We are all encapsulated in a bubble floating in the endless circle of space. Captured in a world where what your neighbor does will affect you. As such, anything one does that is good is respected and often offers benefit to those around it. In a free society anything should be possible. But if it is to be a good society, it must be virtuous and must apply and support virtuous practices. This does not mean what you might think, as you will remember that I am speaking of a truly free society. Can there be both? Are there any examples that such a place can exist or ever existed?
It may come as no surprise that the United States was founded very much on this very same belief. The idea that in order for a free republic to survive it must be based upon virtue, was very much how most of the founding fathers thought. This is because they were products of the European Enlightenment and in fact the Declaration of Independence was very much influenced by the philosophies of the Enlightenment.
Aristotle regarded political virtue as the highest human achievement. I am sure many that are reading this are smirking at this thought, since we have very little attainable evidence indicating this is an achievable. However, Aristotle's belief extends far beyond the politician, all the way to the heart and soul of the individual. For all must be of virtuous mind for a free democratic republic to succeed.
If we look at the trajectory of any great empire, they all rise and fall. Some have come and gone more than once. But most empires have been tyrannies and much of their rise and fall had more to do with the struggle of tyrants to remain in power than because the societies themselves failed. However, the cases where empires fell from internal decay are the ones that require the most focus.
Notice that I mention 'internal decay'. The Roman empire fell because of itself more than anything else. And it took much longer than many realize - over one thousand years to completely fall. And all of its demise can be attributed to an insatiable appetite for power and wealth. As empires came and went after the Roman decay, change became more a matter of economic concern than tyrannical. However, the tyrannical behavior took centuries to eliminate and pretty much has been overwhelmed by a new tyrant - corporate tyranny, which has oligarchical foundations - another kind of tyranny.
Karl Marx believed the ultimate transition would be from a corporate-industrial (free enterprise) economy to a communistic form of government and economic policy. Note that the Soviet communism which rose and fell rather quickly, was based upon an immediate transition from an agricultural economy prevalent at the time. This is not what Marx envisioned, and may be why it failed. Note that the United States - the great example of free enterprise in a democratic republic - has been fairly successful. The United States in fact evolved from an agricultural community to the corporate economy that now exists. If we look closely at today's political design, our economy has evolved into a mix of socialism and corporate free enterprise. With the government providing the socialism which tends to war against the free market concept.
Perhaps Marx was right and the inevitable truth is that communism can not be avoided. But this would not be acceptable to any free-thinking independent minded being, which presumably all human beings are. So why would any peoples accept such a concept?
I think the answer lies with Gandhi. Consumerism is the ultimate driver of free enterprise. It represents that insatiable desire of all humankind to have what it does not have, or to have more than it really needs. Much as a bear will entrap itself to acquire food, man is proving to be no wiser. In order to consume, one must procure. To procure, one must work. If one must work to procure what one needs, then one is no more free than the slave who must work the fields because there is no other means to obtain that which is required or desired. And most of all there is a problem with all lifeforms - they keep multiplying. And that means they continue to consume at an exponential rate.
Because the earth's population continues to explode, the concept of consumerism is fatally flawed. This means Resources can not renew fast enough to prevent a swarm of locust from demolishing everything. And humanity is that swarm. If the biblical prophecy is correct about anything, it is that humanity may well be its own plague.
If resources are incapable of sustaining population growth, then so are the means by which consumerism thrives. In other words, there are not enough jobs to sustain all of humankind's insatiable appetite for more, more, more. Herein lies the flaw. If A and B both want Z then A + B = 2Z must be true if everything is optimal. But since humankind keeps growing, the equation becomes A + B + C = 2Z with means each gets less, or A + B + C = 3Z, which means more resources are required. But the earth only has so many resources, so at some point, the right side of the equation becomes fixed, while the left side grows. Eventually, even the left side must stop simply because its sustenance is not sustainable.
The ancient Greeks knew this all too well, in that they maintained close scrutiny over the number of immigrants to the country including the amount of sustainable slave labor versus paid labor that could be accommodated within their economy without over-depleting its resources.
