John Locke: Trading Freedom to for Freedom from

John Locke is as good a place as any to start a discussion of democracy. In his first Treatise on Government he refutes the divine right of kings and in the second he lays out the rationale for democratic governments.  He was a powerful influence on Jefferson who had his portrait in his study along with Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, and Galileo.

In the Second Treatise on Government, he makes the case that man in his natural state is free and equal to every other man. Locke states “ men are naturally in . . . a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit . . .”[1] that is in the state of nature they have perfect Freedom To.

Locke then asks, “If man in the state of nature be so free . . . absolute lord of his own person and possessions . . . why will he part with his freedom?”[2]

His answer is “. . . that though in the state of nature he hath such rights, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others. For all being kings, as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure.”[3]

So men form political unions, “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”[4]

Since he has entered this contract as an equal he has an equal say in the matters of governing and since he entered it voluntarily if he is not getting the protection for his property that the contract promises he can opt out at any time. Thus the process is democratic.

However, I want to clarify what exactly he gives up and what exactly he gets with this arrangement.

The function of government is to preserve property; but Locke has a pretty broad definition of what he calls property.  In addition to the physical chattels we customarily call property he adds life and liberty (time). It is the expenditure of his property in all these forms that he gives up to enjoy the security of the group. If he defends his tribe against the tribe across the river he gives over his time, his physical resources (weapons perhaps), and possibly his life. He trades his Freedom To use, however he sees fit, this property, in all its forms, and gives it over to the collective for Freedom From the threat of the enemy host which he is not able to deal with on his own.

So Locke presents to us another continuum for us to consider, and consider we have.

Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor is a parable on the subject. Roosevelt’s four freedoms split down the middle, two freedom to’s (Speech and Religion) and two freedom from’s (Want and Fear). In high school a classmate who was a member of the John Birch Society said there is no such thing as Freedom From.

This in fact, I would maintain, is the fundamental continuum upon which liberals and libertarians/conservatives disagree. It is the central political argument of our age.

So I am going to leave it for now and give you a chance to consider how you think and perhaps more importantly feel about it.

In the next post I will look at the freedom to/freedom from continuum in the context of context of the make/buy continuum.

---

[1] John Locke Second Treatise on Government Chapter II - Of the State of Nature

[2] John Locke Second Treatise on Government Chapter IX - Of the Ends of Political Society and Government

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

The division of labor; THE fundamental principle of capitalism

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations starts the book with defining and promulgating the importance of the division of labor. I would maintain it is more than that; it is a sine qua non of any economic system.  If there is no division of labor then everyone is wholly self-sufficient and therefore there is no meaningful exchange of goods or services and no economy exist.

He gives the following example of how in a primitive society the division of labor might arise.

“In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison, than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows and arrows grows to be

his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armourer. Another excels in making the frames and covers of their little huts or moveable houses. He is accustomed to be of use in this way to his neighbours, who reward him in the same manner with cattle and with venison, till at last he finds it his interest to dedicate himself entirely to this employment, and to become a sort of house-carpenter. In the same manner a third becomes a smith or a brazier; a fourth a tanner or dresser of hides or skins, the principal part of the clothing of savages. And thus the certainty of being able to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he may have occasion for, encourages every man to apply himself to a particular occupation, and to cultivate and bring to perfection whatever talent or genius he may possess for that particular species of business.”[1]

The result of this division of labor is that everyone becomes a producer/consumer and as a result is left with a make/buy choice. In the primitive society, do I make my arrows, build my hut, tan my hides or do I trade my cattle, venison, corn for someone else’s skill set? In modern society do I grow my food, build my house, repair my car or do I contract with the grocer, builder, or mechanic to do those things for me?

Make/buy then is a continuum around which we all make choices and to some degree speaks to a core belief we have about ourselves. The more independent among us is inclined to have a garden, fix the faucet or check under the hood before calling the mechanic. Others from a lack of talent (me) or inclination can’t wait to hand the problem off to someone more capable than us. I have a great deal of respect and even envy for those who “look under the hood” before they pick up the phone. Being a core belief it shades the way we look at not just the specific problem but the world as well.

