Stories

IV. Rationalist democracy against a romantic attachment to authority

1.    Opposition or nuance 
For nuance I can use a number of other words like subtlety, refinement, justness or even rightness. With the latter word the risk is drawing the meaning towards right or wrong again, towards opposites. The whole case method exercise in chapter III becomes pointless if you try to drive it towards right or wrong. The true understanding of a situation has to take into account a great number of variables and only a holistic appreciation of the total playing field can lead to a common understanding of that entirety. 
To be able to have such a conversation, a dialogue, an appreciation of dichotomies is necessary. Dichotomies are extreme notions about which people will claim that they cannot exist next to each other. It is either or. Something cannot be right and wrong, black and white, at the same time. Yet people may have different appreciations of situations when debating a point. Depending on the relative position one person may say something is good, thereby almost forcing an opponent to say it is wrong, as it is not right from a different point of view. Language and the understanding of words, a common understanding of notions, becomes very important to develop and enhance a common understanding. 
That is totally different from trying to convince someone. That may become important when a decision has to be taken, but not as long as we are just trying to develop a common understanding of, for instance, F1 or football as a business or a sport. When you have to contract a new driver or a new designer, things take a different turn, as you will have to come to a decision. Such a decision may ultimately be the responsibility of a single person, but the way it is being arrived at, a common understanding, will have great impact. 
This is where notions such as rationalist democracy and authority come into play. Those are not the extremes, the dichotomies, as a rationalist democracy in this context would find a place between anarchy and autocracy. This is not a fixed place because in its many guises such a rationalist democracy can move from left to right on the axis. Ownership tends to be an important element in determining the management or leadership style of a company. Tradition and constitutional organisation have an important influence in politics of a country. 
How to make the voice of common people count, add value to a company or a country is always a challenge. A challenge from the top down as well as from the bottom up. In a company it should be relatively straightforward. People should know their own place of work best, but sub optimalisation is a threat, so the structure should enable the total process to benefit from appreciation of each step’s possibilities in the light of the limitations of the other elements. 
Just like the F1 car. It needs an engine that fits the car, is reliable and is light. It drives a gearbox that must fit the engine and drive the wheels. These wheels must be placed according to rules and regulations and have a certain freedom of vertical movement, allowed by the suspension that may be mounted on the gearbox. There are many more variables that come into play and the fastest car is the one that has found the best possible concept to combine opportunities and limitations. 
I introduce that word concept because a car designed by a committee is probably not going to be very fast. You need a vision, but one that all others involved in the design can relate to, in a way that allows them to be recognised as a relevant part of the whole. An autocratic designer, providing a concept that all must work to, will have the burden of the all over responsibility of the design, and will not bring out the best from the team. That is where authority has its limitations. Basic competitiveness for a company or the basic morals of a country hinge on this positioning of the rationalist democracy on the axis of anarchy towards autocracy. 

2.    The short run attachment to Authority
There is a rather romantic attachment to authority and in this case, I am talking about government. Ever since the Dark Ages for instance England and France have been at each other’s throats on a regular basis. The last time probably when De Gaulle vetoed England joining the then budding European Common Market in 1963 and 1967 so they were not part of the germination of that bureaucratic powerhouse. The Brits finally joined in 1973 but probably always remained on the fringes until they finally voted out again in 2016. Two things stick out in this, it is Nationalism and the abuse of authority that made these things happen. 
Nationalism may be nice in sports, but it is mainly destructive. It is basically inherently supremacist. So called leaders abuse nationalist notions to shore up their own position of power. Such people send their citizens to war based on emotional, romantic ideas of national relevance. That may have had its place in the Dark Ages, but civilisation should have progressed beyond that. As soon as you hear a politician say something along the lines of “we the [nationality] deserve better”, he or she is playing on entitlement. 
Such a politician is in no position to deliver a message that is rational and plays on the romantic notion that he or she will be the leader to bring us a better future. The politician defends a position based on debate. Putting forward the plans that should do well for the nation and whilst tearing down similar pipedreams from the opposing politician. The level of debate is disquieting in view of the importance of what is being discussed. I find the circus of the British House of Commons particularly disconcerting. 
