ON FREEDOM AND THE STABILITY OF COMMUNITIES
Here is my latest contribution to Commensal. I had promised more articles, I know, and they are all still in the pipeline. My articles on Pure Choice and Pure Democracy have not materialised, I have become bogged down with them and their contents have become repetitive and confused. I decided then to return to the theme of my first article and elaborate from a different angle. I picked out a segment of Nigel Perks' great article in reply to mine. I think it has worked, I have tried to base my arguments on evidence this time, and not simply on subjective beliefs.
I tried to write a reply to your questions on God’s wisdom but I am finding it very hard to argue my case effectively. I'm sorry I did not present my original arguments well. They did not stand up to your questioning and as of yet I can’t offer anything better. I will get there in the end !
To make sure I meet the deadline for C98 I have decided to send just one article, On Freedom and the Stability of Communities, rather than wait and complete my article on God's wisdom.
Nigel Perks asks the question "do we own our life and work ?" (C96/23), his is a question that I shall attempt to answer in this item.
If we own, or have full control of our lives then we should be free to do as we like and have full responsibility for our actions. Therefore, in a society that is totally free we should be able to forgo working. This would imply that we would have to take the consequences of this action on ourselves. We should starve. In another society, we may provide welfare to these who are not working. Because society has decided to provide security to the citizens who do not have to face the consequences of their choices or have fallen ill of the choices of other people they must forfeit some freedom to the society. The body which provides the welfare (which may be the citizens themselves through tax) now has some influence over the person. Having a social conscience in a community therefore implies that the co-ordinating body for this help must control some parts of society. The citizens have sacrificed some their freedom so they do not have to face all of the consequences of their actions.
Applying this to our current society (as far as I understand it), we do not fully own our lives because we do not accept full responsibility for our failure. The safety net of welfare is also our cage. We are forced to accept some control by the state that represents the interests of the community as a whole. This comes in the form of law.
However, what then before welfare ? There were systems that were used to cope with this freedom to security exchange. In the feudal system, citizens gained land in return for certain services including military services. Their freedom was restricted by their allegiance to the higher vassal. The serfs under the vassals were afforded some security from their feudal lords but in return, they had to give up all personal freedom, they had to comply with their lord in his manorial court.
It can be said that both sides gained from this mutual agreement so both were compelled in the beginning to agree to form a feudal society. The serfs were possibly subjected to force from the lords; this is the ultimate method of compulsion. The serfs are not described as slaves even though they did not have any personal freedom because they have security. Slaves have no personal freedom and no security. Security is seen as a good exchange for loss of personal freedom.
Sometimes it is found by the community that there is an imbalance between the amount of security assured by the rulers and the loss of freedom this incurs. A good example is the British rule in the American colonies. When a French threat to the colony's security was diminished, there was less justification for the British to impose control on the citizens. The citizens wanted to have more freedom by having representatives of their community in parliament and revolted against the British rule.
It can also work in the opposite direction, when a threat increases an imbalance can also occur. The Serfs abandoned the Vassals because of the Black Death, the Vassals were unable to guarantee security for the Serfs, an imbalance between freedom and security occurred and the system could no longer be justified.
The balance of security provided by the state for the citizens and the control that the state has over the citizens' personal freedom is critical for the stability of the society. If the level of security decreases, a greater amount of freedom must be given to citizens to maintain the stable balance, however a greater amount of control may be justified to maintain security. If the level of security increases then the state can justify a decrease in its citizens' freedom (as with the Serfs). This works as long as there is an outside threat, as with the American example, if there is no outside threat then there is no justification for excessive state control.
Arising from this conclusion are two dilemmas for a state to keep order in society. If the level of security decreases then to make the 'mutual agreement' work between state and citizens, the freedom of the citizens should increase. This would result in less security and therefore more freedom must be given to citizens, eventually the state would have no control over its citizens. So the state must restrict the personal freedom of its citizens to give them more security but this runs the risk of causing an imbalance in the freedom and security exchange that makes the society work. If the imbalance is not restored with the desired increase in security then the State will be toppled by the citizens. (Or at least is opposed by the citizens which now must be oppressed, but the ruling regime is doomed).
With this simple formula of a balance control (freedom) versus security, (threat) you can see why some regimes are stable and others are chaotic. It would be interesting to find more examples in history where this balance can be shown to be true.
As with other formulae, there are other outside factors that affect the balance of freedom and security in a society. Between the citizen and the ruling regime (which in stability will represent the conscience of the community) there is charity or goodwill or family groupings or gangs that can bring security to people. Charity and goodwill usually carry no influence on the benefactor but families and gangs require some sacrifice of freedom in the form of loyalty (or could this type be treated as mini communities within the large community?). Loyalty in communities is irrational to the extent that the community that has loyalty to the ruling regime may not oppose it even though the balance between freedom and security is not balanced. This is the case in families where loyalty is afforded to family members even though it restricts you from doing how you would like. The balance is weighted toward the security side.
During times of great threat, like threat of invasion, freedom is happily traded for security, but in stable times freedom carries more of a value (compare 1940s Britain to today or compare 18th Century USA to cold war USA). The regime will always attempt to balance the society, though sometimes the different commodities have different weights. The value of freedom or security will fluctuate with loyalty toward the community (pride is another word) which in turn fluctuates with threat from the outside of the community.
The above may not be complete but I shall leave it for discussion while I turn to hypothetical societies.
A society based on compassion would deal with its balances as follows. It is a non-government society because you are free to be compassionate to who you like. The consequences of your choices are not taken by the community through a ruling regime, they could be taken by the community directly ("cut out the middleman"). In return, however the loss in personal freedom could be replaced by the requirement for each citizen to have an individual social conscience. This would be about taking our community responsibilities seriously and not leaving it to community leaders who we just attack for not doing the job effectively. We would look out for each other's needs and do the job in society we were most suited to, not restricted by a ruling regime. There is no need for the freedom for security exchange; we should give people security without expecting some influence in return (this returns to the charity).
Although not all of the community could function on charity, society would be improved if this became a larger part of our lives.
I understand that a utopian society is a false dream for us to aspire to. Humans are fallible and greedy by nature so a perfect society may never be reached. Nevertheless, thinking about Utopia and the aspects that make them perfect could inspire us into improving our own fallible societies.
I conclude that we do not have freedom to do what we like and living in a community this would be very hard to achieve. Full freedom would mean bearing the responsibility for all of our actions independently because help from the community will result in that community having control over you. As long as there is a community, some responsibility is shared. This security is traded by the community for influence over the citizens' life. This is necessary to keep the community stable (in feudal societies the community may take the form of a ruling elite while in developed societies the community is embodied by elected representatives). External influence on a community leads to a decrease in the individual freedoms of citizens because loyalty (patriotism) is fostered to the community. The balance of personal freedom and security in a society between the citizen and the community is the factor that keeps the community stable.
Paul Cadman