*****LIBERTY -What it means? How to maximise it & preserve it***** # 1 post on Liberty and this topic
“What matters is that each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only
restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do
the same.” Lord Denning.
That we should all be free to pursue our individual lives and happiness in whatever way we choose
as long as we do not injure or dispossess others: this is the Ideal of Liberty instinctively familiar to
us all. But attaining the ideal, maximizing liberty for all requires that we abandon our age-old
course of gaining at the expense of other’s loss. It requires that in our personal relationships, in
business and commerce and in our use of natural resources, we respect others as we would have
them respect ourselves.
The consistent application of this ideal in everyday law would maximize liberty in the nation under
its care. We would share resources equitably and use them wisely, we would trade fairly, we would
respect the property, privacy and peace of one another. We would learn to live in liberty, respecting
and not infringing the liberties of others. And we would prosper: for collaboration is an infinitely
more creative, more powerful, more productive force than confrontation.
“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain Men from injuring one another yet leave
them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and which shall
not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: this is the sum of good Government
necessary to complete the circle of our felicities.” Thomas Jefferson.
A Predatory Society
As the sun sets in a blaze of orange giving way to the cool of evening, a mosquito appears from
beneath some dark green leaves where she has been resting during the heat of the day. She flits
around in her three-dimensional waltz movement, humming a high-pitched tune to herself. She
wants some blood to assist her reproductive functions.
She finds some humans sitting in a group on the lawn in front of the house. Fortunately they are all
engaged in lively conversation so no one notices her. She makes her choice and at once inserts her
needle-sharp, needle-strong proboscis deep into a tender patch of skin behind the ear. In a moment
she is gone, her benefactor raising a hand unconsciously to scratch the irritation she has left behind.
The mosquito is a predator. She is not alone. We live in a predatory society.
The mosquito’s lust for blood is reflected in man’s age-old propensity to grow rich by drawing
upon the work and wealth of fellow men. Look at the history of social and political institutions and
what do we find?
We have consistently ordered society in ways which permit those enjoying superior wealth,
background and the political influence that goes with it, to live comfortably from the proceeds of
other people’s toil.
This transfer of work and wealth from the poor to the powerful took place through three major
phases: slavery, feudalism, and low-wage industrial employment.
In early Greek and Roman times, a gentleman owned slaves; in the Middle Ages he owned land
which was worked for him by peasants who were bound to him; in Victorian times he owned
factories, paying workers barely enough to buy food and shelter.
Then Karl Marx and friends invited the “poor masses” to throw off the yoke of oppression, turn the
tables and plunder the riches of their old masters. And this, encouraged by the newly invented
doctrines of Socialism and Communism, they did.
Society became divided politically into two classes, Rich and Poor, represented by Right and Left.
Democracy or more accurately, Majority Rule, gives each side an opportunity to express and apply
its own sectarian interests.
The Right seeks to perpetuate its own inherent advantages, while the Left enlists the power of
Government to provide subsidies or welfare which someone else – anybody or everybody, this
generation or the next or the next – will have to pay for. We all have our personal wish-lists of very
worthy and highly justifiable needs; and if we can get others to pay for them, all the better.
The potential differences and conflicts which can arise between people in a complex society may
appear limitless as indeed they are.
Sometimes we cause harm or pain to others without even knowing it. Sometimes we know it but
we go on doing it anyway. And frequently we do it on purpose for the benefit we gain from it; we
steal other people’s goods, we injure those whom we dislike, or we deceive customers in trade
because there’s a good profit in it.
But we can be quite precise as to the fundamental cause of political or social conflict: it is that one
person is doing something which is to his or her advantage, but which is to the disadvantage of
another or others. Politics is conflict and its resolution.
If an action by one person has no effect on others there will be no conflict; indeed it would not be a
political act at all.
If one person’s action affects others but is to the advantage of all concerned, there will be no
conflict, and everyone is happy for it to continue.
