Friday 22 October 2010

REVOLUTION!!

It’s been said that one should never start an article quoting someone else. The reasoning being that you arte telling the reader that someone else can say it better than you.  So here I am opening with the trailer for a video game.  I wonder what that says about me.  In this instance I want to write about the concepts presented here by the creators of Fable 3.

What I look for in a video game is multi-level story telling.  On the one hand there is the combat and action.  Call this the first level.  The higher levels are revealed in the storyline and even more so in those games that take action and consequence into consideration, such as the Fable series.  Apparently the theme in this new game is revolution.  I’ll admit that it sends a chill through my spine.  I love the rhetoric of revolution.  However, an important point is made by Peter Molyneux, “to be a rebel; deciding what is just and unjust.   This brings us to the very core of the concept of revolution.

I watched a video on Youtube covering the recent protests in Britain to cuts in federal spending and public services.  The poster wrote this, “

The British public are starting to show the government exactly what they think of the recent public cuts to pay for the banking crisis that was engineered by the very same corrupt bankers.  The time for sitting doing nothing is over. A tyrannical government will slowly push things through, step by step, and judge whether the people will take it or not. Up till now, us British have sat and taken it like bitches, but no more! no more!  stand up and fight for your freedom, because if you are not willing to fight for it, you hardly deserve it in the 1st place”

So here we have an example of revolutionary rhetoric.  There is talk of tyranny, corruption, freedom, and the importance of the people to rise up and fight.  The question here is what are they fighting for?  What is their idea of just?  Where is their moral compass set?  That is the question that every revolutionary, and every revolution, must answer.

The answers we seek are to be found in philosophy.  Step One:  What is Reality?  Step Two:  Prove it.  Step Three:  Determine an individual course of action accordingly.  Step 4:  Determine a group course of action.  Or to rephrase those steps:  Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics.

When we say that an individual or group activity is immoral, what we are saying is that these actions are not consistent with the requirements of reality in order to prosper.  The great lie is to determine morality not according to the dictates of Reality, but according to how we feel.  How we feel things should be.  What we feel is right.  What we have been socially conditioned to see as the correct course of action.

The Declaration of Independence is a philosophical document in which Thomas Jefferson makes his case for the moral rightness of the American War of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson then assures the reader that they do not embark upon this course of action lightly and points out that they have attempted to have there grievances redressed to no avail.  He then lists specific violations of their rights and concludes with the absolution of ties with the United Kingdom.

The central premise here is that the purpose of government is to protect the Natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  The original concept in John Locke is life, liberty, and property.  Jefferson is making a statement on the nature of reality.  Unfortunately, he did not feel the need to make an argument defending his position as he considered this concept to be “self-evident”, and it is.

You have a right to exists simply by virtue of your birth.  You have a right to think and act as you see fit simply by virtue of possessing consciousness.  You have a right to property.  You used your time, energy, and skill to produce which you traded for property. Like your life and your liberty, this is yours.  I will also add that liberty and property are essential to human existence.  This is self-evident.

There is another moral point of view dating from the beginning of time.  In many tribal cultures the chief, king, or leader was seen as a father figure who takes care of his children.  In Scotland, the word clan means children.  The people were the “children” of the chief.  As such he had a moral responsibility to care for his people. To deny that or to take for himself or distribute to his friends was seen as immoral.  If the people suffered, it was because the king was immoral.  In modern times, this translates into the belief that the purpose of government is to provide for the people as needed.  This is called central economic planning, or Socialism.

So here is the moral dilemma.  One the one hand, humans possess individual consciousness and from this comes the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  However, humans are also social creatures who work best in a state of cooperation.  These human groups are usually led by a leader who administers the resources and activities of the group.

The modern political spectrum takes both these views into account.  On the Left extreme we have 100% government control over society and the economy.  Ideally, the benevolent chief pools the resources of the group and redistributes it according to need for the benefit of all his children.  On the Right extreme we have 0% government control over society and the economy.  Ideally, individuals act in their rational self-interest to create a spontaneous order, by positive actions rewarded by positive consequences and negative actions rewarded with negative consequences,  and the people will provide for each other.  Today, the people on the Left are referred to as Collectivists and those on the Right as Individualists.