In countries like England and the USA, with the rather dominant powers of the Prime Minister in England and the President in the USA, the rhetoric tends to be very divisive. It is conservative versus progressive, and people are brought up with the notion that when one of the two is good, the other one must be wrong. Supposedly both countries are rational democracies, but the influence of the people is very limited. They are pawns in a powerplay. The constitutional systems of these countries firmly position themselves on the autocratic side of the axis that runs between anarchy and autocracy. Not only does it make the person who represents the party very dominant in the agenda of government, it also splits the social basically in two. Divide and conquer. 
I do not trust a person who believes he or she can deal with this responsibility as head of government. Such a person must have an ego that must outweigh – with exceptions of course – his or her ability for modesty about his or her capabilities. It is about excellence in politicking, not ethics nor morals. Those notions come second if they count at all beyond power. Today I am angry and incapable of taking the high-level long-term view as I listen to the powerless words of the President of the USA and the insensitive fabricated rhetoric of the Governor of Texas dealing with another mass shooting in the USA. A shooting that has robbed 19 children and two grown-ups of their lives, before the murderer was gunned down. The class of 8–10-year-olds also counts survivors. They will have to live with this dreadful memory for the rest of their lives.
The US president blames the gun-lobby, but that is way too easy. His politics are not in the clear. Yes, the gun laws in the USA are hard to stomach, but it is the hate ridden social climate that makes people feel they should go on a shooting spree. It is the racial intolerance, the religious intolerance, the political intolerance, the hate driven intolerant underlying society fuelled by the massive difference between the rich and the poor, that is responsible for the American Nightmare. 
In a country where even the legal system is highly politicised and is on the brink of outlawing proper professional female care for unwanted pregnancies, back to the age of the knitting needles, the climate for normal dialogue is fundamentally disturbed. I am no fan of abortions, every single one could and would have to be unnecessary, but that demands a healthy attitude towards sex. Hypocrisy and conservative morals have no place in a free society. Point here is, that the power games of politics are impacting on a possible positive development of the social. 
The so-called social media give extreme views a podium that convince the authors and actors on that podium of their self-righteousness. The name Social Media is fundamentally wrong as it claims to be something which it is absolutely not: Social. The only correct name would be Digital Media. That that is what they are, no more than that. It is a digital forum that gives people an opportunity to be anything: a messenger of hate or a believer in hope. We the people have to wake up against this type of manipulation. We have been raised in gullibility with romantic notions of progress. We have to educate our young to become critical thinkers. Thinkers that can be critical of what suits the established order. We need that to build a social order.

3.    Follow the leader or your own thoughts?
A rationalist democracy only stands a chance if we the people are prepared to think for ourselves. If we blindly follow a leader, or if we have some romantic attachment to treat his or her words as gospel, we are doomed as autonomous thinkers, as rational individuals. We will become emotionally driven followers, unapproachable for the realities of life. It is again time to make a comparison with the world of Formula 1. 
This year, 2022, saw a dramatic change in the rulebook that determines the limits to which a car must be designed. The aerodynamics have been changed completely from what they were. The reason to go for such a dramatic change was to improve the spectacle, improve the racing. After years of domination by Mercedes, who won the constructor’s honours 9 years on the trot, anything that would take the fight closer to them was welcome. 
Designers of all teams must have sat together to come up with a concept according to which they would construct their new car. Two teams got it right from the start and won races. Down the pecking order there were also some changes as some teams moved up, fighting for better finishes than the years before. Others were relegated further to the back. Last year’s backmarker didn’t really improve. The big surprise was Mercedes, who seemed to have gotten it spectacularly wrong with a design that was significantly different from all others. Their car was undrivable and featured on places of the starting grid and in the race results such as they hadn’t experienced for well over a decade. 
