Freedom, People. Dystopias, People.

"It is reasonable to argue that the man set upon by thieves in Christ’s famous parable had a claim – a moral claim – upon those who passed him by, and one that only the Good Samaritan was prepared to answer. But such cases of basic morality impose claims on each of us individually, and cannot be answered on our behalf by the state." 

-- Roger Scruton

"... until finally they were given their liberty, so far as the law goes,--and that is only a little way, because, after all, every human being’s life in this world is inevitably mixed with every other life and, no matter what laws we pass, no matter what precautions we take, unless the people we meet are kindly and decent and human and liberty-loving, then there is no liberty. Freedom comes from human beings, rather than from laws and institutions."

-- Clarence Darrow

Through laws, the government can create a space for freedom, and in the modern world this ought to be its primary function.  However, it is mostly up to people to make sure that space cleared for freedom is something more than a cold vacuum in which we are safe from direct harm but isolated, lacking the cooperation and interactions that make life fruitful and even meaningful. 

There are certain things that are necessary for a society to function properly, especially one that is based on the ideas of freedom.  Those things cannot be legislated or enforced by a government. They need to come from people, be in people.  And they need to be instilled in people by families, communities and other organizations that people associate with on a mostly voluntary basis and that they respect. 

Yet, people seem to look upon the government and technology to make our lives better: freedom, prosperity, equality.  The government can provide the environment for those things and technology can help people achieve them, but in the end it is people that make them a reality.  Thinking that government or technology can and should fix all our problems always makes me think of dystopian stories.  

On one end of the spectrum is Orwell’s 1984 where an oppressive government controls thought fear.  On the other end is Huxley’s Brave New World where the government controls through entertainment and pleasure.  In both cases, the government seems to think that it is fixing problems and making a better society then what would otherwise be.  We may find that hard to believe, but that doesn’t mean those leaders didn’t believe it or that there isn’t at least some truth to it. 

Maybe "A Brave New World" could save us, but only maybe.  Huxley's vision of control through entertainment and pleasure is far more practical and close to reality than Orwell's control by fear and coercion.  People can more effectively and amiably be persuaded or even tricked into doing something because they see it as good for themselves than they can be forced to do it thought fear.  We see this all the time in advertising, and technology and corporations are so powerful today because they are good at doing this.  

Still, Huxley's idea that the people entertaining us would be interested in more than just filling their own pockets is far more utopian than it is realistic.  We are amusing ourselves into (political) division, (social) chaos and (environmental and geopolitical) catastrophe.  What we should really be doing is spending time with and relying on the people around us, not looking to technology, companies or the government to fix our problems.  

The Sub-Culture of Easy Offence

There seems to be a vein of the American culture that takes offence very easily.  It is a trait that a lot of people in the public eye and media have.  It is also a mellow drama that a lot of people can be easily pulled into watching, following and feeling sympathy for. 

These days you can very easily offend by simply not using the right word or formulation of words.  If you don’t choose your words carefully, your reputation, your actual thoughts and your actual intentions cannot save you from ridicule and accusations of some sort of bigotry: racism, islamophobia, etc.  Very rarely is some asked to explain themselves; it is simply demanded that they apologize and say they were wrong.  Even then, they will be looked at suspiciously for a while and every word is analyzed to see if they really were apologetic and felt that they were wrong, or if they just apologized to get out of trouble and didn’t really mean it.  It is a public trial by media to determine if they are prejudice or stupid, and they only get to answer for themselves on the media’s terms: soundbites, yes/no answers, and always the potential of comments being taken out of context.  They are often viewed as guilty until the media and the public tire of perusing them, or until someone else comes along who is more entertaining or outrageous in how they offend. 

In this environment there is no room for partial support. There is no room for those that hesitate to either fully deny or fully support something that has been deemed urgent and important by the talking heads.  As a result there is little to no room for thoughtfulness or exploration of an issue or idea.  There is little to no room for compromise either.  This, along with other things like memes and soundbites, is contributing to the degradation of public debate and public trust.