So are we rising or are we falling. Unfortunately, because of the 'locust' problem, I believe we are falling. I think the current economic climate illustrates the fall of man. I believe man is falling because of his moral decay. I specify man in this context because he is mostly responsible for all of the positive and negative ideologies that have brought us to this point. This returns us to the point of virtue.
As much as I believe in free enterprise, I have to also admit that it inspires greed. After all, the underlying theme in all of enterprise is to thrive and that requires the achievement of excess. We all would do the same if given the chance. This is our nature. And this is why virtue is less attainable with the more one acquires. Because consumerist tendencies enslave virtue. And without virtue, democratic republics fail. At least this is what the founding fathers believed. And for good reason, they had seen the rise and fall of excess and its cost as one that bleeds all of society through tyranny and the cronyism and corruption associated with tyrannical government. And they very much saw big government as no better than tyrannical rule.
I believe that virtuous intent and its continued development is essential for humankind to survive. This means controlling greed and thereby preventing tyranny. But this is not enough. Humanity must achieve new technologies and objectives so that new directions provide a means for expansion which leads to job creation. After all, it is this principle alone - manifest destiny - that has saved free enterprise. America's expansive effort has in fact sustained the world for some time. But where to now? Well, there is still the ocean and space. Each will require technological advances before either can truly benefit humanity. But this means there is a way to sustain humankind and even free enterprise for a while longer, thereby thwarting communism - perhaps.
However, there is one feature of man that has persisted since the beginning of time. He does not always play well with others, and as such continually makes war. This almost always comes down to the same problem I have been discussing at length - lack of virtue. Virtue held great importance to the ancients of the first known democracy - Athens, which is to say, thousands of years ago, this same problem was recognizable. Although, in the end, Plato saw democracy as a failure, and preferred the concept of oligarchy. I believe Plato's disgust with democracy was its failure to protect Athens from Sparta - which was an oligarchy.
War. It is something that even the bible promotes and perhaps this is our great undoing. As long as we continue to fight one another we can never truly be free. And if we can not truly be free, we can never achieve true virtue? War is irrational behavior. It leads to deception and the demise of truth - that which gives knowledge. And that voids wisdom. And without wisdom, virtue is not feasible.
So in our noble strife for virtue, we have found one means of promoting it - religion.
Once upon a time, religion and philosophy walked hand-in-hand. But as science developed, philosophy began to side with the knowledge of the world that science is capable of revealing. Religion chose to separate itself, which required some degree of flawed reasoning to distinguish itself and its tenants as the only source of virtue. Even though it has been the cause of more wars than most recall.
There is nothing virtuous about war. It is always for the wrong reasons no matter what the annunciations of the victor might be. World War 1 led us into World War 2. And war has not ceased since. Yet the world keeps building bigger and better armies to fight more wars. More elegant ways to kill more people. What is moral about this? Where is the virtue in killing innocent people - which is what always happens in any war? As long as there is war, there can be no virtue and until virtue is achieved, democratic republicanism can not succeed and certainly will not sustain itself. And this is where religion has failed time and again. It prompts war more than it prevents it. Despite its proclamations of being the only true path to virtue, it stumbles over its own hypocrisy by the types of actions it repeatedly raises.
If we are to achieve moral sanctity, it must not be through war, but by individual reason. And this can only be achieved through the promotion of free thought and noble teaching. Our descendents must be allowed to know the truths and All of the knowledge humankind has achieved if they are to effectively build upon society's foundation. This is contrary to the practice of war which is prone to dishonest self-promotion and the ultimate annihilation of truth.
If religion wishes to help, then it must combine into one single religion that recognizes each individual's freedom and promotes wisdom and virtue by engaging the truth with openness. Thereby, side-stepping the cause of much of society's discontent - rule by religious and tyrannical tendencies. And though this may seem idealistic, it will be necessary if humankind is to thrive. And human thriving is necessary for free enterprise to survive, and enterprise is necessary if a free democratic republic is to survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment