People working together is not only beneficial, but also imperative to commodious living. Cooperation and exchange can provide mutual gains to all parties involved. Despite the challenges of an interconnected society, cooperation, civilization, and group decisions make humanity better off than individuals in the state of nature. Acting in a civilized society with a central government, humans are able to advance their own self-interests much farther together than they would individually. Although confronted with several objections, leaving the state of nature for an epistemic democracy with free capitalist exchange and respect for individual rights would maximize the prospects of human capabilities. In the words of 2016 Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, we are in fact, “Stronger Together” (Clinton).
According to Munger, people form groups to share the advantages from increasing returns that cooperation and specialization create (Munger & Munger). In proving that humans benefit from working together in an interconnected society, I must first outline the dangers of living in a state of nature. Next, recognizing that the style and system of civilized society dictates its benefits, I advocate for an epistemic representative democracy. I then explain the importance of specialization and the division of labor to fair economic exchange to societal utility in a capitalist society. After that, I present the benefits of public goods that prove that collective action triumphs over individual action to provide important commodities. Lastly, I defend the importance of individual rights and liberty in an interconnected society.
The first step towards civilized society is the recognition of the need for government. The idea of a pre-civilized society, commonly known as the state of nature, is typically agreed upon as a hypothetical and fictional state in human history before the species entered into civilized society. Although it has several different definitions and implications for different philosophers, the state of nature is typically regarded as a place in which humans have limited social interaction with one another and a lack basic protection. Such a system has limited economic exchange and is typically dominated by self-interest and self-preservation.
According to Thomas Hobbes in his 1651 work, Leviathan, the state of nature is in fact a state of war. He perceives humans in the state of nature to be worried about security and struggling to “master the persons of all men… till he see no other power great enough to endanger him (Hobbes, T.). He also envisions some people taking pleasure in their growing power and expanding it beyond the needs for security. In this state, men have no pleasure and experience a great deal of grief (Hobbes, T). Due to the constant fear and fighting, humans are not able to create industry because of a fear of theft, culture or arts because of limited interactions between individuals, and they have no idea of commodious living. Due to this arrangement, the life of man in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, T).
Hobbes then presents a series of laws of nature that man should follow that will lead him out of the state of nature. The first is to seek peace, then to give up some liberty in exchange for certain rights, and the third is to respect and honor contracts (Hobbes, T). Many of the other sixteen laws are imperative to humans working and living together. Some include showing gratitude and accommodation, eliminating pride, maintaining equality, sharing resources, and dealing with arbitration (Hobbes, T.). Following such laws should come naturally to men in civil society as Hobbes states to, “Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thy selfe.” (Hobbes, T.). This move shows Hobbes’s attempt to establish guidelines for people entering into civil society.
Locke, on the other hand, separates the state of nature from the state of war. Although he envisions a more tolerant society filled with equality and reason in the state of nature, one act of aggression can quickly transform this into a state of war in which people make force upon one another without a common authority. With no appeal to authority, violence continues endlessly until the aggressor is destroyed or makes reparations (Locke, J.). But, in a civil society of un-biased arbitrators however, the law is appealed to and man can remain at peace that transgressions will be handled adequately. Although Locke’s state of nature is much more appealing than Hobbes’s, the move to civil society provides additional security in both accounts.
Opposition to the move from the state of nature to civilized society argues that man is more free in the state of nature and is in chains in society (Rousseau, J.). While this is true, it is also the main point. Like Hobbes stated earlier, departing the state of nature involves exchanging some freedom for some protection. The extent of how much freedom is given up in exchange for a certain amount of security is a subject of debate among political philosophers. Hobbes himself proposes a very strong Leviathan government in which citizens give up much of their freedom in exchange for tight security. Locke proposes a more limited government in which the government’s role is to protect the common good while securing liberty. Rousseau advocates for direct rule by the people to form the general will of the people (Rousseau, J.). Going even further, Proudhon advocates for a more anarchist view that the government should only create negative rights, which prevent people from acting a certain way, rather than positive rights which would further infringe upon individual liberty by forcing others to act in a certain way (Proudhon). With these varying degrees of government form and power, I, similar to Rousseau, advocate for an epistemic democracy which has direct power over the scope of the government depending on the needs of the society in order to protect the individual rights of citizens.
Many American politicians and political theorists, including former President Barack Obama, refer to the representative democracy of the United States as “the great American experiment” (Obama). This idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has several important characteristics that allow more freedom than a totalitarian regime while preventing less chaos than an anarchist one. America's voting process allows for Rousseau’s “general will” of the people to be expressed and changed periodically in response to the previous style of government. However, America’s power dynamic transcends into the realm of politics, making it difficult for the least advantaged to work within the system. Although we pride ourselves on free speech, we do not have a culture that promotes healthy and constructive political discussions. In order to achieve the maximum potential of advancing individual and group interests, a few things have to change such as finding and following the will of the people.
Finding the “will of the people” is one of the most difficult processes of living in civilized society. Munger proposes the idea of a constitution in order to decide how to aggregate these individual preferences into a group preference (Munger & Munger). This agreement must specify rules on how to choose, who can enter the agreement, how to leave, and how to amend the constitution (Munger & Munger). Approval would require unanimity and be fair to all. Such a constitution is similar to the social contract of the state of nature philosophers in that by signing, one is being voluntarily coerced into following the decision and subject to punishment if the rules are broken. In the Rawlsian original position, this constitution would form a government in which, "each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others” (Rawls). I believe that this government is an experimentalist and epistemic democracy because it ensures dignity and respect for all citizens.
Elizabeth Anderson in her work the Epistemology of Democracy advocates for Dewey’s experimentalist model of democracy which views democracy as “an institution for pooling widely distributed information about problems and policies of public interest by engaging the participation of epistemically diverse knowers” (Anderson). Dewey’s model features diverse participants, the interaction of voting and discussion, and feedback mechanisms such as periodic voting and protests in order to “ensure collective, experimentally-based learning from the diverse experiences of different knowers” (Anderson). This epistemic form of democracy is important in that it recognizes the fallibility of government, holding it accountable by periodic elections that allow the people to dissent. It also encourages public dissent to a group decision. The problems with totalitarianism or aristocracy is that the influence of public opinion is largely unheard until the regime is challenged or overthrown. Governments requiring consensus are ineffective or manipulative in that either nothing gets done, or the minority is coerced into complying with the majority in order to address pressing matters. Dewey’s system allows for minority opinions to be heard and respected, while also effectively making decisions. This form of civil society effectively eliminates socialism as a political ideology as society can structure itself and, "coordinate its actions through free associations and these associations can significantly determine the course of state policy” (Taylor, Charles).
As seen above, the state of nature, or pre-civilized society is a dangerous place filled with uncertainty and destruction. It is clear to see why one would leave the state of nature in pursuit of civilized society, specifically an epistemic representative democracy. Such a democracy defends the interests of all members of the society equally without regard to class status. In addition to increased safety and a direct impact on the way in which one is governed, this type of government brings about collective action that would never be achievable by individual actions.
Arguably the most important features of an interconnected society are the exorbitant benefits of trade and exchange. Of the traditionally established economic revolutions, both of them were catalyzed by increasing communication of people and a realization that working together is much easier and more productive than working alone. In the Neolithic Revolution, the early hunter-gatherers realized that settling in a fixed agricultural society with specialization provided benefits such as food surplus and a more comfortable sedentary lifestyle. This specialization increased dependency on others for survival. Such trust allowed for the emergence of entertainment and luxury that added to human development.
