Post No. 35 IMAGINE

Have you ever imagined what you might want to see in an improved human society?  Many of us see things we don’t like and wonder how it could be different. We usually don’t take the time to form some  details of an imagined future society. I suggest that the conduct of individuals and of government are both important in this imagined society. This post is an exercise of our imaginations in what might be possible.

It’s probably a good idea to start with some assumptions, or First Principles.  This might guide us in our imagination game.  For example, are all humans of equal value or are some people of more importance than others?  What is an accurate picture of how we really are?

My opinion is that all humans are of equal value because all humans have a sense of a self that thinks and feels and acts.  We all see the world from our own point of view.  Because we have these attributes, there exists on earth complex human societies of beings who are aware of themselves who can think and feel and act.  It is this common feature that makes each of us equal of respect in the eyes of this imagined society.  This First Principle, or at least a glimmer of it, was first imagined by Descartes as described in martinsblogs.com Post No. 34.  It is also acknowledged by many religions. So for our imagined society we can state:

FIRST PRINCIPLE No. 1:  ALL HUMANS ARE OF EQUAL VALUE

It is important to note upfront that this principle does not mean that all humans are equal in terms of skills, abilities or status in society

Of course, we know this principle has not been followed by many societies, including our own, especially in the past.  Counter examples in the U.S. are past laws concerning slavery, Jim Crow, gender and homosexuality.  Many societies, especially most Islamic-centered nations, still discriminate among humans according to gender, sexual or religious preference.

Again it is important to stress that although humans are all of equal value, it does not mean that everyone is equal either in attributes or status in society.

One might imagine how individuals and governments might act if all humans are of equal value is a First Principle.  The words that comes to mind are “toleration and acceptance of differences”.  There will always be outliers from whatever are the main societal norms.  Outliers should be fully accepted into society and not be discriminated against.  In the past many societies viewed people of different races or religious beliefs as outliers.  Fortunately, there are some societies today where race and religious beliefs are so fully accepted that people of a different race or religion are assimilated in the society.

Outliers are often those who don’t fit into an essential need of any human society. For example all societies rely primarily on marriage to produce new humans to continue its future.

Acceptance of an outlier means respect and non-discrimination.  It does not necessarily mean society should encourage more people to become outliers.  For example, diversity of people with different races, religions, and sexual preferences is a good thing, but it is not an end in itself that should be promoted.

In summary, all humans have equal value.  For this reason outliers from societal norms should be accepted and included in society, not necessarily promoted.

It should be noted that I am not suggesting that outliers who are committed to doing violence to others should be tolerated.  In fact, a responsibility of government is to protect the people from those who would do them violence.  For example, the U.S. government was mainly responsible for eliminating the ISIS caliphate in Syria and Iraq.  Those who espouse a radical, violent ideology, such as ISIS or Al Qaeda, should not be tolerated.  The Middle East has several violent, extremist Islamic ideologies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah (The Party of God).  Our governments should be unequivocal in condemning these violent individuals and organizations, and protecting the people from this violence.

What is your opinion?  Is this a principle your imagined government should have?  Do you think there are reasons individuals or governments should treat people differently based on their race, gender or religion?

FIRST PRINCIPLE No. 2: GOVERNMENTS ARE FOR THE PEOPLE

This principle is fairly simple: governments are formed for the benefit of people, not for the government itself or those who manage it.  Without government humans would not do well.  In a state of anarchy many people would suffer and have little sense of safety.  This principle was extensively expounded on by John Locke in his “Second Treatise on Government”.  See martinsblog.com Post No. 34.

In the West most governments value a democratic form of government based on a written constitution/compact.  This compact with the people defines citizens’ rights/freedoms from government interference, rules for electing representatives and a balancing of power among executive, legislative and judicial branches.

My opinion is that a democratic form of government is the best approach, despite its significant flaws.  Could an authoritarian government also follow First Principle No. 2?   That depends on the way it is run, something also true of democratic forms of government.  In the  extreme, if the people feel oppressed by their government, they will attempt to replace it.  This is often not a peaceful process.

