Vulnerability Of a Free Society
Vulnerability of a Free Society
We value our freedom and rights above perhaps anything else. Even to excess, one might
argue; consider, for example, that freedom carried to extreme is anarchy. And one could
argue that today's political scene often looks more like anarchy than republican democracy.
Of course, it really isn't. What it is, is struggle for power and that is something that has
always characterised man, and particularly republican man; homogeneous opinion for all
intents and purposes is an impossibility not only because we all have different frames of
reference - experience - but the lust for power is strong among us. But let us not forget that a
free society is vulnerable to its excesses.
In this difficult time fight for power to the exclusion of what is in the long range interests of
the country could be particularly dangerous because our vulnerability today may be greater
than it has ever been before. It is two-fold: first the normal vulnerability of a free society and
second, vulnerability resulting from myopic, selfish, lust for power. Power in a republic, after
all, is invested in the people; that is, "the people" elect representatives to discharge the
responsibilities of governing. Initially that meant electing people in whom voters had
confidence and for whom they had respect. Information moved slowly, most voters did not
for the most part feel knowledgeable enough to make judgments, and polls were
non-existent. Even then politics was contentious enough. No one, however, really believed
that "the people" had all the answers, and populism was something about which most
worried.
Today we are tottering on the brink of populism: find out what the people want (through
polls) and give it to them. And what do the people want? Whatever they think is good for
them, individually - now. For which it is difficult to blame them. It is most difficult for people
who live on budgets and worry about keeping their jobs - and their health - to see very far
beyond at the very longest their own lifetimes, and at the shortest tomorrow. Nor can they be
expected to know all that their representative should know. But even if they did, It is also very
difficult to get the attention of a representative directly, other than through polls - or large
donations. In short the motivation of representatives is not what we would wish it to be; it is
instead to create an environment in which people will donate money to their campaigns and
vote for them. The result is much the same as what is created by quarterly profit reporting by
businesses: a very short, very selfish, rather greedy short horizon with little knowledge or
concern for the possibility of unintended results that often ensue. On all sides the motivation
is me, now. That is not what democratic republicanism envisaged.
The rights angle can also be detrimental for several reasons, but most generally because
we don't want anything to impede us - each of us - from doing what we want to do when we
want to do it - and for the lowest personal cost. I have heard people argue vehemently that
cameras at intersections are an invasion of their privacy abrogating their rights; to do what?
Break the law? Apparently. But homeland security offers a similar challenge. People want
to ensure they are perfectly safe and protected, but never inconvenienced, particularly
through any higher costs that might be incurred. However, the security challenge is much
broader than that. To be able to enjoy the freedoms we have, particularly to partake in free
enterprise, and live in the manner to which we have become accustomed, it has become
almost impossible to ensure population safety and security; its openness, that is what
defines the freedoms is just too vast - and inviting to those who would destroy us.
The criminal class long ago discovered how to use human rights against us: innocent until
proven guilty, with the enthusiastic help of lawyers who are willing to fight for "rights"
regardless of the legitimacy of the cause - for a fat fee, protecting rights of perpetrators, at
the expense of victims - and, in some cases even the security of our nation. Similar results
derive from traffic situations. People drive too fast, run stop lights, drive when heavily under
influence of their drug of choice. 44,000 people die each year as the result of traffic
accidents, many of which are not the cause of those who are killed, yet there is no evidence
perpetrators have any intention of changing their habits, regardless of law enforcement
attempts - which are too often thwarted during the judicial process. The responsibility of
policemen is great, the frustration greater, as they are blamed if crime occurs, but also
blamed when their law enforcement endangers others. The public can be very intolerant if
they feel someone's rights are infringed upon.
This is rapidly manifesting itself in our newest threat: Islamic terrorism, where perpetrators
are effectively trained to use our freedoms against us. Again the rights-surfeited public
wants protection, but not if it impacts their convenience. Protect us, but don't bother us in the
process. Our infrastructure is so vulnerable - because it is free and open - that real
protection would generate monumental costs, and even greater inconveniences that we
would never tolerate. Yet when anything happens blame comes quickly. The terrorists,
however, have a different motive than common criminals. Common criminals are all about
personal financial gains; terrorists are all about destruction. It is one thing to suffer
destruction for someone's quest for personal gain, and quite another to be destroyed
because someone doesn't accept our right to exist under a system that guarantees
freedoms - and yet another to realize fellow citizens in wanting to protect the terrorist's rights
forgive them for it. The terrorists, of course, using our system of rights against us, demand it.