After several years of human prosperity, another economic revolution proved valuable to civilization. The Industrial Revolution introduced the division of labor, elaborated by Adam Smith, as an economic system that increases economic production and efficiency. Instead of individuals making a product individually from start to finish, Smith’s concept of the division of labor concept separates production of a single product into multiple stages by which individuals complete a single, extremely specialized task. The division of labor increases the dexterity in each particular worker because each person’s task is reduced to one simple operation (Smith, A). One does not have to master the process of producing a complex product, however she can become extremely specialized in one specific part of the production process, saving time and energy in education. In civilized society, man is in in constant need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes (Smith, A). "Without the disposition to truck, barter, and exchange, every man must have procured to himself every necessary and conveniency of life which he wanted,” (Smith, A). The availability of necessities and conveniences allows humans to pursue their own individual interests of which they can truly reach their full potential. Smith attributes the wealth, or prosperity, of nations to the division of labor, meaning that nations, and therefore many people in the nations, are made wealthy by this division. Specialization and the division of labor allows experts to advance their own craft, not only advancing their self-interest, but also the communities’ interests as a whole.
Specialization and the division of labor are only possible because of exchange. Specialization allows one to trade one’s surplus of goods or services in exchange for a good or service that they are lacking. For example, a potter may exchange excess vases in exchange for a hunter’s excess food. This process of a seller parting with her commodity is called circulation (Say). Exchanges depend on the supply of a product versus the demand for that product. When demand is high, but supply is low, the product is typically seen as valuable and worth a higher price. When demand is low but supply is high, the product is seen as less valuable and worth a lower price.
Knowledge of the supply and demand for a product does not exist in an integrated form, or with a central government planner, but rather in a dispersed form with many diverse local sellers (Hayek). The free market relies on a price mechanism in which people decide the distribution of resources based on their willingness to pay and abundance of the resources. The markets will correct all instances of shortages and surpluses with prices sending signaling sellers into or out of a specific market. This is due to both local sellers adapting quickly to changing circumstances to the individual market and the diversity trumps availability theorem which states, "if a problem is hard, the problem solvers converge on a finite set of solutions, the problem solvers are epistemically diverse, and there are many problem solvers who work together in moderate sized groups, then a randomly selected collection of problem solvers outperforms a collection of the best problem solvers” (Anderson). Although not necessarily political, this idea is similar to Anderson’s model of epistemic democracy that governs the political sphere of an ideal society. Following this argument, it is evident that socialism is not compatible with the ideas of epistemically diverse and democratic processes. Self-regulation of the market and a smaller government in the economic sector promote exchange and makes civilization better off.
The general idea of market exchanges brings about a paradox because there is inconsistency between morally acceptable exchanges and the unequal distributions of wealth that accumulate as a consequence of those exchanges (Munger). Naturally, those with more valuable products or services are able to sell such resources for large amounts of money. This creates an uneven distribution of wealth that can be seen as problematic in terms of equality and justice. I argue, as Munger does, that exchange in any form is better than no exchange (Munger). People working and living together in a capitalist market society are better off than individuals in the Hobbesian state of nature. On the other hand, the people, in an epistemically democratic manner, may propose laws and restrictions help lessen the inequality. Thus, antitrust laws, anti-price discrimination laws, and other similar laws on the market are not limiting the extent of the market, but rather promoting healthy competition between sellers, and fair and equal opportunity among buyers.
The idea that the government should have a limited role in the markets and public opinion can be seen as antithetical to the importance of a central government on collective action. I offer, however, as Taylor does, that “the self-regulating economy and public opinion… are two ways in which society can come to some unity or coordination outside the political structures,” (Taylor). He goes on to say that political authority should respect the autonomy of society (Taylor). Although the government has had a limited role in the economic sphere of an ideal society, there is a place for its economic intervention. There are necessary products and services that the market can or will not provide for the people. Such goods are important in maintaining a happy and healthy society. These public goods require government intervention to provide essential services to the community.
A public good is defined as non-excludable, meaning all members of a society are able to use it, and non-rivalrous, meaning one persons use does not limit the use of another. Public goods often occur in situations of market failure in which the market will not provide the provision or service on its own. Examples of provisions include infrastructure and public pools. Examples of services include defense and public education. According to Olson, collective action to provide public goods occurs naturally, or in a state of nature, primarily in smaller groups with homogeneous preferences, concentrated benefits, and dispersed costs (Olson). Increasing the group size increases challenges of collective action typically meaning that it will require outside intervention.
