Justification
for Some Degree of a Socialist State
Often
I have encountered individuals who hold very firm and passionate philosophical
views on the nature of political systems.
Rarely, upon further questioning, have I found the majority of
individuals to possess the ability to explain why they hold these passionate
philosophical views on the nature of political systems. Simply put, many feel very strongly about the
importance of their political philosophy without being able to explain
why. One could hold a very strong belief
in the importance of government welfare programs without being able to justify
having government programs as a concept.
Upon rumination, I wondered if perhaps I could explain my own views. The essay that follows is a running serious
of thoughts designed at examining a society, individuals within that society,
and the role of a government in a society and any responsibilities to the
individual a government may have. Again
this essay is a though exercise and not a definite view of society or an
expression of my views. At the end of
the though experiment in this essay, I came to see the need for government
programs as well as free market competition.
Both vital and both need the other.
In
general, a person cannot control who their parents are or where they are born
as they are not born and unable to influence decisions. If one holds a deterministic view of the
world, perhaps influenced by particle physics theory, then they arrive at the
conclusion that theoretically we do not have free will, and thus no control
over the circumstances we are born into.
As well, a person exerts very little control over the environment they
are raised in, one is almost most entirely at the mercy of exogenous forces
well beyond their control. All of these
previous points taken together create seemingly random or predetermined
circumstances into which individuals are born.
Any objective observer of humanity in any country and society on earth
which humans inhabit, can reach a conclusion that people are born into
different circumstances. The seemingly
arbitrary or predetermined disparity in the circumstances one is born into has
been a vexing concern of humans for our entire history. For the largest portion of human history the
circumstances one was born into dictated the outcome of their life, from their
occupation to their life expectancy to who they would marry. The crushing reality of the predetermined
circumstances of life must have been before in history, as it is now, extremely
difficult to handle without an outlet to alleviate the pressure or a suitable
explanation for the preordained circumstances of life. Into this vacuum stepped religion, especially
the religious concept of an afterlife.
The religious concept of an afterlife was the key to being able to cope
with and find meaning in the seemingly random and arbitrary circumstances an
individual may have found themselves born.
If the life being lived currently on earth was but a mere prelude to an
infinitely longer and just afterlife, then the experiences, trials, and
tribulations being experienced on earth would be bearable, even justified. One’s trails and hardships could be a test by
God to see if one was worthy or the next life.
Religion in many ways could be viewed, in part, as a way of
intellectually rationalizing and justifying the human condition and the
seemingly random disparities in living conditions in human society. Religion and the concept of an afterlife made
much of human existence bearable.
Religion was a way to explain the arbitrary circumstances into which
individuals were born. After the
enlightenment and increased moves towards secular culture and society, the
religious concept of heaven no longer held the same power to alleviate the
disparity in living conditions, which were still primarily determined by the
socio-economic conditions one was born into, humans experienced in
society. A new justification for the
arbitrary disparity in socio-economic birth circumstances or ability to
alleviate pressure caused by this disparity needed to emerge for people in
society. In the void left by religion
stepped economics and government.
John
Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keyes, and many more
economists were primarily concerned with alleviating the deplorable economic
conditions ‘9/10s’ of human beings were born into and formed the cages which
caused them to become trapped. Whether
through productivity gains, curing the business cycle, or other means, each
tried to find ways produced by humans to ameliorate the arbitrariness of the
socio-economic conditions into which one was born. I think the most important take away from the
previous paragraphs is that in a world where God does not exist or there is no way
to prove of an afterlife with the promise of redemption in it, human beings
must take action to ameliorate the randomness[1]
and disparity of the conditions in a society into which individuals are born
and live. Without any guarantee of an
afterlife, the one life individuals are born into is of paramount
importance. Based on a Judeo-Christian
view of fairness that dominates secular western society, if individuals would
like to make a fair society for all, that society must take it upon themselves
to alleviate a degree of the randomness of circumstances of individuals’
birth. Again, in a world without God,
individuals must create a solution to make society fairer.
