Democracy

Liberalism, Socialism, Democracy
What can they mean today?

Surtout, pas de zèle !
Talleyrand

In Classical Liberalism, individuality, especially human motivation, is the essential factor in society. To promote motivation and individuality, it is necessary to liberate the individual from domination by others, by relaxing the tight holds of customs, law, and authority. This is the sense of the Liberalism as it was understood by Thomas Jefferson and J. S. Mill. To avoid ambiguity, we need to call this Classical Liberalism because in the 20th century, Liberalism as used in America assumed a meaning that is in most ways opposite to the original sense. This came about because the Capitalism of the 19th century, following classical liberal ideas, created problems. The measures taken to alleviate these were parts of Socialism in various forms, many first proposed by Karl Marx, but since they appeared in the context of a gradually modified Liberalism, people did not realize this. They could not tell whether the present American system is Capitalism or Liberalism when in fact it is neither of the two. In the following, we endeavor to clarify this.

The idea of writing this essay came when I read again Alexis de Tocqueville's master piece de la démocratie en Amérique. This work appeared first in 1835; it has given me an understanding of America and better political insight than my own observations had allowed me over fifty years. It seems especially appropriate to point to Tocqueville at a time when many of the original ideas that are the basis of our Constitution, seem to be forgotten or fall into disrespect. It is only natural that this should happen over time, when new generations, spoiled by American living, have not received an adequate understanding of history, and ignorance can obfuscate the reasons for many of our political institutions and practices. Moreover, times have changed and a new culture (or lack of it) has replaced many of the old traditions. I view this development with concern because I am convinced that the basic human situation does not change even over a few millennia, although our advanced technology has affected profoundly the style of our living. In any case, I felt the need to review our political ideas for my own good in view of an obvious public confusion. A good example is the recent letter by the noted author Alan Wolfe about his book on Liberalism (Wolfe .). He cannot see a need to differentiate between the classical and the modern Liberalism because, as he claims, they both derive from the same original goal: Human happiness. In this kind of superficial thinking, there would be no difference even with Communism because Communism with its tyranny, also claims to have the same goal. I am sure, Wolfe must have been intellectually asleep when he wrote this. At any rate, we must be discerning and call things by what they are because the present confusion is leading us into a direction that nobody would want if he only could see clearly.

First, the term Socialism is vague. New Dictators like to call their system Socialism, when it really is just a totalitarian regime. Here, I mean by Socialism a collectivism that emphasizes the role of the central government and aims to achieve total equality (not only legal) for all by direct government intervention. This is, of course, incompatible with classical liberalism. The core idea of this Socialism is the bed of Procrustes taken in an economic sense, and the advertised motive for the necessary political actions and legislation is the need to assure what socialists (and new "liberalists") insist to call Social Justice. The present American system could actually be identified as socialism because of the substantial state intervention, progressive taxation, an inheritance tax, and the welfare character of public policy. However, the economic system is controlled by the market and for this reason it is not socialism but a Free Enterprise System with a substantial addition of socialist state intervention. It is certainly not Capitalism in its true meaning and to continue to call it Capitalism increases confusion and is merely careless, if it is not being done deliberately to muddy the waters.

Classical liberalism is one of the results of the violent political changes in modern European Civilization: the English Revolution of 1688, the French Revolution of 1789, and the gained independence of England's American colonies. Liberalism differed in the details due to the conditions in each country – in England with the strength of the crown in relation to the aristocracy, and the degree of industrialization. Liberalism in France was modified by the effects of the revolution, whereas in 19th century Germany, it failed due to the role of a rising Prussia and the reaction of Austria. In Italy, Liberalism was opposed by Louis Napoleon, by conservative Austria, and the influence of the Vatican. However, the liberal spirit was felt throughout Europe, even in Russia in 1905 and in 1917. Only in this case, without a strong middle class, Liberalism did not succeed as it did in the rest of the Western world.

Classical Liberalism was based economically on the market and ideally, on common economic interests of the people. The assumption was that if individuals are left free to pursue their self-interest in an exchange economy based upon a division of labor, it will improve the economic conditions of the group as a whole because the economic decisions are being made where the needs are known best. However, it is only in a totally free market with disciplined people who know their real interest that this can actually happen and excesses avoided; otherwise and without some controls, the market will allow exploitation, and lead to economic stagnation. The original formulation of this classical liberal - economic doctrine is due to Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations (1776). The economic system that works according to these ideas is the Capitalism as it was treated by Karl Marx in his work (Berlin, 1867), Das Kapital.

In this Capitalism the consumer directs the allocation of the social resources by his purchases. When constitutional government came about 1800 as the result of the political upheavals, the ideas of individual rights, including the rights of free worship, of a free press, and of free speech, became everywhere an essential part of modern democracy. J. S. Mill's great essay On Liberty (1859) expresses these Civil Liberties; they are the second part of the classical liberal ideology. In the United States, they have been part of the Constitution with the “Amendments” from the beginning of the country and they have shaped the culture more profoundly than in any other place, even England not excepted.