A lack of understanding of what terrorism, crime and corruption do to businesses
overseas offers another example of self destruction through ignorance. In fact most don't
have appreciation of how those businesses and their profits are an integral part of the
economy that supports them. Nor do they appreciate how much they depend on such
commodities as oil - and water for that matter. We complain greatly about the very
institutions that support us - and even seek to impair their ability to continue to do so. Why?
By and large "the people" are ignorant of economics, profits and investment and the benefits
they provide; by and large the people are ignorant even of the very system of government in
which they live so comfortably. Furthermore many of their representatives, if not also
ignorant - and too many of them are - are perfectly willing to propagandize support of
ignorance for their own power interests.
The United States, with all its warts (which we admit openly), has a culture that is the envy
of the world. Blending free enterprise; representative democracy; freedoms of all kinds and
particularly speech; rule of law; separation of powers; federalism; and respect for property
we have created something that works incredibly well in terms of giving people a higher
material standard of living - even if not evenly. In fact the reason it works, aside from the
carefully sculpted and painstakingly balanced design, is the very reason it receives so much
criticism: it supports controlled greed: individuals can get rich through hard work, luck or
luck that comes from hard work. But unfortunately people who don't get rich become
envious - that's human nature. So they want to attack the rich; they want what the rich has.
Unfortunately they refuse to understand that the wealth the rich generate is the basis for their
lives being better than most others; it's not enough; they want more. But in grasping for
more they threaten what they have - without realizing it. The parable of the goose and the
golden eggs comes to mind.
Put all this together - freedom and rights that when exercised to excess can endanger
those of others - and the very fabric of our society; greed for more and more, supported
enthusiastically by populist and selfish politicians; ignorance of the reason for the
effectiveness of our cultural mechanisms; and the many forms of criminal terrorism - and
our way of life is being threatened. Yet we citizens only vaguely realize it. A free society such
as ours is vulnerable because we don't realize what we have or why it works to our ultimate
benefit. But if we don't appreciate it, people clamoring to come to our country do, but often for
the wrong reasons: they want what we have but lack appreciation for how we came to have it.
How do we expect them to learn, understand and become an enthusiastic part of it when
we don't ourselves?
What is not understood, appreciated and defended does not survive.
We value our freedom and rights above perhaps anything else. Even to excess, one might
argue; consider, for example, that freedom carried to extreme is anarchy. And one could
argue that today's political scene often looks more like anarchy than republican democracy.
Of course, it really isn't. What it is, is struggle for power and that is something that has
always characterised man, and particularly republican man; homogeneous opinion for all
intents and purposes is an impossibility not only because we all have different frames of
reference - experience - but the lust for power is strong among us. But let us not forget that a
free society is vulnerable to its excesses.
In this difficult time fight for power to the exclusion of what is in the long range interests of
the country could be particularly dangerous because our vulnerability today may be greater
than it has ever been before. It is two-fold: first the normal vulnerability of a free society and
second, vulnerability resulting from myopic, selfish, lust for power. Power in a republic, after
all, is invested in the people; that is, "the people" elect representatives to discharge the
responsibilities of governing. Initially that meant electing people in whom voters had
confidence and for whom they had respect. Information moved slowly, most voters did not
for the most part feel knowledgeable enough to make judgments, and polls were
non-existent. Even then politics was contentious enough. No one, however, really believed
that "the people" had all the answers, and populism was something about which most
worried.
Today we are tottering on the brink of populism: find out what the people want (through
polls) and give it to them. And what do the people want? Whatever they think is good for
them, individually - now. For which it is difficult to blame them. It is most difficult for people
who live on budgets and worry about keeping their jobs - and their health - to see very far
beyond at the very longest their own lifetimes, and at the shortest tomorrow. Nor can they be
expected to know all that their representative should know. But even if they did, It is also very
difficult to get the attention of a representative directly, other than through polls - or large
donations. In short the motivation of representatives is not what we would wish it to be; it is
instead to create an environment in which people will donate money to their campaigns and
vote for them. The result is much the same as what is created by quarterly profit reporting by
businesses: a very short, very selfish, rather greedy short horizon with little knowledge or
concern for the possibility of unintended results that often ensue. On all sides the motivation
is me, now. That is not what democratic republicanism envisaged.
The rights angle can also be detrimental for several reasons, but most generally because
we don't want anything to impede us - each of us - from doing what we want to do when we
want to do it - and for the lowest personal cost. I have heard people argue vehemently that
cameras at intersections are an invasion of their privacy abrogating their rights; to do what?
