PART
IV
RELATIONSHIP OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
"Liberty
cannot be preserved without a general knowledge
among the people. For this reason the
preservation of the
means
of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more
importance
to the public than all the property of all the rich
men in the country."
John
Adams, The Boston Gazette, 1765
INFORMATION - SOCIAL INSURANCE
Is
not man also a resource, an integral part of the evolving biosphere?
Accordingly, as with other inherited resources, he/she deserves to be protected
(as well as possible) against the ravages of disease, education inequities,
occupation loss, the infirmities of aging, overpopulation and the chance of
natural or man-made disasters.
Given
a competitive society with complete services, a co-operative stewardship of the
outside-of-man resources and a restructured monetary system, the need to
equalize educational and job opportunities and to provide public health and
welfare insurance should diminish. However, given the human condition we will
still require many forms of public, or co-operative, insurance. These perceived
needs are not rights, but mutual responsibilities publicly assumed by social
contract and are totally dependant on each community's and state's will and
available energy. While the withholding or distortion of information by the
state is certainly an infringement of individual rights, this does not infer
that the state can guarantee everyone's offspring the most inclusive education
or that it can provide one which will match that of its wealthy families or
indeed of other states. The same holds true for health insurance, for disaster
insurance, social security, etc. All children are not created equal nor will
their formative years, in all probability, be fulfilled equally. The most which
any society can do towards equal justice is to attempt to reduce the
disparities between rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged. As noted
earlier, under mutual rights, many of these needs are clearly family
responsibilities which, in our specialized society, have become the state's
responsibilities. How well the state performs these needs is a reflection of
how the majority of its citizens, given a democratic construct, prioritize them
and how much energy (money) is available for carrying out their mandates. If
the state, and or its citizens, squander their resources, burden themselves and
their children's future with debt, and drain themselves in wars, they will have
precious little energy left for social welfare.
I
hold the following to be self-evident: that if the specie Homo sapiens is to
prevail it must reproduce its own kind, nurture them, protect them, educate
them and care for them in their sicknesses and infirmities, and that, in our
complex and interdependent society this is both a family and a collective
responsibility - and a necessity for success. Failing these mutual
responsibilities men and women consume their energies and their lives caring
for the unloved, unwanted and uneducated, while warehousing the sick and dying.
This is a terrible loss, both to those so deprived and to those who must devote
their lives attempting to rectify the tragedy. The abandoned child, the
drop-out youth, the unemployable adult, the criminal, the uncared for sick, the
discarded elder and their caretakers represent a loss to society of potential energy
and talent, not to mention the consumption of non-human resources required for
both services and disservices. If Lotke[1]
is correct, that nature's successful species prevail by maximizing power for
useful purposes, then our species' failure to mandate social welfare represents
not only a failure of responsibility but a lack of interest in our collective
future.
There
are limits to the competitive value that society can place on physical or
informational resources. At times society’s collective needs may exceed any
competitive value placed upon a particular resource. If water is in short
supply and must be rationed the community must do so. If heating fuel is in
short supply or too costly for the poor, hospitalization beyond the reach of
those in need or natural disasters leave many impoverished, the community must
assume responsibility. None of these are rights due each citizen but collective
responsibilities which all citizens and their governments need address. The
very nature of private enterprise precludes it from fulfilling these needs
unless government subsidizes it. Private enterprise functions only in an
abundant marketplace where no serious shortages exist and where the needs of
buyers are those of prerogative. In times of real need private enterprise
violates the collective use rights of all citizens. During warfare, profit from
the manufacture of weapons or the purchase of interest-bearing bonds while
others are risking their lives is a cruel hoax. And when international
catastrophes occur the needs are not just the collective responsibility of any
one country but also that of all nations. During such times the profit motive
must give way to cooperative enterprise for collective survival and government
insurances must supercede supply and demand.
Having stated the above as a realistic representation
I want to reinforce this concept of responsibility as it relates to education.
It is true that we, as a society do not shoulder responsibilities well. Instead
we prefer to focus on satisfying secular desires and popular subsidies. But
education is society's best hope for success. Today the true wealth of society
lies in providing useful information to the greatest number of citizens and
providing them the opportunity to apply it. Education is the means of
production, and equal right of access to resources is the ability to apply it.