However, we should recognize that a free society can work well only with a population of mature individuals who know, or can be shown, what their best interest is. To the extent that this individual maturity (I mean caution and moderation) is missing, a very free society runs into serious political, social, and economic problems. The totally free profit system in the past concentrated vast wealth with adverse consequences. First, great masses of people could only gain incomes that were entirely inadequate compared with the wealth produced by industry - with living conditions that, especially in England, became scandalous. Second, since the great number of people who were involved in the economic system lacked the purchasing power to consume the output of the vastly expanded productive system, the system stagnated repeatedly. Finally, those who owned the means of production, could exploit their workers, which was one factor that produced inhuman conditions in many areas, particularly in England which was the most advanced nation at the beginning of the industrial era.

So far, this is the usual picture presented. However, it is incomplete without taking into account the pivotal role of technical progress, particularly the cost of power; muscle power from the beginning of the historical time until the great invention of the steam engine by James Watt (the final model in 1784), with which much more, and cheaper power was obtained from coal. The fact that England had large deposits of good coal, was essential for the advance at the beginnings of the industrial age. As a consequence of this, muscle (and horse) power, the resource of the common man, became so cheap and could be replaced with machines that it caused disastrous poverty conditions in the industrial nations.

In response to these problems of profound social change, governments were forced to interfere in their economic systems. In true Liberalism, government action should be confined to things that private organizations cannot do, such as Defense of the Nation, or prevention of mass unemployment. Therefore, massive government involvement is not Liberalism, but is, at best, a mixture of Socialism and Liberalism - the Socialism going beyond regulation into social engineering based on the revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx. The more the system moves toward socialism, essential parts of liberalism tend to be forgotten. By holding on to the old and valued label of Liberalism, the public is confused and fails to recognize the dangers of social engineering and overdoing the state intervention.

A further effect became gradually more obvious: If economic freedom is restricted and equalization of incomes enforced, the motivation of people is adversely affected and the total system output necessarily decreases. In the totally socialized systems, especially in Communism, the result has been without exception a precipitous decline in the aggregate social effort with general poverty as the result. Every country that had or has a pure socialist regime (without its actions moderated by a capable opposition), ran into the same problems: a chronic deficiency in productive capability, and a deficiency in personal initiative with resulting protracted poverty and cultural decay.

Yet the problem is much deeper. Equality cannot be approached without force because the government needs to take from some to give to others. Therefore, total equality, socialism's goal, cannot be realized unless justice and freedom are severely compromised. This intrinsic conflict was clearly recognized by Lenin after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, 1917, when he saw the need for, and decided to take, dictatorial control of his state. In other words, a setting of priority is necessary and a compromise must be reached between freedom and equality. Luther in his “Exhortation for Freedom” (1525) has very well understood the problem when he stated that A worldly kingdom can't exist without inequality. It is the necessary price for freedom. Therefore, if we rank the need for justice highest, as we surely should after truth, we must tolerate inequality. If, however, equality is valued highest, injustice and loss of freedom are unavoidable. A great part of the political struggle during the last two centuries in the democratic Western nations dealt with the problem of finding a compromise.

What is Social Justice?

Inequality, however, is not accepted by the champions of social engineering who insist on income equalization, which they claim is needed to achieve "Social Justice". But it is not even welfare which they try to achieve, and certainly not justice! The obvious untruth, the shameless lie, in this social justice talk amounts to a fraud, and this has been done since Plato. To take from some to give to others is the very opposite of justice; it is what street robbers do and the state should not. It could only be justified under the label of justice if what is taken had been acquired unfairly by people in a population of identical ability, diligence, and chance. This assumption is, of course, wildly unrealistic. Just think of the social parasites who depend on others and hold them against those who devote decades to study, who work with skill and perseverance to help producing the wares and services for all. Therefore, everybody cannot be entitled to the same because all do not give the same; it is only just to reward people for their contributions through the market because this is democratic; even though, without corrective intervention to assure fair competition and measures that promote fairness (particularly equal access to education and support of the helpless), it can also have bad consequences in the long run. The problem can be made more transparent by a change of emphasis in the terminology.

The idea of fairness in the economic compensation of individuals, while it is a subject for professional economists, raises strong feelings in the public. Recently, a revealing article with reader responses appeared in the German paper DIE ZEIT ( 24.01.2008 Nr. 05, "Gerechtigkeit"). The responses made clear how much subjectivity dominates a public discussion regarding this subject. While the term justice, if it is used in the economic context, is for this reason, a misleading left-over from Plato, which obfuscates the problem by generating all kinds of subjective reactions, it is better instead to consider the aspect of reciprocity of services and the mutual provision of values in the market place. This way, instead of talking about a desultory idea of economic justice, you arrive at the idea of fair market value of your contribution to society. It is then also quite obvious why overall government interference is likely to make things worse, instead of better. But what is then to happen to the part that is being ignored - to true social needs? It is to be addressed as "Humanitarian Aid". What we recommend here is nothing else than a conceptual separation of two difficult problems. The article in "Zeit" goes into specific German details that show the unbelievable number of problems that are created by the greater government involvement in Germany, compared with the USA, with the result that the people are discouraged and think that their system, which is presumably favoring "social justice", is not fair! (Deutsche zweifeln)

We should not be surprised. The whole idea of Social Justice as it was treated by Plato and by Rousseau did not at all mean equality in material things irrespective of other things. This reading is, perhaps, a deliberate error. These authors meant by it almost the opposite, that each should receive in his society what he deserves on account of his place and efforts (Kurt Schilling, Geschichte der sozialen Ideen) .

