MarcFriedenberg.com

To begin building a system of government from scratch, it is far less important to delve into the details than it is to establish a system of philosophical guidelines by which the society will be crafted. While physical conditions may change at any time, human nature and the consequences of it are far less prone to such variations. This makes it convenient, then, to design the system by comparing the works of the thinkers listed. They don’t specifically mention that there should be a River Finding Committee or anything like that, and with good reason. There is a far greater value in first determining your thoughts on human nature and from there establishing a far looser framework for your government.

My opinions on humanity tend to vary greatly from day to day, but I’m not sure if that’s a function of myself or not. Still, this year I’ve managed to reach some genuine conclusions about how I want to live my life, and by extension I’ve been able to take those thoughts and design an ideal government around them. While it is somewhat narcissistic to do this, I find that most philosophical debates conclude in a stalemate, and it’s best to just jump in somewhere and hope for the best.

Among the four philosophers that you have mentioned, I see essentially two camps. The first, composed of Rand and Mill, are greatly individualistic in nature, while Rousseau and Marx are far more collectivist. Quite simply, I favor the individualist side, with some caveats, of course. To explain why, I’d like to walk through a few specifics of the Scenario and how people in our class would react to it, based on some previous (largely public) observations which I have made in the past.

I feel that the first step following the realization of our situation should be the selection of a leader. Otherwise, the many intelligent and capable (read: obstinate) people in our class will branch off into numerous smaller groups which are probably less capable of succeeding on their own. This would seem to go against my philosophy of individualism, but it really isn’t. First of all, anybody is free to leave the group and not participate in the election process. Second, the leader’s job would not be to issue arbitrary dictums but rather to simply coordinate the efforts of the group and maintain communications, while at the same time mediating any potential squabbles that may ensue. I agree with Paine that government is a necessary evil, but that it should remain as simple as possible. The members of the group are free to select a new leader at any time through a simple majority vote. The leader serves as the most effective deterrent to crime, because the potential perpetrator knows exactly who he/she will be held responsible to. There is no large bureaucracy to weasel through. The leader, in turn, is kept honest by knowing that his term may come to a sudden halt at any time, and any abuses of power he has committed may come back to haunt him in the form of orders of the new leader. Hence, Val will not stay leader for very long. More likely, it will be a less confrontational, more rational person. I’m thinking of Jason or Sarah in this role. It is important to note that, under my society, there is direct interaction between the leader and the people. This only works on a small scale such as the one of the Scenario.

Looking at a longer scope of time, I might actually be in favor of eliminating the leader altogether. His only role was to ensure survival. Once we have been living in our new world for a while, we will likely have mastered what is necessary to live and will be able to concentrate on more cultured tasks. As such, the leader will not be necessary. People will be free to work individually. I fully understand that for some people this is a frightening concept, and perhaps for them the idea of a commune would be far more comforting. They are of course free to create and enter into these as they see fit, but the government will neither sponsor nor endorse them, for fear of slowly becoming a collectivist state. I agree with the French Declaration of Rights (largely lifted from the American one) that states “men are born and remain free.” Individualism must be maintained for it is truly the only way that we can prevent turning into the politically correct, artificially weakened society railed against by Rand, Mill, and even Vonnegut.

In accordance with Mill’s writings, my society would be largely libertarian. While I am well aware of some of the innate weaknesses of that system, I can’t resist some of the incredible freedoms which it offers. Additionally, my personal experience with the collectivism which is so rampant in our school and community has been less than pleasing, which strongly skewers my opinions toward libertarianism. For such a small group as ours will be at the beginning of the Scenario, anything other that libertarianism would be far too overbearing. The simple requirements of survival would be too salient. Even so, this particular system hold long-term appeal, too. If people can acclimate themselves to living in a society where personal responsibility is valued, they will find it absurd that we used to live under anything else. It is only the safety nets which the weak have put into place that are holding us back. The Scenario gives us an interesting and rare opportunity to remove some of the cruft that has tempered our political thinking for so many years.

