What Activities Constitute the Highest Human Endeavors? Hannah Arendt’s Take

This is a modified version of an essay I’ve been working on in my academic work.  It ties in strongly, I think, with our previous posts on jobs, obligations, and contracts.  It’s long for a blog post – but sometimes a full understanding requires a little elaboration.  Eric had pointed out to me that blogs are meant to be read in a short stint – approximately how long one might be sitting on a toilet.  It makes sense, but at the same time it’s kind of frightening to adjust the content of one’s message according to the average length of defecation. I think there is some sort of metaphor begging to be made here about the modern condition.  In the meantime I’ll hope that our readers ate a large meal yesterday.

Does your life ever feel like an unending struggle to balance competing demands?   There often seems little, if any, time for us to pause the activities that “have to get done” in order to reflect on the substance and purpose of those activities themselves.  Political philosopher Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition is an exercise in the classification and examination of our most fundamental human activities and may provide an insightful perspective to examine our lives.  Written in a Cold War era of where man’s activities seemed to be leading toward self-destruction, Arendt proposes we stop and critically reflect on the significance and purpose of human activity so that we may “think what we are doing” before it is too late (p. 5).  Arendt’s diagnosis of the modern human condition is not optimistic.  She outlines in detail how we have become obsessed with the activities of production and consumption (which she names “labor”) and placed them as the centerpieces of our society.  Arendt contrasts our society with that of the Ancient Greeks who consciously developed a public forum in which great deeds and speech (which she names “action”) could generate new ideas and influence the action of others.  As a consequence of labor’s ascendancy in the public sphere, the higher order activity of action and its place in the public sphere, and the public sphere itself, has diminished.  The task then for Arendt, and for individuals seeking to meaningfully engage in the world, is to reconstitute public spaces is by developing specific “faculties” such as forgiveness and promise making (p. 237).  This essay will briefly examine Arendt’s categorization of human activities, the necessary faculties for engaging in action, and the potential place of action in our own lives.

For Arendt, humankind is defined by its most common activities.  She categorizes human activities into a hierarchy of three groups and labels humans according to activities in which they engage.  Animal laborans is the label she gives to the most basic and essential human activities: labor and consumption.  Arendt calls laboring and consuming activities “metabolic” not only because of their close relation to the life process, but also because laboring and consuming, like the functions of the body, require little thought (pp. 98-100).  The second label Arendt gives is homo faber which means man who “works upon” or who “makes something” (p.136).  Homo faber is defined by the activity of “work”.   Work is the act of creating and constructing material objects of a lasting durability (p. 143).  According to Arendt, it is work that allows humans to build a world that extends across generations and improve the conditions under which we labor and consume.

Arendt carefully delineates how over the course of human history, labor, defined as the repetitive and painful activities required to sustain one’s life, has been regulated to the domestic realm.  It is only since the advent of the industrial revolution when the activities of homo faber (i.e., the activities of production) were broken into small unskilled movements that the activity of labor became central to economic and social life (pp. 123-124).  If the system of production requires any indistinguishable person to constitute its basic movements, humans become defined by their ‘labor power’ and not by their skills or actions, and each man/woman labors so that he/she might “earn a living” (pp. 125-128). In this system homo faber plays a secondary role of engineering machines or developing organizational processes that can increase the total production.  Of significance to Arendt is that the purpose of the machine or organization is not primarily to build something of lasting significance or value to humanity, but instead to increase consumption which by definition cannot have lasting significance or value (pp. 145-149).  Labor saving technologies and increasingly complex organizational structures present a great irony:

The rather uncomfortable truth of the matter is that the triumph the modern world has achieved over necessity is due to the emancipation of labor, this is, to the fact the animal laborans was permitted to occupy the public realm; and yet, as long as animal laborans remains in possession of it, there can be no true public realm, but only private activities displayed in the open.  The outcome is what is euphemistically called mass culture, and its deep-rooted trouble is a universal unhappiness (pp. 133-134).

Arendt identifies clearly the negative consequences of laboring for its own sake: the potential destruction of the natural world and an existential unhappiness for those caught in the never-ending labor/consumption cycle.  Arendt notes that industrialization did have profound and remarkable positive contributions in improving the physical quality of life across the global.  But as a consequence of labor and consumption’s ascendancy in the public sphere, the activity Arendt labels as the greatest form of human activity, “action”, has been subsumed and its place in the public sphere, and the public sphere itself, have diminished.

It is the third activity of “action” that is Arendt’s highest classification of human endeavor and representative of the title zoon politikon.  Arendt says that humans are imbued with the unique freedom to “set into motion”, through deeds and speech, actions that have never been taken before and whose influence is impossible to predict (p. 189).   Essential to action is the presence of others –a public sphere.  Arendt states that action “corresponds with the human condition of plurality” and action itself is what constitutes “the condition…of all political life” (p. 7).  Action is not drawn from the necessity of animal laborans or the desire for mastery of homo faber, which each seem to follow observable patterns of ‘standard’ human behavior.  Arendt says that genuine action possesses a “miraculous” quality because it is immersed in the diversity of interests and values of human life and brings into being new thoughts and relationships amongst the public which had never before existed (p. 178).  As such action is very much an “event”, not a process or idea, which takes place at a particular time and place when a human attempts to influence others (p. 259).  

Stepping outside the cycle of labor and work to engage in the activity of action can be a risky, even dangerous, endeavor.  Because we cannot know how others will interpret or react, actions can set off a chain of unintended consequences, potentially putting ourselves or others at risk of scorn or worse.  But to refrain from action would inhibit our ability to improve the world.  Arendt offers a way out of the dilemma posed by action: learning how to forgive.   Arendt describes forgiveness as a faculty because it requires the development of an understanding that no human can ever fully comprehend what he or she is doing and a sense of empathy for our mutual lack of control.  She writes,

…trespassing is an everyday occurrence which is in the very nature of action’s constant establishment of new relationships within a web of relations, and it needs forgiving, dismissing, and order to make it possible for life to go on by constantly releasing men from what they have done unknowingly.  Only through this constant mutual release from what they do can men remain free agents, only by constant willingness to change their minds and start again can they be trusted with so great a power as that to begin something new.” (p. 240)

The faculty of forgiveness seems out of place in era of “accountability”, but it is essential in a learning community centered around action so that acting bravely and boldly (with good intentions) can be encouraged and supported.