How
might it be possible to gain equal access to education and to other social
welfare services? In the U.S., we have public and private schools, community
colleges, and both public and private universities; all now theoretically
available to anyone regardless of race, religion, sex or ethnic background. In
reality, however, there are many factors which frustrate this seemingly
egalitarian scheme. The quality of education in primary and secondary schools
varies with the neighborhood or community. Those neighborhoods where families
with higher incomes reside provide better schools. Their students arrive at
classes better fed, clothed and housed and, perhaps even more to the point,
they are better head-started and loved. Those families with more than ample
funds may even by-pass the public schools altogether. Their children can attend
private schools with their well-off peers avoiding overcrowded classes, poor
minorities, and the remedial educational problems which often plague the poor
and the immigrant. As a result there is little equality in the education of our
young. This situation tends to become increasingly polarized with time as each
successive advantaged generation head-starts their progeny.
Money
buys information and access to other resources. The redistribution of monies
through resource usehold fees, the elimination of disservices through demands
for complete technologies, the redesign of the current monetary system to
eliminate inflation and excessive debt burden would separate out from
individual incomes these unearned and distorting factors leaving a residual
comprised of real services, good or poor fortune and an individual's degree of
assimilation into a given culture. In the majority of cases, ergo, real
services would be the prime factor defining income levels. Those, however, who
had greater access to resources, money and or information would, especially in
our ever-evolving complex society, be at the high end of the income scale while
those without would be near the bottom. Thus a truly graduated income tax
wherein a serious portion of the collected funds were used for health,
education and welfare might help establish that "level playing field"
educators talk about. Competitive residential land use revenues, in like manner
and given an enlightened citizenry, could be redistributed equally to each
student on a state wide or metropolitan wide basis as opposed the present
distribution within each local school district. The latter process assures
equity between suburban schools and inner city ones. If we are serious about
individual and mutual rights and the responsibilities they imply, we must
strengthen those social contracts through which all of our children can gain a
functioning and fruitful role in their time.
Nor
should public education be "privatized." Making a profit on poor
students, who are in large part the "resource" and "end
product" of public education requires more capital than when dealing with
rich students who by and large do not attend public schools anyway. Suggesting
that commercial interests can do this job for less money while concurrently
making a profit is a cruel hoax.
Nor
should children be proselytized in religious schools without the inclusion of
the political/social history of democracy, human rights, the humanities and
science. Without this basic curriculum these children will lack the
understanding to become constructive citizens.
Besides
the use of media competitive use fees for political debate and public forums,
these funds could also be used to update and improve public education from
elementary schools through state colleges and universities. Rather than having
to beg constantly for their needs, accept secondhand facilities, reduce their
curriculum or become captives to private sector propaganda, schools could
become true beacons pointing the way into the new millennium.
At
the end of World War II Congress passed what became known as the G.I. Bill,
granting the surviving soldiers sufficient funds to pursue higher education. It
was a financial godsend to many and a blessing for the country. This bill
helped produce a generation of talented individuals whose contributions to the
greater society might otherwise never had a chance to blossom. This event was
not conceived by Congress as a strategy for societal success or as a token of
their largess, but out of fear that the returning veterans might turn them out
of office. None-the-less, it proved a wise and successful decision.
Today
the need for an educated workforce is greater than ever while simultaneously
the cost of higher education has escalated beyond the reach of most families.
Access to information is denied as the need grows.
There
is much talk today of poor education, of drug use by children, of violence in
schools, of promiscuity and teenage pregnancy, of a possible A.I.D.S epidemic
among the young. The proposed fixes are typically - more teachers, more police,
gun control, free condoms, etc. I contend the problems are systemic and cannot
be cured without basic changes, and unless these flaws are repaired the social
fabric will either unravel or be torn to shreds.
There
are those today who view human rights as already complete and still others, the
self-proclaimed elite, who view them as already excessive, but there are many
who realize the fabric is not yet complete.
