Part 1: The roots of Freedom and Power
In his Teaching Company course, “The Wisdom of History,” Professor Fears contends, “’power’ is a universal, but ‘freedom’ is not,” and he illustrates how history is shaped largely by the power and decisions of great men. However, I maintain that desire for freedom is also universal just as is desire for power, for both issue from common fundamental needs and motivations of humans. Unfortunately, “freedom” and “power” are highly abstract terms that obscure the essential human motivations they are intended to represent.
I will also argue that though freedom is a universal desire it is not necessarily the prevailing one, because many, if not most, humans will elect security over freedom when confronted with fear. Yet, the desire for freedom, as with power (or control) is ingrained into the nature of every human at birth, thus omnipresent and enduring.
These two motivations, both freedom and power, derive largely from two fundamental desires that can be expressed simply as:
1. “I want my way” (Exemplified as the desire for freedom, power and control)
2. “I must please others” (Exemplified by the desire to belong, to be loved, be protected, be admired, share, collaborate, etc.)
These are universal desires, universal motivations. “I want my way” represents the desire for the freedom to express ones individuality, as well as to control. Some will seek fruition of goals and desires through attainment of competencies and independence (agencies of freedom); others by emphasizing control over others – i.e. power. “I must please others” expresses our true dependency on others for fulfilling our many needs and wants, as well as recognition that by belonging to a group one might access its collective power.
It can readily be seen that these two desires (wanting my way and pleasing others) are conflicting motivations, and therein lays the human dilemma. At different times one or the other will predominate, both in an individual and a group. The desire for freedom derives from the motivation to have ones way. The desire for power derives from both 1 and 2, above, – to possess the ability, the competencies, to have ones way and the use of others to achieve goals and fulfill needs and wants.
A key point is that the desire for power is not separate from the desire for freedom. Both derive from “I want my way.” We are a needing, wanting creature that seeks all of the goals described in Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs.” We want our biological needs satisfied, to feel safe, to feel in control, to belong to a group, to be loved and admired. We want self-esteem. We want to actualize our potentialities, and to actualize values external to self, such as beauty and human betterment. We want to find meaning in our lives by actualizing such higher values as compassion, love, knowledge and spiritual insight. Freedom facilitates these goals, as does power. Both are supported through development of competencies, creativity, character, and the ability to collaborate with others. Both power and freedom can be exemplified in dramatically different personalities, such as Hitler and Gandhi, men with very different visions of the use of power and freedom. I see all the events of history as deriving from the common inclinations of individuals operating as a general causal force, as well as the decisions of great men.
The conjunction of power and freedom was exemplified in the Russian leader, Yeltzin, as described by Andre Illarionov, former Chief economic advisor to Putin, and now with the Cato Institute, “Yeltsin needed power to use it for Russia. It was as if there was nothing he wasn't willing to do for the country. In striving for its freedom and prosperity, he performed great feats and made tragic mistakes. He clung to power and then surrendered it for Russia. He pulled the country out of communism, out of empire and out of it’s past -- for the future. He pushed it forward, toward civilization, openness and freedom. … The choice was made and Putin was given everything: power, resources, emotional support, and so on. Most of all, he was given one important and heartfelt command: "Take care of Russia … but initial doubts eventually turned to questions, and these questions ultimately turned into objections. Yeltsin reacted painfully to the betrayal, not of himself, but of Russia … All that had been done in those years, in the course of an immense struggle that claimed so many victims, was lost. Everything created by Yeltsin in the name of Russian freedom has been systematically and methodically destroyed.”
Motivations are not entities [meaning having separate and distinct existence]. The “social need” is influenced by the need for safety, as well as belonging, to be loved and esteemed, and the fulfillment of ones potentialities. Self-esteem partly depends on the confirmation supplied by being esteemed. It is also legitimized by competencies, and competencies are an important factor in acquiring power.
