Local Control

Stickyness

I began thinking about this problem because we have unexpected conditions in the United States and Iraq. The Conquest of Iraq unleashed a guerilla war which is evolving into a civil war. The main groups in Iraq, Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis, don't trust each other very much. Despite the U.S. enforced attempt to put together a unitary State, many Sunnis are violently opposed to domination by the others. The Kurds have had autonomy and their own militia for a long time. They appear unwilling to give up much for a centralized government. Southern Shi'ites are not willing to accede to Sunni rule, but might make some sort of combination with the Shi'ite Kurds in the North.
 

In the United States, we are now ruled by the Confederate South. The American Confederacy was formed in a contiguous region with a culture distinctly different from that of the Northern States. That culture continues, some 140 years after the Confederate defeat in the Civil War. Southerners are inculcated with a desire for revenge from an early age. Under the Stars and Bars, Southerners persisted in their Cause and are now victorious. The main reason for their recent dominance is the cultural sympathies of rural residents in the Midwestern and Mountain States. Without the acquiescence or assistance of those rural States, neither the South nor the North can rule because of the electoral system imbedded in the Constitution. (Once upon a time, I foolishly thought the American West could mediate the differences.)
 

What has happened in the United States in the last few decades should be a warning to those who believe that Arab democracy is just around the corner, or that the Irish Republican rebellion against Ulster is over. Deeply rooted cultural beliefs, no matter how backward and self-defeating, are nearly impossible to eliminate in their natural settings. Medievalism, for example, seems to be sprouting new branches and leaves from remains thought dead all over the Caucasian world, from Pakistan to America. Fundamentalism is mainly an Aryan disease, a disease of White people, in whatever form it appears - Islamic Jihadists, Evangelical Christians, Pan-Slavics, and (Scotch, Irish) Celtism. One underlayer of fundamentalism is tribalism, which is the rejection of others based on a paranoid perception of the outside ('not us') world. Tribalism logically leads to ethnic, racial, social, economic and religious discrimination, all of which are forms of differentiation of 'self' from 'other.'
 

Another underlayer of fundamentalism is an unusually aggressive attitude, probably related to paranoia, which seems to be a hallmark of Caucasian races. (Anthropological note: Most occupants of the Western Hemisphere, Eurasia west of the Himalayas and Caucasus, and the Indian sub-continent are Caucasians.) Thousands of years ago, there was an expansion of the Aryan races from places in or near the Indian sub-continent to the Middle East and Europe. The Aryans were an incredibly fierce, warlike people, whose closet living relatives today occupy sub-Himalayan areas such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Kashmir. They are represented today in the Taliban and Al Qa'eda. I explain the Taliban and Islamic suicide bombers as the result of the "Founder Effect;" i.e., the dominance of original settlers over all those who follow. Relatively few Aryans (by today's standards) were the parents of millions of descendants who were taught the warlike culture from the day they were born. Knowing nothing different, since tribalism is also a confining provincialism, the culture of paranoia and violence has perpetuated itself to this day. I don't know whether this attitude is genetic or cultural, but prefer the cultural explanation.

This is not to say that Asians, Africans and Aborigines have not been unaffected by paranoid tribalism from time to time. In recent history, we've seen non-Caucasian societies suffer from fundamentalist mania; e.g., the Japanese in the 1930-1945 period. What is different about Caucasians is the persistence over thousands of years of such a culture. While I think that fundamentalist culture is far from a Good Thing, arguments can be made for it. In a world dominated by the Law of the Jungle - survival of the "fittest," or the "invisible hand" - Caucasians have done very well in dominating others worldwide. Asians and Africans have only begun to get out from under in recent decades, after centuries of exploitation. It was the success of the Europeans, in particular, that was an example to early 20^th century Japanese in their creation of the Greater Asian (= Japanese) "Co-Prosperity Sphere." Lately, the Chinese - longtime competitors with the Japanese - are infected with the disease, so are trying to dominate Asia and the Pacific Rim. (Except for pockets of Japanese and American resistance, the Chinese are largely getting their way.) The fact that tribalism and all its unfortunate consequences sometimes overcomes non-Caucasian peoples for a while supports my view that it is a cultural phenomenon.
 

People stick to their roots, unless pulled up from them. Historically, crazy notions like Democracy in America only happen to people separated from their former and usual circumstances. As long as one lived comfortably behind or over a New York City shop after 1775, there was no reason to kowtow to the American revolutionaries. It was comfortable to obey the British colonial administration, which was backed by occupying armies. That seemed a secure path which did not require any great change, sacrifice or thought. Until Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the plurality of Americans actually supported the Crown, not George Washington or the rebel Continental Congress. The revolutionaries were "not worth a continental." So, it is not easy for most people to change their minds or their allegiances. Perhaps this is why there is always a Thermidor, a counter-revolution.
 

