Every viable government, societal structure, or theory of societal organization includes multiple mechanisms to prevent undesirable things from occurring. The capitalists and libertarians generally support people being as self-governing as possible, but they depend on mechanisms like contracts and legal stipulations (like truth in advertising) that are enforceable by a government to prevent abuses to the system. Socialists place regulations on hand-outs to prevent abuses to the safety net. Our current government has a powerful system of checks and balances to prevent the tyranny that was one of the greatest fears of our founding fathers.
Unfortunately, no system is perfect, because any system is, at best, limited by the people within it. Failed mechanisms are often the greatest argument against an ideal, system, or philosophy. When a system sees a failure of one of its mechanisms, thereby having an undesirable result, it is the greatest ammunition for those who disagree with the system. This is especially the case when the undesirable result was predicted by the opponents of the system.
So what does an idealist do when mechanisms fail? What is the measure of a good mechanism, and how much bearing does it have on the validity of the ideal itself? I suppose the answer lies in a few basic principles:
1) Does the mechanism required violate the ideal itself? If so, and an exception is necessary and acceptable, is there a method that agrees with the ideal for setting limits on the exception? for instance, if your capitalist system requires some safety net to be workable, is there a capitalistic method for setting a firm limit on the exception so that it does not take over the initial system?
2) Did the mechanism that was put in place fail due to the principles of the ideal itself, or simply due to human nature?
3) Did the mechanism break down quickly, or did it stand the test of generations? Sometimes the volatility of humanity does not permit any mechanism to prevent corruption forever, but if a system can last long enough, then the system is not a bad one.
4) Can the mechanism be reset or rebuilt, or a better one put in its place without destabilizing the system?
5) Can you live with the reality of your ideal without functioning mechanisms? If not, then something in your ideal may have to change. After all, if your system causes harm when not regulated by another system, then it is hardly functional to start with.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Ideal Integration
Or rather, the integration of ideals into a society. One of the most important things I have come to believe in recent months is that ideals, no matter how right or true or even workable, cannot be forced on society, or implemented too quickly even by agreeable means. One of the most frustrating things for idealists is the patience required to see your goal through, and the willingness to strive for, and revel in, the small victories. Countries like the US are particularly hard on the idealist because the government is designed to only make changes gradually. Its the checks and balances that make this frustrating state possible, and they have slowed positive change on many occasions.
Of course, those same checks and balances also prevent disastrous negative changes from happening, or at least from happening quickly. Most people, even the idealists among us, recognize that the two edged sword of checks and balances probably does more good than harm in the world of political change and prevention of tyranny. What many of us idealists do not get, is that even a good thing can be bad if it comes into play too quickly. For instance, most libertarians would like to see the removal or drastic reduction on the financial safety nets and the welfare state. At a minimum, the method of operation and implementation is far from ideal. However, the removal of such things in a country that has gradually grown dependent upon them over the course of three generations in anything less than at least a generation and a half would be a painful revolution indeed. A shift of that magnitude could throw the balance and cause more devastation to the economic standing of the whole country than any possible benefit of the more financially functional ideal trying to be reached.
So, in short, the process of finding the ideal has to involve long term strategy, and victories on the smaller scale. Most importantly, it involves removing the dependency before removing the supply, at least as much as possible. Sometimes the hardest job is being content with the small changes, and making sure that those changes are, in fact, a step in the right direction.
Of course, those same checks and balances also prevent disastrous negative changes from happening, or at least from happening quickly. Most people, even the idealists among us, recognize that the two edged sword of checks and balances probably does more good than harm in the world of political change and prevention of tyranny. What many of us idealists do not get, is that even a good thing can be bad if it comes into play too quickly. For instance, most libertarians would like to see the removal or drastic reduction on the financial safety nets and the welfare state. At a minimum, the method of operation and implementation is far from ideal. However, the removal of such things in a country that has gradually grown dependent upon them over the course of three generations in anything less than at least a generation and a half would be a painful revolution indeed. A shift of that magnitude could throw the balance and cause more devastation to the economic standing of the whole country than any possible benefit of the more financially functional ideal trying to be reached.
So, in short, the process of finding the ideal has to involve long term strategy, and victories on the smaller scale. Most importantly, it involves removing the dependency before removing the supply, at least as much as possible. Sometimes the hardest job is being content with the small changes, and making sure that those changes are, in fact, a step in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
