PROUD TO BE US

This blog promotes two social/political attributes:  social capital and civic humanism.  Isaac Kramnick writes of civic humanism: 

… civic humanism conceives of man as a political being whose realization of self occurs only through participation in public life, through active citizenship in a republic.  The virtuous man is concerned primarily with the public good, res publica, or commonweal, not with private or selfish ends.[1]

While such a notion is probably pleasant for any good citizen to hear, there are two concerns. 

One, why would anyone be so motivated?  Two, in a time when the dominant political view, the natural rights construct, ignores any such sense of virtuousness, what promotes civic humanism in modern American life?  Yes, the natural rights’ view does not preclude an individual from harboring such a belief, but it does not encourage it.

          This blog has commented on motivation, especially as it leads to good citizenship.  After all, if a main concern of civics education is to encourage students to lead good, civic lives, the question of motivation is obvious.  This is particularly important in modern life where so much of social reality is dealing with faceless entities – government, large corporations, populous urban environments.  The personal touch to public affairs is quite prominent in its absence. 

When no one in an extended environment seems to know how one behaves or, for the most part, cares, it is hard enough to promote law abiding behavior.  Here, the notion of civic humanism calls not only for obeying the law but dedicating a significant part of one’s life to res publica, the commonwealth.  Wow!

Now, this blog supports, as opposed to natural rights, federation theory.  This latter theory, as described in this blog, calls on citizens to abide by the standard of civic humanism, at least, as an ideal.  In turn, that leads to actively “teaching,” in civics classes, values and arranging content that extolls this virtue. 

The blog has explained that this need not be through propaganda techniques, but through open-ended questioning in which students strive to solve relevant issues.  The support manifests itself through the topics and questions such a curriculum utilizes.  And, yes, through such a curriculum a student can reject civic humanism but is called upon to justify such a position.

But the challenge remains:  what motivates one to be receptive to such a value.  Richard Dagger[2] reports on this question.  He shares with his readers the concerns of Michael Sandel who identifies three sources for such a motivation. 

The first is for people to feel a sense that one needs a healthy social order – a society that, if not a commonwealth, is one where citizens readily obey the law and abide by its norms.  If citizens meet their needs, such as securing a reasonable job, then they are disposed to have positive judgements of their society. 

This includes every individual, in a spirit of reciprocity, to go along; to do his/her part.  This might call for occasional sacrifices as one fulfills duties associated with citizenship.  Yes, there is the problem of the free-rider, but in a healthy society this is kept to a minimum.  And that minimum does not solely depend on policing.  If social harmony overly depends on coercive, police powers, that society will find the financial expense for cooperation to be prohibitive.

The second has to do with the residue of living in a functional republic.  That is, going about doing the things one does and be able to do them with reasonable success, one generally will develop sentimental ties with those he/she interacts.  From that, a person will generalize that good feeling and extend the sentiment to the population.  He/she will develop an emotional disposition to promote that society or nation.  It feels good to positively support such a commonwealth. 

This might reach a level in which obligations or duties are accepted more readily.  One might be ready to sacrifice for the homeland or the state or the community in which one resides.  The sentiment might take the following form:  “These are my folks!”

The third source of motivation reminds one of Maslow’s highest order of needs.  That is self-actualization.  Those familiar with Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model know that the sixth level, a level few attain, is self-actualization.  To be so motivated one needs to know oneself so well that he/she realizes what one really wants out of life. 

Not what one wants for other reasons, like impressing one’s neighbor, but what stems from one’s nature.  As Psychology Today puts it:  self-actualization “represents growth of an individual toward fulfillment of the highest needs; those for meaning in life, in particular.”[3]  Sandel believes a civic humanistic disposition is part of being human; i.e., to desire promoting one’s society, one’s culture, one’s community.

In the last posting, this blog reported on the natural human tendency to being tribal.  It turns out that the hypothalamus produces a hormone, oxytocin, which is instrumental in biasing one in favor of those people one is taught to believe belong to “Us.”  It further encourages one to be biased against “Them.”  That posting described this natural fact as promoting prejudicial beliefs and that civics education should actively counter this Us/Theming when it comes to prejudicial judgements and behaviors.