Freed Up
 

Nonetheless, in the last 200 years we have come to a different perception of people's rights, based on some major changes of thought about what's right and wrong. Slavery is almost universally condemned today, whereas only the most critical and intolerant revolutionaries ("moralists") opposed it during the American revolution. Americans were actually quite backward at that time, since slavery was already illegal on the Continent, even if the Europeans were the primary traders in human flesh. For Europeans, what happened at home was one thing, and what happened elsewhere another. (That doctrine eventually caused a lot of trouble for the First World in the form of anti-colonial rebellions.) Slowly but surely the slave trade was stopped, and people came to see it as a despicable thing. That did not begin to cure their racism - their tribalism - until much later. Even today, tribalism is only just under the covers in "advanced" societies, revealing itself as soon as the thin top sheet is ripped away (as in Bosnia, Kossovo and Rwanda).
 

In a previous essay, I argued that a root ethical consideration is Equality (yes, with the capital E). It is our notions of equality which eventually led to freeing the slaves, and, at last, understanding that 'separate but equal' is a mockery of equal. Equality is an over-arching principle, an Ethical Principle, which can be applied to every situation involving human relations. This gives us a clue how to resolve the problems of local control and world government.
 

By itself, the Equality Principle does not say how to treat people. We could beat and torture everyone equally, or we could put them on Soma equally, or send them to Heaven equally (now or later). Equality by itself is simply a principle of fairness, but justice requires a determination of equity as well. The revolutions of the 1960s started by demanding Equality - Civil Rights - and soon proceeded to matters of equity. In fact, equality doesn't exist or even matter much, unless some flesh is put on the bones. That flesh is the equity people have in their social circumstances. Equity gves a direction to Equality; it says what sort of equality we will have.
 

Equity determined by the Kantian imperative requires the best possible treatment, not the worst. The anecdote I told elsewhere in these pages about Unisex Bathrooms shows that the actual solution - everyone gets the minimum - is not one that can be approved and supported under "Equality Plus Equity." Nonetheless, the minimum is what we get most of the time, because government and business are only interested in the most they can be compelled to do. That minimalism undermines our society, as I see it, because it denies equity while paying lip service to equality. Even so, the reason for advocating Federal intervention rather than action in local jurisdictions is the sense that the problems are universal, thus requiring universal solutions. Moreover, the Equality Princple demands substantially the same treatment of all affected individuals, which is unlikely when settlements are reached separately in thousands of communities.
 

Self-Determination
 

When minimalist equality is applied, it ends up undermining the self-determination (self-fulfillment) that equity recommends. In addition, if the government is determined to treat most people badly, even if "equally," the situation can deteriorate rapidly for most people. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened since the selection of the Bandit Presidency. The United States government is only committed to improving conditions for a small segment of the public: the rich and wealthy. Conservatives re-interpreted "self-determination" to mean "opportunity to compete." In other words, everyone is free to run the race; you are on your own. The government is not going to help anyone win the race, restrain anyone who has a head start, or do much about those who cheat or fix the result. The conservative view of equality is simply that anyone who wants to win can try their luck (even if it is a scam or hopeless). The conservative view of equity is that things turn out however they do. If the slot machine doesn't pay off, tough luck!
 

The Left has a long history of being imbued with the virtues of collective action. That's because to be on the Left is to support the masses, the majority of the people counted from the bottom up. (Conservatives support a majority, too; counted in reverse order.) The Left has always been committed to Equality and Fraternity which, taken together, are communal as opposed to individual values. "Liberty," which prefaces the famous slogan of the French Revolution, addresses the individual, but has often been submerged in the collective. Under the gaze of Equality, all humans look remarkably alike. That tends to diminish Liberty because liberty implies differences. We are not truly free unless we can do something others do not do. If we always 'act as one man,' we are robots having no particular need of liberty. The logic of equality and fraternity makes it easy to slide into Stalinism and Nazism, in which everyone is reduced into the "lumpen-poletariat" by forgetting about Liberty. (This analysis shows that it is not a far move for the working classes to become Brown Shirts or Reagan Democrats. Thus, there is Unionism of the Left and the Right.)
 

