|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 12CornerstonesWritten by Darrell Anderson. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government Although many humans want to be free, they are not well adapted to self-sufficiency. This creates a naturally existing tension because humans depend upon one another for survival. Humans seek mutual survival as a practical means to support individual survival. Concessions are necessary and those compromises create natural and artificial limits to actions and behaviors.[1] Additionally, the concepts of self, property, rights, contracts, and consent are meaningless without a social process of encouraging, protecting, and enforcing those concepts. What should be the principles by which a specific society of people decide to regulate human interactions? Can a common thread be found that might enable people to create a collection of principles encouraging persuasion and cooperation, and encouraging mutual survival and happiness? Humans enact behavior guidelines through several broad philosophies or interpretations of human nature:
Individuals embracing religion believe that guidelines governing human action originate from God. Those people supporting collectivism embrace an idea that the needs and desires of the majority outweigh the needs of the minority, and that guidelines are derived from “the people.” Supporters of utilitarianism believe all human action should be only that which serves the “greatest utility” of all humans. Egalitarians embrace equal opportunity and equal results in all human actions. Individualists believe that despite the benefits of any of the other theories, individual property titles and rights should have precedence, and all human guidelines should be derived by observing the concepts of self, property, rights, contracts, and consent. Religionists embrace a society planned by God. Collectivists embrace a centrally planned society. Utilitarians support a society planned toward the “greatest happiness” of all. Egalitarians embrace a society where discrimination (the liberty to choose) in many forms is rejected and they see discrimination as a form of hatred and prejudice. Individualists support a society planned by nobody in particular except through the processes of free association and voluntary exchange, and generally believe that discrimination (the right to exclude) is acceptable. Individualists see discrimination as a process of preferred or selective cooperation and an inherent characteristic of the concept of property. Although simplified in the previous descriptions, these philosophies contain similar and overlapping characteristics. Human societies always have been partially religionist, collectivist, and utilitarian. Many societies emphasize the community, clan, tribe, and family over the individual. These attributes never will disappear completely from any society because of the inherent social nature and lack of self-sufficiency of humans. Although the concept of the individual and personal responsibility evolved slowly, only after the great western migration to the Americas did that concept grow rapidly. From that concept, the ideas of self, property, rights, contracts, and consent grew proportionally and contributed to shaping modern social and legal systems. Egalitarianism is an outgrowth of those ideas. Although today the ideas of egalitarianism and the individual play a greater role in social and legal systems than in times past, generally today the characteristics of each philosophy are found in most societies of people. Because of these overlapping and potentially conflicting philosophies, attempting to design a system model describing all societies is challenging. Getting every single human in the world to agree on a common social system model is impossible. There are too many definitions of happiness and trespass. There are too many worldviews and ideologies.[2] Therefore, reconciliation among those ideas and beliefs is impossible. Yet, within all societies there are some common observable characteristics — boundaries that are in continual tension with one another:
At best, observers only can describe general characteristics of each specific society. An antagonistic observation regarding this fact is some individuals nonetheless try to create a one-size-fits-all model of social and legal interaction. This effort to create one model is called expediency. The modern effort to create a universal model is noticeable in the human process known as legislation.[3] Social systems are a collection of abstract ideas, having meaning only for humans. Those ideas arguably are rooted in mere survival, and humans arguably could exist only by the base laws of nature. Other earthly life forms might be able to exhibit a “desire” for liberty and autonomy, but thus far have indicated no ability to understand the abstract nature of such concepts. In other words, when humans describe such behaviors in other life forms those behaviors are merely human interpretations. A dog does not seem to know that it is a dog. A dog does not seem aware that it exists, let alone understand its “dogness.” A dog does not seem capable of understanding a concept called tomorrow. The label “dog” itself is merely an abstract idea or label that was created for human understanding. Social systems are abstract constructs. With respect to the physical and not the intellectual, no social system model is therefore “right” or “wrong.” Nature knows no systems and concepts such as “right” or “wrong” are meaningless to nature. Ignoring extreme cases, no social system greatly affects mere survival, but does greatly affect how humans perceive the quality of their survival — their pursuit of happiness. Only when humans embrace concepts such as self, property, rights, contracts, and consent do words such as “right” and “wrong” provide meaning. Because social systems are abstract ideas, any social system model can be embraced or rejected. If a large number of people reject a particular social system, the idea will not cease to exist but would cease to have practical application. Just as children eventually stop believing in the tooth fairy, so too could humans collectively stop believing in certain social systems. All social systems are belief systems based upon interpretations, and are no different in basic form than any other idea or belief system. Although the principles of social systems are abstract and arbitrary they nonetheless evolve and arise naturally. All humans are products of their environments and resulting societies are no different. The process of socialization is a cultural process whereby participants learn to live and function within a particular society. Humans exist at two levels: physiological and psychological. They also view the concept of territoriality or property from two perspectives: individually and within the social group. Can any social system model provide security — a desire to be secure in pursuing happiness while preventing or reducing trespass? There are two types of security: economic and psychological.