Interesting excerpt you posted although it was in such a pale print it was rather difficult to read.
My own feeling on this is that it’s not wise to rigidly structure anything which has to face the realities of dealing with human society. Any society is so complex, so fluid, one could say so protean, that any structure inevitably will not apply in at least a few situations. I should expect it would not apply in many situations.
For example freedom from and freedom to. Which is desirable? Which provides the essential basis? Which is most important?
It seems to me that this question is the same as someone having the inspired idea to save money for the mint. We can cut the cost of making coins in half. All we have to do is decide to make coins either heads only or tails only. Obverse or reverse. That way each coin is only half as hard to make and a half as costly to make as a coin with both.
Also will make them much lighter when you carry them in your pocket. Half as heavy, in fact!
Brilliant isn’t it?
Rather than make these efforts to create a skeletal structure upon which we can build all of our philosophical/political concepts, I think we need instead to allow for a greater level of freedom and autonomy by settling on what I refer to as elemental rights. It provides a good science-fiction concept as well as a thought for how to organize our current human world.
This is somewhat different from the bill of rights or the universal declaration of the rights of man, although it’s closer to the second in spirit. Elemental rights are the rights upon which all other rights must be built. Just like the periodic table of elements, all chemistry growing therefrom, so all rights must grow from elemental rights.
The actual structure and nature of society becomes far more flexible and less rigid. As long as those rights are protected the details of societal structure become less important.
This is not to say that the structure of society does not matter to me. I deeply believe in democracy and I’m deeply committed to many liberal concepts. However, even liberal society sometimes denies what I regard as elemental rights. It’s not a question of either or, it’s a question of what is fundamental — or one might say, elemental.
If those rights are truly protected then I believe it would follow that most societies would turn into liberal, democratic structures due to the very nature of the people given the solidity, the security, in their persons and their lives. But it would not be necessary for this to occur. It is at least conceivable that a benevolent dictatorship could arise and still protect those rights.
Then of course comes the problem of getting people to agree on what those rights are. Obviously, religious fanatics would insist that everyone has a right to be forced to believe in the one true religion so as to save their souls from eternal damnation. They also insist that one must force people to accept salvation at any price necessary since whatever horrors might be inflicted in this life are temporal and thus must pass, whereas eternal damnation is eternal.
A few elemental rights which I would include would be the right to be safe and secure in your person and property (and then of course we begin to argue about how much property any individual should have and how much control they should have over it… one is compelled to think of the problem when American Indians allowed sharing of the land which ultimately belonged to God and thus could not be owned by an individual, followed by the settlers claiming that Indians had sold them the land forever).
Some rights which might seem obvious to you and me would not seem so to other cultures, especially those with extremist religious positions. For example, the right not to be raped seems pretty obvious unless of course you are a member of an extreme patriarchal society in which women are considered to be property more than they are considered to be human beings.
So the list of elemental rights would be rather difficult to create considering they are intended to be a universal set of rights which apply to all sapient and
sentient beings (scifi, again). Naturally this means that animals also have rights. Equally naturally, animal rights would be limited when compared to human rights because while they may be as sentient as we are, they are certainly less sapient. (Sorry PETA… not really, because I don’t like you.)
So the right to vote I would not regard as an elemental right. However, it would be difficult to create a dictatorship if elemental rights were somehow enforced because you couldn’t throw people in prison for peacefully protesting or having the wrong political opinions or voting the wrong way. Hard for dictatorship to maintain itself without the element of terror. Robespierre had a point, he just took it to an extreme that is still staggering to believe.
I want to emphasize that the concept of basic liberties is not identical to my concept of elemental rights. Basic liberties are liberties when can be debated as to how they may or may not be inherent, whereas elemental rights are exactly that, unalienable.
I also want to add that freedom from and freedom to miss a critical element in their forced choice/false dichotomy. That is the element of responsibility. We can also frame that as being a member of a social species with social obligations to fellow members of said species. In my mind, this extends to our fellow sentient and at least somewhat sapient cousins. We are all descended from one LUCA, one last universal common ancestor, so however distantly, we are all related. Biblically we might have been created to dominate everything else without regard to their feelings and needs, but scientifically we are related and that does have some applications although one might disagree as to the exact nature thereof.
My position, then, is closer to the Oakshottean than any other since it does allow for a great deal of individual freedom within a framework which does not demand specific structures. Still, I don’t think that many liberals in general would allow for the concept of a benevolent dictatorship to fit into their structure. It’s not that I like the idea of such a thing, but I recognize that it could exist and I could tolerate it as long as elemental rights were protected under it. Naturally, one thinks of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Here we certainly had elements of benevolent dictatorship turn into horrific brutality due to the death of a single man.
I can go on and on, but let me conclude by saying we humans are strange creatures. I was always upset by the way that Kurt Vonnegut turned (almost impossibly) more and more bitter as he aged. I told myself that I would not let that happen to me. And then Ronald Reagan laid the groundwork which led to Trump which led to today. This brings me up at a point where I can go on and on, but let me conclude by saying we humans are strange creatures. As I stated, Vonnegut’s increasing despair snd biterness saddened me. I told myself that I would not let that happen to me. Now it seems Vonnegut may have had a point in his old age.
However, I comfort myself by thinking that, while in the classic tradition we are fallen angels, more or less at the very height of all earthly creation, as such we are a truly disgusting failure. While we have accomplished many beautiful and good things the horrors we regularly practice are simply unspeakable, except that we must speak of them since they happen to be real. On the other hand, if you regardless us as risen apes, things look different. For a troop of hairless chimpanzees, it’s surprising we do as well as we do.
Long post. I’ll have to put this on my blog. Unfortunately the print is so pale on what you sent I can’t include it. Oh well, it’s the best this hairless chimpanzee can do.
And I’ll have you know, for the record, that’s pan paniscus to you, not pan troglodytes!