Again, it is Liberty which distinguishes the individual. I believe Liberty is what motivated millions of immigrants to come to the United States. It is the desire to be whatever one wants to be that separates each person from the famous "teeming masses" beckoned by the Statue of Liberty. At once, we are the teeming masses, and we are the differentiated individuals. Being oneself is the ultimate local control. So, the crux of our problem is the apparent conflict of Liberty with Equality and Fraternity.
 

I think equality is justified by observation. Scientific observation of ourselves from many perspectives reveals how similar are all the individual instances of homo sapiens. If that were not true, it would be nearly impossible to train a doctor. The education of the young depends upon our gross similarities. The fact that almost any newborn child can be adopted into any culture, regardless of parenthood, shows that most of our differences are learned. I have commented upon this many times, asking you readers to consider that an ET (extra-terrestrial alien) would find it very difficult to discern the differences we so exaggerate.
 

Fraternity is a natural extension of Equality, because our species is (genetically) programmed to "hang out" together. We like things similar to ourselves, because we are familiar with ourselves. As Aristotle said, 'man is a social animal.' We don't have much trouble in identifying others like ourselves, probably as a result of yet-unidentfied chemicals. Just like insects and many other animals (and plants, too), we give off nanoscopic quantities of identifying chemicals (pheromones). Those chemicals are probably the basis of "love," "choosing" a mate and the affinity ("bonding") of mothers and children. While most people would be insulted by my description, it is most probable that our natural fraternity is built-in, not "voluntary." We are bonded to whoever we mate, not by "falling in love" or choice, but by chemical affinity. One support for this argument is the apparent connection between nursing and bonding: mother's milk seems to improve love of the mother. (However, a huge problem in researching all these biological connections is the refusal of most people to allow objective observations of the themselves, and the irrational resistance people have to scientific conclusions. So, youngsters are still frequently told that babies are delivered by storks.)

There are naturalistic arguments supporting the notions of Equality and Fraternity for our species. Liberty, however, is not similarly supported or derivable. Our concept of individual freedom - liberty - has to come from another place entirely. The natural basis of Liberty is the observation of unprogrammed, unprompted "voluntary" activity. People do unexpected things, unlike almost all plants and other animals.We attribute this unpredictable activity to "choice." Choice has always been something of a mystery, being very hard to define or pin down. That mystery has led to many religious theories about souls and philosophical dualism (as in Descartes). The dualistic resolution was to attribute Free Will to a non-material agency, because the advocates of dualism could not understand how a material body could have Free Will. In turn, that notion of "material" was rooted in a strict determinism that invoked "cause and effect" to connect events (time and space) in the material world.
 

But we post-moderns need not be concerned with all that, since the science of last century has sufficiently shown that randomness is built into our Universe (Quantum Mechanics). Cause and effect is a handy illusion for macro beings our size, but wouldn't work at all for creatures much smaller than a virus. In fact, very soon our ever-smaller transistors and electronic chips will have to cope with or use quantum effects to do their work. Taming those quantum forces in chips, lasers and many other machines shows that the random becomes "ordered" when collected together in large numbers. Order is the illusion of the mean or a pattern in a statistical distribution. As very good pattern detectors and inventors, we humans tend to see them everywhere. Importantly, the machines we call "computers" demonstrate that events need not be ruled by cause and effect. Computer programs are sequences of symbols which can be generated or derived by any logic and set of premises you like. If the end result of a computer program is to flip a switch up or down, that result can be "caused" by any programmed sequence. In principle, a computer controlling appropriate physical attachments becomes the "cause" of events which need not have any Newtonian "cause and effect" relationship to prior events. In the same way, when humans build a dam, they control when and if the river below will flood. The "natural" cycle of flooding is broken by dams, and removed to "decision making" controlled by humans. (I say "controlled by" because humans may delegate the decision to a computer they program.) This line of examples should make human decision making "unstrange." It makes us comfortable with the notion of voluntary acts in the natural world, so we do not need dualistic explanations (per Occam's razor).
 

If we accept as a natural fact and phenomenon that intelligent beings can make choices - where "intelligent" may include a wider range of critters than homo sapiens - we can find a basis for Liberty in that ability. In this case, being at liberty does not merely mean being undetermined; i.e., lacking in "cause and effect." It does not mean being random or quantized, either. Our use of "choice" implies the desire to carry out what is chosen, so there is an assumed cause and effect relationship between perceived and desired conditions. Making choices does not require a supercomputer or a detached soul; programs on ordinary computers are able to make choices. The making of choices is something that can be programmed. To an outside observer, the choice may appear "programmed;" i.e., determined. It is a common phenomenom to "know" what someone will do who we know well. My "significant other" often says she knows what I am thinking. This is rarely considered surprising; on the contrary, we assume this will happen after a long period of association and learning. Nonetheless, the chooser may not know "in advance" what choice will be made. To me, the choices I make are always "voluntary" and not predicted, even if my mate thinks otherwise. So, the sense of choice being voluntary is subjective, and not necessarily an objective fact in the world. If what little everyday events reveal is correct (and I think it is), there should be no great mystery about "free will," about making choices. We think of ourselves as making "independent" or "voluntary" choices because we are not aware of the myriad processes that preceded the decision. The choice appears before oneself fully formed, as if from nowhere. But close outside observers know otherwise, and often can see the choice "bubbling up." It's all a matter of perspective; it's relative.
 

