It is natural for people to want to be able to make their own choices and to some degree be in control of their own time. It is hard to imagine anyone wanting to be oppressed or live as a slave to another individual.
Yet, while we want to be able to live our own lives and be a unique and free individual we also want to belong and be appreciated by others. It would be rare to find a person who does not enjoy being recognized for their unique gifts and talents. Most people want their lives to stick out a little. A life without individuality is for the most part a life bereft of meaning.
Yet, it takes others to recognize and appreciate us. No matter how small our community of friends or kindred spirits are, it still is a community. The only way we know our uniqueness is through our comparing and contrasting ourselves to others. While we yearn to be unique and free we also need to be noticed, validated and belong. Thus the statement that “no man is an island”.
No man is cut off and totally separated from the community of man, yet in other ways we are always islands. No matter how well somebody knows and empathizes with us they still cannot truly feel and live our experiences. No matter how close people come to us they will always be out there.
Our separateness and individuality is both a source of joy and a source of anxiety and fear. The human condition is such that we long both for individuality and community. A fulfilled life is one where someone finds their personal balance between community and individuality.
Our society touts itself as a free one. In fact it is self entitled the land of freedom. Now one could make a case that we aren’t and never have been a truly free society. Yet, the bigger question would be do we really want a free society? What is gained through freedom and what is lost?
If it is human nature to want to be a free individual yet also to belong to a community then wouldn’t a society based solely on freedom be blind to the fact that it is a society and therefore a community which people belong to? Is the designation “free society” a conflict in terms in which the idea of society gets overwhelmed in the ideal of personal freedom.
Is a society based on personal freedom in denial of its role as validator, and cate taker of each other? Is a free society one in which the bulk of its members lack a sense of belonging to and being an essential part of the body politic? The high incidence of depression might seen to indicate that this is the case, so might be the fact that free societies often foster the largest and most drastic disparities between the have and have nots.
I personally am grateful to live in a society that is not overtly oppressive and allows me to largely become the person I want to be. Yet, I am embarrassed to be a part of a society that does not provide the basic needs of life to its citizens.
I do not feel that my level of intelligence, energy and drive makes me a better person than others and entitles me to a quality of life superior to those who have a so called lower level of intelligence and energy.
I would gladly sacrifice a little of my so called freedom to insure that others have a good life. It appears obvious to me that any good society should provide a basic level of food, shelter, clothing, medical care and information for all its citizens. One in which suffering would be minimized and quality of life is maximized.
Our system of free market capitalism almost dictates the fact that a good portion of foods and goods are left to spoil, be thrown away, discarded or destroyed. As I’ve pointed out in a number of previous posts, waste and profit are inextricably linked.
In a profit based economy disparity is a necessary and logical outcome. At any given moment in time wealth is determined by the portion of the total pie a person has, any increase in proportion of one person causes a decrease in relative wealth of at least one other person. Stored wealth (capital) decreases the functional wealth of many other individuals.
An empire can disguise this reality while it is in its expansion phase of using and pirating the wealth and resources of other nations. In this expansion phase the quality of life of even the lowest people in a society get a relatively smaller lift, giving the false impression that the economic system benefits all and is the cause of the improvements in quality of life. In reality the economic system is the beneficiary of empire not the cause of wealth expansion.
We currently have enough food to feed the planet, but we do not have enough jobs for everyone on the planet. More specifically we do not have the type of jobs which a profit based economy is able to produce which protects the profit margins of the employer class.
In a profit based economy expansion almost requires an escalating disparity for how else is the necessary capital for expansion acquired. Likewise why would a wealthy businessman expand his business if his relative wealth were not expanding and if his relative wealth were expanding then the wealth of the general populace must be decreasing.
Yet, if we wanted to play this game of earning and competing for financial gain we could still do so in a caring and free society. If all people were provided with a basic standard of living including medical care, housing and a healthy diet, any increase above this base could be acquired through a profit based system of competitive free enterprise.
In such a dual layer system we could honor our moral ideals of providing all with a basic quality of life while minimizing suffering and providing an opportunity for all to engage in the “pursuit of happiness”. While at the same time encouraging and rewarding those who yearn to outperform their contemporaries, or want to amass wealth and possessions the means to do so without contributing to the suffering of others or indirectly reducing the possibility for others to acquire their basic needs.
A free society should honor both words (freedom and society). Individuals should be free from oppression and should be given an opportunity to create rewarding and healthy lives. Yet, if at all possible their freedom should not hinder or reduce the ability of others in the community from having their basic needs provided for them. A lack of abilities or ambition should not preclude someone, or their children, from basics such as food, shelter and medical care.
Jim Guido