Liberty versus Equality, a rant on the conceptual level.

[blue_tetris]

I think a person's socialism (and their affinity for the left, in general) is the extent to which a person views themselves as "equal" to other things. This equality can build a sense of togetherness and foster ethics, but it necessarily undermines the natural struggle of living. It may be egotistical to view only yourself as worthwhile, but in that egotism is the fundamental drive of all creatures to attain and compete over resources. It is that egotism which has led to the evolution of the human animal. It's why we're as smart as we are.

On the opposite end, however, there's another sort of egotism: The egotism that makes someone think they have the mental capacity, ethical foresight, and overall understanding to call themselves "equal" with everything else on such a fundamental level. This strain for equality eventually undermines liberty, because you figure that certain people who do well for themselves and go on to attain high levels of personal achievement should be "equalized" in some way, leveling them out with the other beings that you think should be as "equals" to the one in question.



Two types of ego were mentioned. The left tends to claim the right has a "solipsistic ego": one which is possessed by the person who thinks they are "the best". Instead, most members of the right don't feel they are the best or the worst, but are forced to utilize their liberty to etch out a place for themselves. The right tends to claim the left has a "cosmic ego": one which is possessed by a person who believes they are smart enough to understand how everything works, and therefore puts forth a single model to which all "equal" things must subscribe. In truth, most members of the left feel they present a fair model that could help remove some of the unjustness perpetuated by positive liberties.

Nearly every animal, every thing which is forced to consider its survival as its core occupation, possesses the solipsisitc ego. It is only humans who have most of their needs catered for them and can afford not to grapple with their impending death that consider a cosmic whole. There is no starving Sudanese child who has an existential crisis and can consider, even for a moment, that all other beings should be his equal. He will kill for his food, if need be.

As you extend the category of those you view as equals, you widen the extent of your own cosmic ego. You view your personal connectedness to the world as growing larger and larger and you can lose sight of the limitations of ethics when contested with the reality of living. Most often, this consideration of "equality" is one which demands that the cosmic whole--all of those beings you believe should act as equals--should live with the same quality as yourself. This optimism is impractical, as those who envision a cosmic whole are typically above the average lifestyle and resource level of the cosmic group they consider themselves among.

Here's the path I figure exists, when it comes to the evolution of the human ego to a "cosmic" point:



It starts out accepting the worth of someone other than yourself. The most "closed-minded" sorts are those who figure that no one except for them is worthy of life. These folks are sociopaths.

Then, it comes to accepting the worth of those beyond your family or small personal ingroup. If you only wish for the equality of those in your family or among your friends, you might be a standard human of yesteryear. Humans are a social animal, so it's not unimaginable that they might demand the company of others. To some extent, the whole may be larger than the sum of its parts for these groups.

Then, it comes to accepting the worth of those beyond your region or community. Some people have internalized the worth of their entire community and would consider themselves capable of coming up with a model or effectively supporting everyone in that community to act as equals. However, some people will always fall through the cracks in your community. Those who cannot be considered in the model are excommunicated, in some way or another. They are viewed as necessary problems which the community model cannot account for. But in an attemot to account for them, the baseline of the community slides down a bit to find that "middleground" which exists where there is a perception of equality.

Beyond this, there are concepts of nationality, race, ethnicity, and other human groups. There are some who believe that every member of their nation or their ethnic group can somehow be equals. Most people identify with, on some level, a phylum within the human species that they belong to, whether that group is based upon region or race. Accounting for this large a set of people allows many to fall through the cracks. American social models simply cannot account for a certain population, so those people become the homeless or the working poor.
China, a very socialized nation, has great difficulty in "equalizing" its population--considering the vast urban environments and the largely contrasting rural ones. Those in China who escape the leftist "cosmic" ideal can sometimes carve out a niche for themselves in the "excommunicated" bracket of China, working solipsistically in the fields and plantations far removed from China's power structure. These people have been excluded from the social model of China, and therefore construct lives for themselves without a model at all, using their liberty (where it exists) to farm and produce their own crops.

Then, there is the human race. Many cosmically egotistic folks believe that the entire population of the world can get along and share a common model. In this model, there are so many factors which cannot be accounted for that entire nations slip through the cracks. In the back of any extreme humanist's mind is the desire to keep what they possess and retain their lifestyle, while touting equality. For the entire world to be perfectly equal, the average human income would have to be just a shade over $7000 a year. The poorest westerners can't even imagine living in that fashion. On that scale, it's probably more effective to measure in meals instead of money.
Even extreme leftists feel the pull of this sort of redistribution of lifestyle. They are comfortable to give up some of what they have to benefit the common cause. However, the sliver of solipsistic egotism that still must burn within them, because they are foremost animals convinces them that they need resources for survival and they needs lots of resources to maintain something similar to their current lifestyle. Should these leftists ever become "equalized" to the world average income, they'd likely exercise every liberty they could to start earning their way to a better lifestyle. Only their previous lifestyle could have coddled the beliefs they possessed.

Beyond that, there are animals. Those who believe every animal in existence could somehow follow an ethical model and act as equals are likely verging on the insane. Some folks draw the line at "respect your fellow mammal". Others go so far as to say they wouldn't even kill a bug. So far as a person can see homogeny between something else and themselves, they will try to equalize it to a standard model.

Perhaps, even beyond that, is the concept of nature or all objects. Having a cosmic model for how every atom must be treated as equal to every other might make you schizophrenic, in a most technical sense.



Models were mentioned above, during the descriptions. These models for equality exist in many different disciplines. Some might dictate when and if you should kill another thing. Some might dictate who gets which resources. Some might dictate who can receive which amount of pain or who needs how much freedom. You will be labeled as a hypocrite by anyone whose model for a certain behavior has a more cosmic scope than yours; that is to say, if you think it's wrong to kill people but okay to kill animals, you could be labeled as a hypocrite by those who view the two groups to be homogenous.

There are people who would attack others for being "hypocritical", in an attempt to extend their cosmic scope. However, having too grand or too narrow a cosmic scope can lead to undue deprivation of liberty. It's this claim of "hypocrisy" that makes the appropriate middleground between a purely cosmic and purely solipsistic ego a difficult one to remain at. Forces will drag you to a more cosmic view until, eventually, your viewpoint would excommunicate you from that very model you prescribe or would demand you to change lifestyles too dramatically. At this point, you will fling back with a sickening degree of cognative dissonance.

It is, perhaps, best to resist the lofty idealism of the left once you have found an appopriate place for yourself.

[jean-luc]

Quite the essay, b_t. I wholly agree with you - it is not ideal to move as far to the left as possible. I do think, however, we must find a balance that permits a certain standard of living. But then, as you stated, to create a global standard of living would result in that standard being very, very low.

This is one of the great challenges of the future.

[blue_tetris]

This is one of the great challenges of the future.

Spoken like a true starship captain.

[bobaganuesh_2]

reviving this are we?