At this time, in spite of all experience, including the experience of the disasters of the 20th century to caution us against making the state the source of grave injustice, the development in most modern democracies is going in the direction of more forced equality with resulting loss of freedom. While the process is understandable given the ease with which demagogues and the mass media can influence a confused public and arouse envy, it leads invariably to trouble, especially if the electorate has too direct and immediate an influence on the government.

What is democratic?

A further persistent confusion is here at play, often created deliberately: It is insinuated that “democratic” has to mean, as much as possible, the direct government (or at least direct influence) by each citizen, all assumed to have equal ability, knowledge, and voice. How powerful this tacit assumption is can be seen when competent officials become the target of attacks for factual statements (supposedly showing a lack of “equality”, or an arrogant exercise of power, or even “discrimination”), and are forced to profusely apologize or resign (Harvard President Summers, 2006). Obviously this goes too far; it makes an effective direction of important efforts nearly impossible and leads to a dominance by the least competent. In the end, everybody loses, even the horde of poor performers who force their organization into failure. All this, because people without discipline can exploit the confused ideas about democracy. I suspect, President Summers tried to do too much too fast and could not find support when he needed it. But, by the testimony of the most prominent, he was on the right track and his loss was a great loss for Harvard.

Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens select their leaders. For practical reasons it cannot mean, except in the very smallest communities, that the people actually govern. They can only select Representatives who will govern for them and this will, we must hope, work so that the most able leaders will actually be selected. The essential and necessary condition for a democracy is that the government cannot govern against the will of the people. In a large country, changes toward a more direct government are dangerous and have adverse consequences, the most frequent of which is a progressive inability for the government to act. Further problems are: the insufficient and often erroneous information which cause wrong government decisions, and also the difficulty of securing a consistent policy given the speed at which public opinion can change because of less important information that has been unduly sensationalized.

The second requirement is that capable persons make themselves available for public service. The fate of the state is determined by the quality of the leaders, but a great problem exists here that only very few people know what to look for in their candidates (see Criteria . .). To find out the truth about candidates before they are elected, and to get over the superficial rating of candidates in a popularity contest, we depend on the media which must be free and unbiased, which is rarely the case. Finally, after having made their choice, the people must give the leader sufficient authority to act. This is a critical point in democracies because if the choice has been made in ignorance, and therefore in uncertainty and not in confidence that is based on a sound judgment, the tendency will be to cripple the new leader by overly restricting his authority. This is totally wrong; leaders must be able to lead effectively. This has obviously become a serious problem in several Western democracies where elected leaders are refused compliance with their direction by a horde of people who have other opinions. If these leaders then fail, they are accused to have shown no leadership!

Nevertheless, provisions must exist to discipline bad leaders. Every social system must have workable provisions to control the leaders, and to remove them if necessary. But, other than for cases of actual malfeasance, leaders must be given as much authority as possible to release their best influence. An unfortunate weakness has, over time, been inserted in the American political system by making it problematic to remove poorly performing top leaders: The Senate, in this case the ultimate authority, is now also elected popularly, thereby making the senators subject to the same quickly changing influences as they affect the House. Such a body cannot be just if it is so dependent on quickly changing public opinion. Beyond this, the Senate has also other critical functions which are affected by the popular selection of its members which are now even more subject to the influence of pressure groups with lots of money.

The means for instant communications magnify the problem of how on one hand, shielding the government process from quickly changing, unrealistic public opinions and pressures, while at the same time assuring that the government is indeed one of the people and for the people. Therefore, the 17th Amendment was in its effect a seriously consequential change that is opposed to a basic idea of the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson's letter to Edmund Pendleton, August 26, 1776). In this letter, Jefferson is concerned with the problem of how to get wise men into the Senate. He is worried that “the people themselves is not generally distinguished for its wisdom.” (Voltaire was more direct in his opinion: Quand la populace se mêle de raisonner, tout est perdue). For this reason he wanted the Senate, as the body to represent the states, to be selected by the Representatives of the States, and not by direct popular election. But such concerns had been forgotten by 1913 when the 17th Amendment was being pushed through by activists. This tendency toward more direct democracy continues and takes on further aspects.

By removing the appointment authority of the federal senators from the states, the states lose their influence on federal policy. The senators are now, just as the federal Representatives, representatives of the people at large and are no longer the representatives of their states, as it was intended in the Constitution. This is obviously a very serious matter that has been neglected in the decisions to support the amendment. It is my firm belief that it is one of the very few weaknesses in the Constitution to make the adoption of amendments far too easy. Their great number and subject supports this assertion. The frequently used argument that times change is of little weight since the people and their weaknesses do not change. The Constitution is a unique and successful tool to assure a government that can cope with this weakness as much as humanly possible. Attempts to cicumvent its provisions are extremely shortsighted and apparently only possible because the understanding of the Constitution in the American population has been dangerously weakened.

A safe policy must combine the requirements of democracy with the needs of reliable government. The way to do this has been prescribed in the United States by the Constitution through the elections of the representatives, which is the occasion and the time when the voice of the people is to be heard officially. It is the only provision for a formal official action by the people, except for the possibility of a referendum after long preparation, in very infrequent cases. Of course, the elected representatives must have frequent contact with their constituency to assure that the government will not act against the informed will of its people because, if the leaders cannot educate their constituents about the needs of the day, these leaders will either not act in the interest of these needs or, if they do, they may not be reelected.

The relationship of the voters with their leaders should be one of confidence, i.e., it must be personal and therefore, the idea of a percentage wise representation of every faction (again based on an excessive "democratic" spirit) is as fundamentally mistaken as are the tendencies toward direct democracy. If this relationship is not personal, the system degenerates into a regime of anonymous party machines as we find it in all the numerous travesties of democracy where entrenched and corrupt cliques effectively inhibit the influence of a mature public opinion. In any case, reliable information is most critical for all decision making. Given the many occasions for obfuscation in the interest of power for power's sake, it is a most difficult condition to assure a sufficiently informed public. Furthermore for this, modern information technology is by itself not sufficient to play a helpful role. We must be concerned not with mountains of raw “information”, with gossip and insinuation of scandals, but with knowledge, i.e., important, pertinent, and ruminated facts. Therefore, the personal contribution of, and guidance by, the elected representatives in this process is essential. To be able to play this role, the leader's personality and character are decisive and this is what the voters should be looking for in addition to experience and past performance. (See my essay "Meeting People").

The spread of reliable information throughout the country, and the formation of sound opinions requires considerable time. In political decision making, we must deal not only with the natural confusion due to poor information and ignorance, but more significantly, with the nefarious role of misinformation, generated with the purpose of gaining political influence that is not the “will of the people”. This is why a good amount of time is needed to conduct an election campaign in which we hope to get over these problems by an intense exchange of opinions, and exposure of the candidates to questions of the public. Proposals for an ever more direct public influence on governmental decisions would lead to a system where each question is decided by direct, immediate, real time input by all persons via the internet, but without sufficient occasion and time for arguments and thinking. From everything we know about such direct influences in the past (e.g., during the “terror” of the French revolution, or the referenda used by Hitler and other tyrants), it would make the role of most politicians superfluous and quickly lead to the end of true democracy.

The slow growth and maturing of public opinion can be compared to the growing of produce in the fields and in this picture, what the pollsters do is to serve the public each week a very small sample of a produce that is not representative, is unripe and far from being ready to consume. With this sample, which the pollsters magnify in reputation with tenuous claims of science, an unconstitutional and dangerous influence is exerted on decision makers who are sensitive to an immature public opinion - if the polls do not actually discourage them from educating their constituents. Seen from this angle, the pollsters who produce a product that is not as “mature” as the actual vote will be after due preparation, are not acting within the spirit of the constitution. To be absolutely clear about this, the objection to this influence is not grounded in doubts about the validity of the polling information (which is a separate question), but because of the very nature of this information itself, even with near perfect collection such as a nationwide instant poll via the internet could be. An uncontrolled way to conduct such a survey with a ridiculously small and narrowly collected sample only magnifies the problem and the likely adverse influence.

Individualism vs. Collectivism, which way to lean?

The struggle of Individualism - the basic idea of classical liberalism - with the Collectivism of socialism (including the socialist heresies, Fascism, or today's “Liberalism”) is fueled by two incompatible views of life. Freedom is valued highest by some, whereas economic security is more important for others. This has far reaching consequences which are not obvious because they happen in countless decisions - decisions which are being made in ignorance of their long range consequences. First, the security that is valued by the collectivists is deceptive because you do not become more secure by turning over your fate to an anonymous bureaucratic system which is subject to arbitrary changes at any time. You merely gain the security of a dependent. But much more than personal security is at stake because the struggle is deciding man's future. Moreover, the struggle will be decided under a severe handicap: freedom is not highly valued by those who have it; it only becomes important after it is lost, and then it is too late!

In order to think objectively, to see things as they are and not as others want us to see them, we must suppress for a moment our desires for gratification and acquisition: Do so and ask, how do we want to live, and live toward which goal? How should we fill the span between adolescence and senescence? Are basic needs all that we should be concerned with, or is human nature able to go beyond that? If more - then what - more gadgets? More possessions to worry about? To find out, look at people who can afford everything, look at the super rich. What do they do? How do they use their life span? If we ignore here as unimportant the many immature who are too shortsighted, we find that those who do think, bring meaning into their life by setting goals [1]. They do what allows them the best use of their ability. They act according to how Aristotle defined happiness: The use of our innate ability to the fullest extent. But this is only possible in freedom, in a society which abstains from unnecessary interference: The greater the freedom, the greater the possible use of all talents. To be hemmed in by bureaucracies is a limitation that creates a terrible frustration, first for the most able, but eventually for all. It prevents the full use of the incredible variety of human talents in the population. No centrally regulated society can take these into account.

This is precisely where an obstinate attitude of collectivists and a mass intelligentsia are causing a serious problem for modern man. Their thinking is arrested by the simplistic ideas of the Fabian idealists who wanted to reach the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people by simply making everybody equal through vigorous government action (using Jeremy Bentham's calculus of happiness). But avoiding envy in the people and removing their freedom is not enough to bring them happiness. We have seen everywhere that giving the highest priority to equality is the wrong approach, it causes a precipitous decline in the total effort of production and brings poverty for all. But beyond this, equalitarianism is in its principle wrong because it is based on fundamental misconceptions about human nature, motivation, justice, and happiness. As we see in the examples of the socialist states, and in the problems that socialist policies have caused in most of the Western world in the decay of family life, these misconceptions produce the opposite of happiness in the greatest number of people.

Dependent people are not happy, but become disturbed and unhappy. The socialist prescription for happiness by making everybody equal does not work because a person becomes fulfilled and truly happy only as a result of his own actions. These should be assisted by society, but the people must not be treated as children and their actions preempted by unearned gifts (of course, we exclude the cases which do need public support). Nevertheless, this wrong thinking has a tremendously seductive influence on the minds. Under the fraudulent label of Social Justice, it appears as such an obvious and simple idea that the wealth should be spread, that those who seem to be opposed to such noble goals meet strong moral indignation. This allows the believers an undeserved attitude of moral superiority which makes them impervious to reason. By now, our civilization has advanced and socialism has become a wolf in sheep clothing. It played a helpful role in the past when it was instrumental to free labor from exploitation. (However, the source of the high standard of living today has been the fantastic rise of productivity thanks to the science and technology in free societies). After we learned the need for controls and checks on pure capitalism, we now have to defend ourselves against the use of the old socialist medicine which has become a serious problem for mankind's future.

Obviously, we should try to remove all harmful factors in society. A desire for economic security was not the only reason why one third of mankind adopted socialist systems. When these people eventually freed themselves, many sensed that they were in a social vacuum. Without guidance and enforced standards, they discovered that they were unprepared for life in a free society. But this is also true in the free societies if they do not prepare the young sufficiently. Not all behavior can be regulated by specific laws and of those individuals without religious education, only a minority has moral guidance. As said often before, a society will not remain free if the citizens do not understand their government and have no firm ideas of their own obligations. In the public today, you hear much about rights, but little about obligations. One of the more important of these is the obligation to support and obey the leaders that have been elected. We see today that the election is not the end of the arguments, but they are continued by the fanatics and can lead to acts of outright sabotage by leaking information which is embarrassing not only to the administration in power, but to the whole country. Of course, such a country cannot last and it is high time for the democratic countries to emphasize the obligations of the citizens, obligations that go beyond observing the laws.

Young people need more than understanding that their freedom cannot go arbitrarily far: they must learn to exercise self control as a matter of habit. One way to achieve this would be an after school program to clear up the moral uncertainties in the young minds. In intense practice sessions with interesting case stories of well known failures to observe ethical standards with right precedence (priorities of values, goals and efforts) must be examined together with the disasters that happened because of these failures [2]. We are not using history sufficiently for the later benefit of the students. Even more so, very little active experience is available for the young today and only a minority of them can learn early how to make rational decisions. How priorities should be decided is left as a matter of belief and political party. The results are the irrational conditions about which everybody complains bitterly.

We can stave off at least part of later human tragedy if we give our youth an intense drill in practice sessions where mock decisions must be made, a training that must be supported by all available media techniques to awaken their imagination, their interest, and instill good habits. For a while, I have had the great benefit of being in intense training sessions that were called "Judgment of the situation and Decision". Such sessions can be supported very effectively with Media productions. The film "Twelve angry men" (1957, with Henry Fonda) is an excellent example for the help that media technology can give for a specific training that induces the students to think. Of course, the young are exposed to some of this in the current system. However, it is ephemeral and not sufficient to establish habits and practice in actual decision making.

On the other hand, if we shy away from giving the young a rigorous conditioning to prepare them for a mature, i.e., responsible life in freedom, humanity has to face the consequences. Freedom is only possible if the people can muster individual discipline. The great political thinker Edmund Burke (see Burke) noted that Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less there is within, the more there must be without. This obvious requirement is not understood clearly enough in the political struggle. We cannot avoid a principal and critical decision: if we want to be responsible, we must act knowingly. If we cannot in full awareness decide what kind of life we wish to live, fear will make us seek a deceptive protection, and the myopia of activist intellectuals will drive us, in many small steps, toward the socialized anthill society where everything is rationalized; where even procreation and the raising of children must be done in assembly line fashion, as it has been seen by the visionary Aldous Huxley in his Brave New World (see Huxley).

A world without a functioning family, without durable bonds and higher visions of opportunities would no longer be a human society. As we have seen in communism, such a collective society is inevitably moved to reduce man to the level of kept animals whose basic needs are satisfied in industrial fashion. This system must replace the weak personal responsibility with an extended “protection system”, the notorious Gulag. People who are told in materialist ideology that they are pre-determined by heredity and environment and therefore have no responsibility, cannot be effectively punished and will even lack a sufficient motive to remain decent. This preaching about nature and nurture as our sole determinants is terribly wrong. If we ignore the most human part of us, the ability to choose with trained judgment, then we will lose it and the weak characters feel that they cannot help it and do what they like. We are well on our way in this direction and incarcerate more people than any other nation, but we should be aware that to keep humans in cages for many years is degrading and dehumanizing. We must do everything to reduce the need for these actions and policies that are a necessity in any excessively collectivist society.