All governments no matter the structure, if they are “for the people”, need to have acceptance from its people in the following ways;

  - 1: LEGITIMACY: It was legitimately formed (Venezuela is currently having trouble with this)

  - 2: AUTHORITY: It has authority to make laws and enforce order, to tax, and to defend against external threats. It has a duty to maintain power to prevent and punish those who are violent or break the law.

  - 3: ECONOMIC STABILITY: Its various bureaucracies and institutions are effective in maintaining economic stability.

People have revolted against their governments in the past for lacking one or more of the above reasons.

  

LET’S IMAGINE

Ok, so let’s imagine some elements of a future society.  I’ll start first:

1. ACCEPTANCE AND CULTURE

Acceptance of differences from the majority culture is paramount.  It follows First Principle No. 1, All Humans are of Equal Value.  For much of history people of a different religion from the culture were shunned or persecuted.   A simple example in the United States is when John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, ran for President in a country that was then majority Protestant.  He was forced to explain to voters that his religion had nothing to do with his allegiance to the country.  His much-viewed speech on this topic was a breakthrough in his campaign toward becoming President.  Another salient example that I have experienced is seeing an Islamic woman waring a full hijab walking with her husband who is dressed normally with no identifying religious garb.  Although I think this approach is wrong in several ways, I feel tolerant of their outlier behavior in our culture.  The same is true if one were to walk through a Hasidic neighborhood.  In the United States we are fortunate that we have a relatively high level of acceptance of outliers, perhaps the reason so many want to emigrate here.  But, as previously described, outliers who want to commit violence because they have different cultural values should be categorically condemned.

We all are aware of the intolerance our culture had in the past regarding what then was considered aberrant sexual preferences or gender identity.  For example up until the 1970’s the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a psychological disorder.  It was also illegal for many years.  Fortunately, our culture has woken up (no, I don’t mean “woke”) to our folly of the past. We are trying to makeup for our past intolerance by portraying these differences as a normal part of American life.  But as First Principle No. 1 describes, acceptance does not mean promotion.  Unfortunately, “woke” ideology  is now promoting these differences as a positive goal.  In my imagined society, the majority of us marry and have children, who become productive members.

1. SAFETY

Many of us take safety for granted as we go about our normal activities in our neighborhoods.  But this is not the case everywhere.  Protecting citizens from the violence of others is a prime responsibility of a government that is “for the people”.  As John Locke wrote, the people voluntarily place in a government the power to protect us and bring to justice those who would do us harm.  Unfortunately, in the United States there are neighborhoods that are not so safe.  The vast majority of gun murders are in low-income urban areas, not in mass shootings.  It is the residents of these neighborhoods who suffer the most from lack of safety.  In my imagined society, the government would prioritize policing in these areas to make them safe.  Not doing otherwise is a form of racism since minorities are disproportionately represented in these neighborhoods.  Of course, this is only a necessary and essential first step in making these neighborhood safe.  Economic policy is also important as you will read further on.

1. COMPETITION AND AVOIDANCE OF WAR

The United States is currently the strongest military power on the planet.  We have a strong competitor in China.  Notice I refer to China as a competitor, not necessarily as a military adversary.  Let’s see how this makes a big difference in my imagined society that starts from present day realities.

First, it is crucial that we remain the strongest military power because it is the United States that has the ability to help countries avoid war.  We have had great success at this after World War II until we made huge mistakes relatively recently in invading Afghanistan and Iraq.  This was a serious error and affects our standing in the eyes of our competitors.  Yet we still remain the one power on earth that has the ability to help prevent war among Great Powers.

Great Power relations is characterized as “anarchic”.  This means that, unlike governments that are given the power to enforce peace within its borders, there is no corresponding mechanism to avoid violence among Great Powers.  But after World War II the United States took up this role to some degree.  We did get involved in civil wars in Korea and Vietnam to prevent a communist overthrow of these countries, yet we did not abuse our superpower role to invade other countries for geopolitical gain, and kept the worst instincts of Soviet Russia at bay.  In my imagined society the United States will continue this role for the foreseeable future.