But is there a positive side to this phenomenon?  Is the hormone the basis by which a person is motivated toward finding fulfillment in holding one’s people, nation, community as an extension of oneself?  By so doing, does that sense lead one to define who he/she is by the positive roles he/she plays to further the legitimate interests of that greater social entity?  If so, one can see substance to Sandel’s third source of motivation.

This topic will be picked up in the next posting.  Turns out, Sandel’s idea, as appealing as it is, does have its critic.  The next posting will review that criticism and determine, in terms of federation theory, how motivation should be treated in an ideal civics education curriculum.

---

[1] Isaac Kramnick, “John Locke and Liberal Constitutionalism,” in Major Problems in American Constitutional History, Volume I:  The Colonial Era through Reconstruction, ed. Kermit L. Hall (Lexington, MA:  D. C. Heath and Company, 1992), 98.

[2] Richard Dagger, Civic Virtue:  Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism (New York, NY:  Oxford, 1997).

[3] “The Theory of Self-Actualization,” Psychology Today, August 13, 2013, accessed April 5, 2018, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-and-psychopathology/201308/the-theory-self-actualization.

WHO GOES THERE?

Perhaps one has heard the bit of common wisdom that prejudices are not inherited, they are not inbred, they are learned.  This writer wants to believe this notion without any qualifications.  The problem, though, is that this whole business of “Us-vs.-Them” is a bit more complicated than just attributing it to socializing hateful messages to young people.

          One neuroendocrinologist, Robert Sapolsky, writes on this very issue.  Here is an excerpt:

As it’s been said … “There are two kinds of people in the world:  those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don’t.”  There are more of the first.  And it is vastly consequential when people are divided into Us and Them, in-group and out-group, “the people” (i.e., our kind) and the Other … The brain fault lines dividing Us from Them [can be shown through a] discussion of oxytocin ... [T]he hormone prompts trust, generosity, and cooperation toward Us but crappier behavior toward Them – more preemptive aggression in economic play, more advocacy of sacrificing Them (but not Us) for the greater good.  Oxytocin exaggerates Us/Them-ing.[1]

What seems to be going on is that there is an inbred bias toward tribalism.  That parochial bias was probably useful in pre-civilization days when, due to scarcity, protecting one group’s resources was vital to the survival of a tribe.  Those groups so armed with oxytocin were successful, those not so armed were not so successful.

          But a hormone cannot distinguish between people.  The bias might be inbred, but the target is learned.  And, by wishing for more efficiency and, in turn, the efficiency a tribe can attain by trading and cooperating with other tribes – and later, with other peoples, nations, and leagues of nations – an economic motivation was introduced to corral this bias under some control.  That is, because it has proved so profitable, humans marched toward global, economic arrangements.  This march progressed from trading with those nearby toward those far away.

          At times, these arrangements were set up by exploitive relations.  This was probably most clearly done in the age of colonization.  Led by the European powers, 1500s onward, efficiencies were had by stealing the resources of others.  Under such a system, an Us-vs.-Them view was functional to seek that system’s immediate ends.  Unfortunately, though, it sowed the seeds for increasing levels of antagonism between the exploiters and the exploited and, then, among the exploiters.  History is full of wars between and among colonial powers.

          This historical trend became evermore destructive.  Ironically, heavily influenced by the ever-increasing economic viabilities of this global trend, monies were available to “advance” the military capabilities of these exploiting actors.  These capabilities took a prodigious leap with the development of industrial modes of production.  One of the first indication of how destructive industrial weaponry is was the American Civil War.  That war took the fighting from open fields to urban areas.  The death rates rose substantially and included many non-combatants.

          Then, a few years later, there was World War I (18 million deaths) and World War II (50 to 80 million deaths).  In addition, the very economies of the warring nations were being devasted.  World War II practically destroyed the manufacturing facilities of Europe.  In other words, the very motivations that promoted exploitation were being attacked.  Exploitation, via both the rationale of economic advantage and demonizing the Them was undermined.

          Hence, the post-World War II movement toward a globalized economy materialized.  There have also been policies, especially among Western nations, to mature beyond Us-vs.-Them thinking.  This, for a non-prejudicial person, is a welcomed development, but one does need to remember:  there is that natural bias toward Us/Theming. 

