It is necessary that there be a religion of the state as there is a politics of the state: or rather, that religious and political dogmas, mixed and blended, together form a rather strong universal or national reason in order to repress the aberrations of individual reason which is….the mortal enemy of all associations because it produces only divergent opinions. [de Maistre – 1753-1821]de Maistre, no friend to human freedom, rational thought or the perfection of mankind, sums up the condition we face in this country under the current administration. But it is not only the administration and the right wing ideology that carries the sentiments of de Maistre, it is also a large portion of the population that, often unwittingly, through ignorance and personal value systems, accepts the “religion of the state.” At the heart of de Maistre’s trenchant outcries against the value of individualism and creativity, lies the concept of “freedom;” what it means in its most general and particular instances of use. In his book What’s the Matter With Kansas?, Thomas Frank shows the sad effects of misplaced priorities, when economic concerns (which should be equated to a large degree with moral considerations) are placed well below what are perceived to be important moral or religious concerns. Thus, the predictable results of an uninformed populace in what is supposed to be a democracy, hopefully ruled from the bottom up by those who are informed. Of course, the people of Kansas are “free” to make choices they believe are in their best interests, just as those in Germany were “free” to democratically support the election of Adolph Hitler in 1933, and just as the corporate magnates who dominate our capitalistic system are “free” to use the rules of capitalism to make business decisions that may adversely affect consumers. This concept, freedom, is one that most believe they understand, embrace and use correctly. But what does it really mean in today’s world, in our system of government and capitalism?

In his small book, Government in the Future, Chomsky says, quoting Wilhelm von Humboldt:

In his view the state tends to “make man an instrument to serve its arbitrary ends, overlooking his individual purposes,” and since humans are in their essence free, searching, self perfecting beings, it follows that the state is a profoundly antihuman institution. That is, its actions and existence are ultimately incompatible with the full harmonious development of human potential in its richest diversity – hence incompatible with what Humboldt and, in the following century, Marx, Bakunin, Mill, and many others saw as the true end of man. (And, for the record, I think that this is an accurate description.)

As much as I too have the idealistic view (and wish) that man is a “free, searching, self perfecting being,” I must always fall back on the fact that man is an animal, however special he might be among other animals in certain respects, and his evolution is not teleologically determined, but proceeds, at least up until now, via genetic variation and natural selection. (I say up until now, since human genetic manipulation will no doubt influence our “evolution” in the future.) I think it dangerous to see any “essences” in man, such as freedom and the urge toward self perfection. The basic requirements of all organisms, to varying degrees, sustenance, shelter, procreation and defense
(SSPD) still are the dominant factors in human life. If we add to these, as in the case of the human animal, the need for expressiveness, we include that dimension of our make up that truly sets us apart and may be said to comprise the key aspect of what we typically call freedom. Something profoundly significant occurred in the Paleolithic cave paintings at Lascaux, and today we cannot envision the human community without manifestations of our expressiveness. No matter how lowly one might be in terms of SSPD, they do have two freedoms that exist even in the face of tribulation: the freedom of thought and to a lesser degree – depending on where one lives - the freedom of expression. But nether of these are any guarantee of a “self perfecting” inclination; it is historically proven that both can result in horrendous social disorder and physical destruction.

When Chomsky stated that the state is “ultimately incompatible with the full harmonious development of human potential in its richest diversity” we must ask: In what way is it incompatible and why is it so? I hope I am not reading too much into what both Humboldt and Chomsky mean by “state.” Do they mean any kind of governing institution that could be imagined, or only those that have so far proven to be incompatible? Do they mean that the very concept of a state is almost by definition inherently incompatible with the harmonious development of human potential? At the end of Chomsky’s book, he says:

We have today the technical and material resources to meet man’s animal needs. We have not developed the cultural and moral resources – or the democratic forms of social organization – that make possible the humane and rational use of our material wealth and power. Conceivably, the classical liberal ideas as expressed and developed in their libertarian socialist form are achievable. but if so, only by a popular revolutionary movement, rooted in a wide strata of the population and committed to the elimination of repressive and authoritarian institutions, state and private. To create such a movement is a challenged we face and must meet if there is to be an escape from contemporary barbarism.

For me, the operative phrase in this ending paragraph is: “humane and rational use.” Today, these two terms are, to a large degree, incompatible, since the state may act rationally and inhumanely at the same time. .When Chomsky speaks of the incompatibility of the state with human development, I see this incompatibility as that of humane versus rational state action and control. There is no ethical basis for the state as it exists in the USA, and for the most part every where else in the world, thus the state, as currently structured, has no practical purpose in dealing with humaneness and human perfectibility, except perhaps on the periphery. But is it realistic, given the state of affairs today, to imagine the kind of revolutionary action Chomsky advocates?

Freedom….

Society in the USA, and doubtless in many other developed nations, contains an amalgam of individual desires, hopes, fears, insecurities, dreams, plans and belief systems. Not only is this mix highly diverse, it is a changing, almost chaotic collection of movements in time and distributed nationally. Even within families there are often serious religious and political disagreements. We are anything but an ideologically monolithic nation. While a metric dealing with income and social status may indicate one thing on the surface, there remain other metrics, not so easily ferreted out through poles, which deal with deeper feelings, aspirations and beliefs. The complexity of the human nature is compounded almost beyond comprehension when the whole population is considered. Any revolutionary action must contend with how the forces must line up, and today the line of battle is too ill defined to be of much use to those desiring revolutionary change. Chomsky frequently uses the word freedom, and to those needed to marshal the requisite force for change, that concept is not as crystal clear as it was to the founding revolutionaries of this nation, nor is the action needed to secure freedom as clearly definable in these times. There is no King George III, but the giants of the governmental/corporate/military cabal. The homeless man, miserable and discontented with life, in general has a misery that is probably different than that of his neighbor – even if that neighbor sleeps in the alley beside him. The concept of freedom is of little use to him, even if he might be the freest of us all in some sense. Another man in the street, a member of the working poor, may have a concept of freedom that differs greatly from his neighbor who might be in the middle class. His idea of freedom might very well be the freedom to get a better job, or, sadly, the freedom to spend his meager salary on drink or drugs. The man in the middle class might see freedom as merely maintaining the status quo – i. e. not loosing his job, and preserving a standard of living that is sufficient for him and his family. The CEO, drawing millions in salary, bonuses and stock options no doubt sees freedom as the freedom to make all the money he can, regardless of who he tramples on in the process.

Thus, freedom is all over the map in terms of our definitions. But what has freedom to do with governmental systems, as Chomsky has discussed them? In the section on Libertarian Socialism, Chomsky says:

Under conditions of authoritarian domination, the classical liberal ideals, which are expressed also by Marx and Bakunin and all true revolutionaries, cannot be realized. Human beings will not, in other words, be free to inquire and create, to develop their own potentialities, to their fullest….

I must ask why such freedom and creativity is automatically denied under authoritarian domination. (And do not forget that we are presently under the authoritarian domination of a right wing government) The many success stories of rags-to-riches by men and women of strong intelligence, purpose and ambition, who lived under authoritarian regimes, belie this. (The cream tends to float to the top.) It seems to me that the real issue is not one of freedom but one of fairness, which of course is a moral or ethical issue. The ubiquitous presence of authoritarian rule through history suggests that the human animal, not unlike many other animals, readily establishes leadership hierarchies that serve communities in various ways. The point not one of the existence of authoritarian rule, but rather what kind of authoritarian rule is desirable to establish and maintain fairness, justice, opportunity and security among citizens.

Fairness….

No society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular position in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to bring a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair. [John Rawls, A theory of Justice]

Of course the above begs the question as to what fairness means to people. If one is born free, to echo Rousseau, is one also born to expect and demand fairness? The civil liberties that have been legislated over the last fifty years deal with fairness – not freedoms – though it is tempting to connect the two, which confuses the issue. Had bus seating in the segregated South been fair, Rosa Parks would have had the freedom to sit where she chose. So, we might opine that fairness facilitates freedom. The value of trade unions is not due to obtaining freedoms for the members, but rather fairness in wages and benefits and safety in the work place. (i. e. being equally as safe as management )

While freedom, not unlike beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, can the same be said about fairness? While neither of these abstractions can ever be absolute, can we at least claim that fairness lends itself more readily to a measure of societal utility, and that metrics might be established on which to base legislation dealing with it? Often the reasonable man argument is used to test a case or invoke a metric that comports with reasonableness. The lowest worker in the factory may see his salary as miniscule as compared to the obscenely high salaries of the CEO, and feels, considering the extent of his labor, that the ratio of these is fundamentally unfair. That same CEO will use a different comparison – that of his salary and perks compared to that of his corporate peers, and judge it fair or unfair on that basis. Both of these men might be called reasonable. Therefore, the view must be from outside the whole community to bring an all encompassing or holistic moral/ethical perspective to bear. In a sense, the very concept of fairness must itself be fair, and must embrace as high a degree of objectivity as possible.

The concept of fairness no doubt has a lineage going well back in time wherein barter was the only commercial activity. In the barter system it is equity or balance that dictates an agreement among the traders; goods X traded for goods Y were considered, by agreement to be equivalent in value. (Only when surpluses were available were “profits” made and such profits were or were not deemed acceptable in the process. Excessive profits were no doubt considered to be unfair.) So, fairness deals with perceived equity in the process or activity. Today we witness the petroleum giants making record profits while those of marginally sufficient incomes are seriously burdened with higher fuel prices. Most would consider this to be unfair. Why? Because there is no perceived equity in the process – the consumer pays more for the same product and the company producing the product profits more than before the hike in gas prices. Of course this is laissez faire economics at work, but by any measure, is it fair? It seems to me that an objective view point of this would show unequivocally that if one party suffers in an exchange of goods, money or services, and the other party gains, this is a good working definition of the lack of fairness. If the oil company took the high profits and, in addition to investing in finding better and cheaper sources of energy together with relevant research, it did a demonstrably quid pro quo with the consumer by using some of the profits to clean up the environment, for example, it might be argued there is fairness.

[Recent information released from Exxon, a giant petroleum company, indicates that company made over thirty-eight billion dollars in profit last year – 2005 – when gasoline at the pumps jumped to record levels. If there are, say, ten million consumers of Exxon fuel, that is $3,800 for each consumer; that buys a great deal of gasoline.]

This brings me to fairness in the state/corporate/military system we have in charge today. Is such a system fair? This is a very large question, but can be narrowed to read: Is this system fair to the general population in terms of the voice it has in a representative democracy and in terms of the benefits and protections derived from that system? What is the quid pro quo between the government and the governed wherein the degree of fairness can be observed and measured? Of course it is in taxation. While there is no convenient way for the average citizen to know the minutia of the US Federal budget, the large portions are easily found, but seldom fully and accurately discussed in the media. Would the general population be distressed, alarmed or surprised at the fact that the military budget of the US exceeds that of all other nations combined, while we are but five percent of the world population? Would they feel that their tax dollars were invested to the betterment of their lives and that there is a quid pro quo in terms of what they invest? And, on the other and much broader hand, would they feel that the investment is being made for the betterment of humankind in general – assuming that they would care?

If fairness is judged to be the most reasonable measure of what is best for all people, then we must extend the reach of that fairness to all people, and in doing so enlarge our circle of empathy to include all in the world. This may be quite hard for most to do, since most of us naturally tend to the well being of ourselves, our families and local communities. But, if fairness might be seen as the most reasonable measure of stabilization and security for the global community, then it requires that all people adhere to its calculus, one that results in the freedom (resulting from fairness) for all people, if freedom is the sine qua non for contentment and peace. This may be a tall order for most.

I believe that it all boils down the idea of people caring for the well being of people – i. e. their people, and other people. The most general tenets of universal fairness are those that include, without exception, all people, and it is not a matter of freedom, but rather one of seeing that no one person or institution should have a monopoly on deciding which way the scales of equity must move – those scales must balance in all respects for all of us, or at least as nearly as is practicable.

John Rawls, in defining what he calls “justice as fairness” puts forth the following two key principles:

First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably to be expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

These principles come closer to the point I have tried to make than any other thinker I could find.

Of course the concept of fairness is far more complicated than I have suggested above. Recently, during a flood in our county, families wishing to cross a swollen river to be with loved ones and/or buy food since they were flooded out, were asked by profiteering men with boats, to pay $40.00 for a ride across the river. Not far away were other men with boats doing the same thing for free. Here we have the example of real or potential monopoly, the Achilles heel of lassize faire capitalism. Had the families not known of the free ride across the river and been forced to take the $40.00 trip, would this be considered fair or unfair? If the travelers were rich it might be considered fair; if they were poor, would it be considered unfair? One would think so. Why? The answer to this question goes to the heart of how and why economies either do or do not work to the benefit of the population. If one is trapped by circumstance to pay more than they can afford, and that pay would be to the profit of those offering products or services, and profit well above their overhead, it can surely be called not fair. It would seem that this principle could be applied at large.

[There is another critical aspect to fairness that must be mentioned in passing. Fairness can be divided into two categories: compensatory fairness and retributive fairness. The first might be called the Golden Rule category and the second the eye-for-an-eye category and they are often in conflict. Perhaps it can be argued that humans have an innate propensity for retributive fairness; if one’s family member is murdered or otherwise seriously harmed by another person, it is rare that no feelings of retribution arise. Even those who rationally denounce capital punishment, when they are directly affected by a heinous crime committed against a loved one, they frequently have a visceral, irrational urge for retribution. Retributive fairness also obtains among nations, as we are witnessing in the Middle East with the continuing Israeli, Palestinian conflict. It also obtains in the court system when punitive damages are awarded in civil litigation. In the end, it must be decided whether “retributive fairness” is an oxymoron. To those ardently opposed to capital punishment, there is nothing fair about the death penalty. To those who embrace non-violence as a weapon against exploitation and cruelties by those in power, retributive fairness is not at all fair, but indeed counterproductive.]

Law….

In one sense, law can be seen as the nexus of freedom and fairness. Presumably, we all want freedom, but realize that absolute freedom is not possible in any society. But fairness is possible and in statutory form can be seen as the only means of providing for freedom in ways that benefit society as a whole. Laws are made in democracies to [hopefully] protect the rights of all citizens. But fairness, while facilitating freedom, also thwarts it in the form of law. A driver may wish to have the freedom drive ninety miles an hour on the highway , but the law, in place to protect the safety of the community, says this is not permissible. What is the quid pro quo in such cases? The driver is giving up a particular freedom in exchange for a communal agreement that all must give up such a freedom for the safety of all. Law then, is an agreed to set of proscriptions, a covenant, that benefit all and, while limiting individual freedom, facilitates or enforces fairness.

Among nations things are more complicated – states do not behave or react like individuals; though nations may be said to have personalities, they have no personas. It is interesting to read Kant’s descriptions of the European nations of his time, assigning them generalized features and characteristics; interesting since Kant never ventured outside the environs of Koenigsberg. Regarding the national characters of European nations vis-à-vis the sense of the Beautiful and the Sublime, he says:

Among the peoples of our continent, in my opinion, the Italians and the French are distinguished by their sense of the beautiful, while the Germans, the English and the Spaniards by their sense of the sublime.

I do not see this pronouncement as trivial in light of Kant’s monumental philosophical accomplishments; he viewed nations as having aesthetic propensities and why should they not also have moral, social and political ones as well? Indeed, of the French he says:

The Frenchman has a dominant sense of the morally beautiful….

Can nations, if they do have personalities, relate to some universal concept of fairness that is grounded in their historical experience? Does the concept of fairness, if embraced within nations and among the citizens, extend among nations? Unfortunately, I do not believe it does. Nations act and react according not to the whims of their personalities, but according to the wills of those in charge, much in the way that large businesses do when dealing with competing businesses. (We know that the personality of a nation is not necessarily reflected in the actions of its leaders.) Treaties, while ostensibly aimed at insuring mutual advantages in things like trade and security, last only as long as circumstance and the intentions and wishes of the leaders allow, and are broken with the touch of pen to paper by a president, prime minister or king. This is the case because there is no government of governments; no effective world court, no binding unification based on universally accepted principles, no enforcement of such principles.

Law then, must be seen, at least for now, as a local and national process, not a global one. Fairness among nations is a quixotic endeavor and the failure of the United Nations to be an effective arbiter of fairness proves the point. Of course this not mean, as quixotic as it might be, that nations should not strive for international fairness; if it works at the local level why should it not work on the global level?

Conclusion

Chomsky begins his book with the question: What is the role of the state in an advanced industrial society? Why should he not ask: What is the role of all states in a global organization for the betterment of all people? It is easier to speak of individual nations managing their populations according to their governments, but much more difficult and I maintain much more important in today’s highly interconnected world to take into account the entire world in this question. A companion question addresses the responsibility of the individual in this matter: What is the moral responsibility of individuals in the care for all individuals in the world? Is this or should it be a state obligation? The natural follow-on question would be: How is the general population best equipped to deal with this moral issue? It would seem that fairness is sufficiently universally accepted to use it as the measurement of a commitment for the standards of governments; surely, any referendum in any nation would return a vote for fairness in governance and in all statutory laws. Therefore, would it not be reasonable to assume that there might be a sound axiomatic basis for fairness as the real sine qua non of governance and of global interaction and participation?

In his support of libertarian socialism, Chomsky says:

The libertarian socialist goes on to insist that state power must be eliminated in favor of democratic organization of industrial society, with direct popular control over all institutions by those who participate in – as well as those who are directly affected by -- the workings of these institutions..

Is it not the case in any such system of “popular control” that mechanisms must exist for organization, the selection of managers and the maintenance of well structured process? The human elements of ambition, greed and self aggrandizement will not vanish with any such system, and methods for insuring fairness and equity will be as required as they are today. We cannot do away human nature by fiat, nor can we expect all of us to readily and easily join one great circle of empathy that might insure fairness and mitigate these ubiquitous human tendencies. What will be required in any system are the judicial means to guarantee fairness in all processes. I end by asking this: If fairness had such a guarantee today, would not many of the ills we suffer under our less than perfect system be cured or at least addressed seriously at all levels of government?

I must admit to being surprised at the near complete absence of attention given to the idea of fairness in the function of the state. Even when I review some of the luminaries of the Left, and some quoted by Chomsky, I find the discussions of fairness relatively rare in comparison to those of freedom and liberty. (John Rawls being an exception) It is surely the case that fairness or equity in all walks of life, especially in governance, is the impetus and facilitator for freedom and liberty. Surely fairness is far less problematic, ambiguous and subjective than freedom. Can one not imagine, even in the extreme case of a monarch, that the application of fairness, applied across the board, could help thwart our baser tendencies, both with individuals, the rulers and whatever form of government we have? Could not statutory insistence on fairness be the tool society uses to insure the freedoms that are so much spoken of from the Left?

If, as Chomsky requires, a revolution is needed to stop the abuse and exploitation of the masses, why is it not a most reasonable action to bring about such a revolution through a focus on fairness at all levels of society, and to inspire the population to concentrate on that rather simple concept as the most significant weapon against the harms that we experience today – regardless of the form of government we have?