To listen to an audio of this article and find other articles by this author, visit: theinspiringrevolutionsblog.blogspot.com
The Death of Freedom Will Be Written on August 25, 2007 In our ardent quest to be a nation that supports both freedom and protection, issues over the shifting balance between civil liberties and government powers have continually been making media headlines. One story that could play a key role in swaying that balance is the controversy surrounding the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program and the involvement of private telecommunications companies in that program. But knowing the specific facts of the story itself will not be as important as understanding the psychological factors influencing how we handle the case and what it says about human nature and the cause for civil, political, and economic freedom. One of the biggest obstacles to freedom is dependency. When we depend on a structure for a vital part of our livelihood, we fear the loss of that structure because it might leave us in a place of uncertainty, or even chaos. As a result, we tend to refrain from holding these structures accountable for their abuses against our freedom because doing so could mean losing the stability they bring. We see this very clearly with grown-up children who continue to depend on their parents and, in doing so, are often also willing to accept their parents’ controlling, invasive, or restrictive ways. But where does that cycle end? Does it even need to end? Should we simply trust those who provide the everyday services we depend on regardless of the loss of freedom we might endure? Is there a better balance between the trust of dependability and the justice of accountability than what we have today? In the volatile years ahead, our social landscape is certain to change drastically, and it will necessitate that discover better answers to these questions. The process has already begun. In the case of the NSA’s wiretapping, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, recently confirmed that private companies did indeed aid the program and then went on to dissuade lawsuits against these companies, asserting that such lawsuits would then force them to file bankruptcy. He is correct in acknowledging that we depend on these companies and could not afford them to go down because of the harm it could do to our communication network. But how then do we hold corporations accountable for their actions? This question drives right to the heart of the dangers of our philosophy regarding corporations. What key current paradigms does this issue call into question? In our current legal framework, corporations are treated as humans and are granted rights that provide them with certain protections, or freedoms, from government intervention. But you cannot throw a corporation in prison for breaking the law because the corporation isn’t really a human. It is simply a structure, or system, that enables humans to more efficiently and effectively carry out their creative endeavors. To call a corporation a human would be equivalent to calling a computer a human and giving it rights. The only difference is that a single computer doesn’t typically have enough importance in the
everyday functioning of our society to warrant the protection needed to continue its operations. But certain corporations do, and it is this level of dependency that causes us to feel that we need to protect their well-being – sometimes regardless of what it means for our individual freedoms. Yet a major problem exists in the fact that corporations, because they are not human, don’t have human morality. They do not question their actions because they don’t have the ability to think and reflect. The humans who work within these corporations do that for them. Now, instead of throwing a corporation in prison, we could fine them. But if we fine them too much, we could seriously hamper services central to our livelihood. If we fine them too little, the penalty might not exceed the gain they get from breaking the law, and so they will continue to see profit in illegal endeavors (based on the legally defined purpose of a corporation it is an entity that must first and foremost strive for profit). Ultimately, what change will it really effect to penalize corporations that are without the qualities of human morality and reflection and so will not learn from its mistakes and alter its behaviors? What then can we do to make sure that we secure our freedoms from abuses? Who then should be held accountable for actions against our freedoms? Well, if morality is in the human domain, and not in the corporate domain, then the humans who partake in illegal actions, regardless of whether it is through a corporation, must be held accountable. So, while McConnell is correct that fining these corporations could potentially do harm to an essential social system (i.e. telecommunications), it doesn’t mean there aren’t actions we can take, and the most effective actions will be the ones that treat the problem at its source rather than enacting Band-aid solutions that condone the very problem and thus enable it to exist. First, we must work to resolve the issue of dependency and its abuses. Here, fining these corporations could actually be beneficial– not in a direct attempt to alter their behavior but rather to fund projects that help citizens shed their unhealthy dependency. For instance, the moneys could go toward public works projects in order to lay down whatever structures might be necessary for free – or at least less expensive – communication services. Technologies already exist (and are being implemented in other parts of the world) that could definitely lead us in this direction. And it would also send a message that, while corporations, like computers, can be a powerful means toward important social ends, they are not ends in themselves and their freedoms must be balanced by responsibility. Second, individuals who made the decisions to aid in illegal government acts must be brought to justice. Currently, being part of a corporation gives individuals certain protections. But where these protections allow them to avoid moral accountability, we must change our old ways of displacing responsibility and show corporate leaders that they will be held up to law just as much as any other citizen, regardless of the importance of their position. We must have the courage to demand that decision-making powers in corporations are not only earned by the technology you can create and the profit you can make but also by the ethical standards you hold yourself to. Ultimately, the courage to enforce such standards must come from three places: the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the people. Laws are created to effect social justice. We would not need laws if we didn’t live in communities. But the world is naturally interdependent, and so laws are necessary to
abide by. In my book, Thriving at the Brink of Disaster, I explain that policies of justice must be based on both individual and collective rights and bis bas This is a very We need new laws that hold people in the corporate and government worlds accountable for their individual decisions. We need a judicial system that will enforce these laws with vigor. And we need the people to stand for their rights. Every major revolution of the world was in the name of greater individual freedom from the imposition of a larger authority. Every major revolution of the world came from a brave decision to reclaim, or to claim for the first time, the power of individual choice to create a new world instead of giving into the dependencies that had been built from the past. We will face these same decisions, and we can follow them through to the end by using the current system to change the system, or we can wait for the eruption that takes place when you hold back the innate human desire for freedom. In that case, the death of freedom will be a provocation for the cause of freedom. To learn more about the path to greater freedom, you can purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at: www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php To begin applying these ideas to your life, answer the questions below: - In what ways are you dependent on other people or on the government? - Do you let your dependencies infringe upon your freedom? Do they prevent you from seeking what you truly desire to do with your life? - Do you let others abuse your dependence on them by allowing them to sway you against what you desire or against what you believe is “right?” - How can you rise above the expectations and coercions that come from those you depend on? - What can you do to create a greater sense of independence? What insecurities are preventing you from doing so? What can you do to overcome these insecurities? - What new choices do you need to make in order to depend more on people who won’t use your dependence to influence your direction and principles in life? - What would do with more freedom in your life? What would you learn? What would you create? How would you contribute?