Another faculty required of a community that supports action is the ability to make and keep promises.  Promise making is distinguished from the fulfillment of obligations or commitments tied to the processes of work – it is the development of trust among peers.  Again related to the fear that action’s course is unpredictable, a promise between individuals represents the support needed to carry through the deed.  Arendt calls promises “isolated islands of certainty in an ocean of uncertainty” but when they are not explicitly tied to a specific action and attempt to apply generally to all circumstances “they lose their binding power and the whole enterprise becomes self-defeating” (p. 244).  Without the capacities to forgive and to make promises, humans would never be able to overcome the fear of irreversibility and unpredictability and would avoid action (p. 237).  But if these faculties have a strong place in a community it develops trust and encourages new and bold deeds.

In summary of Arendt’s The Human Condition, it appears that while labor sustains life, and work can improve the material conditions of life, it is action that provides humanity it’s fullest meaning and purpose.  In order to be encouraged, action requires an active community that not only bears witness to the deeds, but has the capacity to keep promises and forgive well-intentioned misdeeds.  Does this conception of human endeavors resonate with you?   Do communities or forums exist in the public realm that have the characteristics necessary for meaningful action?  Is this blog such a place? (click the “follow” link in the bottom right if you think so)

FREE COLLEGE!

What Makes a right inherent?

Assumption: We are all created equal (with regards to inherent rights and obligations)

Therefore: Any inherent rights you have from society, are shared equally by all other members of your society.

For a ‘right’ to have relevance in discussion or debate, an obligation from one or more other people is required to fulfill that right.  (Example: If you have a right to not be killed by someone, that person has an obligation to not kill you)  You cannot enjoy a right unless that person upholds the enabling obligation.

An inherent right (due to it’s implied nature) would demand such an obligation from all members of society  (in our example, If you are in a society of ten other people, all ten must be obligated not to kill you for you to enjoy your inherent right to not be killed by any of them).

If all members of society are equal with regards to inherent rights, you must hold the reciprocal corresponding inherent obligation to all members of your society.  (In our example you would be inherently obligated not to kill the other ten people in your society.  If you weren’t, those people could not enjoy the right of not being killed.  If they could not enjoy this right, they would not be inherently equal).

Theory: In all cases, if you claim to enjoy an inherent right from your society, you concurrently claim the inherent obligation to uphold this right for all others in your society.

Next time you find yourself claiming you have a right to something, ask yourself, what gives you that right?  For example: ‘I have a right to free college.’  Ok, what gives you that right?  If your answer is that you deserve it because ‘everybody deserves it,’ you are saying this is an inherent right.  Therefore, if everybody deserves it just by virtue of being a member of the society, that means everybody is obligated to provide college to anyone in their society that wants it  – without compensation – including you.  Are you running a free college?  If not, you are asserting that you deserve a right that others don’t (since others are obligated to provide it to you, but you aren’t obligated to provide it them).  You are asserting you are superior, in terms of inherent rights.

If you don’t have the obligation to uphold the right of all others, they don’t have the obligation to provide the right to you.  Such a right, is not inherent.

This is not to say you don’t have a right to free* college.  You might.  I did*.  But it wasn’t inherent.  What gave me the right to free* college was a contract.  I came to an agreement with representatives of the United States Army for which I gained the right to (and the Army gained the obligation to pay for) my free* college experience.  This wasn’t inherent or assumed.  I didn’t have a right to it until I agreed to fulfill an obligation to (providing the Army with the right to my) 8 years of military service.

There are plenty of other ways one might gain a right to not pay for college, but simply being alive isn’t one of them.  Free college isn’t an inherent right.  It is not assumed in all societies without needing to spell it out in the contract or constitution.

Free* college for all is something though.  It is an ideal.  It is something that we can set as a common goal, and strive to achieve as a society.  Man wasn’t born with a right to walk on the moon, but we banded together, pulled up our bootstraps, shared a common vision, and either directly or indirectly contributed (through paying taxes) to achieving a seemingly impossible goal.

Such lofty goals require alignment and agreement for those that would fund the initiative, as well as intelligent solutions that would reduce the cost of such a prohibitively expensive endeavour.  

Is it a worthy pursuit?  Like universal healthcare, and many other potential societal benefits, that’s a conversation for another time.

*there’s no such thing as free college (or anything that requires human labor to enjoy), but let us assume someone who claims this right means ‘the right to have someone else pay for the cost of your college’

Duke’s Response

I think Eric is onto something here.  His personal example of free* college being paid for with deferred service is a great one because it points something out that is important.  It is the notion that rights and obligations are not always fulfilled on a one to one basis both in time and resources.  Eric’s educational benefit likely does not match up hour for hour or dollar for dollar with his service to the military – such an equation is difficult to quantify.  Even if you could match up the exchange dollar for dollar or hour for hour can it account for the intrinsic value of education, the compounding benefits it provides to Eric down the road, or the benefits Eric brings to society by being a more informed and engaged (we hope) citizen?  Similarly can we calculate the sacrifices and obstacles he must overcome in fulfilling his military service?  If he were injured, or worse, in the line of duty would we still call the benefit/obligation equal?

The answer is that these risks/rewards are both implicit and explicit and we can only hope that all parties involved made an informed decision when entering into the agreement.  What I believe is most significant aspect of the agreement is the intention of both parties to fulfill the mutually beneficial obligations.

Without going into the discussion of whether college should be free, I think it is important to take a step back to consider schooling in the United States more broadly.  We live in a country that has provided “universal”, free* k-12 schooling for the last 50-100 years (the grade range and year of implementation vary from state to state, but generally it was not until the 1930s or later that high school was accessible to most of the country and not until after World War II that a majority of Americans completed high school).  What were originally one room school houses that children attended sporadically became institutions with a systematic and expanding approach to education.  

Never were schools in America free. They were funded through a variety of ways (the most common being local taxes of one form or another, more recently property taxes).  The growth of schools was driven, and continues to be driven, by a pervasive belief that in order for a person to participate in a democratic society and function in a competitive capitalist economy the individual must have a basic and common set of knowledge and skills.  This belief is coupled with an understanding that if this foundational knowledge was limited only to families who could afford to pay for it, our democracy and our economy would not be equitable.

And so in regards to schooling the right/obligation is not entirely structured as a right to schooling / an obligation to pay.  Some parents cannot afford to pay, some people do not own property and thus do not pay directly (though in theory their landlord should pay), some children are wards of the state and obviously cannot pay.  Even if a family could afford to pay and dodged their taxes, we would still claim their child should not be denied an education.  None of these people are denied public educational opportunities (though there is ample evidence that educational opportunities are not of equitable quality).  

It seems we need to frame the educational right/obligation differently.  Either it is a deferred and corresponding relationship (as with Eric’s ROTC example) where we would say that all children have the right to public education with the expectation that they will pay it back and pay it forward to other children when they become taxpaying adults.  OR we could state that all children have the right to public education and society has a collective obligation to provide it.  

The distinction is important I think.  It is a distinction between private and public responsibility.  I know Eric would say there is no difference, because the public is simply a collective of individuals, but I in the case of education there initially was a difference (though unfortunately there may not be a difference any more).  

Those initial one room school houses served a function of teaching children to read the Bible – a value collectively important to the community with no expected economic outcome for the students.  The schoolmaster had to be paid though – and these fees were a collective responsibility of the community to ensure children could participate in the primary community function of religious worship.  The expansion of schooling into a compulsory and institutional endeavor was driven by a need to acculturate immigrants into the American values system and prepare them for work in the increasingly industrial economy (If you look up Horace Mann you’ll find out about this) – it was paid for largely by the wealthy because they had a self-interest in creating a workforce that could follow directions and that had a decent command of the three “R’s” (reading, writing, and arithmetic).  

In either of these examples according to Eric’s rights/obligations model we could say that no students in these education paradigms could claim a ‘right’ to education because they had no obligation to reciprocate.  Their access to education followed a sense of moral obligation from the community, or self-interest from a portion of the community, to provide that opportunity.  

I initially want to say that if we make the right/obligation connection with education more explicit at the individual level it reduces the risk that individuals later in life will back out of their commitment to support education.  “I’ve benefited at some point from public education and so I have an obligation to support it throughout my life”.   But structuring the right/obligation as such we run the risk that if an individual does not believe they benefited from public education they will feel no obligation to support it.  This works at the high end of the socioeconomic spectrum, in which a person may have attended only private schools, or at the low end where a person has struggled to make a living and feels disenfranchised.  

What we are witnessing now in the 21st century is that education is increasingly being viewed as a private benefit.  I’ve already written more than I would like to so I won’t go into the many ways this has manifest itself in declining funding for public institutions and the rising cost of a college education.  

I agree with Eric that no one should claim schooling (K-12 or college) as a right…that does not mean I cannot claim I, and society collectively, have an obligation to support public schooling.  

In a ‘chicken or the egg’ sort of equation I am saying that it is not a an individual’s demand for an education that drive’s his or hers or society’s responsibility to provide it for others; rather it is society’s decision to be responsible for children’s education that drive’s children’s expectation that they will receive it.

 

Probably incorrect Economics

Here’s my quick-fast-and-dirty (and probably incorrect) economics 101 analysis of Sean’s proposal to subsidize the demand-side of the staples-of-life for all society, and remove the supply-side subsidies.

I know I must be missing something, but until I can find out what that is, this policy would likely not achieve its goals, in my opinion.

 

See analysis here.Controlled UBI analysis – Supply and Demand Curves – Price and Quantity

Unnatural Rights?

In an effort to define the difference between natural and contractual rights, a certain philosopher has challenged the presumption that natural, universal, or inherent rights exist at all.

I’ve similarly and inadvertently challenged my own assumption on the matter as well, in asserting You Have no Rights without corresponding obligations, and that You Deserve Nothing, if you haven’t earned it.

In the past I’ve use ‘natural’, ‘inherent’, and ‘universal’ rights interchangeably.  But in order to deeply examine this issue, I will separate their meanings based on their underlying definition.

First up: Natural Rights

For a moment, imagine you are the only person in the world, or – less depressingly – you are in the middle of wilderness with no means of interacting with other human beings.  Nothing is artificial.  You are in a State of Nature.  What are your rights?

Let’s examine the classics:

Life: While obviously nobody ever had the right to live forever (at least in our present bodies), in society we generally associated the right to Life as the right to not be murdered by anyone (or suffer lesser assaults).  Potentially, one could even argue it entails the right to call on others to help defend one’s self, but for now there is nobody else around.  In nature?  With nobody around, you certainly won’t be killed by another person, but what about wildlife?  They certainly don’t care about your right to life.  In Nature, I think anyone could accept a right to Life – which is the right to defend one’s self from threats to one’s well being.  So, rest easy fending off those bears.  Is Life a natural right?  Defined as the right to defend one’s self, certainly.  

Liberty: Can you do whatever you want in nature, and feel no remorse?  Within your abilities, yes.  Though your potential is severely limited in isolation compared to society, you can do what you are able.  Liberty can be defined as your ability to do what you want – free from restraint –  so long as it does not harm another.  It can also be viewed as the ability to choose how to expend the time we have remaining in our lives.  With no others to impact in a state of nature and nobody to restrain your free will, Liberty is a natural right.

Property: In the ‘John Locke’ sense of the term, Property means that you can appropriate yourself what you want from nature for your own benefit – so long as there is effectively as much remaining to satisfy the needs of the rest of mankind.  By yourself, in the wilderness, there are no other human needs to fulfill, so you can drink as much from the stream as you’d like, pick as many berries as you’d like, and eat whatever meat you can capture and kill.  There will be nothing immoral about feeding yourself, clothing yourself, or fashioning tools for yourself from nature to help make your life easier.  The only limitation from a spiritual standpoint would be to avoid waste, which – on your own – is more of a practical guideline than a moral one.

Property could also be defined as the right to not have what is yours taken from you by others.  Like Life, in a State of Nature, no other humans are around, but the bears that don’t respect your life probably won’t have qualms about eating your food either. In nature, your right to Property is essentially just the echoes of your former society saying, “good luck.”

I would contend that, with above conceded definitions, the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property do exist in nature, but their relevance is extremely limited.  In general, people speak of rights as something they are due from other people.  Rarely do you find the need to defend your rights from yourself.  Still, I think these natural rights are important to understand as a baseline minimum.  No human is ever born into a state of nature, but so long as they choose to stay with a society, one must understand what they are sacrificing for the benefits of that society (and what they are not).  The only right of Life and Property in nature is the right to defend them, but the right to Liberty is nearly absolute.  

But what about rights and obligations between people?  Universal Rights

Returning from the wilderness to the reality of society, one might ask, are there universal rights between humans?  For instance, is there a right and obligation to Life that universally binds people to not murder each other, at a minimum?

Before answering, let’s specify that here universal here means ‘applying to all people, in all cases, at all times.’  

Whether you want to focus on morality or legality, the answer must definitively be ‘no.’  In ancient Sparta, unhealthy babies could be murdered legally and – what was viewed at the time – morally.  It was not considered wrong or illegal in that society.  Even today, and districts controlled by the Islamic State, murdering individuals is both legal and considered righteous.  (Of course in these situations those doing the killing don’t consider it murder, but this is precisely the point)

An important thing to note here is that your personal view of what is right and wrong may be able to be applied universally for yourself.  For instance, you could sit here and condemn Spartan, Nazi, or Islamic State practices, but not everyone would agree with you.  The morality is individual, not universal.  And while it seems obvious to me that murder or theft is wrong, in order to truly explore philosophy we must accept that we could be wrong about anything at any time.  Is there something we condone today as ‘right’ that a few hundred years from now will be chalked up next to burning ‘witches’ alive in the history books?  The answer is: probably.

With seven billion people walking the earth today, many more in our past, and hopefully more in our future, we can not find a universal acceptance of right and wrong on any subject, at any time, across any geography, or even within a single society.

In this context, we cannot definitively determine any universal rights among mankind.  (Kudos, Duke/Kefer)

Does that mean we have to worry about getting murdered, enslaved, or robbed by everyone we encounter?  Inherent Rights

Now that we explored the rights of an individual in a vacuum, and the rights of all individuals in all cases, let us explorer a similar line of reasoning.

After you’ve killed a beast in the wilderness, and are harvesting it to eat, another human may stumble out of the brush.  In that instant, knowing no universal rights, you have yet to exit a State of Nature.  In that moment, the man emerging from the brush is no different than another wild animal with regards to safety and security of yourself and your possessions.  You do not know his beliefs.  Perhaps he is a cannibal.  What’s he doing here anyway?

Our ability to communicate, however, could establish some rights and obligations between two or more individuals.  The stranger in the wilderness could offer you his belt in exchange for a slab of meat, and you may accept.  Until this occurred there would be no reason to believe this exchange would be fair or moral.  There may be no universal beliefs, but in this specific case, two individuals have manifested beliefs that this specific exchange would be morally acceptable.  Presumably with nobody else affected by the trade, a micro-case of right and wrong has been created (the wrong here being the refusal of one party later refusing to uphold their end of the deal).  Of course, this subject is a large one with many aspects, the contract.

One might say, didn’t you have the ‘right’ to make that contract?  If so, doesn’t all mankind have the universal right to contract?  Of course not.  I could not possibly say that I have the right to create a contract in which I exchange one dollar for all of your worldly possessions.  The right to contract is not universal.  It requires consent.  You seek to rephrase: then you have a universal right to contract with those that consent.  But this is not correct either.  To offer a trade is simply the exercise of the natural right of Liberty.  When nobody is within your sphere of influence, your actions cannot possibly harm another.  When there are others around, a contract is simply a manifestation that the action(s) in question are viewed by affected individuals as (net) beneficial.  The agreement is a confirmation that your action does not harm the others impacted, in their own opinion.  A contract is the checkpoint from transferring your natural right to Liberty into society.  To contract is no more right then it is an  obligation – a requirement to form a society.  It is also an expression of goodwill toward one another, since the alternative would have been to proceed with your desired action without regards to the wellbeing of others involved.

So then, what of inherent rights?  Since there are no universal rights among mankind, wouldn’t there also be no inherent rights in a society?

Not so, I would say.  If we can accept that every contractual society is created for personal benefit.  Whether we agree to form a nation together or simply a single instance of exchange of goods or services – there is no doubt agreements are made to the perceived net benefit (despite obligations incurred) of all consenting parties.

To this end, one could argue that under all manners of society – unless otherwise stated in the contract – certain rights and obligations are inherent (or at all times implied).

For instance, would it be practical, prudent, or necessary to – for every agreement in the world add the phrase “and we promise not to kill each other” ?  No.  If you have reached the point of a legitimate, consensual contract, there is an understanding that both sides perceive a greater benefit gained than sacrifice they are obligating themselves to.  A contract is a manifestation that parties intend to respect the others’ well being, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered to contract in the first place.

Therefore the the terms “Don’t kill me and I won’t kill you as long as our contract exists” is implied.  To not be killed by others in your society would then be an inherent right (which would carry a corresponding obligation to not kill them).  Likewise, lesser forms of injurious assault could logically be included in these implied terms.

Therefore, the natural right to defend one’s life from external threats (‘Life’) is inherently at all times extended to encompass a right to-not-be-injured by those under contract – unless expressly stated to the contrary in the agreement itself.

A contract is a consensual limitation on one’s natural liberty.  In nature, one holds no obligations to anyone for anything.  Under contract, one specifies the obligations to another they explicitly agree to, in exchange for the perceived greater benefit.  Inherent then, in this contract, is the preservation of all remaining liberty not otherwise sacrificed under the contract.  All liberty is natural, therefore liberty not willingly sacrificed to be part of a society is inherent.

But what of property?  In nature, under no agreement with anyone, a man might expect to have to defend the fruits of his labor from anyone or anything.  Legitimate property is merely the static result of of the specific way one has chosen to expend one’s body and time – one’s Liberty and Life.  To take someone’s property then, is undisputably injurious to that person.  If it takes a man an hour of undesirable labor to feed himself for the day, and before he eats, another takes his food, the thief has effectively wrongly imprisoned the victim for an hour.  Theft of property then is undoubtedly an assault on another’s life and liberty – albeit slightly less obvious.  Therefore, relief from theft of one’s property by others you’ve reached agreement with is likewise implied, or inherent, unless otherwise stated in the contract.  One important caveat – property rights are only as inherent as the legitimacy of the property is obvious.  When their is not an agreement as to who actually owns the property, such terms would have to be spelled out in the contract to firmly establish what is inherently protected for each individual in the society.

In this sense, I think it is appropriate to assert that Life, Liberty, and Property are all inherent rights – in the contexts I’ve stated – for any people that have entered into an agreement with one another.  Every legitimate contract between individuals carries these terms, whether or not they are in writing.  If one shirks the obligations he has incurred under a legitimate contract, they then have sacrificed their rights the agreement has granted as well.  They walk through their former society as a wild beast, whose life, freedom, and possessions are no longer guaranteed to be respected by others.  

However, like the natural rights themselves, these inherent rights may also be explicitly sacrificed by a willing individual that views the rewards to exceed the injuries suffered.

There is much more to be discussed on this topic, but at present this reasoning will serve as a foundation that natural and inherent rights do exist, at least in some capacity.  We’ve discussed some of the most commonly recited examples through history here, and we’ll define a litmus test in another article to help tackle the subject should the question ever arise on other specific subjects in the future.

You Aren’t Born Free

 

Welcome to the world, little six-pound, eight-ounce human.  You picked a great time to be born, in an era when you can do or be whatever you want.  So get out there and fulfill your desires; you are free.

Except you aren’t.

Being free implies that nobody can detain your movement or control your actions.  Is this the case as you sit in your crib?  Both legally and morally, your parents or guardians constantly control your location and movement from birth.  At birth you have dramatically less control over your life than an adult plantation slave of the early 1800’s.  You aren’t born free.

Is this a tragedy?  Is this an outrage?  How dare they treat you this way?  

None of the above.  This is the natural and necessary course of life.  You are born 100% dependent on others to keep you alive, and fulfill your desires.

Freedom is the inverse of dependence.  Freedom = Independence.

As you grow and learn the ways of the world, you slowly become less and less dependent on your guardians, and as this occurs your freedom increases.  You are no longer contained in the small jail cell that is your crib at night.  You can pour your own juice.  One day you’ll even be able enjoy time with your friends without parental supervision.  You gain these micro-freedoms as you build independence – as you insure your own sleep safety, not spill the juice, and manage not to seriously injure yourself for a period of a few hours.

Independence = Ability

One day, if done correctly, your guardians will have worked themselves out of a job.  They will have developed your ability to survive and thrive in the world to the point where you no longer depend on them for anything.  This is the point where you could sever all lines of support your parents still provide and thrive on your own in the world.  

If you are lucky you’ve been developed to this point well in advance of moving out and going at it alone.  Even if you don’t sever the support, the fact that could at any time is they key factor in determining your level of freedom.  

If you are unlucky, the inverse could also be true.  You may be granted legal freedom or you may have actual parental support severed before you can provide for yourself.  If this occurs in a society of mutual welfare, you may be lucky enough to survive.  The parental-surrogate-support provided by the state or some other benefactor may keep you alive in spite of yourself.  However, the fact that you do not have the ability to provide for yourself necessarily means you still have not transcended above the freedom of a child.  Any freedom you enjoy will depend on the permission of those you depend on.  Revocable permission is not freedom..  

In reality there is no solid line where one crosses from dependence to freedom.  Independence is analogous to strength in terms of a characteristic.  That is, you will never be weaker and more dependent than the day you were born.  Naturally, surviving childhood necessarily builds a level of strength and independence in everyone.  Strength and Independence in an individual cannot be measured by one metric or test, but can only be gauged by a composite of infinite subcomponents (bench press, leg press, squats, etc).  You could be very strong or very independent in one area, and less so in another area.  Nobody is ever 100% strong or 100% independent… only stronger or weaker, more dependent or less dependent.  There is no upper limit, but higher levels of ability get exponentially harder to achieve.  The strongest and most independent in the world must work hard daily just to maintain their ability levels, let alone improve them.  What you are able to do with your ability (strength or independence) can be leveraged with technology and tools you have at your disposal if properly utilized.  These tools could be lifting straps, hand trucks, and hydraulic lifts for strength, to name a few.  For independence, these assets can simply be summed up as capital, be it material, financial, or social in nature.

In this sense it never makes sense to demand independence or freedom, any more than it does to demand strength.  You can’t, in fact.  In reality, such demands are the plea of a child to their parents for permission to stay up late and play video games.  You may convince your welfare provider to grant such a temporary permission, and if so you probably will feel happiness at the victory.  But if you require permission to get what you want in life, you knowingly place the fate of your happiness in the hands of others, subject to revocation without notice, consent, or compensation.

Both strength and independence are internal characteristics that are enhanced as a result of conscious self-improvement efforts.  Either could be developed inadvertently by virtue of working in an occupation that develops these as a side effect.  You can also improve either of these characteristics in yourself more effectively by learning techniques to maximize the results of your efforts.  But strength cannot be gifted or granted.  In the end it must be earned by each individual.  The best you can do to help others to improve is to show them the way to improve themselves the best they know how and coach them along the way.  You can give a man a fish, hand-truck, or cold-hard-cash to help them temporarily, but unless you teach a man to fish, the benefits of your intentions will never be realized.

At the end of our natural lives our physical strength as well as our independence naturally dwindles in a reversal of our childhood.  Therefore it is best for us to develop strong social bonds with those we are bound to one day depend on (assuming you don’t choose to go out in a blaze of glory instead).

 

Duke’s Response

There are some initial premises in which I agree with Eric, but for the most part adamantly disagree with Eric’s subsequent logic and conclusion on the subject of freedom, independence, and ability.  My response will include two parts: Part One – Interdependence NOT Independence and Part Two – Independence from Coercion

Part One – Interdependence not Independence

Eric has provided the example of a child, initially dependent on others for everything, slowly acquiring abilities from others and eventually becoming a person not reliant on others and thus free.  This is a conception of learning that has been called “the banking model” of education.  It’s premise is that knowledge is a set of facts or skills that can be acquired and accumulated through transmission of a knower (in this case parents) to a receiver (the child).   As much as this may seem like an accurate conception of how knowledge is passed, it is a misunderstanding of how learning occurs.  

Learning occurs when a person positively interacts with their environment to resolve or expand their conception of that environment.  To explain: a child is given a ball by a parent to roll on the floor.  The child might bang the ball against the floor, might place the ball in his/her mouth, might sit on it, etc., any number of possibilities except for what the parent would like which is to learn to roll the ball.  The child is learning throughout this process various properties of the ball.  The properties may not be in the verbal descriptions we might provide, but in a physical and interactive sense as the ball responds to a child’s manipulation the child responds to the behaviors of the ball.  Significant to this experience is that prior to the encounter the child did not have a conception of “ballness” – each interaction it has with the ball changes the brain’s perception of it.  

What about the parent trying to teach the child to roll the ball?  The parent demonstrates over and over again the ball rolling property, but the child seems to to everything else with the ball except roll it.  The parent’s encouragement and/or frustration become part of the child’s environment.  Much like the child manipulates and responds to the ball, the child may also manipulate or respond to the parent.  The culmination of the event might be that the child learns that the motion of ball rolling results in a burst of happiness from the parent; again altering their conception of ballness, rolling, their parents, most importantly their own powers or agency to affect the environment.

What the hell does this have to do with freedom/independence/ability?  My point from this illustration is to make several points 1) learning, growth, and discovery is interactive.  A person cannot just be told that balls will roll – they need an experiential base for which to understand the meaning of the terms.  2) Abilities such a ball rolling, shoe tying, food cooking, car driving, etc. cannot be transmitted from one person to another simply by describing or showing how they are done – the learner must engage the activity in practice and experimentation (this might be the part most closely related to when Eric says “it must be earned by each individual”).  Finally and most important 3) learning is social.  Its value and meaning is determined in relationship with others.   This is how ideas are analyzed, shaped, challenged, innovated.  Even a person reading a book is interacting with their personal store of prior social/experiential knowledge and imagining how the information in the book is reframing, reorganizing their perception of future activity.  

In its very essence learning is not an activity of independence.  Learning is an activity of interdependence. Once learning occurs the result is not independence.  A child might no longer be dependent to have a parent provide food or shelter once a certain number of learning experiences have occurred, but the child is no less dependent on social interaction for their continued existence.  What has been taught by the parents continues to the inhabit and shape their life experience and is modified by all future experiences.  

Eric’s description of a fully independent person sounds like Robinson Crusoe, living on a desert island, in total command of the survival skills necessary to survive.  Such a person is still bound to the conventions of their mind in which they were raised – whether he wants it to or not, Robinson sees the world not just through his own eyes, but through the eyes of all the people who have taught him language, and values, and understanding.  And as time passes, perhaps Robinson will learn about his natural environment, but his ability to develop and hone new thoughts and ideas will become stagnated.  

What is wrong with Eric’s idealization of Robinson Crusoe is that it a mischaracterization of humankind.  We have never lived in isolation -but always in social groups from the small tribe to the largest city.  The pinnacle and goal of human existence is not independence – it is fully submerged interdependence.  All of the great philosophies I have encountered attest to this understanding.  

Part Two  – Independence from Coercion

Eric has stated “Independence=Ability”, “Independence is analogous to strength”, he then goes on to say, “the fact that you do not have the ability to provide for yourself necessarily means you still have not transcended above the freedom of a child.”  These propositions are so problematic I don’t know where to start.

Let’s looks at some examples.  If someone who inherits a trust fund at age 18, meaning they are able to “provide” for themselves according to Eric’s standards, what abilities has this person demonstrated.  They are “independent” in Eric’s terms but they may or may not be able to wipe their own behind.  In such a scenario I am failing to see how ability=independence and thus something about Eric’s proposition is not lining up.  I can envision Eric saying “well this person isn’t really independent because they are dependent on a trust fund and have no abilities to provide for themselves”  Interesting.  Let’s look at the counter example.  Robinson lives on a island and grows his own food and provides for all his own needs through his survival skills.  A hurricane comes and wipes away all life and vegetation on the island and there are not enough fish in the water to sustain Robinson.  His abilities have not changed, but Robinson sure doesn’t seem independent any more according to Eric’s standards. Or if Robinson was taken aboard a ship off the island and held prisoner, he still maintains his abilities to provide for himself but does not seem independent. Ability does not equal independence.

I do not define independence in terms of ability (as outlined in Part 1) but would rather define independence as a state in which one is free from coercion, force, and undue influence by others.  This is the type of independence on which our American society was established – that a people should not be subject to the whims of others (no matter how ‘strong’ they are) but should be able to self-determine their own course.  This sentiment of independence applies regardless of strength, it is why we a society oppose unwarranted invasions at a national level or oppose bullying at the individual level.  

Eric describes independence as taking steps away from being reliant on others.  I think self-reliance is an admirable quality and one worthy of pursuit, but I do not think that independence can be achieved solely through self-reliance.  The only way to gain freedom from the tyranny of coalesced power (whether that be a gang of thieves, a military, a financial institution, or a government) is by banning together with other people in a mutually respective and democratic body.  So to be independent by gradually moving toward self-reliance is not enough, you must work towards cooperation and depend upon others to safeguard against coercive powers. An individual against such forces will have no freedom.

What are my responsibilities?

A very rich and very hypothetical man recently lent me a fully-loaded Tesla Model S P90D, while he went to travel abroad.

I still hypothetically have it today.

He told me I didn’t owe him a fee for the use of the vehicle – he simply didn’t want to see it go to waste, until he needed it again.

I have already established I’ve done nothing to deserve the vehicle, and therefore don’t deserve to keep it when it’s owner returns.

Is that the end of it then?

No.

I do have responsibilities, even though I don’t need to pay the owner to borrow the vehicle.  Explicitly, I need to take care of the vehicle.  I need to return it when called upon.

Implicitly, I need to make sure the vehicle doesn’t go to waste.  After all, this was the reason my benefactor said he lent me the vehicle.  Therefore, when possible, I should give people a ride.  The vehicle is my responsibility, so I can’t just give it to another and hope it is returned in a good condition.  However, I can, when feasible, give those in need a ride to their destinations.  I can’t give everyone in the world a ride.  I can’t even give one person a ride at all times.  But, when doing so would be efficient and practical, I should not be greedy with my temporary gift.  The desire of the rich man was not to help me specifically, but that the vehicle would just help – in general – without any major personal cost to himself.

We cannot help everyone.  We can not even help one person 100% of the time.  But when there is an opportunity to be done so efficiently, it would be right to use the gifts we have undeservedly received to help more than just ourselves. 

 

What do I deserve?

A wise man once asked me, “Do people that are unable to work (even if they are willing) deserve a lower standard of living?”

And he followed his question with “For the children of people who can’t find work deserve a lower standard of living?”

Before I answer, let me say this:

—-

A fully-loaded Tesla Model S P90D is probably the best car man has ever created (at least in a production capacity).  I’d really like have one.  They are prohibitively expensive for a person of my income though, so instead I will be confined to simply appreciate the beauty of their engineering.  That is, until…

One day, a rich man approached me and said “I’m leaving the country for awhile, but I don’t want my favorite car to go to waste.  Would you like to borrow my Tesla while I’m gone?  I won’t charge you anything, all I ask is that you take good care of it, and give it back without complaint when I return.”

“Uhhh…yeah!”

“Ok, I should be gone for a few years, but I may be gone longer, or may return sooner.  There is no way to tell, at present.  The only thing I know for certain is that I will return one day, and need my vehicle back.”

“Uhhh………………yeah!”

Does it matter when the rich man returns to reclaim his vehicle?  If he returns tomorrow, have I been wronged?  If I wash and wax the car daily, should I get to keep it after he returns?  Would it be reasonable and prudent to assume I’ll have the car forever?  When the car is reclaimed, if I make every reasonable effort to afford my own, do I deserve the shame of driving a piddly Ford Fiesta?  Have I been wronged?  

Or should I always be mentally prepared to return the vehicle?  Should I use my access to such a vehicle without charge to save the money I’d otherwise need to spend, so that when the bell tolls, I have a warchest to better handle my situation than I otherwise would have been, had the vehicle never been lent to me?

—

My Answer: No

No, they do not deserve a lower standard of living.  No, they do not deserve a higher standard of living.  Nobody deserves anything.

Was the Tesla a metaphor for a “good” job? Was it a metaphor for a “better” standard of living?  The Tesla was a metaphor for life itself.  As with the car, not a single one of us did anything to deserve being alive in the first place.  Therefore we don’t deserve to be alive.  We are simply lucky to be alive.

When the rich man lent me his Tesla, without charge, did I deserve the heated steering wheel option?  What a ridiculous question.  So too, is it impossible to deserve anything in life if we don’t deserve life itself.