  

Let’s now imagine how the U.S. might interact with China, a growing competitor.  In this imagined world we would see China as a strong competitor and a partner in a couple important instances.  We would dispense with the saber-rattling and fear mongering toward China.  We would engage with them to partner in areas of mutual interest.  One major area of interest is trade, a thing that is disrupted by war. The U.S. and China together possess overwhelming power on the planet that, if applied, has the capability to keep bad actor nations at bay, just as governments have this power within their borders.  This is not pie in the sky, and here’s why:  BOTH CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES WANT A PEACEFUL WORLD WHERE NATIONS COMPETE ECONOMICALLY AND THEIR PEOPLE PROSPER.  THEY BOTH WANT THE ELIMINATION OF TERRORISTIC ORGANIZATIONS THAT DISRUPT THE WORLD, SUCH AS AL QAEDA, ISIS, HEZBOLLAH AND HAMAS.

In my imagined society, the United States would work hand-in-hand with China to avoid future wars because together they do have the overwhelming power needed to prevent this violence, just as governments have within their own borders.  At the same time, we would continue to compete economically with China, and keep our military strong. If strong U.S. leadership was in place, there most likely would have been no wars in Ukraine and the Middle East currently.

But there are wars currently so let’s see how my imagined stronger U.S. leadership might work to resolve these two wars.  Most wars start because of fear and nationalism.  The Ukraine war is characterized by fear from many different perspectives.  There is the fear by NATO of a Russian invasion of the West, so NATO enlarged its membership right up to Russia’s doorstep.  There is the fear by Russia of NATO since it has expanded right up to its borders (Germany under Hitler, and France under Napoleon, did invade Russia).   There was fear by the United States that prevented it from acting more assertively when Russia was, for weeks, massing troops on the Ukrainian border.  What can dissipate this fear is strong United States leadership with a clear goal to bring the parties together to end the conflict and bring peace to the region.  In my imagination a strong United States leader(s) would not succumb to black and white thinking on the conflict.  Rather they would engage the stakeholders to the conflict to understand and shape practical solutions.  This would mean direct talks with Putin, Xi, Zelensky and NATO leaders.  These talks would share perspectives on Russia’s unprovoked and brutal invasion, and events such as the Euromaidan Revolution in Kiev in 2014, and the affinity of many in eastern Ukraine with Russia.  In this society the United States would use its diplomatic, economic and military power to bring the parties to a peaceful solution.  Solving this conflict will be a game changer in my imagined society.  The United States would strengthen its already strong position and, perhaps more importantly, set in motion a new way of dealing with adversaries.  Imagine the benefits if China and the U.S. could work together jointly to use their overwhelming joint power to stop  bad actors among nations.

Ok, so what would a realistic peace agreement look like at this point in time?  Well, I could imagine one, but realistically it will only happen with strong U.S. leadership.  We’ll let it up to these strong leaders to develop the solution.  My guesses will do nothing for them or for this blog post.

In what way might strong U.S. leadership resolve the current Middle East crisis?  Just as in Ukraine, the crucial element is strong U.S. diplomatic, economic and military leadership.  Two things should be done immediately.  First is something that cannot be stressed enough: getting full throated agreement that Islamic extremist terroristic organizations such as Hamas must go (people should be protected from this terror).  The U.S. did lead in this way when ISIS had its caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria.  Second, convincing Israel to stop bombing Gaza.  Israel would be convinced if the U.S. could assure them that a coalition of governments, including European and Arab nations, all agree to intervene in Gaza if necessary.  This should also include Russia and China.  These nations have also experienced the terror of Islamic extremism, and can be convinced to join an effort to eliminate it in Gaza.  Let the leaders of Hamas become like the escaping Nazi’s after World War II, and nab them when they come out in the open, wherever they are found.  The details of a one state or two state solution would then more easily  be found.  I suspect that many Palestinians would be eager to be rid of the violent Islamic extremists who are willing to put them in harms way to achieve their objectives.

As one might see from these two examples, my imagined society does not include an anarchic world.  My imagined society has strong, or rather overwhelming, leadership from the U.S. and, in concert with China, it would deter bad actor nations.  In a similar way as a government ensures peace within its borders, the U.S. and China together have the potential overwhelming power to deter and punish bad actor nations. That leaves peace among nations, and allows countries to grow wealthy and compete economically, an outcome that is “for the people”.