Let’s look at the situation in Britain.  Prior to roughly 1800, the United Kingdom was largely Collectivist.  The ruling aristocracy governed either benevolently or not, depending.  During the Nineteenth Century, the UK was Individualistic.  After roughly 1900 the UK swung back to Collectivism.  Therefore, the vast majority in Britain believe the purpose of government is to benevolently provide services to the public, such as education, health care, and benefits for the needy.  In philosophical terms, this a metaphysical statement on the nature of reality.  If this statement is true, then the moral rectitude of a government is judged by how well it serves its purpose as provider.

Now here is the problem.  It has been predicted that the UK national debt will exceed 100% of GDP by 2012.  At present 65% of the government income goes to health, education, welfare, and pensions.  The current total expenditure is 45% of the GDP.  The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the total production of the people within the United Kingdom – it is the nation’s wealth; the accumulation of every individual person’s work day.  Well, not every person.  In June 2005, 20.4% of the UK workforce was employed in the public sector.  These people do not contribute to the GDP; they take from it.

Individual producers create wealth (increased GDP) through the non-coercive trade in goods or services.  A percentage of the wealth produced is then taken by coercion by the government (pay your taxes or go to jail).  This wealth is then used to pay government salaries, expenditures, public works, defence, government services, and welfare. 

So society is broken-up into two segments.  The producers who create wealth and the public employees and the underclass who take wealth.  Government workers have jobs in the sense that they are paid for services rendered, however they are not being paid a share of wealth created, as in private business, rather in wealth taken from private business.  When a public employee or government beneficiary spends money, he or she is not contributing to the wealth of the nation through trade; they are simply moving money around. 

As government expenditure grows, private business has to produce more just to keep up.  If the prediction that the UK national debt will exceed 100% of GDP by 2012 is correct, this means that all wealth created by private individuals will be needed to pay for the debts incurred by government in its effort to take care of people.  Imagine every one of your pay cheques being taken by government and a share given back to you to keep you alive.  This will not happen.  But such a scenario is commonly called slavery.  Is this moral?

In the language of Revolution, we all agree in freedom, power to the people, morality, justice, fairness, and standing against tyranny.  But what those things mean is wholly dependent on your worldview and the morality that stems from it.  Each individual must decide for themselves what they believe to be true and moral, and then be able to rationally defend that position.  “Because the Bible says so” does not count.

Do you have a moral and civic duty to pay your taxes for the benefit of all, or do you view this as the theft of your honest earnings under the threat of force to take your property?  Is tyranny the government in league with greedy businessmen or in the unaccountable bureaucrat writing the regulations that control your life? Or perhaps both.  Does government have a moral obligation to provide services at the expense of individual property rights, or are property rights inalienable.  Does “power to the people” mean regular elections of government representatives or government leaving the individual alone to make their own decisions?  Is fairness the “social justice” of taking money from a producer and giving it to a non or less successful producer or is it each individual benefiting from the fruits of their labour?

In The Revelation of St John the Divine 3:16, Jesus said, “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth”.  When it comes to morality there are always the lukewarm people, also called moderates.  They believe that the moral purpose of government is to take care of people AND protect individual rights.  These are the people who in opinion polls and elections say that they want more government services AND lower taxes.  The problem of course being that in order for government to provide these services they have to violate your property rights.  So they justify it by saying the government can steal a little money provided its not too much and the cause is good, such as teachers and nurses salaries.  This is the refuge for the unprincipled and the opportunist.

So what is your Revolution? What is your moral stance?  These are the questions every person must ask themselves.  When you look at the world do you see a world out of control tumbling into darkness or do you want to bring about the dawning of a new age of enlightenment?  The world of fiction is so much more simple.  There is the evil tyrant and the people looking for a leader to take them into liberty.  But that is not the way of things.