POPULATION, CONSUMPTION, USE RIGHTS
& MUTUAL RIGHTS
Use
rights and the well being of the biosphere are endangered by both population
growth and consumption patterns. This reality is further complicated by our
increasing ability to prolong life. At some point as population continues to
grow, we will begin to exceed nature’s capacity to adequately feed, shelter,
and clothe everyone; education could become a privilege but for the fortunate
few. We might, under these circumstances and as one possible scenario beyond
voluntary family planning policies, opt for a mandatory birth insurance to
assure those already here that new arrivals can be adequately provided for and
to discourage families from expanding. Such insurance would be assessed equally
for each child. This insurance would protect society against potential major
physiological birth disorders, parental instability and other factors which
might make it impossible for parents to adequately raise their offspring, as
well as society’s own potential inability to perform these parental obligations
without endangering the well being of those already here. Such an insurance
would also need to take account of in/out migrations, and conversely, at times
a country might want to encourage family growth—in lieu of a tax. This
mandatory insurance, if instituted now without other human rights reforms,
would be intolerable in poor countries and to the poor in rich countries, but
given the adoption of use rights reforms, such a proposal would not be
inequitable and could prove effective in stabilizing population growth. Others
have suggested more Draconian steps. These may be warranted where worse fates
appear imminent: China’s burgeoning population or Africa’s decimation from
AIDS. Starvation and warfare each create shortened life spans, millions of
orphans and destitute governments incapable of coping with their own problems.
Such factors must be included in any attempt to assess the cost of any new
birth. We can no longer plan or act alone without taking cognizance of those
beyond our borders – wars, migrations, plagues and eco-stability know no
borders.
If
mandatory birth control is the stick then chemical protection against
conception is the carrot. The “morning after pill” is effective and inexpensive
and could be made available both nationally and internationally by governments
or by the United Nations. Combined with an educational program, millions of
unintended pregnancies could be avoided and guilt-tripping by the religious,
self-righteous right ended.
Present
reported world population is 5.5 billion and expected to almost double by 2050,
95% of this growth occurring in poor countries. Conversely, the rich countries
currently account for 75% of the world’s yearly consumption, not including the
concurrent pollution and destruction of resources.
Those in the developed countries, well aware of
population explosions elsewhere and concerned about their own porous borders,
are less prone to examine their own conspicuous consumption. Many poor tropical
governments, with a touch of Machiavellian deceit, blame the developed
countries for their resource plundering thus the great disparity in wealth. The
poor everywhere have no voice in this debate. It is estimated that in 2005
alone, 50,000 illegal immigrants crossed into the U.S. from Mexico. Only one
third were caught and sent back.
The
true cause of these disparities is written in the history of several centuries.
As early as 1400 the hardy Europeans were exploring and plundering in the
tropics from Middle America to the East Indies; by the mid 1800’s many European
nations had established colonies there. The mid 1900’s saw most large colonized
countries gaining their independence while many smaller countries still
remained under the control of colonial powers.
Today most developed nations have complex physical
infrastructures, highly specialized work forces, representative democracies and
sophisticated armed forces. Their focus is on material well being and security.
These social securities have been fought for and won over many years. They
include education of the young, health insurance for most, unemployment
benefits and retirement incomes for the elderly. These social costs plus the
need for higher education and citizens’ demands for a high standard of living
have made large families a liability rather than an asset.
Few tropical countries come close to matching their
northern neighbors nor those of the former colonized countries. More often they
are still run by petty dictators and/or landed gentry, some of whom are
descendents of early colonists. Native majorities are either subsistence
farmers or dispossessed ones turned day laborers. Their rulers are sustained by
the export of farm produce and natural resources, and more recently by the
manufacture of miscellaneous items for international corporations. This has
been accomplished with the labor of the poor, the protection of public and
private armies and with the complicity of the transnational corporations and
the nations from which they originate. The resultant economies are labor
intensive with marginal technologies and low per capita consumption rates.
High population growth rates here are a natural result
of these realities. Shorn of all rights and access to resources and without any
social securities, the poor turn to their most obvious survival hope, large
families. Birth control, education and family planning are of little help.
Revolution rarely succeeds without outside assistance, an unusual occurrence.
Migration elsewhere is an act of final desperation.
Nor should we forget the fundamentalists and their
theocracies whose misguided calls for large families progressively frustrates
the advent of social securities, reinforces the need to rely on one’s own
family, and pushes their collective environments to a state of collapse..
