Day 27 - The Politics of Justice Part 2 - Alexis de Tocqueville was only HALF right

This is a continuation of the series "Politics of Justice" which you can follow from day 26 -

Day 26 - The Politics of Justice Part 1 - What IS Social Justice?

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 27 - The Politics of Justice Part 2 - Alexis de Tocqueville was only HALF right

One of the most common ideas behind the concept of "Justice" is the idea of "fairness" - wherein people get the things that they are supposed to get, and nobody should be able to take away what a person is supposed to have. There is also the idea that everyone should be able to have the same access to things that everyone else has - yet even within these concepts we run into trouble because the actual meaning and specific definitions of what a person is supposed to get, and whether or not people should be given the same AMOUNT of everything, or whether they should be allowed to have the same access but infinite amounts of what they want, or whether there should even be a system that determines what, if any, a person should get. And what exactly decides what a person is "supposed" to get anyway?

If justice has to do with fairness and how goods and resources are distributed and what rules and principles should be in place to ensure everyone is organized in the best way possible, then we need to fully understand what "distributive justice" means - which is the philosophy behind whether certain things should be given to everyone equally, and whether this violates the "individual right" of people to have and keep the things they own or the right to accumulate as much as they desire. 

One problem that arises within this concept of justice and fairness in how goods and resources are distributed within a society can be seen in the philosophy of Alexis de Tocqueville - a French aristocrat who during the early 1800s studied and wrote about American democracy and went on to publish "Democracy in America" . 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alexis de Tocqueville on Inequality

  

"It is the dissimilarities and inequalities among men which give rise to the notion of honor; as such differences become less, it grows feeble; and when they disappear, it will vanish too."

- Alexis de Tocqueville

 

The French had a social system where the estates and fortunes of a family are passed in whole to the firstborn instead of being divided amongst family members as it was done in America. Tocqueville found this particularly interesting when he observed some of the implications of this distributive approach. 

Tocqueville claimed to be a supporter of "liberty", and his particular conception of "liberty" concludes that inequality within a society as well as within a family provides incentive for the poor and less well off to strive to become better, and that wealth and fortune should not be distributed or shared equally, but should be concentrated and focused on those who can utilize those resources in order to have the necessary security and leisure time to pursue intellectual and creative greatness - which would then "better society" through the revelations, innovations, and new thoughts of this intellectual elite class. 

In his view, the more intellectuals there are in the society, the better the society - and as long as wealth and estates were kept intact, passing completely from the eldest to the next eldest in the family, the security of that wealth would not erode or diminish - the more concentrated that wealth, the more it tended to remain concentrated, and the more it would benefit and continue to favor the intellectual class. 

Tocqueville criticized the American model of distributing and sharing the wealth and estates of a family by dividing it amongst the members of the family. This created a kind of equality amongst people that prevented the concentration of wealth, and to Tocqueville would also mean that an intellectual class would not be able to develop. 

In order for great intellectuals to arise, they must have time, leisure, resources, and economic stability so that they can dedicate years - perhaps their entire lives - to the pursuit of higher learning, of cultural development, and to hone their intellect from a very early age - which meant that they would not be expected to spend time working or having to pay their way through labor. This class of elites would require having enough resources to focus on things that are intellectually valuable but ultimately have no financial value, which is why any fortunes or estates should be passed intact instead of divided and distributed, which diminishes the amount of leisure and time that a person would be able to have with their "share" of the fortune and ensure that none would be able to become an intellectual. 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Distribution and Fairness

So here - Tocqueville is saying that justice should not have to do with redistributing the goods and resources of people - that there should be inequality because this inequality produces an elite intellectual class that can do more and contribute more to society and culture than having a large population of financially equal people who are not impoverished, but would never achieve greatness or innovation. 

Here it is also suggested that inequality is a motivating force for the poor and less well off - and that it is an incentive that keeps people working hard so that they can amass their own fortunes and be able to pass those fortunes to their own and to maintain those fortunes intact.

What is important to see here is that for a society to be able to have effective intellectuals who have been effectively educated to a standard of excellence, these individuals must be free from worry about survival and having to constantly labor and work, which distracts from the ability to develop intellectual greatness - and although there may be some controversy in the suggestion of inequality being necessary - it is still true that for a person even in our modern day to achieve a kind of academic or intellectual success - the question of financial survival must be addressed and the person must have the time and resources to dedicate to studying and perfecting their chosen fields of expertise. 

Tocqueville did NOT intend on creating a ruling class and keeping people impoverished - he wanted for there to be intellectual greatness within society and given his observations about how the world was functioning, saw that the best solution was to concentrate wealth instead of share it, and distributing it "equally" would diminish the opportunity for greatness. But while he understood the flaw of the economic reality of the time, he did not challenge it or question it - but rather observed and justified it, and assumed that it is already the best possible system.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Fairness and Justice

It was not understood that profit and wealth can only have value if that value is kept from others and actively denied to them - and for there to be a class of people who could use accumulated wealth to their own benefit, there must then be a larger population of people who would have to be denied that wealth, and would have to constantly work in order to survive due to there being no financial relief. 