After five races the media started to speculate whether Mercedes would stick to their distinctive concept. Would they maybe revert to their interim car as had been used at the first pre-season test? The professional media were nuanced in voicing thoughts about such a possibility, without discarding it. The private users of the digital media were, as often is the case, very outspoken with their unsolicited opinions, free of any obligation. They knew what they would do, if only someone would care to listen to them.  
The discussions within the Mercedes team must be quite intense. Not used to seeing the backend of all that many cars, they are spoiled for success. Is their concept flawed or not? The fundamentals of such a concept are the most threatening. Going back to investigate them is almost painful for those who were responsible in formulating them. The team manager in the meantime maintains his faith; or not. He will be under pressure from others in the Mercedes hierarchy. 
Mercedes doggedly persisted with their concept and was rewarded in the sixth race of the season with a leap in performance. They are beginning to understand their car and bringing it closer to the front. Whether their distinctive concept will prove to have more room for development than that of the current leaders remains to be seen.
A different situation can be seen at Aston Martin. Bought by a billionaire entrepreneur, father of one of the F1 drivers, he claims he will bring Aston Martin to the front. Having made his fortune in fashion products, he must now learn a totally different trade. So far success has eluded Aston Martin. They are currently two places down from last year in ninth, last but one. Obviously, their new car was not the jump ahead they had bargained for. They decided to ditch their concept after five races and brought a virtually brand-new car to the sixth one. Once more the car failed to finish high enough to score points for the championship. 
That doesn’t mean the car has no potential of course. The other teams had a head start of five races to improve their cars and Aston Martin basically started, five races into the season, from scratch. Will the car prove to be a step forward or should they have stuck with their original plan? The interesting question however is who was dominant in this decision? Was it impatience by the boss or did the design team realise they had made fundamental mistakes? A mature decision or the consequence of a motion of distrust? Will emotions rule the team, or will the team members remain challenged to be rational thinkers? 

4.    Better understanding leads to living with questions
The consequence of our hierarchical debating society is that we are often tempted to voice opinions as facts. In the previous episode I talked about opinions about Mercedes and Aston Martin. There is no way of knowing what could have happened and what will happen so we can ask questions and voice opinions, but we will have to live with them as such; as possibilities but no more than that. The better we understand the complexity of a situation the more questions we may have. Questions we will seek answers to, but chances are that thinking about what could be, is richer than delusional knowing of what is. 
A complexity that our hierarchical society does not honour and has problems in accepting. Things too often are being simplified, presented in simplistic fashion. We are supposed to know, to be seen as decisive, on top of things. And if we are not, then we are supposed to be loyal to those who are supposed to know, whatever there is to know, on our behalf. Accepting such loyalty does not allow us to be autonomous thinkers, critical thinkers. It is anathema to embracing rational thought. 
We love our emotions, and we can live on emotion and instinct as the autopilot for most of our actions in life, but as long as we harbour a romantic trust in our emotions, at the expense of rationality if and when that is being called upon, the established order will continue to dictate our lives. 
Trust in our leaders is an emotion that always needs to be treated based on rationality. A leader may have served us well in the past, but every new decision regarding the future deserves critical analysis. Decisions benefit from a critical audience. It will force those responsible to take more variables into account. It will force them to develop a more nuanced view of the reality than placing it on a simplistic left or right axis. The leaders must investigate the variables and the variety that can and will exist between the extremes of any axis. Extremes are resistant to balance whereas weighting the extremes and understanding the values in between them is not a compromise, but balanced judgment. It will do justice to different perspectives.
Understanding deep rooted emotions is one of those rational thinking exercises that helps in any balanced discussion. Understanding in an empathic sense and not in a substitute thinking sense. Nationalism is one such deep rooted emotion. If I mention to an English friend that I think their political system of debate in the house of commons is, I don’t know, bonkers? Or I may say to an American that the USA is so polarised that it isn’t entitled to carry the U in its name, but it should be the D of divided instead. Those people may secretly think along similar lines, but when voiced by a foreigner like me, the nationalistic “right or wrong, my country!” kicks in and they may go on the defensive.
Such deep-rooted emotions, like systems of government and allocation of power do not allow for doubt. A philosopher by the name of Charles Bukowski is quoted as saying: The problem of the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” Apart from the fact that he doesn’t sound very doubtful about that, it is unclear who is smart and who is stupid. Another distinction that is often used is that between common people and the higher educated, with the suggestion that the higher educated will know best. The fact that people have had higher education however does not say anything about their norms and values, but often they do feel superior, just like intelligent people might do. I think Bukowski is trying to make a valuable point, that we should dare to live with doubt. But it is not education, intelligence or the lack of either, that is the problem. It is the hierarchical established order that does not allow those within that hierarchy to voice doubt. In the jungles of corporations and government supremacism is an instrument of survival, of success. 
A hierarchical system may be a necessity for the logistics of running a country or a company. But the problem is that, in the established order, government also controls the ethics and morals of society. That gives politicians a possibility to make “we the people” subordinate to what is ultimately their personal success. In such a success the economy plays a dominant part, governing towards a positive entrepreneurial climate. Because of that growth is a prime measure of government success. 
Corporations are about profit maximalisation, and that needs growth, unlimited growth from a finite planet cannot be so the politician’s success is detrimental to the electorate, making politics in essence a con-job. I know, this is a bit harsh, and many politicians are not intentionally such evil con artists, but the higher educated and intelligent people among them should realise the circle of doom that needs to be broken. Control over the morals and ethics of society need to move to those who can afford to live with relevant questions. To start the people should take control over the way we educate future generations and make sure thinking gets the nod over delusional knowing.

5.    Can there be an economy without growth?
The answer is simple: Yes, but it will need fundamental change. The economy is about regulating transactions between people and the planet. It measures production and consumption, imports and exports and the total level of economic activity in a region. The established order currently needs to see growth from that economy and that has a financial reason: that of profit maximalisation. I will present my view why that is the case, in a very simplistic form. There are far more involved and elaborate explanations, but I do believe this one serves its purpose. 
A company needs three things to run its business: customers, personnel, and money. To get customers your product must meet the requirements of the customers. These requirements will include the right quality at the right price. To be able to run the business you need the right kind of people. Their requirements vary a lot between businesses. In some cases, you need the hands of the people, in others you need the brains and, in most businesses, various combinations of the two. Sometimes the competencies a company needs are at a premium and sometimes they will be available at minimum wage levels. It is basically regulated by supply and demand. Those things, customers and personnel, are very specific for a business activity. Not so money. 
Money is a generic thing. People that have it, can place it wherever they want. The “haves” will want to see a reward for making that money available, based on the availability of money in general terms and depending on the risk of the business it finances. Money will be placed where it makes the best return, and it will be withdrawn when it can do better elsewhere. The “haves” will employ financial companies to invest their money for them and will measure their performance in comparison with others. The competition for money, the favours of the haves, between these financial companies is fierce. They pass on this pressure to the companies they invest in. That competition is at the basis of the pressure to maximise profits.
The mechanisms to make more money from a company activity are pretty similar all over the business world. The main cost in most companies has to do with the cost of labour. Reducing these costs can happen in various ways. Productivity increases, producing product with less people or producing more product with the same amount of people. That reduces unit cost and allows either an increase of the margin or competitiveness. If it is more product, you do need more customers. A market in absolute terms grows from increased population or from an increased perceived need for the product (higher penetration). For a company the market can grow by expanding the market area or increasing the market share. Those tactics benefit from reduced unit cost and resultant lower sales price. The profit growth then comes through the realisation of the higher volume. The company is happy and the financier as well.
However, since this affects practically all entrepreneurial activity, it also affects the general economy. Both population growth as well as productivity increase, lead to a continuous overcapacity on the labour market. Overcapacity in a free market of supply and demand always means a downward pressure on wages. You need laws to protect the lowest wage earners by guaranteeing them a minimum wage, but that has limits, as higher labour cost will stimulate investments in productivity increases. 
