The Freedom to be Fleeced

Some people argue that boundless freedom is best, that liberty can only be a good thing and should therefore be applied without restriction. This seductive idea seems to hold promise in promoting equality and equity, drawing power away from structures and returning it to individuals, and encouraging self-sufficiency. Let us quickly see if these claims could hold true. Simply put, if we assume everyone operates on a level playing field, as total liberty would suggest, then every transaction must inherently be fair. For that to be true, all parties would have equal power and privilege in the exchange so no one is unduly pressured as well as having total knowledge of the market and items in question. This is similar to the field of economics "homo economicus" (the fictional 'rational actor' constructed to make economic models work), in that it also makes assumptions divorced from current reality and the irrationality of humans. It is precisely because people have urgent needs, limited knowledge, and less power that they are disadvantaged in commerce. I am not a fully informed buyer, and so get ripped off by a disreputable seller. I, as an inexperienced seller, get low-balled by a dishonest buyer. Whichever way the exploitation goes, it makes the entire process of commerce less safe for everyone-whether they were involved or not. These transactions end up influencing retributive behavior or driving inexperienced actors out of the market. Freedom on its own is insufficient to produce fair markets. Rather than the results of liberty, ideal conditions turn out to be the precursors or necessary foundations for a free and fair market. This is where the title of the post comes in: if there is no regulation, capitalism tends towards exploitation and unfair practices. Therefore we cannot implement total laxity and deregulation of markets without seriously hurting people. Further, absolute freedom will tend towards the same undesirable outcome in other aspects of life.

In considering personal liberty we may like the idea that individuals choose freely what to say and whether to attend school. These choices seem to be under the sole purview of the individual, but they have an impact greater than just that person and therefore concern the community at large. This is because the argument of liberty has an obverse that seems often to be downplayed: responsibility. While I may have a right to speak them, my words have an impact on those around me. Just as I am liable for my actions, I also have an obligation to the consequences of my words. This is because others have equal rights, such as not being attacked or slandered. Similarly, when I elect to keep my child home to educate them, I seem to be choosing only for myself or my child, but these choices also have an impact on society. When a person does not have the same basic information as everyone else, not only are they personally handicapped, but they interfere with the functioning of community, business, and government because of that lack. This is the basic argument for compulsory public education, and the responsibility of every participant in an open society: the capability to interact with all the other peoples in that society. Beyond that, the selfish motive of not wanting to be taken advantage of because of ones' ignorance should impel us to embrace the best education available. An absolutist response to this might be, "you just want to take away all rights and impose what you think is right on everyone else!", and that would be a hysterical, hyperbolic straw man argument. As with other aspects of life, there needs to be balance to how much liberty each person has and what duty is owed to the community. Finding that balance is part of the project of forming a more perfect union.

Everyday people

There is a great difficulty in being a typical person, one of the crowd, or un-exceptional. The struggle is for validity, for self-esteem, and the basic belief in one's own worth. There is rightly much talk about representation in media, and how important it is for people to see those like themselves in popular formats. While this is especially important for marginalized and targeted groups, there is value in the great majority seeing themselves as well. Similarly, as much of the news is devoted to celebrity and wealth, there needs to be a move towards placing those exceptional individuals into a larger context. To begin with, any typical news story must be outside ordinary, everyday life; it is only when the dam fails or another tragedy that it receives attention. The news does not report the hundreds of people helping each other through tough times, the thousands who take time to volunteer, and the millions of interactions that go off without a hitch everyday. These unremarked events are so commonplace that they become invisible, yet they form the basis for society and civilization functioning at all. The mundane is what actually keep things going; the same is true of people: it is the mass of average, everyday persons who are more responsible for things going smoothly. Overall, the focus on outliers leads to a skewed outlook on the world as it makes those outliers seem more important. To have a more accurate view, we can recognize that most of the people (both currently and historically) are basically very alike in lifestyle. They do not hold fancy titles, earn elite recognition, or accomplish once-in-a-generation feats. The very word "exceptional" contains the clue that those celebrated are exceptions to the general rule. However, there is no concomitant recognition that there is no loss of worth or diminishment in humanity in being common (or, in the current vernacular, "basic"). This insidious reinforcement of the message that only the uncommon matter is ever-present and oppressive. While many assume the question is how to be noticed and become exceptional, that is approaching the problem from the wrong end. The answer has never been to change into some version of these unusual celebrities, but rather to be our self and have that be worth celebration. The issue is the expectation that those celebrities are the only ones deserving of our attention. Once we take away our attention (and money), the so-called "powerful" begin to lose that power, as it is based on the collected support of the mass of common folk. Rather than buying the latest in an endless line of "hot" celebrity schlock and fads, we would be better off supporting worthy causes we believe in and spending our time with people we care about. By taking our focus away from the trivial (celebrity) and placing it on the important (everyday people), we can begin that celebration of the truly meaningful: ourselves.

Being the Center of Your Own Attention

Rather than something like selfishness or egotism, this is referring to identity and self-perception. It is, in fact, about the commodification of those central issues and how difficult it can be to actually place ones self into the center of attention. First, let us examine what many people use as substitute for identity and then we can contrast that to what could be a more healthy construction.

Generally, when we talk of ourselves, we use job, status, and affiliation; this is not to disregard the value in having quick shortcuts that others can easily understand. However, by focusing on these items, we see our self and others as these labels rather than as a starting point to understand more. It becomes problematic when we are handed these definitions and given no choice about what they mean or how we are shaped by them. Rather than the label being an extension or expansion of who we are, it narrows or stunts that self-expression by deciding what we say or do. Some examples include "liberal" or "Republican", groups that give political distinctions and have developed numerous connotations over the years. If one expresses something different than the generally accepted view of what that label is, then one "is not really liberal." Whether one is a football or music fan, which team or artist is supposed to say something about who one is; whether "we" are winning this season, or if our artist is popular or obscure (and hence we are mainstream or counter-culture). Or we do not watch and follow sports and therefore are not a "real man", one of the most dangerous labels in society that leads to all sorts of twisted logic and harm. What all these labels or affiliations end up doing is inverting the expression of who I am by subjugating my identity to a team, party, or organization. How those are seen by others then effects how they see "me" because of my affiliation. When a political party leader or team coach says something I do not agree with, I am forced to do the work of distancing myself from that party or team because of the automatic assumption that as part of that group, I must agree with everything it does. There is a strong tendency to remain unaware of all these pitfalls and simply take the package of assumptions that come along with any affiliation. Many people act as if a descriptor determines who someone is; that by knowing one single label they can determine who that person is in toto. By pointing this out, the absurdity should become clear.

Rather than using the map as the terrain, it would be better to raise our eyes from the labels and affiliations to see the actual person before us. This does not mean to disregard that these groupings exist, but that they are expressed and experienced differently by each person. What it means to be part of a club can vary and mean different things to different people; being curious about what those differences are can lead to better understanding and connection. "I joined because they have cool hats", "I enjoy the durability of their products", or "I think they have answers for the problems we face" are all valid reasons for people to choose a group to join. They are, however, very different reasons and demonstrate how important it is to understand what someone's connection to a label is. For ourselves, recognizing that even belonging to a club does not define us is a start. The tendency towards para-social relationships, especially when we lack real-world connection, is strong and encouraged by business interests. Instead, we can remind ourselves that this label expresses one thing about us and not the entirety. We can even recognize some aspects that do not fit who we are, and make a conscious choice about our affiliation and it's limits. The main thrust of this is to not mistake one part of a person for the whole of who they (or we) are.

Moving at the Speed of Science

There are frequently headlines, news stories, and announcements circulated of breakthrough discoveries in various areas of scientific research. This is problematic for a few reasons, but let us focus on two: errors and implementation. While our current system functions, that is 'makes discoveries and produces results', it also gets enough wrong to retard progress and erode the public's confidence in scientific integrity. These issues are enough to rethink and modify our approach, as well as highlighting a need for better scientific literacy from the public.

First, the number of results which need to be retracted or modified is quite high. There have been a few widely circulated news items in the recent past addressing this issue, and acknowledging the inadequacy of measures to alert the public to such errors. To be clear, there are two parts to this: that erroneous information is publicly announced prematurely and that corrections are not announced as vigorously. These two factors lead to a tremendous amount of scientific misinformation being circulated needlessly. This is a historical trend that has been exacerbated by changes in news, mainly the intensification of the push to be first with a story that will get attention. I want to recognize that there has been a concurrent improvement in the scientific literacy of reporters, as well as increase in the number of science "communicators" (those specializing in explaining specialized information to laypersons). To be clear, disproving something or changing our understanding of information are not problems of science; those are both goals of and inherent to the process. The problems arise when non-scientists hear erroneous information presented as accurate and either never hear the correction or think the correction (or just later improved discovery) means we do not (or cannot) understand the area of study. To resolve these issues, in addition to laypeople understanding the scientific process better, the release of information needs to be slowed and de-sensationalized, results should be corroborated by reproducing experiments, and retractions or corrections need to get as much attention as the initial announcement.

Second, there are few actual emergencies. There are some times it truly is necessary to implement an immediate remedy; certainly a global pandemic is one example. However, most often there is time enough to study problems in depth and evaluate varying options for addressing them. Additionally, there is a basic need to recognize and mitigate safety concerns. This is not the approach we typically see. Probably due to the financial incentive to introduce new products or "improvements", science is treated as a business tool. By rewarding novelty and downplaying the predatory nature of the system, it perpetuates the cycle of unnecessary and disposable items that are introduced every year. I suggest most people can find discarded items in their home they thought (because advertising told them) would drastically improve their lives. Returning to the scientific realm, this same approach is applied to discovery. Because testing and improving safety of products is expensive, companies are more likely to just accept a certain percentage fail or injure users. Similarly, there seems little consideration as to whether the new item is actually of use to consumers, only if the company can make money from its introduction. There is less concern with making a good product than with getting a product out to market before someone else does. What this indicates is that the above-mentioned suggestions are not counterproductive or extreme by advocating for slowing the speed at which "discoveries" are implemented. If anything, there has been an artificial speeding-up of the process, and these suggestions  return the processes to what it should be. Not only would it improve public perception of science and progress, but would actually make a positive difference by ensuring that progress was, indeed, happening as announced.

Why Does Context or Intent Matter?

While in philosophy, we could speak simply of utilitarianism (consequence or impact) and deontology (moral duty or intent), let us take a more pedestrian, and relevant, approach to understanding this question. Most often, in the news and in law, people are focused on outcomes. It is too messy or time-consuming to investigate, report, interpret, and adjudicate motives. Psychologically, it is difficult to narrow down behavior to either intent or impact, as there are so many influences and factors. Individuals may consider both when choosing, but are also motivated by drives separate from either (i.e. illogic, coercion, trauma, etc.) as well as various impairments. Additionally, it is important to note that every choice is made with incomplete information; no one knows what the outcome will be, it is just a best guess as to what seems most likely. Some may say there is only one way to do things, and therefore no need to question intent or impact. It is more accurate to say life is open to interpretation and allows for numerous successful approaches. Otherwise, there would be neither need nor ability to improve or discover. Once we accept there is no predictably "right" answer, what is left is to determine how to learn to make better choices. Given the liberty that most expect in the modern world, learning how to do that can be a difficult, protracted, and harm-producing process. This leaves the culture considering outcomes and ignoring context in arriving at those outcomes.

A particularly destructive result of this tendency is to eliminate understanding or finding of common ground. These similarities exist, even in the most intractable fight; being that we are all human, we share fundamental traits and desires. Wanting to feel safe means different things to different people: it could be carrying a gun for you or me knowing that no one has a weapon. That fundamental need for safety is shared, even though we meet that need in different ways. Once we begin to relate, it becomes less a question of whether we can agree than how we resolve the issue. To those who question this, or think that "if it is so easy, why isn't everybody doing it?", I raise two points. First, I never said this was easy; it is challenging to do, and ever harder to do well. Second, I refer you back to the fundamental question "qui bono?": who benefits? Who benefits from the masses thinking they face intractable differences everywhere? Who gains or retains their power by giving frustrated people simplistic answers that allow for no compromise or alternatives? For whom is it easy to let others make difficult decisions instead of facing uncertainty and correcting their errors? Who prefers not having to explain or confess dire circumstances, or risk not getting what they need by involving others? The answer, of course, is that everyone has some benefit from the current system. As with many such problems, it works just well enough or does not fail enough to overcome the shared resistance to change.

I propose the real issue is treating people as disposable, which feeds into and is fed by the disregard for motivations. Rather than determine the cause of a crime, people will say "It doesn't matter, a law's a law," or "Some people are just criminals". These platitudes are verbal shrugs of surrender and passivity that signal "people are disposable, so circumstances don't matter". This black and white thinking leads to executing someone stealing food for their child. There are circumstances that drive people to do the otherwise unthinkable, which is the context. Outside of that situation, the same person would not make that choice. Maybe they would even stop another from taking that action; we evaluate choices differently when they are ours to make, after all. That mutable aspect of human nature demonstrates how adaptable we are and that we are shaped by our environments. The truth is that people are reachable, and able to change; however, ostracizing them does not lead to change, improvement, or re-integration. It takes more effort, and self-examination, but it is possible make the necessary social adjustments. I say self-examination, because to enact changes that will work means tackling assumptions in the culture that most prefer to avoid. These includes underlying beliefs that people are disposable, that there is only one way to be or act, and that change is impossible.

In the end, understanding and explaining something is different than forgiving or excusing that thing. Discovering the cause or context is more like diagnosing an illness, as it gives us the information needed to treat that dysfunction and make things better. It is what allows us to correct a problem, rather than suffer it and feel powerless. We cannot correct something we do not understand, and an aversion to nuance and exploration of how things happen keep us from knowing how to prevent them. We need to ask the question "how could this happen?", investigate the actual causes, and be open to the answer so that we stand a chance of stopping the next such event. We need to compassionately understand the motivations of others, and allow that they can be good people, in order to prevent further harm.