Double-decker Democracy

                                                                              

In the beginning was the soup.ⁱ

There were a few elements and compounds in it, and a lot of gas and lightning outside. And, according to the scientists, it was from this brew that life arose.ⁱⁱ Eventually, though it took a bit of time, there developed both jungle and the animals within it. And survival of the “fittest.” “Kill or be killed.” It was the Law of the Jungle. “Live and let live” and “Turn the other cheek” were not viable alternatives when survival was at stake.

But the beginnings of civilization – of people living together – required a rethinking of the doctrine. “Every man for himself” might have been a necessity when early humans survived as individuals, but it was not suited to group living. So the “Social Contract” was developed. People banded together to form communities to which they surrendered some of their freedom in exchange for the protection that the group offered.ⁱⁱⁱ America's founders went a little beyond that in establishing a government whose primary responsibility was defense, but there were other jobs to be performed in governing and legislating for the newly fashioned nation, so they did so. Followers of Locke, among others, they favored the idea that freedom was a critical goal, one that any rational individual would accept, and that those who did not accept the idea of freedom should be forced to do so – or at least to a limited extent – by accepting the rules of American society.

The belief in “Natural Rights” was a major stumbling block to the acceptance of the Constitution since the Federalists were reluctant to include individual rights in the document, but eventually the original document was approved with the agreement of the Federalists to pass amendments which later became known as the “Bill of Rights.” In effect, the initial Constitution and the Bill of Rights together comprise the document by which our nation was originally defined.

But times have changed. And with them, so has our Constitution. There are new amendments and new laws. Lots of them. And there is “reinterpretation” of the Constitution itself, as well as the subsequent statutes designed to implement it. As for the Bill of Rights, there is freedom of speech and the press, except …; we're free to assemble, when we're not prohibited from doing so. Religious freedom is guaranteed – freedom both of and from religion – but within certain limits; there is protection against self-incrimination unless …; and certainly we have the right to bear arms – sometimes.

There have been numerous other changes in the law and new regulations as well, and many of our citizens believe them to be worthwhile. The conviction is widespread, in the United States and elsewhere, that it is the responsibility of the State to care for its citizens, especially those who cannot, or will not, care for themselves. And the cost of such care must be borne by those who can afford it. Some consider this to be socialism, others the granting of simple Natural Rights, including, the right to food, housing, health care, and the like. It's hard to dispute the wish to help those in need.

But not everyone believes that the provision of that help should be mandated by government at the expense of all. Perhaps the idea of Natural Rights is understood differently in the various cultures around the world. There is certainly disagreement in different nations about what a government must provide for its citizens and what it can demand of them. A quick reading of the newspaper^iv will illustrate this situation. Not only do we disagree on what these rights are, but we have different understandings about their origin. Are they man-made or are they divine? Have we the right not to have the definitions of others imposed on us? Or have we the obligation to force people to be free and equal?^v

It's the age-old disagreement between conservatives and liberals. Among liberals the concept of equality is paramount. The focus begins with Hobbes's laws of nature,^vi the fifth of which reads:

The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.

But they see every man's obligation as far greater. Not only should he “strive to accommodate himself to the rest,” but he should make sure that society provides equally for everyone. Being “sociable” may not be possible without the use of taxes. Hence it is perfectly permissible to mandate charity.

Conservatives, especially libertarians, reject what they regard as a “nanny state.” They seek a situation in which, beyond their own safety, there are few controls on what they do.

Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone."^vii

Warren and Brandeis were referring to privacy when they wrote this,^viii and it was a liberal concept, however conservatives would now apply it to all aspects of life. The uninterpreted Constitution is, for them, an estimable structure for society. The two philosophies are so different that accommodation between them is difficult to imagine. And compromise doesn't seem likely.

But there is a solution. It's a little radical, however it should not be dismissed out of hand. It would require the “reformatting” of our democracy into two parts – the first one that views the care of the needy as mandatory, and the second that wants “to be let alone.” Land would be distributed roughly in proportion to the number of those opting for each system with freedom of individuals to move from one to the other at any time, though land redistribution (according to population changes) would occur at fixed times.

Those in the first group – the one that viewed care of the needy as mandatory – would probably consist of those receiving aid from the state, as well as those who considered it their duty to provide such aid. There would eventually be an equalization of all resources so that everyone had a “fair share.”^ix People would, of course, be free to give more to the needy, but there would be certain minimums. There would be no exceptions from the mandates, including members of the government. Education would also be mandatory, but would be provided by the government, which would set the curriculum for it.

In the second group would be all those who want “to be let alone.” While they would be free to give charity, they would not be taxed to do so. Indeed, apart from what is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, there would be no taxation. Thus, security would be provided by the State. Other services, however, would be provided on a “fee for service” basis. If you wanted your toilets connected to the sewer lines or your garbage collected, there would be a fee. And if you wanted water or other utilities you would pay for them. Schooling would not be free, and it would probably be expensive, but if you had no children you would have no bill.

Clearly there are some details that need to be worked out, but the choice of political philosophy is tempting. After all, choice is what America is all about. And the choice of where to live would give people a chance to “vote with their feet.” Chacun à son goût.^x

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where you ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,

'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.^xi

Next episode:  "Fats, Fads, And Futility" -- All I know is what I read in the newspaper.

i     In France it was the potage.

ii    There are those, especially fundamentalists, who think that the scientists, themselves, were drinking a little too much brew when they came up with this explanation.

iii    It was a little like a union. Now we pay our union dues in exchange for the organization's clout. The original ideas were developed by, among others, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, but existed long before.

iv    Or some other medium. Nowadays everything can be found on some hand-held electronic device.

v     Whatever that means. It most likely refers to political rights, but even these vary from country to country.

vi    In Leviathan. 1651. Hobbes writes of the need for defense but goes well beyond that.

vii    Thomas Cooley. A Treatise on the Law of Torts, 1880.

viii   “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, December 15, 1890.

ix    Whether the poor all over the world would be entitled to move to this Utopia is uncertain, but the ideals it embodies suggest that they would.

x     To each his own soup.

xi    Shaker hymn.