Both desires, “wanting ones way” and “pleasing others,” are forces, in that both individual humans and humanity are impelled from their nature to survive through goal-directed behavior, some predominantly through competencies that support their individual freedom and achievements, others through power over events and subordinates, and still others through collaboration. Pleasing others, that aims at achieving acceptance and respect, is partly at odds with wanting ones way, as it commonly displeases others. Pleasing others can satisfy social needs, as well as serve the need for influence (power) over others, or power with others to achieve common goals through collaboration. Keep in mind that “power” is not, per se, a negative term, as it simply means the ability to achieve goals.
However, the apparent conflict between “wanting ones way,” and “wanting to please others,” can be mitigated, and for a few completely resolved, if one gradually realizes that we do not have to have our way, and we do not have to please others, though we may prefer both. One noted psychologist defined maturity, as the extent to which we can accept “prefer” over “must”. A very, very few may have escaped both urges, as exemplified by a statement attributed to the seer, Krisnamurti, “I don’t care what happens to me,” -- a total escape from the demands of the ego.
The motivation of one individual (such as power for Hitler) cannot be ascribed to an entire population their leadership. More likely Hitler’s public sought security due to the universal emotion of fear that the times imposed on them. Hitler capitalized on multiple human motives, such as security, belonging, fear, pride – virtually the entire range of Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Motivations.”
The events and persons of history show that conflict reigns, because the motivations of Maslow’s hierarchy generates conflict in innumerable ways. We want our way as to riches, control, self expression, love, and meaningful existence. But we can steal riches, or we can choose to collaborate in their achievement. We can control events through willing collaboration with others, or through the coercive power of fear. We might achieve sexual satisfaction through enticement, or even rape; or through gentleness, skill and high character. Grand visions may be achieved through impeccable morality (Gandhi), Machiavellian strategies (Stalin), or a combination of both (Roosevelt and Churchill).
The values and motivations of a powerful leader do not redound to the individuals in his nation. The examples of power depicted in history derive from the dominance of great men. This does not mean that power is the predominate motive among their people; rather that power can prevail over people. Mainly this is achieved through fear. The desire for freedom is strong in all humans, but this desire can be subdued by fear and insecurity, as described by the psychologist Eric Fromm in Escape From Freedom.
Power for some means power over others. But with some power means the ability to control events so that one can achieve constructive values of material wealth, adventure, honor, pleasure, love in all its forms, knowledge and understanding, and personal and national security – for all.
I wonder if Professor Fears sees freedom and power as discrete entities due to their linguistic convenience. They are useful abstractions. However, the convenience and simplification offered by such terminology can sometimes occlude investigation of the deeper motivations that underlie both power and freedom.
Individual power predominantly derives from competency, character, and imagination. But collective power aggregates from the power of the people, and also in institutionalizing effective forms of collaboration and constructive order that does not interfere with liberty. Power also derives from ideas that are shared widely within a community, such as scholars or inventors, and a state. There is a sort of ecology of ideas, ideas that take root in individual minds and are placed into practice, or function synergistically with other ideas. We can see this tangibly in technological advancement where solutions, such as in energy, employ the minds and ideas from a number of disciplines.
Ideas also have an evolutionary character. The most fitting ideas tend to survive, the weak to wither. Some ideas are nourished by other ideas so that survival is assured only through collaboration with other ideas. The solar cell would not be competitive except for the blending of advances in computing, manufacturing processes that can create very thin films, and film chemistry. Even biological ideas, such as the biological mechanisms underlying photosynthesis promise to bring greater efficiency in the absorbtion of sunlight and translation into energy.
If we examine all of these sources of power we can see that it is unlimited. There are no boundaries to the creative power of imagination, or to collaboration, or to the synthesis of different forms of power, or to the multifarious applications of power to the purposes of mankind. We can say, even, that the universe provides unlimited potential.
Dr. Fears contends that power is a universal, but freedom is not. His examples, masterfully presented, would appear to prove this is so. However, I would offer that his examples demonstrate that power is the preferred and indispensable mechanism of dominating leaders, not of their people, and that such power -- limited largely to the leader’s lifespan -- obscures, but does not change the more enduring, and omnipresent, desire of all humans for freedom.
