Discount sale?
What would happen if we treated our individual rights as commodities? If we broke freedom and democracy down into their constituent elements (like the right to privacy, right to free speech, etc.), then how much would each one be worth to you? What would you trade it for? It would be interesting to see an online game, or an extension of EBay, where you could trade away rights that you think you'll never need. For example, if I don't ever think or say anything outrageous, maybe I'd like to sell my right to free speech for a trip to Europe...or some new home furnishings.
Labels: democracy, economics, economy, free speech, freedom
posted by Unknown @ 4:02 pm
5 comments
5 Comments:
Okay, I'll bite...again. So I'm Big Corp, Inc. I'll buy all my employees' rights to trial by jury (Seventh Amendment in case you're scoring at home). Then, I'll screw them over (like Walmart requiring people to work off the clock--a class action case just tried in your state). See how this may be a problem?
Oh, I'm not actually proposing that we sell off our rights. I'm just proposing that we think about it. Because maybe if we understood the cash value of our freedom, and all that constitutes it, we'd be less cavalier about giving it up for a chimera.
Adam Smith said that society couldn't be stable unless power was distributed evenly. In Soviet Russia, the power was all swept up by the government, making it the worst monopoly of all -- they did that by tricking people into thinking money was power, when really, individual freedom is power.
In the US today, we're being asked to trade rights for 'security.' Job security, personal security, or whatever. But, that's oxymoronic (almost the right use of the word, I think), since security stems from a balance of power (on all levels). Giving up our rights for any reason leads to an imbalance.
It's like pushing a pendulum farther and farther out. Eventually, it's going to swing back; judging from how far we've pushed it out now, the oscillations are going to be something fierce.
I also was thinking about my proposed simulation game. People learn to fly with flight simulators, soldiers use war simulators. How about schools using simulators that show (based on historical data from throughout the ages) what happens when you do give up some of your freedom?
At each trade-off, some subset of people will get an immediate pay-off (like when you slap on steel tarriffs -- producers of steel who can't otherwise compete will benefit in the short-term), and those are usually the most vocal people. But that illusory benefit comes at the expense of others -- we take away the right of other people to buy steel from whomever they want.
This way of doing things can last awhile as those wanting the power (or tarriffs, or right to wire-tap, or right to not look at boobs on tv) are so shrill, and the people whose rights they're trampling on are disparate, disorganized groups.
Politicians (or people in general) find power the most valuable commodity of all -- once someone has had a taste of power, I hear it's like crack. And to give themselves the illusion that they're powerful, they'll do anything -- they'll take away my rights and give them to someone else, just because they can.
But trying to keep power is like trying to hold a handful of water. Exerting power over our own actions is hard enough -- trying to exert it over others is even harder. And the more you take on, the more likely you are to stumble and throw it all up in the air.
That's why I think if we started looking at certain rights as commodities, we'd be less tolerant of anyone stealing them. For example, if someone steals my car, I'm angry. Now imagine if the thief said he did it for my own benefit: "That car had too much HP for you. You'd crash it for sure. I'm just protecting you from yourself."
Well, we need to value our rights as much as we do our cars.
I should probably read this over...but now I need to go to a meeting, so I'll let it stay in all its repetitive, wordy glory.
I should clarify that in my above comment, steel tarriffs of course don't take away our right to buy steel from whomever we want, but rather, the right to buy it at what would have been its true market value.
Also, I just was talking to my dad. He said that people will give up anything in exchange for security -- and that liberal governments often don't understand this.
As an example, he said that after WWI, the Weimar Republic became quite lenient on crime and, coupled with inflation, they paved the way for Hitler, who dangled security (personal and financial) to his voters in exchange for their giving up their freedom.
Dad said that another perfect illustration is Baghdad, where the US somehow didn't understand that a person in Baghdad would value his own security over anything.
Jemison, actually, I just realized that your point about Walmart buying up their employees' right to trial by jury has pretty much already happened (though I don't think with Walmart). Isn't that called arbitration? I think I read in the WSJ that some companies force employees to sign an agreement that they won't take any suit to a jury, but to an arbitrator, who may or may not be appointed by the company's board of directors.
Because our courts are so full of drug cases, this is becoming more common...just because waiting for a real trial could take ages.
Of course, I'll have to look this up to confirm it.
Interesting, thought-provoking blog and responses.
My fear is that if schools tried to teach loss of freedom simulations, they'd be criticized of pushing a liberal agenda or being un-patriotic or both.
Post a Comment
<< Home