However, no matter how independent we think we are, certainly everyone who is reading this earns the vast majority of their capital pursuing a singular task (doctoring, lawyering, architecting etc.) and trading that capital for virtually everything we need to survive.  And that capital we buy is the work of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. In the opening chapter of The Wealth of Nations Smith uses the example of pin makers, and notes that ten can collectively make 48,000 pins in a day compared to the not more than 20 one untrained person might make.  However, that is still ten people who just make the pin. (And it doesn’t include the people who make the wire from which the pin is made.) If ten people make a pin, how many make a rug, or a book, or a chair, or a computer?

Thus, as with dogma where we believes a million things on the faith of other people, we buy most everything produced by a million other people, because it materially “allows (us) to make a good use of freedom.” Thus from the dawn of economic history, as with dogma, we willingly submit ourselves to a “salutary servitude” because we buy the goods and services of others way more than we produce for ourselves.

The fact that almost all of our choices are buy in the make/buy paradigm perhaps has implications for our happiness but it also has implications for how we view how we govern ourselves.

As a final aside Smith says the division arises out of man’s propensity to barter and trade.  This may be a part of it and the “modern shop till you drop” mentality is a testament to this idea. However, at the inception as he describes it I think it is a quest for efficiency. (My perspective of efficiency as a paramount core belief, of course, shades this opinion.) The arrow maker feels he can get more out of his time from doing something he is good at. This is what motivates him, not the “art of the deal”.

In summary, the division of labor gives rise to economic activity.  The division of labor gives rise to the make/buy continuum.  Where we see ourselves on this continuum is a reflection of certain core beliefs we have. The fact that overwhelmingly we buy rather than make is another form of salutary servitude that we accept to operate in the world.  How we perceive these choices has implications for how we make decisions about how we govern ourselves and perhaps implications for our happiness.

---

[1] Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations Book I chapter 2 Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

Capitalism and Democracy I

Someone* said institution that are not self-correcting will not survive.** Basically this is a statement of social evolution. Institutions that can adapt to change survive. However, it is not a statement of survival of the fittest; rather it is a statement of survival of the flexible.

On the face of it capitalism and democracy are self-correcting institutions. 

Capitalism is inherently self-correcting. It is first and foremost a competition.  People with ideas invest or attract capital to create products that compete in the marketplace.  Consumers are free to choose the products they like the best. As in any competition there are losers as well as winners. Money moves from bad or obsolete ideas to ones that work or at least what people want through this process of creative destruction. As a result wealth is transferred to those with winning ideas for enriching the lives of the consuming public with inexpensive and efficient products.  In addition to increasing the material well-being of both the individual and the general public, capitalism gives people the opportunity to maximize their creative talents.  The human spirit is nurtured by the vision of people like Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, and the Beatles who followed their dreams, amassed fortunes, and captivated us with their vision, creativity, and talent. 

Democracy is self-correcting by both by design and purpose.

The structure of government, three co-equal branches with a system of checks and balances, was specifically designed by the founding fathers to be self-correcting. The fact that virtually every country that has a right to call itself a democracy follows this model is a testament to the effectiveness of this design.

Democracy, the system for distributing political power, aspires to distribute that power equally.  The rule of law, one man one vote, and equal justice under the law affirm that the very purpose of Democracy is to put no one person’s interest above another regardless of difference in talent, intelligence, race, or gender. No secular idea has enriched mankind more than the knowledge that we all stand equal before the law.

This reinforces the self-correcting nature of Democracy in two ways.

First, it allows for a marketplace of ideas so that ideas can compete and ultimately the best can rise to the top. 

Second, it gives the citizen a sense of buy-in so they are part of the process and will work to make the process work.

To say that these systems are successful because they can continually evolve is to imply that there is something organic in their nature.  If that is the case then while on the face of it capitalism and democracy are self-correcting it is possible that any given democracy or capitalistic system can age, ossify, and ultimately be replaced by a more nimble and flexible one.

In summary then self-correcting institutions survive.  Capitalism and democracy are self-correcting institutions and therefore are likely to survive. However, any given system can age and ossify and ultimately be replaced.