Is it "fair" then, that only a few individuals are able to benefit from the labor of many, to have wealth and fortune concentrated and put towards cultivating the best schools, the best culture, and the best innovation that can only be appreciated by and afforded by the very elite class that these systems favor and support? 

Is it acceptable for only a few to concentrate and hold on to the profits generated by a population of workers who can be taxed for their security and charged for their goods, and to make them struggle and compete unfairly amongst each other for what an elite class would hold for themselves and not share?

Is it "justice" when the majority of a population who would just as equally become intellectual elites if they were given the time and resource to do so, are instead having to work and compete with each other for the very time and resource necessary to free them from their lives of labor? 

All of this would be inconsequential if there were an equal monetary system where education AND one's living expenses were both covered - because it has been agreed that both are essential human needs and both are relevant to the development of a stable society as well as a society that produces greatness, and therefore should be categorized as a human right.

We see here that "Justice" in terms of political philosophy MUST address how goods and resources are to be distributed and how best to ensure the most effective and supportive outcome for all members of a society. There must be a way to ensure that the basic needs of people are not compromised and that all are able to contribute and work toward the production of goods and services needed by society, while at the same time allowing for each person to pursue greatness without fear of survival. 

The Road Ahead

Are we able to come to such an agreement? Can society actually be motivated to change and organize itself, and do we have the right to dictate this? The answer is YES - and we the Real Politicians - the 7 billion strong population of rightful political figures on this planet, must undertake to show exactly how this can be done, and the importance of why we must realize this while we still can. 

In the blogs to follow we will look more at the concept of how and why society IS able to change and how politics can be used constructively to achieve what individuals or small groups cannot achieve alone.

Day 24 - The Politics of a Burning Building: The Fortunate Deciders

Tonight we are continuing in the series "The Politics of a Burning Building". For the full context of this series, please check out -

Day 19 - The Politics of a Burning Building: Introduction

Day 20 - The Politics of a Burning Building: The Door to "Survival"

Day 21 - The Politics of a Burning Building: Surviving Survival

Day 22 - The Politics of a Burning Building: Crisis of Trust

Day 23 - The Politics of a Burning Building: Mass Desperation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Burning Building -

Imagine that you are in a burning building along with a thousand other people, and there is only one exit. Above this exit is a sign that says "Survival". This exit to "Survival" is only big enough to fit two regularly sized people at a time, or one large person at a time, or one person with a disability that requires that they use a wheelchair or be assisted by others in order to pass.

You realize that there is limited time before the structure collapses above you and the fires engulf the entire building. If everyone finds a way to cooperate and calmly proceed through the exit to "Survival", moving at a reasonable pace and ensuring that people who require assistance are helped along the way so that they do not become blockages for the rest - it is likely that everyone will make it out safely to "Survival" with some time and effort.

If the people do not cooperate in consideration of each other's common need to get to "Survival" and adapting as a group to meet that need, then there will be chaos, disorder, and panic. Energy will be wasted trying to find or force a path to "Survival" and this will ensure casualties, as well as risking the fires spreading more quickly during the commotion. But those who are first to act on instinct and can fight best, will get through "Survival" first and ensure they are not left behind in the chaos.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far we have taken a look at several groups of people within our story of the burning building, and in each case we have considered how moving within consideration of all others and proceeding as a cooperative group is always the most practical and effective solution no matter which group a person might initially belong to.

There is however, one last group for whom this does not seem to be the case - where for this particular group, moving along cooperatively with all others will actually set them back due to being in a position where they can actually BENEFIT from the desperation of the rest of the group.

This group will be referred to as "The Fortunate Deciders" for our purposes. Here is a recap - 

"The Fortunate Deciders - These are the people who are closest to the exit, and are in a position to either stay and ensure that the passage remains unblocked and assist those who require assistance and work toward a calm evacuation of all to 'Survival', or choose to only assist those who will give them favors in return once they have reached 'Survival'." - Day 19 - The Politics of a Burning Building: Introduction

Here, it is helpful to imagine the sign above the exit door that reads "Survival", and adding the words "Money/Time", and to consider that those who are closest to having easy access and control of "Money/Time/Survival", or more specifically those who have the ability to influence and control how much access others have to "Money/Time/Survival", are the fortunate deciders of the group in that they are fortunate for the positions that they have, and they are deciders because they are the only group who have the ability to CHOOSE how wide or narrow the access points to "Money/Time/Survival" might be, and can either use this to their own advantage or they can maximize the access for all.

Unfortunately, most in this position choose to use it for their own advantage instead of utilizing their position as a point of support for those struggling to reach the exit.