The point here is:  it doesn’t help to underestimate this bias.  All that is needed for this ugly aspect of human nature to show itself is to have reverses in a nation’s economic conditions.  To wit, currently, there is an apparent rise in nationalism – a type of Us/Theming.  This writer believes that this is not a trend emanating out of nowhere. 

He sees it resulting from the Great Recession and developments negatively affecting some groups who have suffered from globalization.  Specifically, those groups are former manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs due to cheap, competitive workers in developing countries.  Another group has been miners – particularly of coal – where economic trends and concerns for the environment have lowered the demand for those minerals.

So, while the point that prejudices are learned is correct when it is applied to who gets victimized, it does not apply to people’s predispositions to develop prejudices.  Therefore, and this lesson is important to civics education, an enlightened people needs to be proactive in meeting the challenge of prejudicial thinking.  Not all that is natural is best or even good.

---

[1] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017), 387-389 (Kindle edition).  Oxytocin is a hormone.  It is produced by the hypothalamus, in the brain, and emitted by the pituitary gland. This is an important hormone during the childbirth process and assists the male reproduction function.

JULY 5, 1776?

Here is a salutary bit of information.  It seems that to get a college degree in Florida, a student needs to exhibit the following:

… an understanding of the basic principles of American democracy and how they are applied in our republican form of government, an understanding of the United States Constitution, knowledge of the founding documents and how they have shaped the nature and functions of our institutions of self-governance, and an understanding of landmark supreme Court cases and their impact on law and society.[1]

Hooray!!  This is taken from a State of Florida statute passed in 2017.  But how does one exhibit or demonstrate these abilities.  This posting focuses on this requirement and what it says about the state of civics education.

          First concern:  shouldn’t high school students be able to do these things?  Of course, there is a bit of vagueness in what is being asked.  For example, understanding the United States Constitution can range from having to pass that portion of the bar exam that’s dedicated to constitutional law or merely stating the Constitution is the basic law of the land.  But a high school graduate should have a reasonable level of understanding and knowledge over the topics mentioned in the excerpt above.

          That graduate, for example, should be able to provide a statement that distinguishes what a “republican form of government” is from what a pure democracy form or an authoritarian form is.  He/she should be able to describe how Supreme Court decisions are used as precedents in subsequent cases.  These levels of knowledge seem reasonable for a high school graduate to have.

          Second concern:  how is one going to measure the level of proficiency sought?  In this, the law identifies those avenues by which the college graduate can exhibit the desired knowledge.  They are:

sign up and pass a college level survey course on American government; or, sign up and pass a college American survey history (since 1865) course; or sign up and pass an Advance Placement (AP) American government course (which this writer believes is a high school course – he taught back in the day); or sign up and pass an AP American history course (again thought to be a high school course); or passing the College Level Examination Program test; or – and here is the questionable way – pass by correctly answering six questions on a test made up of ten randomly chosen questions excerpted from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Naturalization Test.

All of these choices, except one, is demanding.  The one – the one identified as questionable – is not. 

The Immigration test is – perhaps reasonably since it is administered to all people striving to be citizens and who represent people from little to no formal education to highly educated people – has a different purpose than the one identified in the law.  The law is meant to assure that educated people know their government and the philosophy that undergirds it.  Ideally, every citizen should have this knowledge, but the law wants to insist that educated ones do.

Well, what’s wrong with the Immigration test?  Here is a sample of the questions:

What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?

When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

Name one branch of the government.

Name one war fought by the United States in the 1900s.

Who is President of the United States?

Name two national holidays.[2]

If you find the toughness overwhelming, relax.  Although all of the 100 questions are equally challenging, one can find the answers online along with the complete listing of the 100 questions that makeup the test.

Oh, one might say, this is a different kind of thing.  Perhaps the lawmakers got confused and thought the requirement should be for graduates of the seventh grade?  Well, this obvious undermining of what the law was reasonably trying to secure drew a critical reaction.  Consequently, in the future – yet to be determined when – the test used on college graduates will be augmented with other questions (hopefully reasonable ones).  But, in the interim there is this legal bypass to meeting the demands of the law. 

Why is there this bypass?  Is it a lack of knowing what the Immigration test contains?  Or, is it a perceived need to address the lack of civic knowledge generally shared by college graduates?  If that’s the case, then this is but another indication of how deficient the nation’s civics education program is.

