“The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.” George Carlin, The American Dream
How each of us engages, or fails to engage, life determines how we collectively develop as a society. The ability to engage is a function of many variables – genetic predisposition, environment, opportunities, and affirmative ways in which we are raised and subsequently seen and treated by others as adults. It is the purpose of this essay to explore relevant aspects of our upbringing and lives, how the lack of promoting life-affirming attributes impacts our current lifestyles while contributing to divisiveness, and how downplaying or ignoring what should be seen as constituent components of well-rounded, mentally healthy, engaging citizens, aspiring citizens and guests, impacts us all.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was a product of the French Revolution, drafted by several advocates of Enlightenment, Marquis de Lafayette, Talleyrand, and others, with the help of Thomas Jefferson. The cornerstone of those rights was the right to property, described in the Declaration as “inviolable and sacred.” As such, the Declaration would be better framed as a reference to the rights of property, as opposed to the rights of “man.” This same right to property was already embodied in our nation’s founding documents.
The Declaration and our founding ideals are based upon an accepted notion, the notion that we all have natural rights and it is the duty of government to protect them. And why describe rights as “natural?” It is because if they are derived from nature, questioning their legitimacy would be like questioning the existence of the sun. Rights to which we, or at least some of us, believe we are entitled are not rights. They are guidelines and concessions made to protect established preferences, promote order and permit power to be managed through authoritative institutions. In the United States, for a minority, such rights are a given. For the rest of us, such rights are presumed, leading to a sense of entitlement; they are aspired to, leading to a sense of struggle of one group against another; they are dismissed as mere fantasy; they are mocked as tools of historical oppression.
These very ideals, or “natural laws,” are fraught with contradictions. How do we square natural rights to life, liberty and property? Regarding the latter, what rights do those without property actually have? And given the priority that property holds within the panoply of rights, exercising our liberty in any way that interferes with another’s property is the easiest way to lose liberty. Regarding life, how property is available and controlled determines, for the most part, the life most of us will experience.
One of this nation’s foremost founders, James Madison, was concerned that the uneven possession of property could cause factionalization, leading to strife. He provides a conclusory rationale for the possession of property, and dispositively reconciles this conundrum by making the protection of property a foremost duty of government. As found in the Federalist Number 10:
The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate…The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results…
The first role of government, according to Madison, is to protect the different faculties of men. These faculties, realized to their full potential, explain how property is created and why the ownership of property is so unequal. The imbalanced, or skewed, distribution of property is a function of the range of talent existing in a given society. Those with the most talent, will necessarily have the most property. That is why the uneven distribution of property is described as “natural.” Therefore, if property rights derive from faculty, and protecting faculty is the first role of government, then protecting property rights (derived from faculty) becomes a corresponding and paramount role of government for the good of all. Otherwise, as the reasoning goes, people would have no incentive to utilize their faculties with no guarantee that the full weight of government would be used to protect their property.
Madison’s only concern about any resultant uneven distribution of wealth, or the means for creating it, was to address how this circumstance would divide citizens into different “interests and parties.” As such, the “regulation of these various and interfering interests” (read: “property interests”) would have to be the “necessary function of government.” Understanding this principle is important as “Madisonian Democracy” remains a cornerstone of our political economy to this day. But again, viewing the rights to be protected by this republican (representative) form of democracy as “natural rights” is a fallacy.
Perhaps Hobbes came closer to the truth. Hobbes suggested there are only two immutable laws of nature, the first being each person’s “preservation of his own nature…his own life.” Beyond that, we have the right to agree with others to “live together peaceably,” or not. But since his second law is an option, it should not be counted as another natural “law.” However, if we do decide to coexist so as not to engage in continual war, it is necessary to establish laws and rules, set up governing structures, and abide by mutually agreed upon conventions of conduct. But there is nothing natural about government. Once covenants are agreed upon for the peaceful co-existence of those entering into them, the resulting system is contrived. And because it is manufactured, initially through consent of the governed, taking into account the power relations existing among those creating or agreeing to abide by it, systems of government are always subject to change.
The natural right to freedom/liberty was as an important aspect of enlightened thinkers of the time. However, there is a problem with how freedom is understood, due to its one-sided view. We understand only “negative freedoms” (see Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom). We have seen this play out in local school board meetings, with vehement objections to wearing a mask during a pandemic or to teaching history that “hurts the feelings” of White students (or, more precisely, their parents). Negative freedoms are freedoms from constraints or actions that offend us. The overriding principle of our negative freedom is there should be no constraints except when individual freedom hurts favored others or the community at large. Exclusive focus on negative freedom, however, makes us selfish and has the effect of relieving us of obligations to one another that should be concomitant as a duty with the very concept of liberty.