In some countries people are forced to have multiple jobs to keep their heads above water (increasing the overcapacity that was at the basis of their reduced value). Governments in other countries may provide employment programs and social support to keep people above poverty levels. That in turn supports the general economy as it needs consumers for the output of its production. That support is financed by taxes, paid by those people who have jobs. 
So, it is the financing of companies that is at the basis of the need for growth. That is where the driver is found for overexploitation of our natural resources and burdening the planet and atmosphere with emissions. It is capitalism that drives the established order. But can we limit growth? What about restricting the availability of natural resources? That could lead to new ways of thinking. 

6.    The size of the economy should be dictated by sustainability.
How much is available of any type of natural resource, leaving a 100-year reserve? Who is going to determine that? The owners of the natural resources? Who are those owners? How can any one person, a company, or a state claim ownership of natural resources? They belong to nature, to planet earth, and should not be harvested for private gain, where short term greed is always around the corner, but with the needs of future generations in mind. 
The same can be said for emissions, but with an inverse arithmetic. Emissions are only allowed up to a level that nature can deal with it. Companies, farms, or industries emitting greenhouse gasses and the like should buy their share of what the planet can absorb. No more should be made available, should be allowed to be emitted. This would bring supply and demand in play. Market forces will regulate price levels that will influence availability as some things would just become too expensive. But again, who should be the beneficiary of these payments and who should set these limits? 
The idea is that nature belongs to all. It is a common responsibility but also a common source. The proceeds of an economy as mentioned above should be used to pay a basic income to everyone. A basic income that should be high enough to cover basic living expenses like, food, clothing, and housing. That would make people independent of the labour market and thereby take away the structural overcapacity of that labour market. That would force employers to make the reward for labour attractive, instead of a matter of necessity, of survival. 
All that would still entail an economy, but not one dominated by greed. It would be an economy driven by availability. It can have an enormous impact on the desire for population growth. It is obvious that sharing with less people leaves more per person. If everything is limited, a declining population would lead to an increase in personal prosperity. This is a call on family planning. Many people still listen to religious institutions on this subject. I would say that a non-conceived life cannot be called a life. No religious reason to object.
So why do religions object to birth control measures? What is the rationale behind that? Is there any rationale behind it other than the morally unsustainable attitude that sex is bad? Repressing the natural joy that sex brings human beings seems to be bad instead. All evidence of insidious sex involving religious people, all the hypocrisy surrounding sexuality submitted to dubious morals, confirms that. Such repressive morality is without any rationale other than the unfounded belief that freedom of sexuality will lead to one cavorting mass of sex-crazed people, no longer fit to do a day’s work. 
It is probably like the equally unsubstantiated claim that in a care state people would fall prey to inactivity, laziness, indolence, what have you. This claim targets “other people” of course, not the people who utter those claims themselves. They are the hard-working model citizens with high moral standards, if you would believe them. It is true that people who can be free to decide if they want to be productive, will only do so for just reward or for personal satisfaction. It is that what is being feared by the established order, as it amounts to the loss of cheap labour. The actual freedom of the currently enslaved worker. 
Bringing the economy in line with sustainability will demand true and great changes that will benefit the common people more than the current upper classes. It will safeguard their future from the deteriorating situation should the capitalist society be left unfettered in its drive for unlimited growth from a finite planet. The fruits of a person’s labour should be entitled to just reward as should the right to a sustainable future for future generations.
This makes it clear who will be chief beneficiaries of such momentous change: the common people. The common people will have to invest time and effort into achieving such change. Taking control of education is a start. Doing that with the help of an organisation will also help to create a unified body to demand an economy of sustainability. A unified body that allows for all the differences that will exist within it. A unified body that will not allow supremacists to divide them based on race, religion, gender, nationality, education, or wealth. People will never be equal, but they have the right to be themselves. Differences will strengthen society as they bring out the complementarity of diversity. 
