Closed societies allow people to say one thing in public and do another in private. We call this difference between public proclamation and private behaviour "hypocrisy" - or perhaps its the difference between what we believe we should be and what we are. The bigger that gap between aspiration and reality is, the harder it is on us and the bigger role hypocrisy will play. There is a point when aspirations become delusions. At that point hypocrisy becomes the only sane choice.
However if you're going to have an open society then it either needs to be either homogeneous or tolerant. Everybody has to either think the same or accept that others think differently. Given that variation is wired into human beings, an open society is hard work. In some ways closed societies are more comfortable than open ones.
The price of freedom is accepting that you don't always have to right to win the argument.
Showing posts with label open society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label open society. Show all posts
Sunday, March 22, 2009
the open society & its frenemies (2)
Libertarian capitalists and anarchists view state power as inherently evil. The opposite of an oppressive, totalitarian state is some kind of money-driven or love-driven utopia.
Of course, it's not. The opposite of the Soviet Union is the Congo. The optimal environment for human beings is not constraint-free.
You might say I'm an asymmetric libertarian. The more power a person or entity has, the more that person requires oversight & governance. Of course, it seems to work the opposite way in the real world - the more power an entity has, the greater protection from scrutiny it can buy.
Of course, it's not. The opposite of the Soviet Union is the Congo. The optimal environment for human beings is not constraint-free.
You might say I'm an asymmetric libertarian. The more power a person or entity has, the more that person requires oversight & governance. Of course, it seems to work the opposite way in the real world - the more power an entity has, the greater protection from scrutiny it can buy.
the open society & its frenemies (1)
Been thinking a lot about government recently.
I quite like free-market competition. I'm not convinced that many people do though. Labour unions don't like it. Many business people don't like it - they would rather have a cosy, lucrative monopoly (e.g. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs). We like competition with the proviso that we win - and everyone knows that a competition where the winner is known before the start is not really a competition.
As tempting as this position is, I believe some form of competition is good for our us - in part because competition is wired into our natures. Of course, cooperation is too. At best we find ourselves driven by a productive tension. We might as well channel our competitive & cooperative desires into something helpful rather than destructive.
We need a free(ish) market (that includes organisations driven by both profit and/or concern). But we also need strong, effective government. If all these people are competing all over the place then someone has to call them out when they try to do something stupid - because they will, they are human. Self-regulation only works when there are reciprocal ties between organisations and their stakeholders - otherwise the temptation to cheat is just too strong.
But the government may also cock things up - so we have to make it as accountable as we can. Governments should thank us for limiting their power (as an alcoholic should thank the person who hides their booze stash) but that's not human nature either.
So we need to ensure that everyone is accountable to someone. The price of freedom is eternal pickiness.
Who are you accountable to? If you can't answer that question then you'd better find someone soon.
I quite like free-market competition. I'm not convinced that many people do though. Labour unions don't like it. Many business people don't like it - they would rather have a cosy, lucrative monopoly (e.g. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs). We like competition with the proviso that we win - and everyone knows that a competition where the winner is known before the start is not really a competition.
As tempting as this position is, I believe some form of competition is good for our us - in part because competition is wired into our natures. Of course, cooperation is too. At best we find ourselves driven by a productive tension. We might as well channel our competitive & cooperative desires into something helpful rather than destructive.
We need a free(ish) market (that includes organisations driven by both profit and/or concern). But we also need strong, effective government. If all these people are competing all over the place then someone has to call them out when they try to do something stupid - because they will, they are human. Self-regulation only works when there are reciprocal ties between organisations and their stakeholders - otherwise the temptation to cheat is just too strong.
But the government may also cock things up - so we have to make it as accountable as we can. Governments should thank us for limiting their power (as an alcoholic should thank the person who hides their booze stash) but that's not human nature either.
So we need to ensure that everyone is accountable to someone. The price of freedom is eternal pickiness.
Who are you accountable to? If you can't answer that question then you'd better find someone soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