It is of vital importance to not belittle the significance of freedom in the hearts and minds of people everywhere. The universal desire for freedom incorporates the ideals of individual rights and democracy, whereas the desire for power over others encompasses coercion and tyranic systems of government. Shall we ignore that the mission of extremists in the Muslim faith is to coercively establish its doctrine and legal system as the basis of world order, a comprehensive negation of the freedom that characterizes the West. Is not Huntington right to title his recent book, The Clash of Civilizations? Yet, even the extremist “wants his way,” a desire, or freedom, to achieve a perverted ideal of Islam.
The desire for freedom enlists the allegiance of all, but weakly in most. The desire for power (as dominance) over others enlists only a few, but strongly. The powerful can rule because fear trumps the desire for freedom. Deception, a tool of the autocrat, cloaks truth. Security, also universal, is preferred to autonomy when people are subjected to threat. The needs and wants of the individual ego are stronger than compassion for others; and the common desires of a group exceed their commitment to universal justice. Thus, we see that attorneys write laws that protect and benefit the legal profession, and Congress legislates to ensure re-election. Other special interest groups will seek rent from the government irrespective of harm to the general public, and congressmen will secure pork for their constituency though it drives our nation further into debt. The exceptional person lives by values greater than himself, greater than the motivations that drive self-aggrandizement.
Consequently, freedom, liberty and democracy, though universally desired, are fragile. Tyranic power is strong, though terminal, as it tends to end with the life of those who wield it. But, the desire for freedom does not die under oppression. It was not exceptional that under the totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hanoi, and Castro millions sought escape to freedom at the risk of death. But for those who remain the tension between desire for freedom and the necessity of obeisance corrodes their character. As expressed by Orlando Figes, in “The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin’s Russia, “The terror tore apart the moral ties that hold together a society.”
The authoritarian may assert control (power) through socialism, or fascism. Socialism is state ownership and control of the means of production (the planned economy). In fascism the authoritarian allows private ownership, but assumes absolute control over it. Or, in the welfare state the state assumes ownership and control of the results of production. In the planned economy the authoritarian organizes and controls important sectors of our lives by forcibly imposing restrictions on individual free choice – wage, price, rent, interest, credit, production and exchange controls, and by taking property through taxation. In the welfare state phase of the socialistic agenda we find three archetypes: (1) the looted, (2) those who share the spoils, and, (3) the authoritarian who does the taking and the conferring. Controls are simply forcible interference with individual decision-making, the negation of free choice, and denial of creative activity.
Authoritarian’s power to spend our income, our productivity, equates to our powerlessness. Their power to edict (coerce) -- becomes our powerlessness to self-control. Taxes, regulations, and laws all limit individual freedom. Some of this is necessary in a complex society to define the limits of the economic and social game. But, before we ask for any program from government that costs money (all of them do) we should understand that they will limit our freedom, either through new regulations, or taking our savings to fund it.
The problems of society are too profound to be solved by laws –
Confucius
Putin exemplifies the masterful authoritarian, who through combinations of deception, fear, and clever manipulation, is gradually accumulating absolute authoritarian power, thus correspondingly reducing individual freedom -- like a rolling snowball that accretes to itself the stuff and independent existence of that over which it rolls. The clever authoritarian implements increasing control gradually, surreptitiously, such that the public is unaware their freedom is being sucked from their lives. We see such authoritarian aspirations in America even today.
Since humans are wanting creatures, and authoritarians promise to fulfill their wants, they (many) readily relinquish self-responsibility to the authoritarian or collectivist, not realizing he is taking their liberty – they are, truly, escaping from freedom.
The sheepist masses may be swayed by a relativity small group if the group is energetic, action oriented, and convincingly promises solutions.