Positive freedoms manifest in circumstances where we are provided with the space and the opportunities to develop into whole persons, to self-actualize while at the same time connecting to the world around us. To quote Fromm, in a system based upon positive freedom “the individual exists as an independent self and yet is not isolated but united with the world, with other men and nature…” By this understanding of freedom, there is no contradiction between freedom and equality, as long as equality is defined as the ability to realize our respective potentialities, which will facilitate the creation of a unity in diversity operating within a system of equality of unequals. One problem we have today is instead of an equality of unequals, we have inequality that not only defines our opportunities (or lack thereof) but also our political voice, as well as how we choose to exercise it (this essay is written a few days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk).
The question should be asked: are there founding principles apart from life, liberty and property that, if followed, would lead to a form of governance that is more equitable, more just, and less contradictory? I would suggest that looking at the following facets of life, and how we promote them most effectively, would serve as a guide to the rights we should pursue in whatever truly democratic form of governance is agreed upon.
- Self-Actualization: As civilized societies preclude the need to fight for our very survival, through law, regulation, custom, mores, and other forms of collective social conventions, each person should be provided the time, space and resources to develop individual capacity and discover his, her or their personalized range of interests. Such a priority for a functioning government would not only benefit society as a whole, but would also address the general unhappiness, malaise, and desperation plaguing so many of us and likely contributing to mass shootings and suicides, especially among young people.
- Family: There are many forms of social organization. Historically, family has served as the foundation and platform for participation in other forms of social, religious, economic and civic organizations. Given the importance of family, government should be supportive in every possible manner, ranging from universal day care, mandated parental leave, breakfast and lunch for all students, free tuition to institutions of higher learning, and everything in between. However, even though professed beliefs in the importance of family is restricted mostly to rhetorical posturing, it also seems that family is the only acceptable social organization assigned value in a society that enshrines capital and marginalized labor, frowns upon unions, consumer cooperatives, and any form of social organization that is place-based and potentially antagonistic to the capitalistic order.
- Community: In the early part of the 20th Century, the famed American philosopher and educator, John Dewey, predicted that once communication was universal, we would all be part of a “Great Community.” Well, we have universal communication. Where is our Great Community? And why has the very essence of community life been overwhelmed by market and finance capitalism? Even the theorist, Adam Smith, who is revered and taught as the progenitor of modern day capitalism believed that local, thriving communities were critical in avoiding the abuses of market-based capitalism. A just system would promote community through fiscal and tax policy, more rigorously than it promotes business and finance.
But first, to understand why community is important, there must be agreement on what constitutes a community, a form of social organization that John Dewey declared was essential, in all its constituent elements, to democracy.
Community is not a neighborhood. Community is a social structure and system of cooperation comprised of three interrelated, interconnected and indispensable components. First, members of a community must have something in common. Most often this commonality is expressed geographically, but other commonalities can apply as well (as long as the next two components are also present). The second component consists of actual, perceived, and valued interdependence. My benefit becomes your benefit. My pain becomes your pain. As a community, we suffer and prosper as our members suffer and prosper. Finally, there must be a degree of collective capacity, the ability to accomplish desired outcomes that are only possible, or most effectively accomplished, through mutually supported and directed action. It is the absence of community that explains the absence of the Great Community. It is the absence of community that explains how our current political economy has made citizens socially isolated, politically disenfranchised, economically marginalized and increasingly obsolete. Support of community needs to be a “necessary function of government.”
- Lifelong Liminality: Some of the more communally, and democratically debilitating aspects of social media revolve around anonymity, unchallenged opinions, self-managed parochialism, and simple ignorance. To paraphrase Socrates, “an unexamined life is not worth living.” And if we limit most of our free time to echo chambers and “followers” whose beliefs confirm our worst instincts, baseless opinions, and biases, we cease to learn and are condemned to flounder under constant threats to our comfort and security. Humility would serve us all well. And seeing life as a constant stream of new revelations, different perspectives, and ways of engaging, would enrich our lives. To be in a constant state of transition is not contrary to reason. Our bodies are perpetually in a state of transition, so why not our thoughts, our feelings, our exposures, our bases of knowledge?