While capitalism and democracy are both self-correcting systems they do make strange bedfellows. Democracy is the source of our egalitarian principles, which says we are all equal, while capitalism is the mainstay of our meritocracy which implies we are all different and should be differentially rewarded according to our variable talents.  In the next few entries I would like to look at first capitalism then democracy and then create a framework in which they both fit.

*20 or so years ago I read a book review of a biography in the Economist that attributed this idea to the subject of the biography.  I have never been able to retrieve the name of the person who said this. If any of you know who it is I would love to hear from you.

**This is the ultimate “THEY said it” statement and therefore clearly dogmatic. (I readily acknowledge I don’t know who “They” are.) I offer it as a way to look at the systems I mention and see if it fits for you. This also suggests another continuum; should institutions be flexible or steadfast or more negatively relativistic or rigid. Your underlying emotional predisposition toward this continuum will influence how willing you are to accept the premise.

Core Beliefs: what we feel is true; the second framework

“In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away.”[1]            Antoine De Saint-Exupery

“You get out what you put in minus the friction”

The first principle of engineering and a more perfect expression of the former

“Go.”

The sentence an engineer wrote when asked to write a sentence on a mental status exam. A practical application of the first principle of engineering

In the book, The Righteous Mind, (which I highly recommend), the author Jonathan Haidt convincingly makes the case that moral judgments arise from innate instinctive reflexes; they are not derived from reason.  That is we respond spontaneously and emotionally when we see a baby harmed, or the flag desecrated, or a criminal get away with their crime.

He goes on to say that these innate moral intuitions or appetites seem to fall into six categories, care/harm, fairness/cheating, freedom/subjugation, community/anarchy, authority/insubordination, and sanctity/degradation.  Different groups tend to value these moral appetites differently. Haidt points out that, universally, liberals put far more weight on the appetites of care and fairness whereas conservatives give more balanced weight to all six appetites.

He sights data to make the case that this differentiation begins genetically and then is influenced by our cultural surroundings. Once we have developed these moral intuitions they tend to color how we see the world and that is the point I want to make.  Our view of the world is continuously colored by emotional undercurrents and intuitions that incline us to favor one set of facts over another. 

However, I would contend that these intuitions are more diverse than Haidt’s six moral appetites. The following is an example from my own life. I continue to be amazed at what an influence my father has been on me.  He was first and foremost an engineer (and the author of the sentence in the introduction). I don’t have the discipline to be an engineer but “you get out what you put in minus the friction” is in my marrow. Whether this was passed on to me from my father by genetics or example, it is clearly the intuitive response I have that colors my emotional response to any situation or problem. Mediation is better than litigation not because it is morally superior by any of Haidt’s moral intuitions but because it is more efficient (less friction).

Having identified this predisposition or coloring of the landscape I have at times been able to, if not see a situation from another point of view, at least acknowledge that the other point of view is legitimate.  For example, flowers, especially cut flowers, (as I have written in another venue) are completely non-utilitarian and often expensive.  However, since all the women and particularly the most important woman in my life don’t share that view I have been able to put aside my predisposition for a variety of reasons (for instance survival).

Much, no most of our view of the world is based on dogma (It’s true because THEY said it). And what we choose to accept of the many facts that are presented to us is colored by emotional undercurrents that run through us.  If one can step back and try to identify those emotional undercurrents one need not change the way they see the world but might have a better understanding of why they see it the way they do. A mutual acknowledgment of these undercurrents between people of different viewpoints could go a long way to improving understanding.

My next series of entries will be about capitalism and democracy.

---

[1] Wind, Sand, and Stars, Chapter 3 The Tool p.42, Antoine De Saint-Exupery

Dogma: core ideas what we think is true, the first framework

I want to speculate how I, and by extension you, come to at least some of your worldview. This will provide both my first framework and my first continuum.

When topics about the physical world come up we are often asked to decide if we believe in things like evolution or climate change. But there are other concepts of the physical world that we accept without condition.  No rational adult, for instance, questions the roundness of the earth, its rotation on its axis, or its orbit around the sun. We don’t say we believe in any of these properties; they just are this way. Another concept that we rarely think about is the fact that we are made up of atoms which are mostly empty space and that if all that space were removed the actual space we would take up would be little larger that a single molecule.