Imagine a neighborhood living on a hill with a winding road and many obstacles. At night, the road becomes dangerous due to a lack of lighting, and many more accidents are reported during the night than in the day. Members recognize the need of streetlights to illuminate the roads and make the road much safer to drive on. In order to pay for the streetlights, the neighbors are asked to pitch in their fair share of money to the cause. Although some altruistic and dutiful neighbors pay their share, some neighbors recognize that their contribution is negligible and individually would not increase the burden of other dues payers. A rational person would not pay towards the fund because her donation would hurt her personal economic interest and the streets would likely be built with or without her contribution. The issue is if this rationality expands to a significant portion of the community and either the altruistic neighbors bear the brunt of the costs, or the streetlights are not built. In order to combat this free-rider problem of some members not paying for the public goods, governments and organizations typically issue taxes or dues that are mandatory for members to pay with repercussions or eviction as coercive factors (Olson). Such taxes and dues are then used by the government to provide public goods to the community.
Government provisions of public goods ensure important goods to a civilization, such as defense and education, while holding all who benefit somewhat responsible for paying for the goods or services. As seen in the free-rider example, fundamental services can not survive on voluntary payments, but require coercion to complete such projects (Olson). Public goods not only help communities, but they also advance the self-interests of individuals in the society. Goods such as public education, protection, and entertainment are products of collective action that add to the commodious living that most people aspire to achieve. Humans living individually would not reach the achievements of collective society, and these collective societies require government intervention to accomplish such achievements.
Another example of government intervention in a market is for common pool resources. These resources are non-excludable like public goods, but are in fact rivalrous. Imagine fishing in a lake in pre-civilized society. Although it appears as though there are a thousand fish in the lake, excessive consumption by multiple individuals will in fact deplete the total fishing population over time. In civilized society, however, an epistemic democratic government, filled with scientists and consumers with knowledge of the subject, can agree upon a system to allow families to consume enough fish to eat while not depleting the population in the lake such as mandating permits, quotas, and fishing seasons. Agreements of this kind do not exist in the state of nature and require collective action best provided by government.
One of the biggest challenges of living in civil society is the protection of individual rights and liberties. As the social contract theory states, one gives up individual rights in exchange for protection and other benefits of society. In the Lockean state of nature, however, society was enforcing the Laws of Nature, but there was no political structure in place to ensure justice and protection of those social norms (Taylor). With the idea that society has its own pre-political life and unity, Taylor infers that the political structure must serve such life and unity (Taylor). Essentially, Taylor is stating that the government does not grant its citizens rights and liberty, but rather it has a duty to protect such rights and liberties for all citizens. As stated by Dworkin, “the institution of rights is therefore crucial, because it represents the majority’s promise to the minorities that their dignity and equality will be respected,” (Dworkin). Locke and Jefferson assert that one has a right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness in the state of nature, therefore, these rights must be protected in any civilized society (Locke and Jefferson). Although critics of government infringements on rights assume complete control of the government over individual rights, an epistemic and democratic government of the people, by the people, and for the people would only only go so far as to restrict rights that are necessary for society's protection, while maintaining their basic human rights.
Being stronger together does not simply mean that a society is stronger than individuals. It also means further that individuals within a society must be heard and respected equally and with dignity in order to protect the interests and desires of the minorities. Stronger together means no domination of a ruling class, so while there may be rich people, there should be no plutocracy. It also means, as Rousseau states, that that society’s general will should be molded away from self interest and towards the best interests of the state, which will in turn be in the best interests of all citizens (Rousseau).
The government should not be seen as an intimidating necessary evil that society must be forced to comply with. The government should be seen as a tool to advance the individual and collective interests of society while maintaining much of ones' personal autonomy and liberty. Despite the challenges of a governmental life, I further insist that people in a society exchanging not only goods, but ideas makes humanity better off. The benefits of protection, exchange, and community far outweigh the trivial consequences of forgone liberty. This all, however, is contingent upon the correct system of government. The best and only way to truly advance society’s interests is to have an open and equal government willing to listen to criticism and can adapt to changes over time. Following such strategies ensures that we are in fact, "Stronger Together”.