Similarly if one person’s action is disadvantageous for everybody, the person committing the
action included, there will be no incentive to continue, so peace can quickly be restored and once
again there is no conflict.
Political conflict arises when an action by one person is to their own advantage or profit, but is
harmful, detrimental or injurious to another or others. This results in gain to one at the expense of
loss to others.
Conflict exists because the person committing the action and benefiting from it naturally wishes it
to continue; while those suffering injury or disadvantage from it would like it to stop.
Actions or activities which improve the wellbeing of some at the expense of others, actions which
give advantage to some by causing disadvantage to others: these are the fundamental causes of
social conflict and lie at the very heart of politics.
The history of politics and social relationships is a history of continuous imposition exercised by
people over one another, with government “turning a blind eye”, or with government’s active
participation – a fact of political life which still holds true today, to a much greater extent than most
of us realize or would care to admit.
Whether autocratic monarchy or dictatorship, constitutional or democratic, government was not
and is still not instituted by idealists to protect the general liberty.
Politics has long been understood by idealists and political thinkers as the science whereby
differences between people are resolved according to principles of universal justice, creating and
maintaining a social environment in which all can enjoy the maximum liberty to pursue personal
goals in collaboration with, but not to the detriment of, one another.
Such at least is an ideal view of law and government, and it may well be that we are now
approaching the time when principles of universal justice and the maximization of the general
liberty might gain increasing acceptance.
But this has not been the historical course of our political development.
Mankind long ago rejected the ideals of universal liberty, choosing in what might be called the
original sin of social and political conduct, the path of self-interest, as each individual attempts to
enhance his or her own wellbeing at the expense of others by the use of personal power or through
manipulation of the legislative process.
It was a course chosen at the dawn of political history; and though in the politically developed
world at least we now conduct our affairs more elegantly, the fundamental direction of intent has
not yet been reversed.
Politics today is the art of getting what you want.
And yet, despite all its faults, we need law and order. Whatever its faults, it’s better that anarchy.
--------TAKEN FROM - Michael Satorius Book
______ TO BE CONTINUED.....
“What matters is that each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only
restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do
the same.” Lord Denning.
That we should all be free to pursue our individual lives and happiness in whatever way we choose
as long as we do not injure or dispossess others: this is the Ideal of Liberty instinctively familiar to
us all. But attaining the ideal, maximizing liberty for all requires that we abandon our age-old
course of gaining at the expense of other’s loss. It requires that in our personal relationships, in
business and commerce and in our use of natural resources, we respect others as we would have
them respect ourselves.
The consistent application of this ideal in everyday law would maximize liberty in the nation under
its care. We would share resources equitably and use them wisely, we would trade fairly, we would
respect the property, privacy and peace of one another. We would learn to live in liberty, respecting
and not infringing the liberties of others. And we would prosper: for collaboration is an infinitely
more creative, more powerful, more productive force than confrontation.
“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain Men from injuring one another yet leave
them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and which shall
not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: this is the sum of good Government
necessary to complete the circle of our felicities.” Thomas Jefferson.
A Predatory Society
As the sun sets in a blaze of orange giving way to the cool of evening, a mosquito appears from
beneath some dark green leaves where she has been resting during the heat of the day. She flits
around in her three-dimensional waltz movement, humming a high-pitched tune to herself. She
wants some blood to assist her reproductive functions.
She finds some humans sitting in a group on the lawn in front of the house. Fortunately they are all
engaged in lively conversation so no one notices her. She makes her choice and at once inserts her
needle-sharp, needle-strong proboscis deep into a tender patch of skin behind the ear. In a moment
she is gone, her benefactor raising a hand unconsciously to scratch the irritation she has left behind.
The mosquito is a predator. She is not alone. We live in a predatory society.
The mosquito’s lust for blood is reflected in man’s age-old propensity to grow rich by drawing
upon the work and wealth of fellow men. Look at the history of social and political institutions and
what do we find?