Example: someone unfamiliar with computers and factory robots might assume that the things those machines do is "voluntary." Computers can run lengthy programs that do calculations, store and publish results and performs operations on the external world without immediate human intervention. Manufacturing robots do complicated tasks with a precision that may seem directed by an "inner" intelligence. They use sensors to align their tools with the operations they perform. But, we know those things are just programmed machines.

I believe this explanation of choice removes the conflict between Liberty and the other naturalistic principles. Liberty is a behavior found in individuals, whereas Equality and Fraternity are generalizations about species behavior based on the observation of many individuals. The idea that individuals are free is not the result of some grant or contract or deus ex machina; rather, it is the same thing as the behavior of "intelligent" beings. That we are programmed in a complex way - so, "determined" by a lengthy evolution - doesn't change the fact of our freedom one wit. Because we have that freedom, we are capable of self-determination.
 

Privilege
 

In our current political environment, it is customary for conservatives to emphasize individual liberty. They say individuals need to be free to exercise their choices. By extension, aggregates of individuals such as corporations should also be free to implement their designs. Conservatives hear liberals as voices of the undifferentiated masses who have desires, but not designs. The dominant conservatives present themselves as beautiful, intelligent people, whereas the masses are untutored and unwashed.
 

The reality is otherwise. Conservatives defend an Established Order which rakes off most of the available goodies for themselves. This leaves the majority of people relatively deprived in every way. Differences between the classes are arranged to be that way, thus justifying the Established Order by a circular argument. Conservatives are not interested in Liberty, as discussed above, but only in the privilege of a few to exploit the many. Thus, most conservatives emphasize invidualism and opportunity, while ignoring, deriding or rejecting equality and fraternity. In fact, embracing conservative individualism requires one to reject fraternity, because the core of individualism is simply that 'I am different from you,' or even 'I am better than you.' Those conservatives who hold the latter proposition probably also reject equality, and, by implication, defend major differences of privileges and duties assigned the castes and classes. Even if a conservative affirms Equality, as proposed here, it creates a further problem: justifying inequality. (Anyone who agrees to Equality is faced with justifying, explaining, or explaining away, inequality. Inequality is an unavoidable subject unless one denies Equality.)

The easiest way to justify inequality is by appeal to Authority. The authority could be the King or the gods, or even Parliament, but appeals to authority impose the further burden of justifying the authority's privileges oir rights. Sometimes, the 'natural right' of parents over children is argued as the basis of authority, which is another form of Plato's old argument: 'what is older is better.' That assertion is not self proving or self-evident, so it requires further arguments to prove it.
 

Some conservatives argue for "meritocracy," since, in fact, people are born with different skill sets and certainly acquire differences from others in their lives. Social Darwinism is a philosophy based on that sort of argument. I cannot deny that "people are different;" that much is obvious. However, it does not follow that anyone is more or less "fit" than anyone else. Fitness, especially Darwinian fitness, is not determinable in advance; at best, it is something we can observe at the time. In most cases, we assign fitness retrospectively. When subjects are given a test, we can observe how well they do based on the preassigned values of the questions; i.e., the test is scored based on preconceptions. The given answers are not absolute; even the simplest math test could be re-interpreted to suit given circumstances. Whether "2+2=4" is a true statement depends entirely on the test givers' intended context, and the test takers' understanding. Conventionally, we all know this is a true statement when the symbols refer to ordinary arithmetic. But, if the statement is given in the context of allegory, of common sayings, the statement's meaning is not mathematical, so could be assigned any value whatever. In biology, for example, 2 males and 2 females does not add up to 4 individuals over time in most cases. Any criterion which assigns individuals to different castes and classes is a test or sufficiently like a test. Such an assignment has three components: the invention of a test, the invention of the answers and justification of the entire procedure. Social Darwinians purport to justify their criteria by observation of nature. That is, they allege the test is implicit in nature, as anyone can see the purported behavior. The difficulty with that proposition is simple: why is the observation anything but the seeing of "happenings?" So, the desired differentiation of individuals requires some pre-existing schema; it is not something obvious in nature.
 