What must be understood here, is that these fortunate deciders are not inherently evil or bad - they are simply disconnected from the actual reality that the majority are facing, and in their positions of privilege they have no actual context for understanding or being able to really relate to the desperation or panic of those in the "Middle" who seem so eager and willing to compete with each other just for a chance to get to "Money/Time/Survival", let alone those who find themselves furthest away from the exit, who are behind even those in the "Middle", who may have already given up any hope that they may actually reach "Money/Time/Survival" and would settle for a spot in the "Middle" where there is at least some chance of getting through, and there is less desperation and fear.

While the great majority of people facing this crisis understand the urgency and what is at stake if they do not make it to "Money/Time/Survival" - the Fortunate Deciders see only opportunity for self-benefit. For those fortunate few, there is in fact no emergency at all, and will find that the more desperate and more hopeless people become, the more willing they are to do anything... ANYTHING... to get closer to "Money/Time/Survival", even if it means turning against each other for the opportunity to please and get closer to those who have control and access to "Money/Time/Survival".

Those who have followed the previous posts in this series by now can piece together a bigger picture of what our world is going through as we now bring in this final piece.

It must be understood here, that it is pointless to become angry with or try to fight those who have control of and access to money and the means for survival within the current system. It is equally pointless to blame them for not understanding how they are abusing their position and to believe that it is somehow "justified" to exact a kind of revenge upon them or to violently seek to overtake them - because it is IMPOSSIBLE that they actually understand or have the capacity to comprehend the need and desperation of the majority for survival. One cannot expect that they be able to relate to the desperate majority who must fight and compete with each other for the limited and restricted access to survival when for these fortunate few, survival was NEVER in doubt and never had to be fought for.

Here is the very secret that keeps so many of the majority in panic and fear instead of working together and cooperating towards the common goal. As long as the fortunate few remain completely disconnected from the suffering and panic and desperation of the majority, are not held accountable for the responsibility they have due to their position, and are allowed to manipulate and dictate the access to "Money/Time/Survival" according to their own value systems and self-interest and having no personal stake in whether or not the majority actually makes it through - the more likely it is that people become more desperate and less likely to cooperate as it becomes more and more difficult for even a few to reach "Money/Time/Survival", let alone the majority.

What is missed by the fortunate few - the Fortunate Deciders - is that simply being closest to and having the most influence over who gains entry through "Money/Time/Survival", does NOT grant them immunity to fire or the unified actions of the majority - especially when the majority becomes aware of the manipulation and deception going on by those who sought personal profit and entertainment at the expense of a majority that fought for survival. Many who have greatly compromised their integrity in order to become better fighters and survivors - many who have committed harm against their neighbors in competing for a chance to break free and earn their way to "Money/Time/Survival" will not be amused to find that their struggle was an artificial one that was completely unnecessary - because all that the fortunate deciders had to do was to let go of their own attachment and obsessive control and manipulation of "Money/Time/Survival" which would have spared the great majority of having to experience fear, desperation, greed, violence, competition, and compromise.

This is not to say that all Fortunate Deciders are simply hard-wired to be inconsiderate and unable to make choices based on what is best for all - certainly this is not the case and in fact there are few Fortunate Deciders in the building who do see that it is possible for all to have access to "Money/Time/Survival" and that the panic and conflict being caused is an artificial one that benefits those who prey upon the desperate, and want to put a stop to the abuse - but are currently outnumbered and require that the majority come to a decision - a decision to instead of competing with each other and wasting valuable energy trying to fight each other for a small, narrow chance to reach "Money/Time/Survival", instead work together and EMPOWER and reinforce those who stand in the position of the Fortunate Deciders, that they can influence and get through to their fellow fortunate ones the actual threat of the crisis, to explain to them in their own words and understanding, why and how it is in everyone's interest to remove the blockages that impede access to "Money/Time/Survival" because if this is not done, and the damage becomes too severe, and the people become too desperate - there will come such a point when "Money/Time/Survival" becomes closed to all - even the fortunate ones who failed to see and realize in time that they were not in fact immune to the crisis they are manipulating.

Here, one final piece must be shared. It is easy to identify with the various members of the crowd that have been introduced in this series - but this series was not written for them. This series was written for the only people who have real access to change. This series was written for you and I, the FORTUNATE DECIDERS and REAL Politicians who have the access and the proximity to the world system - to the infrastructures of money, who have the ability to utilize and choose how we spend our time, and have the most easy access to survival in this world. You and I, fellow REAL Politicians who benefit from the imposed poverty of billions who struggle to reach the level of survival that we, through the system we have allowed, would deny to others in order to keep them desperate and willing to do any work or go through any turmoil to have what we so easily took for granted, having not lived the struggle that they live each day.

This is the task of the Real Politician - to see the interrelatedness of all relationships in this world - to judge none but instead dare to connect and engage all and bring everyone to an equal understanding, awareness, and ability - to stop being politicians and leaders of countries but politicians and leaders of LIFE - to educate those who have not been able to see, to empower those who have seen, and to awaken those who refuse to see - that whether one is lost in the system, fighting for survival, trying to keep order in a chaotic world, struggling with poverty, or given positions of privilege and responsibility - all have an equal destination, and all must pass together.