A friend suggested how we could start this. We should start with a perfectly legal protest: A Day of Inaction. With exception of hospital workers and firefighters all we would have to do is nothing. No work, no spending, no travel, nothing at all. No use of electricity, unless safety is involved, or gas. No Internet. Nothing! Make sure you have a day’s worth of food and some candles. Read a book, play with the kids in the garden, play cards or Monopoly (I would have suggested a less capitalistic game) or whatever.
This will absolutely scare the established order no end as it will cost a fortune and no laws will have been broken. Mainly though they will be appalled that the public were both willing and capable of doing it. They would sit up and take notice for sure and who knows see how they could be instrumental in making this happen in the decades to come.

7.    Nature is our global responsibility.
Those are not my words, they come from a spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. I would consider these words an endeavour to bridge any difference in religion, nationality or whatever other reason people may have to be or feel different. It doesn’t matter to what private morality we want to live if we accept our shared responsibility. To be able to do that we must respect the fact that there are differences in people’s beliefs and convictions. Striving for authority over others, supremacy, will get in the way of acceptance of our joint global responsibility. 
Let’s take the challenge for our future serious. That needs attention and dedication of the global population striving for the wellbeing of nature, instead of the established order of money people striving for financial gains. The financial people see environmental problems as an opportunity to create business, to create growth. In that sense the Inconvenient Truth, as signalled by Al Gore, of Global Warming can function as a decoy. This statement that does not take away from the immediate urgency of global warming, but it must be seen as just one of the symptoms of a deeper-rooted problem. The root of the problem is a total disrespect for everything natural and that includes a large percentage of human beings. 
It comes down to a better balance between Democracy and Authority. We must understand the limitations of the financial interests benefitting the top and offset it against the wider belief in the necessity of the sustainability of the natural world. That will be in the interest of all of us, from the bottom up. It is not about a simplistic money economy, but about the much more complex concept of a rational democracy. To find a proper place on the axis of the total individual interest of anarchy, versus the autocracy of the might of the strongest. 
Although it can be seen to be failing, authority is prolonged as it successfully boasts short term achievements. It celebrates the successes of today with their costs hidden in the future. The match or race between the established order and nature is played today, but the effects will only be seen beyond its duration, beyond the life span of this generation. That is why the emotion of success must be dampened by rational thought. 
We must educate our youngsters to become critical thinkers, to be autonomous thinkers trained through problem-based learning, case methods to think in possibilities. Not judgemental in right or wrong, not as a hierarchical determination who is the best thinker but to contribute towards the most encompassing view. The better we understand the complexity of a situation the more questions we may have. Questions we will seek answers to, but chances are that thinking about what could be, is richer than a delusional knowing of what is. 
This is at odds with a hierarchical society that fundamentally serves the interests of those on top of the hierarchy. That is anathema to rational thought. The hierarchy is concerned with growth and profit maximisation to safeguard or improve their relative hierarchical position. Their actions are dictated by and measured in money and not by life and the living. 
The common people need control over the morals and ethics of society to protect their living environment. Responsibility for those ethics need to be in the hands of those who can afford to live with the relevant questions. That is why the general population should assume responsibility for the way their offspring is being educated. Ultimately that is the only way to make sure that rational thinking gets the nod over delusional knowing. Education should be the democratic domain of the general population supported by an organisation of the general population: the Power of Ten. Completely independent from any other type of organisation and only dealing with the global responsibility and education. 
This will lay the foundations for a constructive discussion over time towards a sustainable society based on a different economy concerned with sharing sustainably available resources. Those natural resources belong to all and therefore proceeds from natural resources should be evenly shared as a basic income between the general population. That should do away with the overcapacity of labour, and make it scarce, like the natural resources. In that way proceeds from personal labour can be just rewards for personal efforts. 
All this will take time, time that should also see a decreasing population as it becomes clear that sharing with less will mean more room for individual prosperity. The thought is that once entrepreneurs understand that this is going to happen, they will start working towards it. And people can make it happen.