At bottom, the debate over the nature and operation of an economy is really about freedom – even more than that: possession of freedom, or sovereignty. The question is: does government give us a revocable license to exercise privileges we negotiate with it, or do we issue government a revocable license to administer for us matters regarding the collective interaction of our inalienable rights?
That doesn’t make a statement about whether we need extraordinary governmental measures in a crisis. It only points to the question, in the peculiar unfolding of the dialogue about this matter in the US today, of who is the clay, and who the potter.
We should be experimenting with our institutions, not they with us, in order to find a route out of the current economic crisis, and to organize them to more effectively conduct the monitoring and regulatory functions only they can perform in society and in the economy. We should be developing incentive systems to encourage politicians and government officials to do our bidding, rather than they manipulating and expanding their own reach into our lives in order to mold us and our communities, our society, to fit their expert vision.
But, of course, we all know that vacuums must be filled. If we don’t monitor and control those to whom we delegate power, they will take possession of it, and use it to monitor and control us. Our governmental institutions are arranged with that fact in mind. These are often referred to as our safeguards against tyranny, but they really are only mechanisms. We can use them to animate our government, or find them being used to enervate us.
Inevitably, it’s a matter of letting the buyer beware. We are purchasers not only in commercial markets, but in political ones, as well. We deserve not only what we specifically strive to attain, but what we are willing to settle for.
The reassuring thing, in this context, is that the debate does indeed go on. It is held with energy and insight through increasingly robust and diverse media which reach, and give effective avenues of expression to, more and more of us. Politicians – as they try on the roles of agents or actors – are alert to this.
The key is to ensure that it continues to go on. Efforts to stoke the atmosphere of crisis into a frenzy and insist that emergency measures be taken without debate in order to save us all, must be turned back. The panicked presentation of such claims, aside from the dismal record of expert remedies, does little to allay fear and encourage confidence; rather the reverse.
Indeed, their appearance is precisely the time to insist on thorough, deliberate discussion that brings all issues and proposed solutions out into the open. This both steadies everyone throughout society on several levels, and allows the healing to progress on its own while the macro-level deliberations continue.
Of course, much the same applies at work. The calls for emergency action by specially empowered leaders of companies in crisis are almost always ill-considered – an emotional abrogation of responsibility, rather than a reasoned submission to inevitability, by boards and owners. The dynamics differ, due to the differing distribution of sovereignty and agency in society and in a corporation, but the issues – and the possibilities – remain the same.
Keep the dialogue going, and your minds open. Be less sure of your possession of the answers than you are of the responsibility, and proceed accordingly.
—
This post is a part of a series. You can learn about and link to the other articles here: Conceptualizing capitalism
—
Today’s tips: Speaking of keeping your minds open, please be sure to see this piece by Steve Roesler (despite a kind reference in it to this site) about the difference between a discussion and a dialogue. You will want to be sure to note not only the distinction, but the prescriptions for success – note the graphics, as well. A must read.
And speaking of the very real matter of who is the clay and who the potter, please see this Times Online article about one UK government adviser’s plans for your family.
—
Why not try out this feature provided here by Answers.com: If you double-click on any (non-hypertext-linked) word on the main page of the site, a window will open providing definitions or encyclopedic material about that term, together with links to additional sources of information. Try it out – it’s interesting and fun.
And, of course, while you’re clicking around, don’t forget to click on your choice of an email or RSS-feed subscription to these pages – we’ll be proud to have you join us!
Technorati Tags: economy, freedom, sovereignty, government, license, privilege, negotiate, rights, crisis, US, institution, society, politician, official, expert, vision, delegate, power, safeguard, tyranny, market, energy, insight, emergency, confidence, work, leader, responsibility, owner, Steve Roesler, success, Times Online, UK
Sphere: Related Content
“The question is: does government give us a revocable license to exercise privileges we negotiate with it, or do we issue government a revocable license to administer for us matters regarding the collective interaction of our inalienable rights?”
One prudent way to look at this question is through the lens of the document that established our national identity, The Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”
Clearly, our founders thought it necessary to explain that the source of all our rights is God — not kings and not parliament.
The founders went on to explain why this is important. The first reason was to declare the just mandate for any government…
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
…as well as the just remedy for abuse.
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…”
If as a people we consistently looked to our founding principles and sufficiently believed them well enough to defend them, we would be less prone to resort to force and coercion to achieve factional ends to benefit one group at the expense of another.
Hello Cam,
You certainly have presented selections from the Declaration that brilliantly illustrate these points.
The reference to the creator deflects the royal arrogation of divine right from them to the people, the next argues that governments aren’t instituted to rule men, but established by the latter to secure their rights, and the last, of course, telescopes previous points into the justification for our Revolution.
I certainly agree that greater awareness of these concepts – specifically, as expressed in this founding document – would help us maintain our perspective and control over our fate.
Thanks for this excellent emphasis of your concern that Americans be more meaningful cognizant of the concepts that truly make us, uniquely among the primarily ethnically-defined nations of the earth, who we are.