217 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
217 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
_________________________
|
|
|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 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|