Two pertinent quotes outline the current state of
affairs in many poor countries. An excellent May, 1998 article by Randy Lee
Loftis in The Seattle Times,
highlights the urgency of the situation relative to both population growth and
commercial exploitation:
“If much of the tropics seems to be on fire - bringing
life-threatening pollution that can stretch across a hemisphere - it is no
illusion, according to conservation experts. The world's richest biological
areas have never been pushed faster toward destruction, they said. Driving the
losses are a dramatic jump in commercial logging, pushing roads into more and
more remote forests, and a surging population's demand for land in the rural
tropics. Worldwide, the United Nations said, farmers are expected to convert
222 million acres for farming by 2010, much of it now forest. About 97 percent
of all population growth is happening in the tropics.”
And, commenting on world population and consumption in
State of the World 1990, Lester R.
Brown and John E. Young had this to say:
“A deterioration in diet and an increase in hunger for
part of humanity is no longer a matter of conjecture. In Africa, both the
absolute number of people and the share of population that is hungry is
increasing. In Latin America, increasing poverty, declining food production per
person, and rising food prices indicate a similar trend. Progress in reducing
infant mortality, the most sensitive indicator of a society's nutritional
state, has been slowed, stopped, or reversed in dozens of countries. If the
world continues with business-as-usual policies in agriculture and family
planning, a food emergency within a matter of years may be inevitable. It would
extend beyond low-income people in the Third World, with its repercussions
affecting the entire world. Soaring grain prices and ensuing food riots could
both destabilize national governments and threaten the integrity of the international
monetary system."
To
attempt to resolve these disparities, we must first realize that we in the
wealthy countries are the major problem. It is our high tech cultures which are
consuming and destroying the greatest percentage of the world’s resources. We
are also accomplices in the perpetuation of economic slavery in these poor
countries and thus partially responsible for their high population growth
rates.
But
we in the developed nations are not helpless to correct this situation, if we
choose. First we need to confess our part in creating and maintaining the
disparities. Next, we should abandon our attempts to write international trade
laws for the sole benefit of our corporations. Then we need to submit to the
U.N and actively argue for a comprehensive bill of human rights. If this last
action is successful, if only in the Security Council, we will have a mandate
to isolate and otherwise restrain or punish those flagrant abusers of human
rights – our own and the local ruling classes in poor nations. If we proceed on
this path towards justice, there is some hope we can forestall or even reverse
the impending tragedies which lie ahead. Is any of this possible? Is it wise or
even possible to remain much longer on our present path? Those who view these
proposals as impractical and idealistic should reread the U.S. Declaration of
Independence and Bill of Rights, imaging themselves as British royalty or their
parliamentarians in the late 1700s.
Citizens
freed of tyrants and given sufficient aid will willingly embrace a just bill of
rights and help to build their own democracies. They will have reason to feel
secure, to encourage population control and to share in the world economy. Are
we not attempting, with the U.N.’s assistance, to do just this in Haiti, Kosovo
and East Timor? Even communist countries like China or recovering ones like
Russia might be willing to accept a bill of rights that has redefined the
concept of ownership and ‘use.’ Yes, there will be holdouts, those hard-core
theocracies dominated by a priesthood unwilling to grant even individual
rights. However, given exposure to the outside world via the expanding
electronic networks their own citizens will revolt in time. The media will
become the message.
* * * * * * *
The
foregoing discussion airs multiple problems which plague society and which
appear intractable. They result from serious inequalities; cultural, economic,
political and more. They are the result of centuries of unique histories and
locales, of the exploited and the exploiters, disparities in education and
resources.
It is
critical for mutual success that these disparities be resolved by mutual aid
where ever possible. It is also unrealistic to believe that free enterprisers,
religious fundamentalists, oligarchs, or dictators will resolve these
collective disparities.
Nor
will technology alone provide us a prosperous way down; conserving
non-renewable resources, protecting renewable resources, discovering
alternative fuel(s), or living with low-tech renewable ones. Nor will a truly
public, global media by itself resolve the hard questions regarding population
growth and migrations, consumption controls, or the equitable distribution of
human services. Both, of course, will be necessary factors.
The
ultimate resolution of these disparities will only happen through democratic
processes wherein all nations resolve mutual cooperation and agree to a
comprehensive bill of rights and responsibilities. At this stage they will be
able to remodel the U.N.’s constitution and set out to solve mutual problems
utilizing all available tools.