- Church/Religion/Spirituality (including atheism): Separation of church and state has been under threat for some time. Mandated posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, approval of a public display of Christian prayer on public school property after a game, are just two examples of the rising tide and acceptance of Christian Nationalism in the political arena. Our history of separating religion and our local, state and federal governments is as important as ever. However, there is a role to play for government in ensuring that the exercise of religion remains protected, but with caveats. If a tax exempt religious institution is involved in politics, the tax exemption should be removed. And just like there is an excise tax on private foundations that do not distribute sufficient grants based upon the size of their endowment, Churches that collect some multiple of reasonable expenses, including reasonable salaries, should have the excess forfeited or taxed. And for those who choose to discriminate on the basis religion, race, or gender identity, there should be a price to pay. So, if a baker decides not to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple that is a right that should be honored. However, that baker should not be allowed to take tax deductions for the business. Such businesses should not benefit from tax deductions if a potential customer denied service is not breaking any laws and has the legal right to take the action that is the cause of services being denied. Private discrimination, to the extent permissible, should nonetheless preclude private benefit at the public’s expense.
Beyond these qualifiers, there should be some effort made to recognize that morality is not dependent upon religious beliefs. Being ethical should be seen as independent of religious belief, and any discrimination on the basis of non-belief should be treated the same as religious discrimination. As a people, as a species, we can only live in a world that we respect and protect, and that includes all people and the environments we share with them. Benedict de Spinoza’s Ethics is based on the maxim that we are all bound to one another and to nature. Being bound together creates a system of ethics that stands for the proposition that what I want for myself, I should also want for others.
- Work: When did work become a dirty word? In “free” societies this transition likely took place during and as a necessary adjunct to the industrial revolution. How else could we rationalize spending 8 to 12 hours, or more, each day simply moving widgets on a production line? Other than convincing a worker that he or she will starve otherwise, there is no way to justify such work. As industry became unionized, as the war economy heated up creating full employment, when the United States emerged from the Second World War with most of the world’s gold supply and all its industrial capacity fully intact, this separation of self from work product became magnified. Many workers, who would emerge as middle class, were paid living wages and were encouraged to invest in leisure, engage in entertaining distractions, save in order to buy other than essential consumer items, raise kids, and leave politics to the “experts.” Work was no longer something to embrace, something by which we defined our very beings. Work took on the characteristic of a means to an end, the ends defined as consumption, leisure, and a “golden years” retirement. As the manufacturing economy transformed into a service economy, the result was not much different. Spending 8 to 16 hours a day working at least one full time job flipping burgers, answering call lines, tending to customers, delivering packages, cleaning homes and work places, transporting people, cutting grass, taking food orders, packing consumer items, and doing other menial service-type work, became a preferable distinction to factory work without a meaningful difference, except the pay was worse. Of course, the service economy has different levels of work, sophistication, and compensation. So, add to that list the bankers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, and other professionals who were and are paid more but where many still viewed work as a means to an end outside of their gainful activity. But it will not be long until “professionals” are downgraded in this economy as well, especially when AI dominates most fields of endeavor. Diagnoses, x-rays, blood work, financial projections, architectural plans, and more will get plugged into a data center and receive an actionable response or set of options with risks/rewards assessments, along with a recommendation. Robotic technology, combined with AI, will eliminate even more jobs. Think of all the doctors, accountants, brokers, analysts, bookkeepers, investment advisors, teachers, store and other managers that will become obsolete. Why is this not ok? To quote from Murray Bookchin (Ecology of Freedom): “We discover ourselves – our potentialities and their actualization – through creative and useful work that not only transforms the natural world but leads to our self-formation and self-definition…Work was thus the revelation as well as realization, a synchronicity of subject and object. Only later was it to bifurcate into a tyranny of subject over object – initially, by reducing human beings to objects themselves.” By separating us from creative work, and objectifying all that we do, we as workers objectivize ourselves. Without creative outlets, our capacity for agency is greatly diminished. Combine that loss with the loss of community, with our isolation and our increased focus on distractions and our algorithmic consumer enslavement, and we are left with negligible agency.
