|
|
|
||||||||
A Science of Utopia
he function of philosophy is the creation of sciences. I am trained as a professional philosopher and I wish to create a science of civilization, that I call "utopian analysis." It supersedes the philosophy of ethics and aesthetics. It builds on the moral science of Hobbes and Locke, and does not commit the naturalistic fallacy. In it ideals take the place of theories, and political experiments test the truth or falsity of ideals. Utopian analysis is the heart of A Science of Civilization, by Christopher C. Humphrey, Ph.D., available at Barnes & Noble (www.bn.com) and Amazon.com.
topia is not a place. The word "utopia" is Latin for "nowhere." Utopia is not perfection, and it is not one particular form of society. There are countless ways of realizing the seven well-established ideals, which are (1)life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; (2)reciprocity, (3)democracy, (4)hierarchies of community, (5)equal opportunity, (6)justice, and (7)the beautiful city. It is by building a higher community that includes both sides that we prevent war. Reciprocity is a fancy name for the golden rule. The science of utopia is all about establishing or refuting ideals. But most of this book is devoted to a utopian dream. This is my dream, not the only possible dream, and if I lived in the year 3000 CE, I might dream a different dream.
n the web, we see countless other utopias, which seem self-evident to their authors. And to each of them I say where is your evidence? Where is the analysis that shows the ideals on which the utopia is based? Where are the political experiments that refute alternatives and establish this one? In other words, how do you know? What seems self-evident to the author may seem a recipe for anarchy or tyranny to another. That is why we need a science of utopia.
eading Plato's Republic at age 15 turned me into a life-long utopian dreamer. There is no greater pleasure for me. However, I was never attracted to his utopia. It is authoritarian, and I have always been libertarian. Liberty is the right to do whatever you like in private, so long as it places no one at involuntary risk. So in my utopia, there would be no DEA, no one in jail on drug charges, and everyone could smoke pot and ingest entheogens, at least at home. The War-On-Drugs is like the War on Vietnam. It should never have been fought in the first place, and creates a great evil in the form of gangs, drive-by shootings, and corruption of officials. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition? Does no one understand the First Amendment? Apparently not.
e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These are stirring and beautiful words, written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which set off our first revolution, and created the First Republic. There was a second, peaceful revolution in 1789, which created the Federal government, which is the Second Republic. I made one change to Jefferson's words. I changed "men" to "people," which is what he meant, anyway. Stirring words, but wrong in 2 places. Apparently these truths are not self-evident or we would not have outlawed drugs, gambling and prostitution about 1919, first fruit of the enfranchisement of women, oddly enough. Either people do not understand what the ideal of liberty means, or, more likely, it is not self-evident that it is the best rule. Most people seem to prefer dictatorship, so long as they get to do the dictating. Jefferson's second mistake was in saying these rights are unalienable. Murderers and traitors forfeit those rights by their own actions.
iberty is not the same thing as anarchy. Indeed, the two are opposites, because anarchy always leads to authoritarian regimes, and the end of liberty. That's what happened in the French Revolution.
Liberty applies to private actions, but if everyone does whatever they want in public, chaos ensues. Imagine some people driving on the right side of the road and some driving on the left. Liberty is not license. Serial killers want to kill, and the fact that they usually do it in private does not make it a liberty. Terrorists want to destroy buildings, poison the water supply, blow up planes, and kill thousands of people. But just because they want to does not mean they have a right to. Out in the country, everyone has their own car and they drive wherever and whenever they want. In a congested metropolis, this same rule leads to gridlock and smog.
here can be no liberty without justice or a defense against murderers and terrorists. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson put them together, because that is the full meaning of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is in the name of preserving our life that we protect ourselves from terrorists and serial killers. That is why I propose identity cards, which are used to transfer funds, get on or off public transport, enter or leave a city or a neighborhood or a business or a mall, with every transaction recorded on a location database. These and other measures are the only way to catch terrorists or serial murderers. Anarchists would disapprove of identity cards. But remember, anarchists and libertarians are opposites, not close relatives.
ome people accuse me of being a neo-fascist, because, (they say) I want government interfering in everyone's life. Not true. I do not believe in city planning, or economic planning. A more libertarian society has never been proposed. I do ban cars, trucks and buses from the metroplex in the name of "the beautiful city," where people don't need cars, because of the excellent public transportation system. Every metroplex has to choose. You can't have both. Either cars and gridlock, or a smooth flow of traffic on subways and freeway trains. Likewise with the identity cards. Without them, it is impossible to catch all the terrorists and serial killers. So choose. Which would you rather have, the slight inconvenience of using your card all day, or terrorists and serial killers? If you think Anarchy is a feasible political theory, study that phase of the French Revolution called "The Reign of Terror."
o not imagine that your movements will be restricted in any way by the identity cards, nor should you imagine that anyone is watching you. The location databases spring into action only when there has been an abduction, a murder, a rape, or a terrorist act, and all that the location software does is produce a list of possible suspects certain to contain the culprit(s). So everyone on the list will get questioned, but most will be easily eliminated from the suspects list.
ur form of democracy in the USA is tricameral, justice superior, with a constitution. The three branches are executive, legislative, and judicial. But there are really two more branches, the lobbyists and the bureaucracies. I have invented a form of democracy which gets rid of the lobbyists and the bureaucracies, and I call it Aristarchy. It requires a vote by 3/4ths of the citizens in a given jurisdiction to make or change a law. The Aristarchy does not make laws. But it does make decisions, combining the executive and judicial branches into one, just like the Mandarins of Classical Chinese Civilization. That is also what bureaucracies do, make decisions. It takes the vast bureaucracy of Social Security two years to make a decision on disability. The local magistrate can make that same decision in two hours. Lobbyists are powerless, because Aristarchs are selected by essay exam and interview, and promoted by merit. They don't have to run for election, and they are not allowed to accept gifts. If the Aristarchy seems too powerful, just remember, they cannot make or change the laws. Only the people can do that.