---

[1] As stated in Bob Holladay, “‘Civic Literacy’ Requirement Being Eroded by DOE Rules,” Tallahassee Democrat, March 27, 2018, 4A.

[2] Ibid.

WOW, WHAT A WEEKEND!

This past weekend is memorable!  Some high school teachers and schools are doing a great job at teaching civics.  At least, given the numbers of demonstrators who took the time and expense to “march for our lives,” the message, that democracy is about getting involved, has hit its mark.

Now one does not need to agree with their gun control position to find this level of participation gratifying.  It is surely a sign that democratic values are strong among the youth of the nation – at least among these young people.  They are engaged, and for those who are so engaged, because they experienced the shooting at the Parkland high school, one can readily understand why.

          Of course, one needs to be careful.  Nationally, most of the young people did not participate or perhaps care about the protest.  But those who did – and most of the tens of thousands who were out there – did not have that personal experience that the Florida kids had – readily went out and expressed their opinions. 

This weekend has conjured up, for this writer, some thoughts about why this past weekend happened and why it seems to have been effective.  And, in this vein, what such events seem to highlight for civics teachers.

          The first thought was on the role of technology.  One of the speakers in Washington pointed out that with a smart phone, everyone has, at their fingertips, an easily accessible library of information.  This adds the potential for knowledgeable – well-informed – activism. 

Civics instruction at school should dedicate time to evaluating internet sites.  Yes, there is a lot of “fake” information – much of it intentionally put there for political purposes, but there is a lot that is legitimate.  Civics teachers should, first, become informed as to how to evaluate sites, and, two, instruct students to detect such sources.  They can also have appropriate assignments in which students are called upon to use those phones to garner reliable information and inquire into critical, civic issues.

          But there is another function that smart phone can serve.  This very weekend, MSNBC broadcasted an interesting documentary that, in part, was critical of how mainstream media covered the civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 60s.  Hope and Fury[1] looks at the role the media played in covering and interpreting the work of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders (e.g., Stockley Carmichael).  The main point was that the media bolstered the potential of violence to draw higher viewership.

          In one segment, the point was made that in more recent coverage of “Black Lives Matter” demonstrations, protesting recent police shootings of blacks, smart phone videos illustrated the mostly peaceful actions of the demonstrators.  Citing a specific example, a conservative network made claims of how demonstrators were just wanting to loot and showed chemicals the demonstrators were allegedly using for incendiary devises.  The smart phone videos showed something else, that the protesters predominantly used legal tactics – marching and shouting their demands.

          And the smart phone is but one technological advancement – there’s social media, advancements in manufacturing, transportation, etc. – that promise to affect not just protesting, but all sorts of social engagements.  One writer who is reporting on these developments and their effects on the lives of regular citizens is John Hawthorne.[2]  Again, civic teachers should be knowledgeable and willing to share with their students these developments.

          The last thoughts about this weekend has to do with motivation.  This writer could not help but be reminded of his younger days and the Vietnam protests.  It occurs to him that there is an overlap.  In both cases, the fact that either the shootings at school sites or the possibility of getting shot in Vietnam seems to motivate citizens who are threatened in this manner to pound the pavement and express their concern.  Does this current version have a lasting effect?

          Time will tell, but many of those cohorts of prior days have led lives that has been affected by those earlier experiences.  Their demonstrations surely had an effect on American policy.  One, the disruptions led to the end of the draft; two, they helped eighteen-year-olds to get the vote; and, three, they, as a model, helped encourage military families to band together to fight for their mutual interests.[3]

Whether the weekend proves to be effective or not, it did demonstrate that Americans can still have a political discussion.  It will be interesting to see if the “pro-Second Amendment”[4] proponents will try something similar or revert to more standard forms of politicking.  To further frame this issue:  while there is about one gun or firearm for each American out there, only thirty to forty percent own one.[5]  Let the discussion continue.  Again, this is a treasure trove for civics teachers.  Unfortunately, it is one that has come about at such a high cost.

---

[1] Aired on MSNBC, March 25, 2018.

[2] See John Hawthorne, “Manufacturing Technology Trends That Will Change Your Life,” February 5, 2018, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.iqsdirectory.com/blog/manufacturing-technology-trends-that-will-change-your-life/.

[3] Rudy de Leon, “5 Ways Vietnam War Changed America.” CNN, June 25, 2015, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/opinions/deleon-vietnam-war-effects/index.html.

[4] In full disclosure, this writer does not believe the Second Amendment gives every individual the right to “bear” arms.  That amendment was meant to secure the right of states to maintain armed militias independent of the central government.

[5] Harry Enten, “There Is a Gun for Every American.  But Less Than a Third Owns One.”  CNN, February 18, 2018, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html.

A CATEGORY OF COMPLEX ISSUES

In the last posting a review of the free rider problem, relative to John Locke’s view of a social contract, was provided.  In a few words:  under Locke’s version of the social contract, it is rational for a people to abide by the provisions of the contract, but that at the individual level, it is also rational for a person to “cheat” on the contract.  He/she is, by so doing, a free rider.  The reader is invited to click on that posting.

          So, what should those who support the social contract think of the free rider problem?  Here, the thinking of Thomas Hobbes plays a part.[1]  He was also a social contract philosopher who overall provided, one, a dire view of human nature, two, a dire view of human interactions, and, three, supported a strong governmental leadership – a leviathan.

          To begin, Hobbes points out that there are laws to prohibit the acts of a free rider.  Remember, a free rider is one who does not fulfill the provisions of the social contract.  He/she is not willing to give up those rights that the contract demands individuals relinquish.  For example, the contract calls on individuals to respect others’ property – a notion invented by the contract.  Well, a free rider, who benefits from this provision (he/she owns property), is not willing to pay the cost of respecting other people’s property and goes about stealing or damaging the property of others.

          How can the society, so organized, fight this problem?  The society establishes a system of laws that attempts to define the lines between the concerns of the society and the retained rights of the individual.  It, for example, defines private property, what constitutes stealing private property, and what sanctions will be enforced for anyone who offends people’s rights to own and enjoy their property.  Laws provide the suitable sanctions – penalties – that will befall anyone who breaks those laws.

          For the free rider, then, he/she, who is wanting to break the law, if rational, will consider the risk of breaking the law and getting caught.  Now, this works most of the time.  Research shows most people are risk averse and will avoid bets in which the chances are well in their favor to win.[2]  But “most” is not all.  There will be those who are willing to take on the risk and enjoy – or attempt to enjoy – the benefits of being a free rider.  And, unfortunately, crime does, at times, pay.

          One reaction to this condition is for the society to invest highly in policing services.  This affects the probabilities of catching free riders in their crimes.  But criminals can also invest in services and other assets to limit the probabilities of being caught and, if caught, to avoid prosecution, provide representation during any resulting prosecution, and/or minimize any punishments that such prosecution might implement. 

And, if the free rider happens to have wealth or high income (a possible result from prior free ridership), he/she can more readily hire such services in the form of legal and financial representation.  Of course, if there is a general and well-known number of such incidences – of people getting away with such offenses – then the risk factor can be generally seen as less risky and, in turn, encourage more people to take on the risks involved with being a free rider. 

If this becomes common, then the society begins to lose the benefits of the social contract – the functionality of the contract is only maintained if there is a general acceptance of it.  Too many free riders undermine the contract that makes the whole societal system possible.

Therefore, even Hobbes realizes that self-interest can not be the only basis for such a contract.  Yes, a strong leader – a Leviathan or sovereign – can help to insure law abiding behavior, but not guarantee it.  A social contract must depend on individuals to set aside this purely rational means of determining his/her behavior, “at least on occasion.”  Other considerations must be at play to solicit the appropriate, pro-contract, behaviors so that the contract can survive.

Those considerations are moral ones.  But on what basis are people to be moral?  Well, why are they psychologically prone to commit crimes; i.e., to be risk averse?  Perhaps if one understands this psychological perspective, those in authority can devise appropriate policies to meet the challenge.

Hobbes hits on the immorality of pride.  He points out that pride leads to beliefs that one is superior to others and undermines the original assumption of the social contract theory.  That is, natural rights view holds that in nature, all are equal, and that that equality is not sacrificed by the social contract.  But pride leads some, through a sense of superiority, to conclude that they are not subject to the provisions of the contract – they are too good for such concerns.