- Politics: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a phrase found in the Declaration of Independence, which beyond serving as our intention of divorce from Great Britain, also represents this country’s political red herring. Pursuit of happiness was never meant to be generally applied. It was intended for the propertied, White elite. Our nation’s laws, conventions, regulations, and form of political economy has been based upon life, liberty and property, with property and the rights therein circumscribing and defining liberty and all manner of our individual and collective living. For each of us, there must be a baseline right to living a life of dignity and purpose through a system of cooperative opportunism. Instead, our development as a so-called Liberal Democracy, a contradiction in terms that Sorel refers to as an undemocratic system of “competitive opportunism,” has manifested as a general detriment.
Among the many manifestations, are the following:
We have been made unhappy. What makes us happy, as opposed to being temporarily thrilled? We have been trained to think that buying stuff, having more leisure time, being responsible for only ourselves, engaging in endless personal distractions, making lots of money, living better than others, that all this and more should be the goals we strive for in our lives. But if these things make us happy, why are there so many miserable people? Why are there so many mass shootings? Why is suicide the second leading cause of death for young people between 10 and 14, and the third leading cause for those between 15 and 19? Why is there such a prevalence in Substance Abuse Disorders in this country? Some posit that people are miserable, voting for reactionaries like Donald Trump, because they are unable to have the things that others have. But is it possible that our unhappiness goes deeper than that? Are we paying a price for our more than a century-long retreat into individualism, manifesting in the form of discontent and hopelessness, resulting in isolation, economic marginalization and political disenfranchisement?
Consistent with Bookchin, happiness for Aristotle was found in what we do as an expression of our talents and interests. For most of us, however, we have not only lost our individual capacity to create, but we have no personal connection to what we produce. Instead, we are left to seek contentment in vicarious and distractive pursuits like video games and sports, while we gamble to get that one big score, drink and do drugs to escape reality, engage, or watch others engage, in sex, and practice religion for what?…fear of the undiscovered country…for social acceptance…for lessons in morality…for spiritual upraising…out of habit? And when did Christians go from believing it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to be saved, to interpreting “I have come that they may have life, and have it in the full,” as meaning those who contribute to their church and do well for themselves will be blessed with abundance in life, that being prosperous in and of itself represents God’s acknowledgement of a person’s worth and value, your neighbor who cannot afford to tithe, or tithe sufficient to gain God’s grace, be damned.
With the exception of family, we are disconnected from others in any meaningful sense. There is power that comes from within each of us. However, that power is constrained by circumstances and the mere limits of physical and mental capacity. There is only so much we can do on our own. For great works, we need mutual support and cooperation of the kind found in community. Hannah Arendt made a useful distinction between power and strength. For her, strength was the physical ability each person has, as opposed to another. Power, however, only arises when people come together, bring something to share with others, covenant together to accomplish some common goal, and then work together to accomplish it. Under this definition, there is no power in acting alone. And yet, isolated as we are, we have become totally dependent on outside forces for our survival. In our isolation, we are vulnerable to manipulation socially, economically, and politically. In our isolation we are, relatively speaking, of no social or political consequence.
We participate in democracy as observers and consumers. Insecure as we are financially, marginalized as we are politically, and obsolete as we are becoming economically, we cling to hero worship, biases seeking confirmations, scapegoats, ignorance, unfounded opinions, religious fanaticism, echo chambers, uniformity and comfortable predictability, believed intrinsic self and group superiority, believed intrinsic inferiority of “others,” historic preferences and entitlements, what is mine, regardless of insignificance, and forever fearing its loss.
The Madisonian view of property rights, explained at the outset, leads directly to the inference that property, and its possession, is inextricably linked to, and arising from, the talent, vision, and worthiness of its possessor. This faulty reasoning rationally leads to a conclusion that property, its creation or development, is available to all and those possessing property benefit society as a whole. In our current context, assuming this is true is like believing that supply side tax cuts will result in investment and job creation. Wealth as unearned inheritance is more the norm than the exception. Few of us are given tens of millions of dollars as a graduation gift, only to inherent hundreds of millions years later. But this bias of equating property rights with entitled prerogatives, leads directly to oligarchy. Such an attitude is reflective of a comment by another of our founders and authors of the Federalist, John Jay, who famously stated that our country should be run by those “who own it.”
This is where we are today. Our focus on property and not people has undermined the democratic ideals of our founding. We need a new understanding of the rights we see as “inalienable” if we are ever to have a governing system that can be viewed as democratic. These rights have to do with opportunities to live with dignity, to grow into the innate talents and capacities we each possess, to grow in functioning and supportive communities, to live in unity within the diversity of people and nature, and to live lives of continued personal growth and awareness. We need a new Declaration of the Rights of People.