Break the law? Apparently. But homeland security offers a similar challenge. People want
to ensure they are perfectly safe and protected, but never inconvenienced, particularly
through any higher costs that might be incurred. However, the security challenge is much
broader than that. To be able to enjoy the freedoms we have, particularly to partake in free
enterprise, and live in the manner to which we have become accustomed, it has become
almost impossible to ensure population safety and security; its openness, that is what
defines the freedoms is just too vast - and inviting to those who would destroy us.
The criminal class long ago discovered how to use human rights against us: innocent until
proven guilty, with the enthusiastic help of lawyers who are willing to fight for "rights"
regardless of the legitimacy of the cause - for a fat fee, protecting rights of perpetrators, at
the expense of victims - and, in some cases even the security of our nation. Similar results
derive from traffic situations. People drive too fast, run stop lights, drive when heavily under
influence of their drug of choice. 44,000 people die each year as the result of traffic
accidents, many of which are not the cause of those who are killed, yet there is no evidence
perpetrators have any intention of changing their habits, regardless of law enforcement
attempts - which are too often thwarted during the judicial process. The responsibility of
policemen is great, the frustration greater, as they are blamed if crime occurs, but also
blamed when their law enforcement endangers others. The public can be very intolerant if
they feel someone's rights are infringed upon.
This is rapidly manifesting itself in our newest threat: Islamic terrorism, where perpetrators
are effectively trained to use our freedoms against us. Again the rights-surfeited public
wants protection, but not if it impacts their convenience. Protect us, but don't bother us in the
process. Our infrastructure is so vulnerable - because it is free and open - that real
protection would generate monumental costs, and even greater inconveniences that we
would never tolerate. Yet when anything happens blame comes quickly. The terrorists,
however, have a different motive than common criminals. Common criminals are all about
personal financial gains; terrorists are all about destruction. It is one thing to suffer
destruction for someone's quest for personal gain, and quite another to be destroyed
because someone doesn't accept our right to exist under a system that guarantees
freedoms - and yet another to realize fellow citizens in wanting to protect the terrorist's rights
forgive them for it. The terrorists, of course, using our system of rights against us, demand it.
A lack of understanding of what terrorism, crime and corruption do to businesses
overseas offers another example of self destruction through ignorance. In fact most don't
have appreciation of how those businesses and their profits are an integral part of the
economy that supports them. Nor do they appreciate how much they depend on such
commodities as oil - and water for that matter. We complain greatly about the very
institutions that support us - and even seek to impair their ability to continue to do so. Why?
By and large "the people" are ignorant of economics, profits and investment and the benefits
they provide; by and large the people are ignorant even of the very system of government in
which they live so comfortably. Furthermore many of their representatives, if not also
ignorant - and too many of them are - are perfectly willing to propagandize support of
ignorance for their own power interests.
The United States, with all its warts (which we admit openly), has a culture that is the envy
of the world. Blending free enterprise; representative democracy; freedoms of all kinds and
particularly speech; rule of law; separation of powers; federalism; and respect for property
we have created something that works incredibly well in terms of giving people a higher
material standard of living - even if not evenly. In fact the reason it works, aside from the
carefully sculpted and painstakingly balanced design, is the very reason it receives so much
criticism: it supports controlled greed: individuals can get rich through hard work, luck or
luck that comes from hard work. But unfortunately people who don't get rich become
envious - that's human nature. So they want to attack the rich; they want what the rich has.
Unfortunately they refuse to understand that the wealth the rich generate is the basis for their
lives being better than most others; it's not enough; they want more. But in grasping for
more they threaten what they have - without realizing it. The parable of the goose and the
golden eggs comes to mind.
Put all this together - freedom and rights that when exercised to excess can endanger
those of others - and the very fabric of our society; greed for more and more, supported
enthusiastically by populist and selfish politicians; ignorance of the reason for the
effectiveness of our cultural mechanisms; and the many forms of criminal terrorism - and
our way of life is being threatened. Yet we citizens only vaguely realize it. A free society such
as ours is vulnerable because we don't realize what we have or why it works to our ultimate
benefit. But if we don't appreciate it, people clamoring to come to our country do, but often for
the wrong reasons: they want what we have but lack appreciation for how we came to have it.
How do we expect them to learn, understand and become an enthusiastic part of it when
we don't ourselves?
What is not understood, appreciated and defended does not survive.