All this is not yet my greatest concern about the very long term effect of an excessive "support" of the individual by his society. "Excessive" is meant in the sense of unnecessary . How can the enormous human potential develop fully? Without incentives? In leasure? The final price to be paid for an excessive encroachment of the collective in the individual life is most serious: It damages the biological "capital" of the human race. This destructive process is rapid, it begins inconspicuously by treating adults as children. Very soon we have only children, but sick children. Continuing our present direction, in only a few hundred years, the public health costs will be unbearable for even the wealthiest nations because nature is unforgiving. The population will then consist mainly of physically and mentally weak individuals who will simply be unable to live by themselves. Seen from this angle, any ideology which seduces man into more collectivism is a deadly danger for the long term life of the human race because the process is insiduous, small step by step, each one innocuous by itself and it ends with no healthy individuals left, only mental and physical cripples. In Europe, where the process is a little more advanced than in America, the populations are already shrinking. But try to envision this situation in, say, two hundered years!

The kind of society toward which we are moving at every turn, more structured with more laws and regulations, will not allow a life as we desire it when we find sufficient peace to think about it clearly. We must aim at a future that maximizes the motivation for the people to use in freedom the fantastic opportunities of the modern age. Man has achieved a potential of civilization that, provided we can keep our reason under control and our spirit strong, allows the best use of the talents for all persons who maintain an open mind and a minimum of initiative. But the freedom will be lost if we cannot overcome the pathological greed of the undisciplined on one side, and the simplistic socialist obsession of the intelligentsia on the other. If we cannot do this, if the individuals cannot learn the lessons of the past, we will indeed end up in a planned anthill civilization without freedom because the process is slow and the mortal danger is hidden in the confusion of the public mind combined with the undeserved moral superiority of the apostles of the ideologies. I am convinced that quite a few of them, if they could only fully understand what they are doing, with 20/20 vision for the future they are trying to create, would kill themselves in total despair. Or would they not if they have to recongnize that what they have been working for is not a paradise, but a disaster worse than the deeds of the worst mass murderer? It is slow, insiduous genocide, and we cannot see it in our confusion.

What is freedom?

The political struggle is further confused if we do not see the division of private vs. state affairs on the basis of sound principles. Issues that concern only the individual are private in the strict sense, and a free individual can do as he pleases - in fact he can do anything the consequences of which he is prepared to accept. On the other hand, issues that may affect other people (and if we are ethical, also other beings), i.e., social issues in the strict sense, may become subject to state regulation if the reduction of individual freedom is less important than the potential damage to the interests of others. If we look at social questions in this way, we must leave purely personal actions totally free as a matter of personal ethics. The state should not, and cannot regulate morality. If late effects of personal actions affect the public, then the individual can be held responsible for these late effects, but not for his primary act. Suppose a drug user falls sick as a consequence of his drug use, the community has no responsibility to support him because he has abandoned his own responsibility. As a matter of charity, he ought to be supported, but it is not a social responsibility. He has no legal right for this support and should also not be criminally responsible for his prior free conduct.

Of course, we know that the present practice in most, if not all, civilized countries does not follow this reasoning, and this failure extracts a high price: the loss of personal motivation to act responsibly. Motivation and maturity are replaced by the risk of a jail term, which is ineffecive. The result is that the people who pride themselves as being civilized by not taking realistic and principled action, create an uncivilized state which is not really free because it tries to enforce mature behavior. On the other hand, freedom without serious consequences for irresponsible behavior does not work, it actually endangers the society. The situation in the modern "civilized" countries is the logical consequence for an immature people who want the state to enforce personal behavior of others (with drugs, sex, gambling, etc.), but are not serious with the consequences for real anti social behavior, i.e., for the real crimes. Of the over two million people in jail in America, most (the non violent part) should not be in jail at tall - for three reasons. First, their transgression may not be a social one (e.g., a personal drug offense); two, long jail terms are inhuman because we deny the person a human existence, often forever; and three, jail terms are not an effective way to produce reliable changes in behavior. Moreover, in many places, jails are so crowded that prisoners must be set free. Add to this the fact that many people learn more criminal behavior in jail. All this because we cannot think clearly.

Take the issue of abortions. This is strictly a personal matter for the woman as long as the fetus is not able to live, i.e., before late pregnancy. After this, an abortion is almost the same as murder and it could be prosecuted as such. Or take prostitution. As long as the matter is strictly limited to the individuals concerned, the state has no basis to interfere. However, if other people are involved, the actors are responsible for the social effects. The principle is simple. As long as we grant people only limited freedom, we hold them to have no personal responsibility and they are induced to act as irresponsible people. To keep millions of them in the prisons is incompatibel with a free society. Moreover, it is not even an effective prevention of crime. Coarse people do not learn from being in a cage. However, severe but temporary pain on the skin, that leaves no physical damage behind, is a very effective behavorial teaching, is least time consuming, and was used for centuries before we became too "civilized". Of course, ethical concerns which are personal are separate and, again, require a personal decision whether to be an ethical person or not (for standards see Ethics . .).