These irrefutable facts then I would take to be core beliefs defined as the very essence of how we see physical the world. That said I would maintain that these core beliefs are dogmatic in nature. Dogma is most commonly thought of in connection with church doctrine and practice but it is more broadly defined as,  “Something held as an established opinion; especially :  a definite authoritative tenet [1] ” as the dictionary defines it, or “to entertain some opinions on trust and without discussion.” [2]as de Tocqueville defines it or most succinctly, we believe it because THEY said it.

We don’t accept these facts because this is the way we experience the world. Everywhere we look the world spreads out flat before us; everyday the sun rises in the east and sets in the west; sun is higher or lower in the sky as the seasons change but it visibly moves in relation to us and not the other way around.  And of course Gibraltar, for instance, is solid as a rock and not really mostly nothing.

We believe all these “facts” contrary to our senses because we have been told they are true. I would venture to guess that very few if any of you have conducted an experiment to confirm the roundness of the earth or Copernicus’s theories of the movement of heavenly bodies, let alone the subatomic nature of matter.  We believe them because this is what we were told in 4^th grade science and high school chemistry.  We believe what we believe about the physical world because THEY said it. Those things are continually reinforced indirectly by our life experiences so much so that they become irrefutable. (There must be such things as electrons because when I flip the switch the light invariably comes on.)

If dogma drives much of our belief of the physical world we live in how much more of a role must it play in our views politics, philosophy, culture and the like?

De Tocqueville points out the following characteristics of dogma:

It is ubiquitous. “At different periods dogmatic belief is more or less common. It arises in different ways, and it may change its object and its form; but under no circumstances will dogmatic belief cease to exist, or, in other words, men will never cease to entertain some opinions on trust and without discussion.”

It is necessary for society. “If everyone undertook to form all his own opinions and to seek for truth by isolated paths struck out by himself alone, it would follow that no considerable number of men would ever unite in any common belief.

But obviously without such common belief no society can prosper; say, rather, no society can exist; for without ideas held in common there is no common action, and without common action there may still be men, but there is no social body.”[3]

It is necessary for the individual. “If I now consider man in his isolated capacity, I find that dogmatic belief is not less indispensable to him in order to live alone than it is to enable him to co-operate with his fellows. If man were forced to demonstrate for himself all the truths of which he makes daily use, his task would never end. There is no philosopher in the world so great but that he believes a million things on the faith of other people and accepts a great many more truths than he demonstrates.”[4]

This is not only necessary but desirable for the individual . . . “A man who should undertake to inquire into everything for himself could devote to each thing but little time and attention. His task would keep his mind in perpetual unrest, which would prevent him from penetrating to the depth of any truth or of making his mind adhere firmly to any conviction.”[5]

. . . But what is desirable comes at a cost one must necessarily pay. “His intellect would be at once independent and powerless. He must therefore make his choice from among the various objects of human belief and adopt many opinions without discussion in order to search the better into that smaller number which he sets apart for investigation. It is true that whoever receives an opinion on the word of another does so far enslave his mind, but it is a salutary servitude, which allows him to make a good use of freedom.”[6] (My emphasis)

The framework I would ask you to consider is the idea that the vast majority of your ideas arise from dogma. You like de Tocqueville’s philosopher “believe a million things on the faith of other.” You accept this “salutary servitude” so that you can create your own frameworks.

The continuum is the degree you accept this “salutary servitude” and how deep you are willing to dig to empirically prove your position.

Dogma then is ubiquitous and both a limiting and emancipating way we acquire our view of the world.  Understanding it in this way may lead us to have some humility of our own worldview and less contempt for the worldview of others with whom we disagree.

Dogma shapes or is perhaps the foundation of most of our core beliefs.  However, there are other forces that shape these core beliefs that I would touch upon in the next entry.

---

[1] Merriam-Webster Dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

[2] Democracy in America Volume II Section 1 Of The Principal Source Of Belief Among Democratic Nations http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/ch1_02.htm

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid