A Simplistic and Summarized View of the Unlearned - politically

Drama, is the evolution of human civilization, so obscene in the history of humankind to have committed such crimes against humanity as that of massacres, genocides, civil and uncivil wars, but yet be so inspiring in this history to have seen such bravery, virtue, and honour, which cannot fully be appreciated at the time, committed in the pursuit of certain freedoms and rights for humankind itself. Funny how after all the struggle and pain, humans, in surrounding their own natural liberties to the whole, in the end still prefer that some be preserved under the civic liberty of that whole. The tragedies, sacrifices, disappointments, nay accomplishments, form the very drama of human civilization which attempted in all time to construe meaning to its own existence, resulting in the many conflicts it has had among itself. Humans, in the common will to construe meaning to itself, have formulated different kinds of liberties which many are ignorant of. The irony of this absurdity is perhaps one of the greatest mishaps and paralysis of purely civil society. I am not surprised if any of the learned in history come to believe that society is a detriment in itself in its current times even after having conceived the drama of human civilization.

Natural liberty is the liberty to act in accordance to one’s own will without being bound by some social contract or common will. Civic liberty, then, is the condition wherein the natural liberties of the individual are surrendered to the common will, so that when the common will pursues common interests, civic liberty for both the people and individual is acquired. The social contract is the means transferred from the natural liberty to the civic liberty, willed by the common will by mutual consensus. And so, social contracts bind those who decide to belong to this will of that people – the contract thus represent the common will itself. And since contracts involves a giving party and a receiving party, and so the giving is the common will of the people, and the receiving a government chose to represent the common will itself. However, since the people chooses its government by the common will, they retain their collective freedom in being able to have their interests safeguarded and protected by some few beings, of whom these few beings have to fulfil as they too are bound by the social contract. We may even say that so long as the people have this power, the government is the common will itself, and so, then, the people is said to have surrendered their natural liberty to the government so as to attain civic liberty. That is, natural liberty is the liberty to act in accordance to the will of the self without being bound to some common will or be represented by some few people. While, civic liberty is liberty in essence of the collective will of the people, of which the natural liberty is elevated to achieve some common interests. These are the notions of political formalisms.

As long as the social contract is not fulfilled such that the government acts not in accordance to the common will, only then is the right of revolution and civic disobedience justified, for the very function of the government is to for the common good of the people by fulfilling the common will. As such, even if the people have surrendered their natural liberty, the government must do its best to best take into account the common will and to their interests – if the social contract is to be continually validated and un-breached.

Liberty is here used as a political theorem. The official title to such liberties is freedom, which includes freedom of speech, religion and assembly. These freedoms are guaranteed through the social contract, the legislation of the common will. These are specific titles given in respect to either or both of the natural liberty and the civic liberty.

So when a learned man says we have lost our liberty, he means the very essence of freedom itself. However, when a learned man says he has lost his freedom, he means some freedom is not respected and fulfilled for him in view of some liberty guaranteed by the law. That is, when no freedom is found, his liberty still exists but the certain freedoms derived are not respected. So while a lack of liberty equates the degradation of the form or structure of government, a lack of freedom equates the corruption of government despite the standing infrastructure of itself. Let us use elections as an example. If liberty is lost for him, it is in his view that the method of government elections is not coherent in view of the common will as there are loopholes which work against his interests – and the interests of the common will. If freedom if lost for him, the method of elections of government is coherent with the common will and his interests but the agenda of the majority of parliamentary members elected do not respect some freedom – say an infringed version of freedom of assembly – which he believes to be against the common will and his interests.

Also, the learned understand that a different kind of liberty informs different states of freedoms and rights, which are all solely determined by the natural economy of the nation. That is, the amount of natural and human resources solely determine the livelihood of the people, and in so doing their liberties and freedoms are arranged around their limits and excesses – unless the people wish to die and perish, which is an outrageous notion in itself. Crudely put, humans need basic things, and in consuming or utilizing them they formulate customs that best economize what they have in order to survive. More abstractly, material or substantial things or notions are needed for humans to sustain themselves and construe meaning for their existence and in doing so they must formulate principles via such philosophizing – which create customs – so that they may continue their pursuits of purpose and sustenance.

The laymen and or unlearned, however, are incapable of understanding this distinction of liberty and freedom and so end up with mixed feelings of what the government is or is not. They can never can have critical views, as such, as they can never, from such a foundation, determine right from wrong in retrospect to the liberties determined by the law, and what such liberties reveal about the kind of polity the nation is of. They cannot, in knowing the various relations of the laws, understand if the country is a, for example, pure democracy, civic republicanism, or one-party state, let alone if the government currently is corrupt or not. And to corruption they cannot reason as they either refuse to or are ignorant of knowledge of their own nation’s natural economy – limits and excesses of its natural and human resources. The learned, however, know at least that the problem of national polity and natural economy is more complex than what I have explained on the above.

Therefore, in order for some level of intellectually and philosophically sound minds within a learned society, for to have at least some trust in the sustenance of civil society into the future after having seen the drama of human civilization, we must teach individuals how to reason from basic knowledge, and teach them without intimidation the flaws so identified as if they were wrong, all learn, and they turn out to be right, revolution has come. We cannot let reason be infringed by mere psychological intimidation, but instead by forced and aggressive reason in the form of coherent premises so that reason, when only critically evaluated, creates civil discussion without the fear of irrational feelings.

So let the dramas of human civilization continue, but let society improve itself so that the common good is looked at. Let not the natural economy be looked upon, but instead the ability to look from all sides so that society may engage in civil discussion. Let no one ever come to believe that there will be future de-intellectualizations of the kind characterized by the current manufacturing of minds catered towards the specialization of some one task like a machine of the natural economy. Let civil society become dynamic rather than mechanic, and let all the drama come back to the common good that all humans can look forward for. Perhaps, an interest in the controversies of Political Philosophy should be, ideally, embedded into the minds of society – so that discussions are informed and therefore sound.