In other words, freedom means that the individual must be allowed to do wrong. An enforced goodness is not meritorious at all. Even from a practical point, we must accept the consequences of wrong actions, i.e., economically wrong and morally wrong actions. The community has the obligation to assist the individual to make good choices, but the decision is his. If we are not prepared to accept this, then we must use force and it is not a free society, with great loss of persoanl motivation. This has a huge economic effect. The tremendous productivity increase of the last century was only possible due to the advances of technology in a semi free society. It enables us to achieve a high standard of living and a tolerably just distribution of incomes without major problems. The power struggle of various interest groups to obtain political advantages over the rest of society are shortsighted and due to ignorance of basic facts. But, unless the general education can be improved and the basic facts of economics more widely known, we cannot hope to see a more productive and reasonable style in politics. As long as the main political force in the state is allowed to remain an ignorant struggle for power as such, the price to pay is a social turbulence that reduces the social product and leads to the acute danger of collapse under stress of even the best democracy [3].

Concerning social stress, what we experience today is nothing compared with what the future generations will face as a consequence of the far too large global population relative to the global resources. It will come through a progressive cultural friction, but most will arise because the global population is in excess of the available resources on the globe. As more and more of the poorer nations learn to produce more, they will also consume more and for this, they will use more resources. A level of consumption as it exists in the industrial nations to support their luxurious standard of living, cannot be sustained with the rise of living standards in all countries even if the population increase would stop. A progressive rise in the price of scarce resources is already now being felt worldwide. How will the human race be able to meet real scarcity? This problem is still beyond the vision of the public because their attention is diverted by secondary issues. However, a rising living standard of the poor three quarters of the global population will force a progressive, and eventually drastic, reduction of the Western standard of living, even if it is true, that the continuing technical development will bring further benefits to man. Nevertheless, these future stresses can easily bring the end of democracy and liberty, unless we prepare ourselves in time.

Conclusions.

What should we conclude - what should be done? If we learn from the experience of the past, we have to allow some degree of state intervention and state regulation to prevent the recurrence of the bad social conditions of the 19th century - but we must protect individual freedom, guide the young to form a strong character, and seek to keep the social role of the state to the necessary optimum! Then how can we avoid gross inequality? And how can we hope the global society will overcome the coming forced reduction in its use of the limited global resources, needed by a relentlessly growing population?

Fostering education and a good economic atmosphere are the best means to encourage diligence and production. A great degree of Liberty with reasonable regulations, laws that are really enforced (e.g., to prevent monopolies), in other words reason and justice allow the use of opportunities and can lead to a more equitable reward system where everyone produces as much as he can, is motivated to do so, and gets what he deserves - which is decided by the market (with sensible exceptions) - but not “what he needs” (as Karl Marx had said, which inevitably leads to general equalization). Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi (Corpus iuris civilis, Justice is the constant and lasting will to give everyone his due). We cannot deviate from this age honored principle without committing grave injustice. A state that is based on socialism is therefore the greatest hindrance to a real advancement of humanity. Only in freedom, with the state as protector of the individual, can people hope to achieve their dreams.

The state can maximize its impact on society through education, to assure truly equal chances for everyone, even if the benefits take time to come into effect. In other words, to go into a better future, or to modify our present life style, a socialism that is camouflaged with lies as liberalism and attempts to reach the obsolete goals of the past with ever more bureaucracy and spending far beyond the economic realities is a most harmful and immoral digression that we must avoid - without, however, going to the other extreme and try to rely on individual virtue where not enough is currently seen! We can state our values succinctly: Liberty, equality, and fraternity, are desirable, - but more important for good social life is the order: Truth, Liberty, and Justice!

The formulation of public policy requires time and a trustworthy information system. Instant, frequent polling of a poorly informed public opinion about issues and the popularity of the candidates, creates the atmosphere of a popularity contest that must not be allowed to influence grave decisions that affect the future. A democratic state, probably more than any other, depends most critically upon the validity of the opinions that influence the decision makers. To bring maturity into this public opinion, the contributions of a disciplined intelligentsia are decisive. The fate of the democracy over time depends on this maturity, more than on anything else - which in turn, depends on the state of the general maturity which currently leaves much to be desired.

On the other hand people who feel “disenfranchised” even in a free country, must remember that no system, not even an excellent one, such as our Constitution, can work well if the voters are passive and do not participate in the political process before election time. This and other social shortcomings can only be improved by paying much more attention to the need for conditioning of the young for a life in a free society. A good democracy requires that compromises be found and policies be adopted that are acceptable to most and beneficial to the country. This needs time and effort, with voluntary restraint by the individuals, and it does not mean that we should expect to satisfy every taste and wish.

References and Notes

[1] Thomas J. Stanley, The Millionaire Mind.

[2] A program of moral education requires to have available a generally recognized standard of ethics. Of course, a religiously based program has this resource. However, for a secular civic program, it would create a problem if we would adopt a system that is based on a specific religion. This is not necessary and can be avoided. An example for a standard that is based only on the necessity for peaceful coexistence is given in the third of my “Three Essays: On Man's Future, his Values, and his Ethics”.