Do not twist my words.  I have not said that we all deserve to die.  I did not deserve to return the Tesla to it’s owner – it was simply a term of the benevolent deal I undeservedly received.  But I know it will happen someday, though I know not which.  Best to use my good fortune to prepare for such a day.  And, best to take the best of care of my temporary gift, so that my benefactor might be impressed with how I have treated his benevolence, and perhaps reward me again one day with something beyond my grasp.

If he does not, shall I be indignent?  No, I should always be thankful for the awesome opportunity.

Do I Really Own My Land?

Eminent domain is simply defined as, “The taking of private property for public use with compensation. ” This is consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause,” which states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” However, defining “taking,”  “public use” and “compensation” is a point of contention in the courts. To get the full breadth of the issue one must go beyond just eminent domain and look at all government takings, and see how they fit together.

Every government, from small municipality to the Federal government, will necessarily need to take property at some point. Much of it goes completely unnoticed, like an underground cable for electricity or TV or the planes that fly overhead. It becomes trickier when the EPA finds an endangered beetle on someone’s farm, a water front house is now in no-man’s-land because of an upstream hydroelectric dam or a generational family home happens to sit where a nice new outdoor mall is slated to go up.

I am providing only the legal background of the issue as it now stands in the United States. Bear with me as it gets a bit wonky. Ideas, opinions and fixes will be left to the great minds of “The Duke of Diamonds.”

What is a taking?

There are two types of takings: 1) An actual physical invasion, like a highway through someone’s property  2) A regulatory scheme that diminishes the potential uses or value of property. The first type of taking is easier to conceptualize and is easier dealt with in the courts. In Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., a new regulation required tenement housing to install cable TV. 458 U.S. 419 (1982). This required a cable wire to go on the roof of the buildings, which the United States Supreme Court (herein referred to as SCOTUS) stated the City would need to provide compensation for the occupied land. A physical occupation of the land will always be considered a taking and will always require compensation, no matter how legitimate the State’s interest or how small the occupation is.

A regulatory taking is more fact specific and requires an ad hoc inquiry. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York illustrates a situation that is not considered a regulatory taking. 438 U.S. 104 (1979). The case was about New York’s famous Grand Central Station in downtown Manhattan. Under the City’s Historic Preservation law the station was designated a Historic Landmark which imposed two rules upon the owners: 1)  Owners must maintain the structure in good repair; and 2) any modifications must be run through the city – meaning the City got to choose if they were to allow a low lying building like Penn Central to build up like a high rise. In return, the buildings’ owners were allowed to transfer (read: sell) their would-be building rights to adjacent lots.

Penn Central, the building’s owner, submitted two separate plans to the City to build a 52 or 55-story office building on top of the existing 10-story Grand Central Station structure. Both plans were denied.  Penn Central sued, arguing the designation had robbed the parcel of the super adjacent airspace and had significantly diminished the value of the property, thus the law should be struck or compensation should be given. SCOTUS disagreed, holding the scheme did not amount to a taking. SCOTUS relied on a few different points in making their decision: 1) governments may execute laws or programs that adversely affect the value of property: one example being real property taxes, id. at 124-25; 2) Penn Central had adequate value left in its ability to transfer its air rights; 3) not ALL the air rights were taken as only a 50+-story building had been denied, Penn Central had not requested any other design from the city;  4) Penn Central still could realize a reasonable rate of return given that it could still use the property for the same use as the preceding 65 years.

Conversely, in Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, the Court found that a regulatory scheme can amount to a taking. 505 U.S. 1003, (1992). In this case, the Plaintiff bought two beach front parcels in South Carolina with the intent to build two single family homes.  Shortly thereafter, South Carolina passed the Beach Front Management Act which prohibited Lucas and others from building anything on beach front property immediately adjacent to sand dunes. The lots next to Lucas’ lots had already been built on, and nothing prior to the passage of the Act in 1988 would have prohibited Lucas from building on his land. There was no opportunity for a variance to be granted and the Act provided no compensation for affected land. Lucas sued, claiming the land was rendered virtually worthless by the law and compensation should be given.

SCOTUS first recognized that a taking, as it pertained to the Fifth Amendment, did not need to be an actual physical ouster in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). The Court stated, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” Id. Over the next 70+ years the Court declined to a give black letter test to determine the meaning of “too far.” Instead they went on a case-by-case basis.  The Court clarified itself in Lucas by explaining regulations that prohibit all economically beneficial use of land should be treated the same as a permanent physical occupation and a state may only resist compensation if the owner bought the land subject to said regulation. Lucas at 1005. “When the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good…he has suffered a taking.” Id..

Can the government take anything for any reason?

To avoid a “pay for play” conditional permitting scheme, even if a property has not been made totally economically without value, a regulatory taking can be deemed unconstitutional. In cases where the granting of a benefit (like a building permit) is conditioned on the relinquishment of property (like requiring a bike path) SCOTUS has devised a fact-based two part test to determine if the regulatory scheme is unconstitutional. First, the regulation must advance a legitimate state interest, second, a nexus must exist between the taking and the legitimate interest the government is trying to promote. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 375, (1994).

Furthermore, there is a restriction that the property must be used for “public use.” Recently, public use  gets defined as the very broad “public purpose.” See generally, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, (2005).

In the landmark case, Kelo, several Connecticut waterfront homeowners refused to sell when the City of New London devised a massive redevelopment scheme for the economically downtrodden town. The center point was a new Pfizer HQ, two marinas, a beach board walk, mixed use condo/storefronts and a new state park along the water. The City confiscated the properties under its eminent domain powers and paid the owners fair market value for the properties. The homeowners sued, claiming that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not allow a state to confiscate property for private use.

The Court begins its analysis by making it clear that a state may not take from property owner A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even if A is paid just compensation. Thus, the City would be forbidden from taking the plaintiffs’ land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. Kelo at 477, (citing Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245.) Further, the City cannot take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. Kelo at 477-78.

The Court defines the term “public purpose” broadly and gives great deference to the state legislatures as to what it should mean. “When the legislature’s purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our cases make clear that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings. . .are not to be carried out in the federal courts.” Id. at 488. The Court went on to state it is not who ends up with the land but the overarching purpose behind the taking: “It is only the taking’s purpose, and not its mechanics that matters in determining public use.” Id. at 481. At a minimum, Kelo gives us a picture that economical development is a public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.

The cases we have looked at all involve real property, though the Amendment applies equally to personal property. “Nothing in the text or history of the Takings Clause, or our precedents, suggests that the rule is any different when it comes to appropriation of personal property. The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.”

Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 2419, 2426, (2015).

Duke? Diamond? Your thoughts please.

