Force is a two-edged sword. When properly used it is the driving force of civilization itself. Without the force of physical effort and mental invention our civilization would stagnate. It is through the force of labor, invention and initiative that we progress individually and collectively. When mis-used, the application of force, not for work or invention, but against others, can for a time enhance the wellbeing of those strong enough to exert their superiority, hence its attraction. The tragedy is that if we were to avoid the use of force against one another, concentrating only on the application of creative force, we as a civilization would long ago have reached and surpassed a degree of universal wealth and prosperity which today we can barely imagine.
The central issue of politics, indeed the one single factor which makes the very science of politics necessary, is the predilection of humans to gain wealth and prominence, not through their own efforts alone, but by claiming a share of the works and invention of others. This we do by theft and murder, by claiming a disproportionate share of the natural resources, through dishonest trading, or through politics either legally or illegally. If we were able, either willingly or under the discipline of law, to live our lives without harming or exploiting one another, we would find ourselves living in harmony, peace, productivity and prosperity. Collaboration creates prosperity; dissension destroys it.
The concept of living life without harming or exploiting others is nothing new. The principle is enshrined in the Ten Commandments of the Christian Faith; it forms the basis of English Common Law. Its derivation, namely that the purpose of government is to prevent people from injuring one another, was simply stated by Thomas Jefferson. It was repeated by one of Britain's most prominent jurists, Lord Denning: What matters is that each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same.
Currently we prefer to live in a state of conflict, in which each tries to get the better of others. This is reflected in our democratic system through which we vacillate between Right and Left. The Right allows considerable freedom for powerful people to exploit the less powerful, while the Left supports those who see themselves as exploited and assists them to rectify the perceived injustices through equalizing taxation and welfare benefits. We have polarized ourselves into two camps, and we fight one another through the ballot box.
Social conflict is caused by actions which are beneficial to some, but harmful to others; actions which are to the advantage of some but to the disadvantage of others; actions bringing profit to some at the expense of loss to others. This is imposition by one individual or group upon another.
Political policies give us three options. The Law may permit imposition to continue thus favoring the stronger elements in society; or it may create imposition on behalf of the poor. In both cases there is imposition and conflict.
The effects of conflict are far more varied, more numerous and fundamental than we realize: environmental pollution, wasted land and traffic-clogged cities; industrial strife, high unemployment and low productivity; expensive and unproductive government . . .
These are the results of political policies we promote, support and elect. We are the cause. Only we individually, then collectively through our Governments and our Laws, can be the solution.
The third option, the option of no-conflict, is achieved when Government and People unite behind the Principle that we should avoid any and all actions which are harmful or detrimental to others.
This is the Principle of Non-Injury, a fundamental law of social conduct with which we are all instinctively familiar.
We should all have the freedom to enjoy life and improve ourselves as we choose and are able. But we should not do so in ways which are harmful or detrimental to others; we should not seek gain at the expense of others' loss.
With the guidance of this Principle we would share resources equitably and use them wisely, we would trade fairly, we would respect the property, privacy and peace of one another. We would learn to live in liberty, respecting and not infringing the liberties of others. And we would prosper: for collaboration is an infinitely more creative, more powerful force than confrontation.
In this way we would move from the left-right confrontation enacted through democracy, to a new politics guided not by the force of arms or of numbers, but by a Principle. After democracy: principocracy?
Life after Democracy