[4] The former is measured largely by the accumulation of wealth and the latter is strictly interpretive. Many individuals acknowledge that complete security is impossible if for no other reason than accidents and natural disasters occur. Many people likely would agree that at best a social system only can reduce the potential loss of security. Many individuals might argue that such a system merely finds a doable compromise between the boundaries of pursuing happiness while not trespassing. A challenge arises in that all words are subjective and are interpretive exercises in conveying ideas. Defining happiness and trespass is fundamentally possible only for each individual based upon that individual’s perceptions of the world. Furthermore, those interpretations are influenced by the process of collective living, where hundreds and thousands of interpretive opinions interact. That continual interaction creates localized consensus opinions about certain ideas and beliefs. However, what constitutes a generally accepted opinion in one part of the world might contrast sharply with the generally accepted opinion in another part. Religions are a prime example. When individuals gather together to form a new system model called society, does that new system contain more rights or create new rights that individuals did not possess? Does a “society” have rights, or do specific individuals only with that society possess rights? If a society is only an abstraction, then how can any “society” possess rights? Do certain individuals within a society collectively possess the right or standing to define when trespass occurs or when the pursuit of happiness has been interrupted? Or do certain individuals within the society only possess a delegation to agree or disagree with a petitioner? If specific members of a society globally define happiness and trespass, and those global definitions are contrary to an individual’s definitions, have those people within that society then crossed the line and committed trespass against the individual? Is the instinct for self-defense an inalienable or alienable right? Can that right be “surrendered” or “transferred” to another individual or only shared and contracted? If the right is inalienable, can an inalienable right be surrendered or transferred away when trespass does not occur? How should people resolve claims of trespass? What about threats of trespass? Perceived threats? Should threats or actual acts of trespass be defined contextually or absolutely? How should members of a society discern facts? If happiness can be defined only individually, and hence, trespass, how can a third party who is contracted to provide defense and protection determine trespass has occurred unless the offended party explicitly petitions or declares as much? What might be a trespass to one individual might be water on a duck’s back to another. How does a contracted protection party determine when trespass has occurred? If people do not want to consume time pursuing redress and restitution, can those people contract away that right to other people? If so, can those people enable third parties to act voluntarily, without prompting or suggestion, or only when specifically petitioned by an offended party? If the right to self-defense can be contracted away, can that third party act with only an implied contract or must the contract be explicit? Can an implied contract of “transferred” or “surrendered” rights ever exist? If implied contracts are possible, how does an individual affirmatively silence those implied inferences in order to establish an explicit contract? Who owns the right to petition a third party for redress and restitution? Who is responsible for the actions of any third party? Under what conditions can a third party act? What are the limits of those actions? Who possesses the right to seek remedy for the ultimate trespass — death, whether accidental or intentional? Who has standing to seek remedy? Is remedy even possible when the victim no longer is alive? If the instinct for self-defense can be contracted and delegated to other people, and if that right is inalienable, and if only each individual can define his or her own happiness and therefore what constitutes trespass, and if a contracted third party fails to satisfy the terms of a protection contract, then can such a contract be terminated for non-performance? Thus, even if the right to self-defense can be delegated by an implied contract, a means or method must be available to cancel the contract. If so, how should members of a society provide such a remedy? How do members of a society or group respond when a majority believes they have been betrayed but trespass of property boundaries does not occur? Can betrayal of a group of people or a society be defined the same as trespass? If not, how should a group of people manage betrayals? How should a group manage individual actions that are perceived to be betrayals of the group? How should betrayal be defined and who should do the defining? If defining happiness and trespass is an individual act, then any implied third party protector or adjudicator always possesses the potential to commit trespass by exceeding the boundaries of what is appropriate remedy and restitution. If self-defense and self-preservation are inalienable rights, then that right necessarily includes at all times being able to decide when a contracted protector or adjudicator has exceeded the boundaries of the contract. Thus, does a legal system model based upon “social contract” theory whereby a third party is sanctioned with “irrevocable” force always fail simply by definition? Can such questions be answered? Finis. Next: Chapter 13 — Government Endnotes [1] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, pp. 100–110. [2] Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, pp. 65–66. [3] Spencer, Social Statics, p. 346. [4] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 195. |
||