What
actions a society must take to produce a society where individuals are not
trapped by the socio-economic circumstance into which they are born is a highly
debated issue. The collective
representation of society is generally a government, hopefully a representative
democracy. As individuals we come
together with other individuals and sacrifice some personal freedoms for the
benefits of a society that we could not obtain on our own but only with the
combined efforts with others; hospitals and healthcare, avenues for trade that
allow individuals to spend their time on other pursuits than growing or hunting
our own food, schools, a police force protect citizens, a monetary system, a
military to provide us with protection from outside threats, and so on. The most common enabler and dispenser of
these collective societal goods such as school systems and police forces is a
government. It would stand to reason
that the best avenue then for mitigating the arbitrary nature of socio-economic
circumstances inherited at birth would be a government, considering that a
government already has most of the societal tools to mitigate circumstances of
birth. It would seem that a socialist
state is the best method for taking action to create a fairer society.[2]
It
is important to note that virtually all of people living in the world today
already accept a socialistic society, only differing in degrees of
socialism. If a person has no moral
qualms with sending their children to a public school, that is a school funded
primarily by taxes, they have accepted a socialist program and by extension a
socialistic state. It would be very
difficult to argue against a socialistic state in the absolute sense, but
plausible to argue against the degree of a socialistic state. As a result of this thinking, extending government
programs to combat the arbitrary nature of birth socio-economic condition is
merely an extension of the existing type of government. Furthermore one could argue that socialistic
programs already exist in the form of tax payer funded public schools, which
are also meant to alleviate the disparity in parents ability to provide
schooling for their children which is of course a socio-economic condition
determined at birth. Without public
school, society would be left in a medieval state where only the wealthy can
afford tutors for their children, who will be the only children to receive an
education.
What
the previous paragraphs are getting at is the need for government programs to
combat the seemingly random nature and disparity in the socio-economic
circumstances inherited at birth. A
socialist state with government programs is then a way of alleviating the
seeming randomness and disparity in society originating from birth
circumstances.[3] Given that in a world without God or a
guarantee of an afterlife where the world an individual is born into is all
they may be able to live, it is imperative that that individual not be trapped
by the socio-economic circumstances of their birth.
It
is important to recognize that by entering into a society we accept limitations
on individuality and individual power.
These limitations cause much friction in the world as individuals
confront these limitations to their own power.
An expansion of the socialistic state will only cause more limitations
on individual power and create more frictions between the individual and
society. I do not think this process can
be avoided. A very real danger is that
too many restrictions on individual power many inhibit the ability of the
individual to reach their full potential, which most can agree is
counterproductive to the goal socialistic government programs were first trying
to conquer. From the previous sentences,
the operative question thus presented is as follows, is the collective
potential of those raised by the socialist state to levels they could not have
achieved in the circumstances they are born into greater than the loss of
potential from increased societal restrictions to individuals? I believe the aforementioned question to be
of paramount importance when constructing socialistic government programs
intended to ameliorate disparity in the socio-economic circumstances into which
individuals are born. We do not want to
raise individuals from their socio-economic circumstances only to crush their
individual potential by societal restrictions.[4] So then how do we maximize the amelioration
of random circumstances born into and minimize society inhibiting the greatness
of individuals in the construction of the socialist state?
In
regards to the question posed above, expanding the socialistic state to its
logical conclusion, which would be communism, does not satisfy both conditions
of the posed in the question. While a
pure communistic state would eradicate any variance in socio-economic circumstances
at birth, it would come at the cost of inhibiting the potential of
individuals. In such a regimented and
structured society, more societal and government restrictions on personal
behavior and exercise of personal power are an inevitable consequence of
government efforts to eradicate any disparity in socio-economic circumstances
inherited from birth. In order to ensure
no individual gains an advantage from their birth socio-economic circumstances
a government would have to provide each individual with the same of virtually
everything; the same education, the same food intake, same living
accommodations, same healthcare opportunities, and so on. A strictly pure communistic state would
eradicate the disparity in inherited birth socio-economic circumstances, but
would come at too high a cost in limiting personal freedom and potential. This line of thinking is not condemning
communism as an evil ideology, just as an ideology not suited to providing a
solution to the current question posed.