The origin of this arrogance is a notion that such a person has some intrinsic quality, some natural or God-given gift that places him/her above others.  This belief, as identified in this blog, has been given the name of genetic elitism.  With it is the likely sense that the person need not be restrained by the provisions of any social contract, especially those elements that pose a hostile effect against that person’s interests.  A sure recipe for a free rider bias.

          Here is how Sinopoli phrases the point of contention:

The laws of nature themselves need no great act of reasoning to be discovered.  They are also the dictates of scripture and are summarized in the maxim “Do not that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thyself.”  To abide by them, however, and thus to act in a just manner, requires a willingness “when weighing the actions of other men with his own,” to see that “his own passions and self-love, may add nothing to the weight.”[3]

That is, a person weighs the pluses or minuses without putting a thumb on the scale.  But that is not what the natural rights view is about; its about weighing one’s interests and being able – through the exercise of one’s rights – to maximize one’s interests and, perhaps, the interests of those one loves.  The construct lacks comprehensiveness,[4] it does not account for all relevant situations.

          Also, the above indicates that even with natural rights one needs to transcend its parameters and instill a sense of morality.  But what constitutes morality?  Here mere reference to a scriptural phrase does not address the potentially complex questions moral dilemmas pose.  Moral values, for example, often compete among themselves in determining what should be done in a given situation.

          Here’s an example:  should an employer favor a more talented candidate for a position or someone, who can do the job, and is in dire need of the job?  Which option is more just?  Or more to the issue of free ridership:  should all offenses against the social contract be equally acted upon or should other factors make a difference?  Are all laws just?  If not, can they be unjust even though there was not injustice involved in their enactment?  What about cases of law-breaking to advance a greater good; i.e., cases of civil disobedience? 

This can be quite complex; it demands a seriously thought out view of moral politics.  Daniel Elazar sees the study of politics as one of studying competitive behavior to seeking public allocation of values and the other of seeking a just way by which to arrange a polity’s public affairs.[5]  Both aims are equally important and should be based on a view of politics that comprehensively explains the complexity of political calculations and the complexity of what constitutes just allocation of values. 

It needs to be more proactive on the latter than what natural rights provides.  Federation theory provides such a view.  At least, as far as Hobbes’ account for these issues, the natural rights view does not.  In the future, this blog will revisit this concern and report on Locke’s position on moral calculations in a natural rights explanation.

---

[1] This posting relies on the account provided by Richard C. Sinopoli.  See Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue.

[2] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011).

   

[3] Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1992).  Emphasis in the original.

[4] Comprehensiveness is one of eight criteria Eugene Meehan identifies to evaluate explanations.  See Eugene J. Meehan, Explanations in Social Science: A System Paradigm (Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1969).

 [5] Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil) Authority,” Journal of Church and State 33, Spring (1991):  233-234.

WHY PLAY FAIR?

Two recurring themes in this blog are to, one, claim that the nation has generally opted a natural rights perspective by which it views governance and politics and, two, by so doing has encouraged a self-centered view of civic responsibilities.  Consequently, the nation, since the years following World War II – when the natural rights view became dominant – has, to ever increasing levels, become a nation in which selfish, egotistic social behavior has become more common.  The blog reports polling evidence to support these claims.

          In short, the blog has been critical of this historical shift and trend.  In a series of four postings, posted between March 25 to April 5, 2016,[1] this writer addressed the pro-natural rights arguments of Richard C. Sinopoli.[2]  He, in short, provides, ironically, a pro-communal defense of natural rights view (he uses the terms “liberal” or “classical liberalism” to designate this construct).  The reader is invited to visit those prior postings – they provide the backdrop for this offering.

          This posting looks at the basic explanation of why the natural rights view is susceptible to the above charge.  Sinopoli, harkening back to the writings of Thomas Hobbes, highlights the proverbial problem of the “free rider.”  He also seems to rely on what this writer considers to be a crude take on John Locke’s original version of liberalism.

          That version takes the following form:  all humans are equal in a state of nature.  That is, a condition in which everyone exists, unconnected with others, and fighting for survival.  That is a precarious condition, full of dangerous hazards.  It occurs to these humans, at an individual level, to contract with each other an agreement for the common defense against those hazards.  They form a social contract which includes the creation of a governing body or structure.

          This contract has the following provision:  the individual sacrifices a number of his/her unlimited rights in order to form the collective, but only those rights that are necessary for the sake of this mutual defense.  The individual retains all other rights to do what he/she wishes to do.  Stated another way, the individual maintains his/her rights to do what he/she wants to do as long as he/she does not interfere with others being able to exercise their rights in like manner. [3]

          Sinopoli addresses three criticisms that critics of this view have leveled against this natural rights view.  That is the topic of the above cited series of postings.  Here the concern is:  why would anyone who is a part of such a contract offend its provisions?  That is, why would anyone offend others’ rights?

          To begin, Sinopoli points out that it is rational, once the individual joins the collective, to behave to advance the common good if, and only if, by doing so his/her interests are advanced more so than by not doing so.  A general disregard for the common good renders the reasons for the contract as superfluous.  This writer would add, this is the case if those interests are defined in the long term – a perspective, by the way, the natural rights view avoids.

          Here is how Sinopoli expresses this:

Under liberal contractarian assumptions, all are better off by cooperating since only through a publicly enforced legal framework are their security and independence assured.  These two aspects – consent and benefit – form the liberal theory of political obligation:  one ought to contribute to the maintenance of the public order if one has agreed to receive the benefits provided by it.[4]

One should note how the common good is perceived; it is very limited to issues of common liberty and public order.  Very little room is given for “activist” governance.  Hence, such a view would have little tolerance for such programs as Social Security.[5]  It seems to have a blind eye for the realities of differentiation that can be attributable to such factors as class and racial prejudices.

          This account goes on; it points out that this ideal rendition has a practical problem in soliciting this minimal level of cooperation or fulfilling these minimal obligations of obeying the law – laws designed to insure the collective’s benefits and its provision for public order.  Summarily, the dysfunctional condition is labelled the “free rider” problem.

          It is a condition common to any collective effort.  Why help the collective – and absorb a cost – when others are fulfilling the necessary roles in providing the benefits and public order the collective makes possible?  It is rational for the individual to take that “free ride” and enjoy the benefits without incurring any costs.  This situation spurs one to consider justice.  Is it just to be a free rider?

          The intuitive answer is no as Locke indicates.  But is a concern for justice enough of a motivator to lead people to abide by the laws of the collective?  Plainly, since any society must deal with crime, that answer is no, at least, it is not enough for all or for a significant number of the contracted agents.  As a matter of fact, Sinopoli admits that while intuitive, this sense of justice does not erupt spontaneously.  The commitment to act according to the contract must be “taught.” 

And here a distinction is made.  Yes, justice is rational and subject to intuitive revelation, but that does not constitute the motivation to abide by it.  And, adding to this, the reality of scarcity provides enough of a motivating force to encourage many to engage in unjust activities – to become free riders.  After all, these realities render the promise to be able to do what one wants to be highly restricted by the fact there is not enough to go around and fulfill every desire.

In complex societies, how are these uncooperative forces handled?  With a bit of imagination, one can sense a competitive structure evolving.  Pit the interests of one against the interests of others.  For example, a free market provides a framework for such competition.  But a market also has rules and laws undergirding its competitive environment and why should those rules and laws be treated differently?  They are apt to be equally broken by free riders.  This is the problem in a natural rights world.

The next posting will pick up on this problem and comment on this immanent condition.  Spoiler alert:  federation theory is further promoted by this review of the free rider problem.  Can the reader predict the elements of that argument?

---

[1] The postings are:  “They’re Not Lockean,”  March 25, 2016, “Not Always a Case of Morals,” March 29, 2016, “I Can’t Do What?,” April 1, 2016, “Step Right Up,” April 5, 2916.

[2] Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1992).

[3] A qualifier:  this writer is not a Lockean scholar.  He has taught the basic ideas of Locke and, in his research of federalism, has read a bit of commentary on Locke by various scholars – some cited in this blog.  My understanding is that Sinopoli is a Lockean scholar.  Part of my defense is to point out that the ideas Sinopoli presents is not in accordance with what other scholars have expressed.

[4] Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue, 34.

[5] Social Security relies on positive laws that insist on workers paying a tax to fund the program so that current workers can enjoy its benefits.  They in turn will depend on future workers to pay the tax so they can enjoy the program’s benefits.  It is an intergenerational compact far removed from a natural rights rationale.