If the scheme does arise from nature, it can only be determined retrospectively. In that case, Godel's idea applies: any finite sequence can be imbedded in an at least denumerably infinite sequence. Generalized, it means that any finite data set can be explained by an infinite number of theories. (Usually we apply Occam's razor among the known theories in choosing what we'll use, discarding the rest as formally, logically equivalent, but useless, complexities.) In other words, the scheme is a pattern we prefer to see, but there may also be a very large number of equally valid patterns. So, as in all science, we have no idea which is "ultimately" the correct one. If conservatives want to assign the social classes according to what they observe in nature, they must also be prepared for change. While retrospective observation is a handy method of justifying the existing order - which is something conservatives like to do - it does not provide any reason for that order. The justification then boils down to "it's just that way." The successful can celebrate themselves on that basis, but it does not defend them against later overthrow. (Aging movie Stars are discarded.) If conservatives want to push the observed order farther, make it a basis for a more permanent order, it still requires a further argument. Nature does not provide a justification for caste and class.
 

So, I think any justification which denies Equality, so as to convey liberty to some, is without natural foundation. Conservatives are reduced to temporary advantage and 'might makes right' in enforcing their preferred social order. Their preferences are, therefore, a privilege they assign themselves.
 

Democracy
 

I think the Left can do well by thinking through its old slogan, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' It seems to me all of those political goals are justified by the workings of the natural world. It is especially important to support the notion of Liberty, because it allows the Left to escape from deadening collectivism. Without Liberty, the Left is prey for the Fascists now in charge, and authoritarians of all sorts.
 

The political Left has always held an "ennobling" concept of people, as in Rousseau's "noble savage." That nobility is alleged on account of our intellect, and our fair treatment of everyone and everything. The difficulty with the notion of nobility is that it sets apart, it merely repeats the distinctions conservatives make. So, the Left should forget about 'ennobling' anything, and stick to the humdrum facts. To reason from our natural equality to an ethical doctrine of Equality, hence fairness, is enough for our purpose. The natural differentiation of individuals gives us a basis for assigning duties within society, and also for allocating specialized resources and benefits. (This is summarized in the Marxian slogan: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' In that, I replace "from" and "to" with "from and to" in each case.) The special nature of each individual is in the heart of the Left.
 

Therefore, I believe a basic position of the Left must be self-determination, which supports local control. This assigns authority to the individual and small groups, as opposed to superior, authoritarian States. In America, this preference for local control, for individual and social freedom, has been confused with the doctrine of States' Rights. But those things are quite different, as States' Rights always were and are a conservative policy intended to prevent and defeat change originating in an outside world. States' Rights are a disguised form of provincialism. States' Rights are often used to justify policies and practices (such as slavery or apartheid) the defenders know full well are indefensible. It is a defense that shouts, "Make me do it."
 

Here is where the Left can rise above the Right. Lefties can advocate self-determination, hence local control, consistently. It accords with our natural condition and the political hilosophy of the Left. The Right uses local control for its own ends, because at bottom conservatives must be authoritarians to justify their existence and their philosophy. Authoritarians must always deny local control, except when it suits their needs, because the very nature of authority is to flow from the top to the bottom. Megalomania oftens accompanies authoritarianism. The authoritarian State usually tries to become larger and larger; because the only way might can be right is to crush all resistance. I have the strong suspicion that Empire is always a creature of conservatism, so the Left should always oppose it.

So, oddly enough, given the confused preferences of this era, the "natural" position of Liberals (the Left) is to favor the little guy. That puts the Left in chronic opposition to Authority, Empire, and every other universal form. This makes it difficult for the Left to govern, when it rules. However, my view does explain why Left wing governments are always plagued with a plethora of voices and demands, and criticism coming from every direction. In being "of the people," governance by the Left has to acknowlege all the differences among the people. This slows things down, and provokes many jealousies, but it is what is required to maintain a democracy.
 

The important result is this: Democracy is the antithesis of conservatism. Democracy resolves the conflict between universal government and individualism. What government of the Left must do is allow the expression of as many voices as possible. The goal is to promote the self-determination and self-fulfillment of as many people as possible. That is accomplished by involving as many people as possible. The difficulty of that ideal is not a reason for ignoring it.

 

p.s. - The "as possible" phrase leads to another argument; e.g., about Libertarianism and Utilitarianism. I have discussed that elsewhere, and will discuss it again on another day.