Ron Rosenbaum
Power may be ceded by vote, as in America; or taken by deception and force, as with Chavez of Venezuela. Those who breathe the air of liberty presume its natural perpetuation, unaware it must be defended by vigilance. Consequently, those who favor government programs of control over the economy, or additional welfare, or additional regulations – the collectivist mentality – largely do not see that such programs eventually decrease their own liberty; they are only aware that the result they seek appears to satisfy their needs or wants. The negative consequences of such programs – the unexpected outcomes – are invisible, as few who conceptualize such plans are willing to believe in the certain uncertainty of human planning, the inadequacies of human execution, the fragmentary nature of human understanding, and the certainty of human error and incompetence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them
what they could and should do for themselves –
Lincoln
Authoritarians seek such power, for it enlarges their scope of choice (just as they limit it in others). The authoritarian may believe in his vision, despite the evidence of the failure of tyrants throughout history. The worst of them lust for power to satisfy pathological, narcissist needs.
Yet, should we not ask which among the “greats” represent the greatest power, those tyrants who leave only a legacy of pain and destruction, or those who empower others by the force of their ideas and character? I would maintain that the truly great are those who are called by a transcendent idea, and lift the vision of mankind to higher possibilities. Gandhi, Jesus, Plato, Mother Theresa, Siddharta, and the teachers of Tao are among the exemplars.
You must be the change you want to see in the world –
Mahatma Gandhi
The universals of freedom and power assure a third universal – conflict – in its multitudinous manifestations. Wanting requires control [or power] for its fulfillment, and in a social setting this means influencing [controlling] others – for common gain or, too often, selfish gain. Nationalism is an attitude that seeks advantage over other nations. The tyrant seeks it by conquest. The people will forever utter cries for peace and diplomacy, while the tyrants prepare for war – ultimately “sound and fury signifying nothing” [nothing of transcendent or of even earthly value]. The truly great are not those who subdue the people and achieve great conquests, for they leave for posterity little of anything of human value.
So what might we conclude about the future history of the world? Is it likely that human nature is unchangeable? The few who hunger for power over the many have always been with us, as well as the many who wish for freedom, but reluctant to sacrifice for it. The powerful few have lived as though they believed they would never die; the many weak have feared death deluded that they might somehow escape it. What is certain is that human existence is transitory, though the rules and forces of existence are eternal. The truly great have pointed the way. Why, then, do we not cast our lot with the eternal?
Part 2: Collectivist vs. Classical Liberalism on Freedom
A nation experiences nothing; only individuals have experiences.
Leonard E. Read
Deeper Than You Think
The collectivist insists on equality of conditions and outcomes as essential to their concept of freedom. That is, individuals are not equally free if they cannot equally, by both ability and condition, exercise their freedom. The dictionary definition of “freedom” is “independence from domination,” with absence of coercion by others providing the distinctive meaning (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary). If we introduce into the term “freedom” limitation by condition we enter a labyrinthic conception with endless attributes, rendering the term incoherent, and inherently impossible of clarity or achievement.
Individuals are constrained in endless ways by nature – weather, space or lack of it, land, soil, forests, mineral resources, etc. The individual is also constrained by his physical capacities -- intellectual endowments, motivations, his family, and an infinite number of cultural conditions. Many adverse conditions serve to strengthen some individuals and not others. The complexity and uncertainties of these factors are beyond human conjecture, as to attributes, circumstance and variability over time. An infant has almost no ability to exercise his legal freedom on his own behalf, nor does he have clear goals to pursue. His parents have an infinite number of attributes that affect the outcome of his life (interplaying with the child’s nature), and a correspondent complexity of his local community or communities.
All these variables change continuously as the child matures physically and intellectually, and a large portion of these is simply by chance. At any stage of the child’s life he does not have an ability, but multiple abilities, constantly changing and constantly being affected by the drama of life.
Society cannot equalize the child’s abilities, or the circumstances that affect those abilities. Nor can leaders of society confidently predict the effectiveness of any of its interventions in trying to do so. Furthermore all individuals are not trying to be equal, but unequal, i.e. better in terms of their abilities and their circumstances and they treasure the freedom to do so. These are facts of human nature that cannot be undone by any attempt at social engineering.
