The right and the left are forever debating, as regards domestic policy, on the core issue of the role of government versus individual freedoms.  And if you listen to the many pundits and politicians on this, you can get the idea that these are polar-opposite views and that only one or the other can somehow “win” this argument.

Well, in this post, I’d like to show you how these two viewpoints are more similar in intent than they appear on the surface, and how only a merged methodology of the two sides would work to get us all, as a country, where we want to go – a better, happier and more prosperous society.

But first, I want to take up a concept that you may or may not be familiar with, called “the commons”.  “The commons” refers to resources that are owned collectively by society.  At its most basic level, these would be things that are not practical to be owned or managed on an individual basis and so are typically handled by the city, state or national government.  For example: fire departments, police, roads, administration of air space, etc.  And also included under “the commons” have been certain things that could be handled on a private basis, but which are considered so intimate to the basic human rights of a citizen that they have been made available as the commons for those who would not have access to them otherwise.  An example is EDUCATION as a basic human right.  To ensure access to that right we have established public schools and libraries.

Now, definition of what “the commons” are will of course differ based on your political ideology.  For instance, a case can be (and is being) made that access to affordable health care is part of the commons, as is obviously considered to be the case in many industrialized countries such as Canada, France and the U.K.

Alright, that’s ‘the commons’ in concept.  Now, there is another related principle in politics, referred to as “The Tragedy of the Commons”.  And for this I am going to quote a great definition I borrowed from a political glossary at www.huppi.com, where it says:

“Tragedy of the Commons: A phenomenon where individuals attempt to exploit the group, but only harm themselves when everyone adopts the same strategy. For example, suppose you and 30 other people attend a banquet at a restaurant, and everyone agrees to split the check equally. You may have originally decided to order a $5 meal, because you were on a tight budget. But now that you know the check will be split evenly, you decide to switch to a $20 steak and lobster meal. This is an attempt to exploit the group, because if everyone else orders a $5 meal, your share of the final bill will be only $5.48. The group will have absorbed the extra cost. Unfortunately, if everyone else attempts the same thing, they will all order steak and lobster, and in the end your bill will be $20.00 anyway. Conservatives argue that the same thing happens in a welfare state with a guaranteed safety net. People fall into the safety net, thinking others will support them, but when everyone does this, there is no one left holding the net. The challenge to liberals is to devise social policy that avoids the tragedy of the commons. This can be done by requiring welfare recipients to look for work, for example.”

This is one of the main arguments the political Right has against the Left’s methodologies.  And it IS a legitimate concern and worthy of debate.  And of course, in politics, this discussion is usually centered around programs such as welfare, social security, public schools and now a public health insurance option.

But let’s step back for a minute and start at the beginning.  What is the FIRST problem that exists that starts all this discussion:

Well, the conversation starts when a progressive (or liberal, if you will) person or group, points out:

THE EXISTENCE OF POOR LIVING CONDITIONS FOR SOME CITIZENS, AND AN APPARENT LACK OF THE MEANS NECESSARY TO REMEDY THIS UNDER THE EXISTING SOCIAL FRAMEWORK.

In other words:  some people are having a hard time surviving, and there is a desire on the part of other people, seeing this, to use the collective resources of the group (via government) to help those people survive at a better level.

And here’s where the debate starts!

A conservative voice responds to the liberal’s call for action in this matter, and gives the counter-point that CHARITIES are another example of this same urge, but with a private group becoming the provider instead of the government.  The conservative contends that this is much better because it is at the FREE WILL of the money donor, whereas government assistance will occur via TAXES where money is forcibly taken away from those who are doing well and given to those who are doing poorly.

As an aside, there are also the typical claims that “government is too inefficient”, and while this has some truth about it, it is also true that private institutions can be shown to have inefficiencies as well.  It is also silly to assume that government CANNOT POSSIBLY be made more efficient.  After all, the government draws from the same pool of KNOW-HOW, PEOPLE and ORGANIZING SYSTEMS that private industry draws from.  This argument is more of a condemnation of whether government has a DESIRE to be efficient, which leads into a baser issue across the spectrum of both PUBLIC and PRIVATE institutions, which I will get into shortly.  So we will leave this ‘inefficiency’ point alone for now.

So the Conservative or Libertarian argument continues that the best solution is a FREE MARKET solution, and that individuals, exerting their freedoms to choose in a free market will solve all of these issues, and that government just inserts more ‘interference’ into the matter.  But there is a problem with this methodology as well.  And I will coin a new term here, and call this “The Tragedy of the Free Market”. And as you will see, it has similar problems to the “Tragedy of the Commons”.