This may all seem a bit idealistic, and perhaps it is. When Mill talked about ethical relativism, he was pointing out, intentionally or not, one of the greatest weaknesses in his system. It’s true that what is right and good for one person might not be right and good for someone else. This may largely be shaped by certain religious beliefs, and quite frankly, while I wouldn’t seek to eliminate religion in the society of the Scenario, I certainly wouldn’t hope for it to carry over into the new world. It is generally one of those things that imposes unnecessary stumbling blocks in a true philosophical/moral debate. Nevertheless, ethical relativism is something that will have to be dealt with either way. In disputes of this nature (crimes, injustice, etc.) determinations will be issued by the leader after a brief airing of grievances by the victim (I will discuss punishments in more detail in the next paragraph.) It is unfortunate that some people (Jenn, Lindsay, Lauren, Steph, Shannon - all girls, but all good people) tend to enter into petty squabbles which could ultimately lead to the undoing of the society of the Scenario. If the relativism of the situation is acknowledged, it will be a healthy step in the right direction. Rather than try to create a strict and lengthy set of rules and regulations for people to live by, we would be better served to realize that not everyone will be pleased and that using honest human judgment is the best way to succeed.

Our Scenario is interesting in that we have a class filled with eminently trustworthy people (maybe not Mitchell, but still…), and I have a hard time seeing crime and punishment as becoming an important issue. In future generations, however, this may not be the case. I feel that my stance on crime is unique in that I believe that crimes aren’t committed against people but rather against that person’s rights. While I admit that this is a subtle distinction, I think that it is key, for it allows you to truly assess the severity of an infraction. Keeping in mind that under my society a person has nearly infinite rights, ponder the following examples. If you steal someone’s bread, you’re really only taking away their right to eat for that day. Steal his pan, and you take away that right for a week. Kill him, and you take away that right forever. Don’t concern yourself with the emotions of the victim; instead, focus on the negative impact on his rights. If it is determined that a crime has been committed, banishment from the society for a period of time (should the victim agree to it, as to prevent prejudices of the leader from becoming a factor) is really the only effective punishment. The banished is allowed to take his property with him as he leaves the society. If the people of the society feel that the ruling or the punishment are insufficient, the government will not interfere in their attempts to issue popular sanctions like those proposed by Bentham, provided that they do not interfere with the defendant’s rights.

Now that we have a scenario which includes people from another society, it might be an opportune time to explore my views on war, colonization, and enslavement. Basically, I’m against all three. War is only to be used as a defensive tool for attacks against the land which the society is currently inhabiting. This alone means that colonization is out the question. Rarely do I find that a rapid expansion of a state helps the individual citizens. An annexation agreed to by both parties is of course acceptable, as teaming up is often a healthy way to ensure survival. You should hardly be surprised to find that I oppose slavery due to the incredible infringement on personal rights that it entails. If people have work to be done, they can do it themselves. All members of my society have equal power. With so few members, it may in fact be possible to convince each person to select a particular leader that you favor, but that is the price that comes along with trusting people to truly govern themselves.

Still, I’d much rather pay that price than live under the collectivism proposed by Rousseau and Marx. Both the social contract and the communist state are impractical. I feel that any system which forces you to give up your rights and liberties is inherently weak, because it removes responsibility from the individual and places it into the hands of other people who care far less about you than you do about yourself. While I generally have great faith in the compassion that most people will show for others, when it comes down to my life on the line, I’d rather be in charge myself. While Rousseau feels that the majority of people are stupid and need to rely upon others, I feel that most people are actually quite capable of surviving on their own. Anything less would be an evolutionary failure.

Over time, most political systems will slowly gravitate towards collectivism, usually because it is the “laziest” choice and many people are extremely lazy. Still, it is important to seize the opportunity to craft a better society when it presents itself. An individualist system, held together with a temporary leader, is really the most effective and dignified way for people to live. The Scenario allows us to set aside our preconceived notions of what government needs to be and begin to decide what government should be. If you give people the opportunity to fail themselves (and more importantly, others) like the collectivist political theory does, they will do so. If you tell people that they are going to be accountable for their own actions, that punishment will be rather severe, and that nobody is obligated to help them in their time of need, you will begin to see a dramatic change in what people are capable of. Rather than creating a system where you expect people to fail and be violent and commit crimes, it is far better to have faith in human nature. You will rarely be let down, and will often be rewarded with a society in which all rights are protected and the citizens are much more happy, which is truly the goal of any government.