 

Duke’s “Take”:

This is a nice analysis and was very educational for me.  It’s interesting to me to learn about how courts try to systematize an application of values.  For example, it seems that the Penn Central case and in the Lucas case that the law treats property as utilitarian transaction in which cost/benefit can only be measured by dollars.  It seems that it is the job of the competing parties to calculate costs/benefits of a given attribute.  But this seems to contradict Kelo v. New London case in which yes there is a calculation for just compensation, but there is a more abstract value being applied when the purpose of the taking is emphasized.  Here the court seems to be stating that any purpose, which has been determined by the state (democratically we hope), is enforceable so long as some sort of rationale is provided.  “Empirical debates over the wisdom of takings are not to be carried out in federal courts” leaves me to believe that they are to take place in an assembly or legislature, or perhaps in as a ballot measure. 

The most important take away from this legal overview, for me, has got to be that private property is private only at the whim of the state.  Interesting indeed.

 

Diamond’s “Take”:

Imminent Domination?

In many cases Right and Wrong jump our as ‘gut’ feelings, and the logic to justify these feelings is later sought out.  In the case of eminent domain, right and wrong are not so inherently clear…

While I’m typically dismissive of precedents in the determination of right and wrong (legalized murder for practicing witchcraft was once a precedent, as was slavery), this is an important study for those within the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam.  Why?

A bear or lion will not care if a deer you are about to eat is your property.  There is no right and wrong in between man and nature.  Rights and Obligations (at least those relevant to discussion) are created by agreement between informed and consenting people.

In the United States (or any democratically controlled nation) the extent to which one privately owns property is defined by the constitution, which is further interpreted by the Supreme Court when the meaning of its text is in doubt.

Therefore, until such time as the people demand the constitution be amended, what the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter is, technically, right for U.S. citizens (assuming you do not take issue with birthright citizenship).  I say this with the caveat that nothing I could find in this paper clearly flung mud on the constitution.  If SCOTUS ruled in a way that was clearly in opposition to the constitution because they thought it made sense to bend it for present day purposes I would disagree – this is what the amendment process is for.

Seeing no overwhelming movement to reform constitutionally recognized government takings, one could generally say we tacitly agree to present day policy.

Despite how comprehensive and clear this short dissertation was, though, we can still see consistent tepidness of the supreme legal authority of the land to firmly define what can and can’t be done, to reiterate Duke’s point: “private property is only private at the whim of the state.”

We’ve seen the issues highlighted in this dissertation and various high profile cases over the years.  I would be very interested in hearing suggestions to concretely spell right and wrong in an manner which people would agree to, instead of the current practice of whatever-seems-to-be-the-prevailing-practice-of-the-time.

Would a better practice be to hold public referendums approving proposed uses of eminent domain?  What other ideas could be viable?

Don’t hold the door

Has anyone ever been more than a few paces ahead of you, walked through the doorway you planned to, noticed you walking their way in the distance, and held the door for you?

Of course this situation has occurred to you… on both ends of the equation.

Holding the door open for someone is a polite and friendly gesture between fellow humans, but it’s impacts can be devastating.  Founded in good intention, holding the door can make little sense or even be counter-productive when examined under greater scrutiny.

Why is holding the door open so popular?  It takes little effort on behalf of the giver, but gives the receiver a message “hey, we’re all in it together, wading through this big messy thing called life.”  Right?  It is a nonverbal exchange of pleasantries.

But what happens when you aren’t immediately behind the door holder?  The exchange of common humanity that should have taken one to two seconds becomes an awkward standoff as you approach from ten paces out, nine, eight…

Your eyes connect and a mutual recognition of the mistake has been made.  Seven…

“This wasn’t worth it.  I have places to be.”  Six…

“I don’t even mind opening the door for myself.  Literally makes no difference to me at all.  This was never about saving me the motion of opening the door, so much as an excuse to exchange a greeting with someone.”  Five…

“Do I just give up and let go?  That would make me look like more of a jerk than if I hadn’t held the door in the first place.  Why did I do this?”  Four…

“All I wanted to do is walk at my own pace, but now I’m a jerk for making this ‘kind-hearted’ soul wait for me.  I’m minding my own business, but somehow inconveniencing someone ahead of me that I don’t even know.  Screw it, I’ll just run a few paces to end this terrible situation.  I hope I don’t spill my coffee all over me.”  THREE-TWO-ONE “…I spilled my coffee all over me”

“Thanks.”

“You’re welcome.”

Someone once said they only true act of good is doing something with good intentions.  Essentially, this philosophy writes a blank check to ignorance.  Even if your actions hurt the very people you are trying to help, if you had charitable intentions and a reasonable expectation your actions would have the desired effects, you can sleep easy at night.  Since nobody can predict the future, I think there might be something to this philosophy.

That’s why it’s my duty to raise awareness.  Check the following distance before deciding to hold the door.  Your actions may have the opposite effect of your desired impact without proper evaluation.  When in doubt, send the same recognition by a simple ‘extra push’ of the door so it stays open another second or two, and move on.  Has having the door held open for you ever made your day?  Made your hour?  Even made you happy for an entire minute?

Doing charity is good, but the outcomes of your actions are your responsibility.  Take time to think them through, while I find my Tide-stick.

Legal Review

Law a in a democratic society supposedly reflect the values of the time.  But as we all know, society’s values change over time.  Should old laws be required to undergo a relevance review?

One arbitrary take that might be easy to support is that all laws have a set or maximum expiration date (say, 20 years), unless they are reaffirmed by the legislature at that time.  This would periodically wipe off the books irrelvant laws like the fact that cars can’t be sold on Sundays in Pennsylvania.

But a people’s government could increase transparency and eliminate the arbitrary parity between current values and old laws by instituting a perpetual vote.  That is, technology has made readily available the ability to change votes from a static point in time to a dynamically evolving process.

What if every current laws was posted online with a list of every legislatures current vote on the matter?  At any time Congressman Joe Snuffy could log on to his legislature account and flip the toggle switch from yay to nay.  In the process of a newly elected legislator taking office, he or she would have to update their support for every law.  At any time new information is discovered or the values of society change, lawmakers could swing their vote in one direction or another.  If support ever fell below the required margin, the law would go dormant until it regained support or until its support fell to zero and it automatically dropped off the list of current laws.

This would hold current lawmakers accountable for laws they didn’t pass, but only they have the power to revoke.  Whether sloth, or fear, or corruption, or some other reason, too many of these obsolete laws allow lawmakers of the past to continue to exert unnecessary influence on the people of today.

Of course changes of this nature would probably require changes to our constitution itself.  Speaking of old laws that could benefit from a relevance review…