The enemies take many forms and some honestly believe that they are on the side of angels, just as you believe yourself to be.  I think Socialism is evil incarnate.  Why? Because the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a sacred and essentially to human prosperity.  I believe in Freedom.  I am an Individualist.  No man has claim upon my soul and I have no claim on another's.  Socialism claims the moral high ground.  They seek to provide for the poor and disadvantaged, provide free healthcare, education, and housing through the power of a benevolent government that puts people first.  It sounds so noble.  And though its goals are noble the means are not.  Their goals are barely, if ever, achieved and the unintended consequences create unprecedented social chaos.  Then when we look at the history of socialism in the 20th century we see nothing but pain, suffering, and disaster.  How can we call this moral?

Of course they would call me evil in return with a long list of perceived free market evils.  Many of which I have heard are misrepresentations.  The plain and simple fact is that I cannot take a self-professed revolutionary seriously when the revolution that they are promoting is a more intense form of what we already have.  And yet they are there and they are active.

So if, like me, the notions of revolutions give you a chill and make you want to take to the barricade singing anthems, then take a moment to ask yourself some moral questions first.  Is your cause truly just or are you justifying.

5 comments:

  1. I ask, why is the burdens for ones personal existence not ones own responsibility? Is it not fair, that I have pooled my own knowledge, skills, talent and ability, then taken it into the free market place and exchanged it for my and my families needs and wants? Why should it be my duty, obligation or responsibility to have the fruits of my efforts taken from me with out my consent?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know that your question is rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway, with answers you have heard from me before.

    I am unique in my view that the Romantic Era ended in 1929 with the onset of the Great Depression and World War II because they two events changed the zeitgeist. The mass worldview shifted from Individualist to Collectivism. Children in school were taught the lie that capitalism caused the Great Depression and government programs and the war got us out of it. We were conditioned to see the government as morally responsible for our well-being.

    For the first time in history, people were clamouring for more government control and less freedom. If a government program failed it was because they did not have enough power.

    Today, this conditioning is so engrained in the popular mindset that people cannot imagine a world without government controls. To suggest closing these programs is akin to telling someone to just off a bridge and trust the invisible hand to catch you.

    For the government to provide these services you have to pay for it. And here we see democracy in action. You go out to dinner with your friends and they all vote against you to divide the check equally. So you had the salad and you're paying for the guy who had the steak because you got out voted. If you complain you are called selfish, especially by the guy who had the steak.

    Under collectivism, you owe your dues to the group as your civic duty for the good of all. This is given a moral spin, but there is evil at its heart.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting Article Logan. I guess many of the questions you pose, are somewhat interrelated. There is no such thing as a free lunch!...Those that demand increased services, and are not willing to shoulder the burden of an ever increasing taxation system are certainly deluded. or are they?....recently i have been working on a different system of economics, somewhat in line with the libertarian themes espoused here. It seems to me that with the burgeoning population and increased technological demands, not to mention a diminished mortality rate, and increased rate of both economic migration, and birthrate, or at least survivability of previously untenable infantile births, many more varied avenues of economic flows or restructures need to be sort.

    of course the problems you tout here are not unique to the times. Locke himself struggled with just such inadequacies, as have many generations since, and he was of the mind, that as far as private property was concerned, it was indeed inalienable, but he set forth a proviso, so that those who failed to recognize the debt owed to previous generations, and previous 'social institutions' for want of pure greed or egoistic machinations, were not allowed to simply cut themselves off from there fellows once they had achieved a measure of wealth that allowed for such a preponderance of arrogance. It is the Lockean proviso, and it states that private property is all well and good, providing in circumstances of limited or depleted resource , that which is taken out leaves 'as much, and as good as' that which has been taken. Now land, or indeed any private property, that is of such quantity that it is plentiful and freely distributable to the population should they have the right barter material to acquire it, should still be a right, but in those circumstances where that property becomes scares and is necessary for the wealth of health of the society entire, why should it be that any one group of people have the monopoly holding over such a good?