[3] The danger of harmful social turbulence and the lack of sufficient knowledge in the public are magnified by a chronic lack of leading intellectuals to think in clear terms, as Descartes has urged us to do. The reason for this, I believe, is that their minds are occupied by the unrealistic ideas they have inherited from Karl Marx. The disasters that have been caused by Marxist thinking as an excuse and motivation for political action are staggering. A deeply moving story is presented in the speeches by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West. No educated person should miss this testimony which I find entirely in concordance with my own much less drastic experiences. A typical recent example in the West for the limited vision is shown in the work of the noted Swiss politician, special Rapporteur of the UN., professor of Sociology in Geneva and Paris-Sorbonne, and author of best selling books, Jean Ziegler. His latest book, Das Imperium der Schande (L'Empire de la honte; The Empire of Shame), starts out, right at the very top on the inside flyer with the untrue claim that the Declaration of Independence states as a universal human right a “right to individual human happiness”. The writer, totally convinced of the soundness and moral superiority of his position, does not bother to see the difference between this and what the Declaration really says, that “freedom to pursue happiness” is claimed as one of the human rights. Similar lack of intellectual discipline can be found all over his book. E. g., it is clear nonsense to claim, as Ziegler does, that the global "Capitalism" prospers because of hunger and debt. This is the kind of nonsense that is the unfortunate residue of an obsolete ideology. Since such ideas are basic in his book, much of it, perhaps in parts salutary for the rich to read, is actually inciting people to revolt which has the nefarious effect of driving them into actions that will be contrary to Ziegler's noble goal, which all of us ought to have: A fundamental improvement of the human life, even under the more difficult global conditions in the near future.

What people need is not an old, discredited ideology, but instruction and incentives to learn and work - and education to teach them basic moral behavior. Gifts, even loans have, after a short transient period, an opposite effect. The cause of widespread poverty cannot be Nestlé's profits, but it is overpopulation and a culture that is inadequate for the modern times and the available natural resources. Take an example: Bangladesh with 130 million people, 890 per sq. km, who live on few resources, only a few meters above the sea level, with large areas flooded during storms, - but still, they double their numbers in ca 40 years and, without drastic changes, their life will be even more marginal. But even assuming that the present ideology would become unable to control the life of the population, it would probably be replaced with another, equally bad. Unless the population increase can be stopped, and unless the productivity of the population be increased by a large factor, the situation will not get better. This cannot be done with any efforts except a completely different education with training in those areas that are necessary in a modern highly productive society. To still believe that man can be brought to creative and highly productive action through a social reorganization and by bureaucrats is hopelessly naive. The one and one half centuries of socialism in many countries have no real progress to show, no drugs, no labor saving inventions, no increase of income of the common person. All this has been achieved only in free societies.

Ziegler is oblivious to the fact that without profits as stimulus for production, we would have no medicines, no greatly enlarged global food production, no modern labor saving devices. They have all been developed because of profits. Profits are the main driver toward more production and without more production, poverty cannot be corrected. Moreover, many people who have invested for their old age, get their pensions paid through the profits which the investments make. In 1900, the world had only little more than 1 billion people, and it could barely feed them. Today, with 6.5 billion on the globe, we have the potential to feed twice as many (as suggested in Ziegler's book, but I doubt it) and we have still mass poverty in vast areas. Furthermore, we have more and more people who could not even be here without the progress of industry, technology and medicine. The author mentions nothing about what to do for a real improvement in our societies, or better control of our system, given the weak character of man in the face of great temptations. It is here, of course, where a real social problem exists and it is not limited to the chief executives, Ziegler's “princes” of the large companies. Every person who puts, without compunction, additional people into his world of poverty without having the means to educate this new person, acts irresponsibly. To take actions that become a problem for society is antisocial. There is no right for undisciplined procreation. The culprits for the mass suffering in our world are everywhere. Pointing at "society" as Ziegler and consorts do, accomplishes nothing, other than driving people into actions that will make things incomparably worse.

It is a treacherous belief that, in spite of all experience, one could improve things radically with direct organizational, or administrative means without sacrificing freedom which, in the end, is going to make things much worse because it will destroy the little motivation that people may have now. Our choice must be made crystal clear: either greater personal discipline and ability through much better conditioning, or loss of freedom in an immoral totalitarian system. Even the best imaginable system must still be staffed today by the same weak persons who make irresponsible decisions. These people would have even more power (in the absence of competition) in what people such as Ziegler seem to envision as a better arrangement. The arch error in these utopian ideas is that by distributing the "wealth", we would have no poor. But, after dirstributing, the next year there would be even less total production, the money would have been used up and everybody would now be poor, as it has been demonstrated over and over again in the past in all socialist experiments without exception! Unless one ean increase the productivity of the poor, they remain poor because they need regular income and not a one-time gift.

We moderns, well protected by our rich society with its support systems, may forget that the world is still a struggle for survival with much pain, hunger, misery, and death; this can explain the origin of fashionalble (in certain circles) views of the world which are as naive as they become a real problem for our time (Progressive). Unrealistic dreaming which ignores the bitter lessons of experience cannot be the basis for a happier human future because nature is absolutely unforgiving. Only a well working society that is populated by disciplined and motivated people can lessen the strain on the individual because only such a society produces enough, thanks to the compound effect, to do it efficiently, and to defend itself against enemies.

It must finally be understood that mankind has no hope to reduce the consequences of folly, unless we condition the young more effectively than it is being done up to now. This is necessary because civilization has arrived so fast, while biologically we are still cave men, with cave man views and inclinations. Here is the most important task for intellectuals, particularly for bright, well placed and qualified intellectuals as Ziegler certainly is. Public enlightenment cannot be done by anyone else.

Copyright © 2003, Gernot M. R. Winkler Last Correction: 10/24/2009