We have consistently ordered society in ways which permit those enjoying superior wealth,
background and the political influence that goes with it, to live comfortably from the proceeds of
other people’s toil.
This transfer of work and wealth from the poor to the powerful took place through three major
phases: slavery, feudalism, and low-wage industrial employment.
In early Greek and Roman times, a gentleman owned slaves; in the Middle Ages he owned land
which was worked for him by peasants who were bound to him; in Victorian times he owned
factories, paying workers barely enough to buy food and shelter.
Then Karl Marx and friends invited the “poor masses” to throw off the yoke of oppression, turn the
tables and plunder the riches of their old masters. And this, encouraged by the newly invented
doctrines of Socialism and Communism, they did.
Society became divided politically into two classes, Rich and Poor, represented by Right and Left.
Democracy or more accurately, Majority Rule, gives each side an opportunity to express and apply
its own sectarian interests.
The Right seeks to perpetuate its own inherent advantages, while the Left enlists the power of
Government to provide subsidies or welfare which someone else – anybody or everybody, this
generation or the next or the next – will have to pay for. We all have our personal wish-lists of very
worthy and highly justifiable needs; and if we can get others to pay for them, all the better.
The potential differences and conflicts which can arise between people in a complex society may
appear limitless as indeed they are.
Sometimes we cause harm or pain to others without even knowing it. Sometimes we know it but
we go on doing it anyway. And frequently we do it on purpose for the benefit we gain from it; we
steal other people’s goods, we injure those whom we dislike, or we deceive customers in trade
because there’s a good profit in it.
But we can be quite precise as to the fundamental cause of political or social conflict: it is that one
person is doing something which is to his or her advantage, but which is to the disadvantage of
another or others. Politics is conflict and its resolution.
If an action by one person has no effect on others there will be no conflict; indeed it would not be a
political act at all.
If one person’s action affects others but is to the advantage of all concerned, there will be no
conflict, and everyone is happy for it to continue.
Similarly if one person’s action is disadvantageous for everybody, the person committing the
action included, there will be no incentive to continue, so peace can quickly be restored and once
again there is no conflict.
Political conflict arises when an action by one person is to their own advantage or profit, but is
harmful, detrimental or injurious to another or others. This results in gain to one at the expense of
loss to others.
Conflict exists because the person committing the action and benefiting from it naturally wishes it
to continue; while those suffering injury or disadvantage from it would like it to stop.
Actions or activities which improve the wellbeing of some at the expense of others, actions which
give advantage to some by causing disadvantage to others: these are the fundamental causes of
social conflict and lie at the very heart of politics.
The history of politics and social relationships is a history of continuous imposition exercised by
people over one another, with government “turning a blind eye”, or with government’s active
participation – a fact of political life which still holds true today, to a much greater extent than most
of us realize or would care to admit.
Whether autocratic monarchy or dictatorship, constitutional or democratic, government was not
and is still not instituted by idealists to protect the general liberty.
Politics has long been understood by idealists and political thinkers as the science whereby
differences between people are resolved according to principles of universal justice, creating and
maintaining a social environment in which all can enjoy the maximum liberty to pursue personal
goals in collaboration with, but not to the detriment of, one another.
Such at least is an ideal view of law and government, and it may well be that we are now
approaching the time when principles of universal justice and the maximization of the general
liberty might gain increasing acceptance.
But this has not been the historical course of our political development.
Mankind long ago rejected the ideals of universal liberty, choosing in what might be called the
original sin of social and political conduct, the path of self-interest, as each individual attempts to
enhance his or her own wellbeing at the expense of others by the use of personal power or through
manipulation of the legislative process.
It was a course chosen at the dawn of political history; and though in the politically developed
world at least we now conduct our affairs more elegantly, the fundamental direction of intent has
not yet been reversed.
Politics today is the art of getting what you want.
And yet, despite all its faults, we need law and order. Whatever its faults, it’s better that anarchy.
--------TAKEN FROM - Michael Satorius Book
______ TO BE CONTINUED.....
Comments