    ReplyDelete
  4. ....Adam Smith himself struggled with this question before penning the 'wealth of nations' and in so doing sought to emancipate the working man, or at least the small shop holder, from the tyrannical grasp of the (ironic this) 'Corporations' of the day, which where simply the fiscal outgrowth of the landed aristocracy of the day. Their grip was such that they ran virtually everything, and whenever competition appeared, they simply crushed it by the weight of their collective economic muscle. Smith then dreamt of co-operatives of small shop owners banding together so as to construct strong enough economic beasts to resist the coercive machinations of these post-feudalistic, aristocratic 'corporations' and thereby free the common man from the economic tyranny of the times.

    Certainly no one would broach, aside from an extreme communist or Marxist, the totalitarian economics that total taxation would demand, so it behoves us to find alternate ways to deal with the problem. Some of those may be depleted services, re-adjustment of spending criteria, or indeed an entire overhaul of the capital expenditure in favor of more long term cost effective measures. A Hydrogen economy, instead of OIL for instance would save the UK enormous expenditure, but on the negative side, if it caught on globally then the greatest cash cow to the UK coffers would suddenly be gone overnight. Other forms of assistance might be worth considering, increased resurgence of intellectual property rights in a global economy where knowledge becomes a dependable form of barter, thereby securing a knowledge economy, but without a global judiciary and the right intellectual property protections how is that ever going to fly?....there are still more creative and inventive ways to cover the shortfall than simple total taxation policies, or service depletion, product specific re-distributive mechanisms, that use the free market that up until now has been the province only of the private investor....why not, charity, and public investment in free market enterprise to fund public services with net profits and increase public employment?....you see there are a number of stops along the way before we hoe straight into the concept of Revolution. It seems to me Jefferson and Washington, were forced into such a move because they were up against obfuscatory powers that simply would not budge, and didn't have the grace of a functioning global free market in which to ply there knowledge and trade....had they had the freedom, that the UK citizenry have at present to come up with creative solutions to the problems they might well still be a colony! ;)

    'God never does anything, one way or the other' it is always one way OR the other.....but then, we are simply muddling along, and are not blessed with omnipotence and omniscience!....are we?

    ReplyDelete
  5. as an aside: ive had some problems with the TAX department not recognizing me as a business, and failing to pay me money that is owed....cheeky buggers! so ive written this....its my first salvo for EVOLUTIONARY change! :))

    Poets can't be a business

    So the tax man said 'Poets cant be a business'
    it must be the risk involved in self employment,
    is too great for the poetic,
    for the government to take a chance.
    So 'the man' decided that Poets cant be a business!
    Arms manufactures, prostitutes, Oil producers can,
    Bankers who lose 1/2 a trillion pounds at the bookies
    losing us 1/2 a million jobs in the process,
    and crashing the world economy,
    they can be a business,
    but poets....no!.....poets cant be a business!

    Yeats, Keats, Shelley, Byron, i'm sorry lads,
    but your out of business!
    Shakespeare, just stick to the plays that pay,
    then YOU can be a business,
    but poets, no!.... no, im afraid you cant be a business!
    The Arts have never brought in any revenue here,
    they never sat a seat on a stool with good cheer,
    or filled a drinking house with music and beer!
    they just aren't lucrative enough you see.
    So Poets!, No....no...they cannot be a business!

    If poets were a business where would it end?
    every man jack writer and his friend,
    would settle for 1 meal a day,
    wear three jersey's to keep the cold away,
    and scream through some virtual mailbox,
    just to have his say!
    No...no!, poets...Poets cant be a business, you see,
    they might be in the business,
    of looking out for you and me,
    or living off their words, or wisdom, self sufficiently,
    but they cannot be a business!...for free!

    They simply can-not-be-a-busi-ness!
    because if they were a business, well!
    too many eyes might be watching,
    too many minds might start pondering and wondering,
    why it is that simple men cant live free,
    but those who hold the reins of this democracy,
    offer jobs and gratuity to friends and family.
    No....i am the Tax Man, and i have spoken.
    Poets cannot be a business, not in this land,
    this 'green and pleasant land'!
    poets, No!...Poets,...they cant be a business!
    can they?

    ReplyDelete