“Tragedy of the Free Market: A phenomenon where a bad business practice (i.e. bad for the consumer) dominates a particular industry or market merely because it is more profitable for those businesses, resulting in lack of choice and sometimes considerable hardship for consumers or citizens in general.  This most often occurs when one or just a few companies dominate that market, and is particularly bad in effect when the item or service is necessary to the survival of the people.  Examples can include widespread payment of below-poverty-level wages, health insurance companies denying coverage of people with preexisting conditions or dropping people for any little thing they can when the bills get too high, use of ingredients in food products that are harmful to ingest but cheaper to use, or credit and interest policies which take advantage of people in order to squeeze as much money out of them as possible.”

Ok, so you see that on one side, there is worry about citizens taking advantage of public help that comes from the wealth of others (as well as worry about government not being motivated to run things well), and on the other side you see worry about corporations taking advantage of their market dominance by engaging in destructive business practices.  But both of these worries stem from ONE basic problem: UNETHICAL CONDUCT ON THE PART OF INDIVIDUALS.

At first that may seem too obvious.  Well, sometimes a thing is too obvious to be seen. 

It is also possible that “unethical conduct” as a reason may seem ‘pointless’ to even mention – but that’s because most people have become apathetic about really being able to CHANGE anyone’s sense of ethics for the better.

But I ask you to give this concept a chance and bear with me for a little longer.  And let me start by defining exactly what I mean when I say ‘ethics’.

By ethics I mean: “the ability and willingness to examine the various choices one can make in a given situation, determine what people, groups or areas of life will be affected by the decision, and decide upon that choice which will do the greatest good and least harm to the survival of a majority of those people, groups or areas so affected, when looked at in terms of long-term survival.”

When people on the Right complain about government not being capable of running programs properly, they are essentially complaining about the ETHICS LEVEL of those running or employed by government.  What else would they be talking about?  Surely, a government is just another type of group, and any group CAN be efficient – you can install the same organizing systems, and train people as well and arrange good managerial operations just as you can in a private business.  So it isn’t that government CAN’T do it.  No, this complaint is more an indictment of the ETHICS of government.  In other words, the complaint is that THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO OPERATE ETHICALLY (which would include being motivated enough to be industrious, efficient and not being wasteful) and THAT THOSE RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSITANCE CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO USE THOSE SYSTEMS ONLY TO GET BACK ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET.

When people on the Left complain about corporations and particularly about the greed of CEOs of the major companies of various industries, they are again complaining about the ETHICS LEVEL of those at the top of those companies.  In other words, they feel THOSE IN CHARGE OF CORPORATIONS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO THINK OF ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE BUT THEIR OWN PROFITS.

And let’s take issues like EFCA (the Employee Free Choice Act) and its effect to make starting unions easier.  Well, why are unions even necessary?  Because of the LOW ETHICS LEVEL of the people at the top sometimes, making choices that hurt their workers.  Why do corporations fight unions being made?  Well sometimes it is because of the greedy CEOs who want things to stay as they are, BUT ALSO because unions can ALSO become an unnecessarily greedy force in a company.  So the feud is often about each side not trusting the other to be ETHICAL and not GREEDY.

It goes on and on like this.

So from the above, wouldn’t it seem that there is ONE basic point that if addressed EFFECTIVELY would resolve MOST OF THE PROBLEMS OF POLITICS, AND PROBABLY THE WORLD???

There’s only one problem with that: HOW do you improve the overall ethics standards of the people in our country, or even the world at large?  This gets into such things as particular morals, which are usually connected to specific beliefs involving RELIGION, which is just as heated a subject as politics!

There are perhaps many approaches that could be thought up to try to improve the overall ethics level of society, but I do have a specific suggestion on this matter.  It is something that is being spearheaded by the Church of Scientology, but it is a SECULAR MORAL CODE, based on COMMON SENSE.  It was written by L. Ron Hubbard, but it is NOT RELIGIOUS.  It has had great success in rehabilitating even very hardened criminals, so it definitely can have an impact on the average person as well.

It has 21 points for a person to follow, and gives them on the basis that if you follow them, you’ll find you’re happier in life, and when you violate them, you’ll find you are less happy. 

And a great thing about it is that these 21 points cross practically every cultural or religious and philosophical background and would find broad agreement among ALL OF THEM.

It’s called the Way to Happiness. Check it out and see if YOU agree with the points in it.  If not, that’s fine.  But if so, maybe you can join in a push to implement this as a tool to calm the raging sea of conflict in our world and bring us all closer to a state of affairs where we can achieve peace and greater trust among us all.

Chris