Society can, and should, try to create some institutions, such as education, in the hope that it will nourish the development our youth, as well as beneficial institutions for all ages. But it does not need to pervert the meaning of freedom to do so, and worse, to confuse the public as to its meaning. The failure of welfarism is possibly the best example of negative unforeseen outcomes of social engineering’ as it attempted to equate conditions, and as it injured the nuclear family, with all of its attendant effects on the youth of America.
The presumption of the neo-liberal is that an individual is not free to the extent he is unable, by circumstances, as well as personal competency, to benefit by his legal freedom. Such a conception of freedom does not, and cannot, demand personal responsibility for ones circumstances. We all know of instances when two brothers, or two sisters, raised in the same family, create by their actions, dramatically different outcomes (I have followed a pair of identical twins, who had very dissimilar outcomes).
What is the responsibility (or capability) of society to try to equate the conditions (“circumstantial freedom”) of these two persons who began with highly comparable circumstances? In the case of the twins, mentioned above, their life trajectory is so different that it impossible to conceive of any actions by anyone that can equalize their two conditions – conditions that were modified continuously by the choices each made from moment to moment.
If freedom is to be defined (limited) by the individual’s ability to pursue his goals, then we have eliminated any coherent measure of freedom. Abilities are multiple, and many are incapable of measurement. One person’s goals may be easily attainable – so is he freer than another who selects difficult goals. If one cultivates his abilities by perseverance is he then freer than the sloth? Whose responsibility is it to try to equalize these two outcomes, even if it was possible (its not)?
If a society wishes to improve a person’s condition, such as through formal education, let it humbly try, and most of us will support the attempt. But always, the primary determinant of a constructive result will be the character of the individual. There is no need to introduce the notion that such efforts can produce a “level playing field,” or “equality of condition,” or that society can, by attempts to make conditions equal, assure equality of freedom. This is impossible, as all on a playing field are doing their utmost to be unequal.
Collectivists commonly argue that though individuals may have equal legal rights, the ability of individuals to exercise those rights is highly dissimilar, so society should intervene to equate them.. Again, the number of unequal abilities is infinite.
Both collectivists and individualists (classical liberals) may possess altruistic motives, but differ on whether such a value should be exercised by personal charity, or through the coercive power of government.
Another error of the collectivist is the presumption that a “good cause” will result in a good outcome. Good outcomes are not a function of wishful thinking, but of rational thought, backed by experimentation (verification, pilot programs, replication, etc); a process too often missed by politicians who think their vote for a good cause constitutes achievement (“I voted for …”). Billions of dollars are wasted in untested federal programs. The “difficulty is in the execution,” second only to the knowledge and experience required to formulate a rational plan. No politician should receive our vote based on his good intentions [or expressions of “hope”]...
We assume too quickly that altruism inherently must benefit the recipient. “Good works” does not guarantee good outcomes. The Institute of Philanthropy studied charities for benefiting veterans. The majority failed (graded F) by rational standards. One charity gave only about 1% to the cause for which it sought our donations – legal, but morally fraudulent. Altruism is an attribute of individuals, not organizations, and certainly not the government.
The collectivist (leftist) presumes good outcomes from good intentions. They too quickly believe that institutions that purport to be in the interest of the people (such as for children) are beneficial (e.g. public education). They are too wiling to defer individual rights (choice) to government under the assumption that government represents the will and interest of the public. When it flagrantly fails in producing these outcomes the public typically does not question their initial presumptions, but concludes, not inherent flaws in their assumptions, but errors by bureaucrats [or the more extreme view of conspiracy].
It has been said that a mark of insanity is when you continue to do things that repeatedly do not work. Our founding fathers understood all of this, and created a constitution to mitigate human folly. We tamper with that constitution at our peril.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid –
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Part 3: Power, Freedom and the State
Individual power derives from competencies, character and creative imagination. Collective power, as of a state, depends upon the aggregate of individual power, and those institutions and cultural factors that promote collaboration. These institutions and cultural factors include a liberal constitution, technology, physical infrastructure, and moral grounding.