Before leaving this topic, I think I would be amiss not to mention current problems in Africa.  As I write, there is a horrific civil war in Sudan.  Eight million people have been displaced and it is feared that two million people will die of starvation.  The U.S. and the U.N. are so far fruitlessly trying to help the warring parties come to a peace agreement.  Somehow this craziness should be more practically addressed.  There is untapped potential that people in these African nations could offer the world.

1. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

The people want economic opportunity.  They expect this from their government.  When enough people believe the government is not acting in their interests in this way, bad things often happen.  For example, American Colonists, British citizens, revolted against their country when England acted in their own economic interests at the expense of the Colonists.  The American Revolution was essentially started because the American colonial people perceived that their government (England) was taking away their economic opportunities without a voice by the people in the thirteen British colonies of North America.

The American colonial period was unusual. Today we have a system where we are represented. We also have removed all legal roadblocks that held back women and minorities.

One can  understand the impact of government policy by looking at the extremes. On one extreme is a socialist/marxist economy centered on government control and massive social spending. The opposite extreme is an unregulated capitalist economy that allows monopolies and provides no worker protections or opportunities.  Virtually the whole world has rejected both extremes but only after much suffering.

There are two main forces that now affect economic opportunity as perceived by the people:

WORKFORCE READINESS: Because of past injustices, there are disparities in workforce readiness.  There are obstacles to workforce readiness currently.

First, If one cannot afford an appropriate education (college or technical school), then one is automatically disadvantaged.

Second, if one cannot afford appropriate health care and has a heath problem that inhibits them from fully participating in the work force, then one is automatically disadvantaged.

There are solutions to these two problems. Wise government leadership can solve them, although the solutions are not obvious to me at present.  There are ways of solving this without simply massive new government spending.  We need wise, competent and practical leaders.

THE WEALTH GAP: Tweaking the economy so it works for the people and does not fall into extremes is tricky.  The trend for the last half century has been an ever increasing wealth gap between the rich and the poor.  This trend ramped up under the Reagan administration (1980) with the drastic tax changes that benefited the wealthy (top bracket went from 70% to 28%) and hurt workers through an increased payroll tax (it doubled for the self-employed).  President Reagan also started a trend toward deficit spending.  For example, the total budget deficit more than doubled during his eight years.  Currently, the interest on our debt is a major drain on our resources.  This period, starting around the seventies and eighties, began a downward trend that has changed the nature of the workforce and the peoples’ perspectives on their economic opportunities.  In 1980, many families relied on one wage earner; now both must work to make ends meet for most families.  The change to a globalized workforce under Bill Clinton exacerbated this problem as many high paying manufacturing jobs went overseas.  A third factor influencing the growing wealth gap is the advent of financial leverage in the 1970s and 1980s, both in terms of financial options trading and financial futures trading.  This type of leverage allowed tremendous gains in wealth by those able to exploit financial insights, such as hedge funds etc.  (Hedging for legitimate business purposes, such as airlines hedging on the price of fuel, is not the issue here).  The net result of these economic changes have had an impact on our culture and on the prospect of starting families and having children for many young people.

I believe that some of these issues are being at least recognized by our Government representatives in the last several years, but we have made only incremental progress.  In my imagined society, our leaders would address the major problems and develop more practical solutions.  The result would be a society where most people, not just the well-off, could start families without fear of severe economic strain.   

SO JUST IMAGINE

In my imagined society, this is a summary of what I envision.  It is a world where we no longer see other major powers as adversaries but as competitors.  It is a world where there is a mechanism to prevent wars by the major powers.  It is a world where countries compete economically to innovate and produce, and make the peoples of their nations prosperous. It’s a world where the extremes of economic inequality are managed and the vast majority of the people believe they have economic opportunity and that there is a brighter future for their children.  It is a world where differences from the main culture are accepted, appreciated and serve to better the whole culture.

Some of you might scoff and doubt that this is possible.  That’s ok, we are tolerant of cynics also!  To those cynics I like to quote Shakespeare “Doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by failing to attempt”.

My challenge to readers is to take some time, sit back, relax and imagine.  How would you like to see things change?  Maybe talk about your ideas with others or write letters (emails) to your congress people.  What have you got to lose?