a society can only be a dictatorship, but this is 
hardly true. A highly centralized government can also be democratic, as 
proven by the social democracies of Northern Europe. (If this is difficult 
to picture, then imagine a country where people vote on literally 
everything, from the price of tea to the safety features of automobiles. 
The government then puts these ballot results into action.) Nor does the 
central organization have to be a government; theoretically, it could also 
be a giant business monopoly.

Anarchy is the ultimate in individual freedom (meaning individuals can do 
anything they want); a democratically organized society is the ultimate in 
group freedom (meaning that the majority can do anything it wants). 
However, most people desire neither of these extremes, and prefer their 
government to be somewhere in the middle of this spectrum.

A common philosophy of moderation is this: government should support and 
promote those forms of individual freedom and self-interest which advance 
the common interest, and prevent those forms of individual freedom and 
self-interest which harm it.

Although this philosophy is widespread, few people agree on how it should 
be implemented. Conservatives, for instance, believe that government 
should allow the invisible hand to work on the free market -- an example 
of self-interest that advances the common interest. And they believe that 
government should prevent and punish crime -- an example of self-interest 
that harms the common interest.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe that government can actively promote, 
not just allow, the free market. For example, the government can build 
roads, wire the countryside for electricity and phone service, launch 
communication satellites and provide economic statistics, all of which 
allow the free market to flourish. (Conservatives tend to believe these 
should privatized, but whether this is even possible is one of the 
controversies we shall explore later on.)

And liberals believe that the government should be more active in 
preventing harmful self-interest. For example, they believe government 
should regulate corporate polluters. Conservatives oppose this, but it is 
inconsistent with the very philosophy that generates their position on 
crime.

Spectrum Three: Democracy vs. Constitutionalism

Democracy has been with us for thousands of years, but most of these 
experiments have ended badly. It was the rise of individual rights in the 
18th century, as protected by the Constitution, that has distinguished the 
United States and made it such a successful democracy.

The Founding Fathers also knew that democracy only works if the voters are 
educated. But in the 18th century, the overwhelming majority of Americans 
were illiterate. So they created a representative democracy, or a 
republic, in which laws were voted upon not by the people, but their 
elected representatives. For this reason, the United States is technically 
not a pure democracy, but a constitutional republic -- a fact which 
conservatives are always quick to point out.

Many of the Founders advocated a government where representative 
democracy, the constitution and the courts form a system of checks and 
balances. The entire rational behind such a triangular system is to 
prevent too much power from accumulating in any one segment of society. We 
all know the old adage: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts 
absolutely.

Liberals acknowledge the value of all three corners of this system. If 
anything, they would argue that democracy could be strengthened, because 
mass education has largely wiped out illiteracy in America. Therefore, 
more direct forms of democracy are possible, like state or even national 
referendums. More radical liberals advocate replacing our representative 
democracy with a direct one -- but there is a real question of whether or 
not the people are that educated.

Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that the constitution should be 
strengthened, and democracy proportionately weakened. Why? Because they 
perceive that the Constitution gives them the individual freedom to act 
however they want, as long as they don't violate other people's individual 
freedom. Democracy, on the other hand, often tells individuals what to do. 
If a law you voted against is passed, your personal will is denied. In 
other words, democracy forces individuals in the minority to act in the 
interest of the majority, which is why conservatives tend to oppose it. 
Libertarians take this opposition to an extreme.

Spectrum Four: Equality vs. Merit 

The debate between equality vs. merit is one of the oldest in our society. 
When merit is rewarded, competition becomes supreme, the fittest survive, 
and people get what they deserve. When rewards are given out equally, 
people become more pleasant and civilized to each other, but incentive 
falls, since trying harder doesn't get you anywhere.

For classification purposes, there are three types of societies: 
egalitarian, moderated meritocracy, and unrestricted meritocracy.

Socialism is the best example of an egalitarian society. When Marx wrote 
"From each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs," 
he was acknowledging that people are certainly born with different 
abilities, but they should be rewarded equally.

Libertarianism is the closest example of an unrestricted meritocracy, 
where there are the fewest constraints on the fittest reaching the top. 
Unfortunately, we have no historical examples of such a government.

Conservatism and liberalism are examples of moderated meritocracies. In a 
moderated meritocracy, the most successful continue to be rewarded the 
most, but a percentage of their power or income is redistributed back to 
the middle and lower class. Liberals, who lean more towards equality, 
believe the degree of redistribution should be rather high; conservatives, 
who lean more towards merit, believe that it should be rather low. In our 
economy, a progressive tax code achieves this effect, and liberals and 
conservatives argue over how steep its progressivity should be.

Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation

In general, the right favors competition; the left, cooperation.

The advantage of competition is that it drives humans to their maximum 
potential and maximum performance. The disadvantage of competition is that 
it can be destructive.

The advantage of cooperation is that we are all stronger together than we 
are separately. The disadvantage of cooperation is that it diminishes 
incentive, since trying harder than the next person will not achieve 
anything.

There is a complex interplay between competition and cooperation in human 
society (and, indeed, in all animal life). It is possible to engineer 
society to emphasize competition (by emphasizing the individual) or to 
emphasize cooperation (by emphasizing society). Finding the right mix 
requires an accurate understanding of the roots of competition and 
cooperation, as well as a knowledge of game theory.


        _________________________
        |File by: Dr. .narchist | 
         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 