Some nation states and other organized entities employ coercive power through fear, but such power is largely destructive to the positive powers above, as it employs largely the lower levels of motivation – escape from fear, physical needs and security, whereas the need to belong and self-actualization are undermined by lack of freedom and trust. Such states convey the image of unity and power, but fear stultifies individual energy and human collaboration, thus eventually subduing a dependent people and eroding the soul of a nation. One need only look at such states as North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe for evidence. If authority predominantly resides with the state, then individuals are not the author of their fate. Aspirations cannot thrive where one cannot breathe freely. Distrust destroys bonds of friendship and social cohesion, without which human collaboration is vitiated.
When the people choose security (dependency) over independency they diminish the higher faculties of humanity. If the state controls the goals – the work to be actualized – then what becomes of self-actualization and individual aspiration? If the image of the state is foremost, what becomes of individual creative imagination? If the state is “taking care of” everyone, what need or ability is there for altruism. The beneficent actions of a government are not tantamount to our individual compassion.
Many, if not most, neoliberals place human dignity high on their list of values, along with equality and compassion. But the concept of human dignity derives from the distinctive nature of humans as “choosing” creatures, endowed by God or nature with fulfilling potentialities of their own design. Such dignity, if not instilled in the individual, cannot be reflected in the achievements of the state. If individuals relinquish their autonomy to the state, then how can they control their own destiny? On what high motivations can their efforts ride? What then becomes of human dignity? It is not possible to mandate social justice. Those who govern are just as self-interested, just as lacking in wisdom, and just as subject to errors in judgment as the common citizen. Justice cannot be guaranteed, security cannot be guaranteed, and fairness can neither be clearly defined nor assured.
“Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.” –
Ronald Reagan
Part 4: Trust, Freedom, and Power
In an article in the Wall Street Journal (9/29/07), “The Secrets of Intangible Wealth”, the author asked, “What is the significance of intangibles, such as trust, in the viability of a nation?” We can, and should, list justice, property rights, education and governance as other examples of intangibles. However, such intangibles should not be regarded as discrete or independent economic factors as though they are somehow additive. All such factors, to be fully effective, must be commonly grounded in morality, in which moral values are articulated into these institutions, and held as knowledge and convictions by both leaders and the general public. Morality is the essential predisposition of trust.
Deep reflection will show convincingly that justice, property rights and effective governance – even all forms of effective human collaboration depend predominantly on trust. Trust, in turn must be based on legitimate justification, i.e. trustworthiness, and trustworthiness is grounded on the character of individuals who have internalized moral convictions.
Recognition that trust, the end product of morality, generates human capital is not secret and not new, though its recent statistical representation by the World Bank may be. Albert Sweitzer wrote in his 1923 work, “The Philosophy of Civilization,” that morality is the essence of civilization,” which he saw as a necessity for effective human collaboration. Friedrich A. Hayek, in his 1983 work, “Law, Legislation and Liberty,” wrote that “the basic order of the Great Society cannot rest entirely on design,” explaining that intangible principles, such as liberty, enlists the knowledge and incentives of a nation’s individuals to the benefit of all.
It should be evident, upon such reflection, that such intangible economic concepts as risk-taking, incentives, and the innumerable forms of human collaboration are effective to the degree trust is extant in a society, and rendered inoperable if the nation is corrupt and untrustworthy.
It is not a constitution, a judicial system, or governance, per se, that human capital is enhanced. The effectiveness of these institutions is proportional to the moral strength undergirding such institutions and sustained as convictions by the people. They also depend on the extent to which such institutions contain orderly processes and relationships, a result not primarily through conscious design, but evolving out of the trial and error intangible experiences of millions within a moral society.
Humans constitute human capital largely to the extent moral values are inbred into the common institutions of mankind, and adopted by the heart of the individual.
I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish humble tasks as though there were great and noble. –
Helen Keller