If one wishes only to eliminate the disparity in birth socio-economic
circumstances in society, communism will accomplish that goal, but not
maximizing human potential. So,
socialistic government policies alone cannot solve the dilemma posed. I think the solution to this problem involves
the pairing of socialistic government programs with capitalistic competition,
specifically regulated market competition.
I imagine the pairing in general working as
follows; utilizing government policies enough to allow every citizen access to
the field of play and once on the field of play, competition determines the
success of an individual. If disparities
in socio-economic conditions arise, they may primarily arise from disparities
in performance against competition on the field of play. Government programs do not need to ensure
that every individual arrives on the field with the same abilities and circumstances,
there will be disparities in abilities of those who enter the field as in
basketball with those of different heights and muscle masses, but government
programs need to make sure every individual has access to the field of
play. Using basketball for a further
example, Chris Paul is of below average height for the NBA, but he has been
extraordinarily successful despite his smaller than average height, what was
most important was that he was given the opportunity to prove himself. I think government programs should be
utilized to ameliorate disparities in birth socio-economic circumstances to the
point that they allow everyone to participate in the economy and society[5],
no more than is needed to give every individual access. At the end of the reach of government
programs is where regulated free market competition will pick up.
In
a deterministic world being considered in this essay, individuals do not have
any control over the socio-economic circumstances into which they are
born. Capitalistic competition offers
the ability to take control over the course of one’s life, but this can only
happen if one is not trapped by the socio-economic circumstances of their
birth. Government programs allow those to
gain access to the field, but it is up to the individual to play well. Capitalistic competition allows an individual
to improve the socio-economic circumstances of their life, which they were
prevented from having any control over at birth. In a society and market based system that is
based on ability and competition, one’s present abilities matter more than the
circumstances of one’s birth. The
circumstances may give one an advantage in abilities, but they are not the
final say, personal responsibility is the final say, it places most of the
responsibility on the individual to do the best with their resources. The job of social programs is to provide every
person, regardless of birth circumstances, with the minimum level to compete.
So based on what has been
written above, the keys to a fair society are both socialists programs and free
market competition. Socialist programs
give everyone regardless of the circumstances they were born into the ability
to compete with each other and with capitalistic competition, gives them a
degree of control over their destiny.
Socialist programs create the playing field that is used to compete
freely, but market competition is just as important, it gives people control
over their outcome. The only question is
the degree of social programs. I think
they should provide the minimum needed for people to join the conversation or
game.
[1]
Randomness in this context is ‘relative randomness’ or ‘seemingly random.’ In a theoretical deterministic worldview,
nothing is random. Due to practical
limitations of the human mind, events seem random, so therefore for practical
purposes they are random, although theoretically they are not.
[2] Justification of socialism may
depend on God. Perhaps this assertion
paints Jesus and his message in a new light.
Perhaps Jesus was advocating for helping the poor in a way to ameliorate
the randomness of the world.
[3] From the ideas postulated above,
the neo-conservative movement needs religion to justify their social and
economic policies. The prospect of an
eternal reward or destination is central to allowing for a lack of social
programs. If God doesn’t exist, then
their politics become much more difficult to defend. God is a built in safety net for them, a built
in social safety net.
[4] All of these justifications
mentioned could be used to justify general tolerance and classic
libertarianism. As long as one is not
impeding the livelihood of someone else or hurting anyone, once can be left to
do what one wants to do. The
circumstances we are born into are arbitrary and out of our control, so putting
limitations on them is just as arbitrary, unless they impede someone’s ability
to live their life.
[5] I
am aware of the vague and non-specific nature of this assertion. Any policy debate of any seriousness will
hinge on the appropriate level of government programs. As with the rest of this essay, that
assertion is meant to be considered in the realm of abstract thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment