La base de la civilizacion

Mas y mas llego a la conclusion de que la base de la sociedad no es la democracia, ni la libertad, ni el liberalismo sino un Marco Legal (leyes+jueces+policia, en principio incluso no importa cuales son las leyes). Para mantener el Marco Legal hace falta un sistema judicial (jueces + policia)... y para acotar las fronteras de la accion necesitamos un ejercito.

En realidad las leyes describen unas reglas que permiten compartir las alternativas de la vida ;-) (son una especie del Codigo de Circulacion por la Vida)

http://etrusk.blogspot.com/2008/05/definition-of-freedom.html

Ahora bien, bajo la presion de la tecnologia que desarrollamos para mejorar la vida (la causa del desarrollo de la sociedad: relaciones humanas) necesitamos ... cambios de leyes. Es aqui donde aparece el metodo menos doloroso para estos cambios bajo el nombre de la democracia que contesta a la pregunta COMO gestionar los cambios y el liberalismo que contesta a la pregunta QUE cambios hay que hacer para evitar la dictadura (legal!) de unos sobre otros que como resultado final conduce a la bajada general del nivel de vida de todos.

Definition of freedom.

This is an attempt to provide a formal definition of the concept of Freedom and to draw some conclusions from it. The lack of definition of a such basic concept for our civilization leads us to false and injurious theories and beliefs.

One of the most surprising discoveries of my life was that the modern civilization still has no formal definition of Freedom. Perhaps it only demonstrates, once again, that our civilization is not as old and developed as we want to think. In fact, most people confuse the concept of Freedom with that of happiness. However, my subject here will be neither happiness nor wealth.

Instead, I am going to concentrate exclusively on the concept of freedom. Many people speak about Freedom, but when you ask them what it means, most of them are likely to say very strange things. In general, people tend to confuse Freedom with the absence of responsibility for one's actions.

In the seminal book on this subject (F.Hayek, 1959/1991) we can find the following definitions:

•" freedom as the absence of coercion: Independence of the will of a third person"

•"political Freedom: Process of active participation in a public power and public elaboration of the laws."

•"inner Freedom: free will."

•"Freedom as being able to make what one wants or the absence of obstacles for accomplishment of one's desires."

Essentially it is all that F.Hayek proposes. To be more exact, he approaches all these alternatives in the chapter on "immeasurable concepts". I will not attempt to repeat the details of Hayek's reasoning that can be found in his splendid work, but to my mind what is misleading in the previous formulations is the fact that they all are descriptions of different kinds of human behavior related to freedom but not of freedom itself.

Definition.

Therefore I propose the following definition of Freedom:

The Freedom is the existence of a set of alternatives.

The alternatives of life, taken in all its aspects (where to live, what to eat, work, education, possibility of traveling, etc.) I even dare say that the number of types of detergents or chips on the supermarket shelves represents the everyday alternatives of ordinary people and one of the indicators of the society's freedom. In fact, the freedom of choice is a result of several alternatives in the production.

I am going to give an example where there is no coercion nor any contact between people and still there can be observed a difference in the degree of freedom. Imagine an archipelago where two Robinson Crusoes live on two separate islands. The smarter one builds a boat and begins to sail in the archipelago. It is obvious that the less smart Robinson has less freedom than the smart one. Neither coercion nor interaction between people is involved here, but the difference is in the number of alternatives a single person has! Here is my idea: Freedom is a set of existing alternatives, and in the modern civilization people themselves are creating most of them.

Of course, alternatives go through the individual's perception filter before being recognized by him. For example a farmer may be overwhelmed by the life of a town. The houses have no gardens, the streets cannot be crossed where you want, and there are masses of people who don't greet him. In other words, for a farmer the town lacks alternatives. Therefore, I want to formulate a corollary to the previous thesis:

The individual freedom is measured by a number of alternatives as perceived from the individual's point of view.

The problem of sharing alternatives.

In general, people tend to confuse freedom with its administration or distribution of alternatives, which will be discussed below, and which is manifested as coercion. Of course, the society can apply coercion to an individual and reduce his freedom (alternatives) to zero (in case of capital punishment) but first of all this freedom (alternatives) has to exist. So the alternatives as they are must exist before you apply the coercion.

The origin of the widespread confusion between freedom (alternatives) and an access to them by the people lies in the fact that many alternatives are not infinite. That is to say, some alternatives, e.g. the possibility of breathing or eating are almost infinite, in the sense that the use of these alternatives is normally not limited for any person at any one time. But many alternatives are limited. For example, everybody can live in the down town or at a beautiful bay but not at the same time. Everybody can cultivate the land but not the same field at the same time. Another example of alternatives created by man: the invention of radio has offered new alternatives: everybody could broadcast any information (music, voice, television, telegraph) at the same time at any frequency. There are no technical limitations, but if we do not introduce some system of regulation (administration) of the alternatives we will not be able to take advantage of them. The signals emitted chaotically in all the frequencies at the same time would cause mutual interference of such a scale that it would be impossible to receive any desired information, and the entire range of potential alternatives would be lost. The solution of this problem is in administration of the alternatives (a regulation of their use: space separation, frequencies separation, limitation of the emission power, and in the end the individual awarding of emission licenses).

Thus traditions, habits, and laws constitute a way to share the existing limited alternatives.

Consequences.

Ironically, this definition of freedom includes all the abovementioned definitions by F.Hayek, and in addition leads to surprising conclusions, like the following:

•coercion reduces the number of alternatives;

•a lack of political freedom reduces the number of the self-governing alternatives;

•the person who is a slave of his/her passions, or weak character or weak intellect will not have many alternatives of behavior;

•this definition means absence of responsibility for one's actions that in other circumstances would limit the number of alternatives (just like the moral coercion of the society).

Cars increase the freedom of personal movement, just like other modern means of transport (airplanes, trains). The developed society creates a high degree of security for any traveler. Credit cards and the banking system also increase the level of freedom of movement. At the same time, restrictions on free commerce, like limitation of opening hours, volumes, and locations, or like norms imposed by trade unions or by local bureaucrats are the examples of reduced freedom.

Here are perhaps the most surprising conclusions following from my definition:

•Freedom is mostly a product of our activity and to a lesser extent a part of the nature (it is World 3 in terms of K.Popper (K.Popper(1974))).

•Freedom is measurable, which can allow us to create a Freedom Index (FI) similar to any other indicator, like the stock-exchange index, Retail Price Index (RPI) or Gross National Product (GNP) of a country, region or individual.

•The idea of the absolute freedom is absurd term.

It now becomes obvious that socialism and freedom are totally incompatible, because socialism always declares, as its immediate goal, a reduction of the available alternatives (monopolization, nationalization, regulation of the market, etc.)

I am sure that the Freedom Index is going to be proportional to the development level, stability and speed of growth of respective countries (the Asian crisis of 1998 confirms this idea because, except for Hong Kong, all the countries there are either extensively regulated (Korea) or quite simply authoritarian (Indonesia)).

The educational level increases one's capacity to assimilate and to recognise the number of possible alternatives. I mean here not only the training level, as created by modern education, but also the moral and political education of society. For example, the American Constitution reflects a very high level of social development of the American population some 200 years ago, so they have created a society with many political alternatives.

We can see the history of mankind as a history of creating new alternatives (liberties), coping with the problem of their sharing and continuously readjusting the mechanism of their administration (our customs, traditions, habits, and religion). The progress of civilization expands the number of alternatives, and at same time the society creates what we called customs and traditions, to be able to orderly use these alternatives. For example, the American Indians were not able to change their customs sufficiently fast in order to assimilate the avalanche of new alternatives brought by the Europeans, and were exterminated. But the same thing happened to the Europeans: the customs and laws of England resisted to assimilation of the new alternatives that the American society had in the New World, and this led to a rupture and readjustment of the customs and laws to fit the new alternatives (American revolution), etc.

An increasing amount of money and wealth in general create new alternatives. One day instead of just keeping money or investing it in their own business, people began to lend it to other people for an interest. This was so revolutionary for the contemporaries that during many centuries some religions (verbal expression of the regulating laws) had prohibited their use (usury). Nowadays most common people frown upon stock-exchange operations under the pretext that they are "speculative", but essentially because the new alternatives upset the status quo of the habitual business regulations and allow to make money by a different way.

The administration of existing alternatives is a basic problem of modern life. This problem ranges from the frictions between generations to the permanent ferocious resistance to a deregulation of economy. Here lies the origin of a group of people that may be called “conservationists of the past” (which was supposedly purer, either ideologically or physically) who resist to readjustments of the life in order to accommodate new alternatives.

Bibliography:

Hayek, Friederich A. (1959)"The Constitution of Liberty", translation into Spanish "Los Fundamentos de Libertad", Union Editorial, Madrid, 1991

Karl R. Popper (1974)"Unended Quest. Intellectual An Autobiography ". Spanish translation "Búsqueda sin término.". Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, 1994

Reference:

http://etrusk.blogspot.com/2008/04/basis-of-human-behavior.html

The basis of human behavior.

“What I teach is easy to learn, easy to practice.

However, nobody understands it and nobody practices it.”

Lao Tse

Understanding human behavior has always been a source of frustration and bitterness for humanity and of inspiration for poets and writers all over the world. Two basic postulates allow us to tie the whole range of motivations of human behavior into a coherent scheme. I intend to show that the motive force of human relationships is the same as in the material market-place.

Principal postulates.

First postulate: All human beings have two areas, that can be named the area “I want” and the area “I can”. The area “I want” cover all the desires of a person and the area “I can” includes everything one person is capable of doing.

The area “I want” extends from the wish for an ice cream on a hot day to the drive to survive in a hostile environment. The area “I can” extends from the capacity of the human species to reproduce itself to its ability to create music, paint squares or play chess. These two areas are not firm throughout the life of the individual. The areas grow, shrink and change their configuration; for over a life, the new desires appear, some old ones disappear, pleasures change with age, the person learns a profession etc.

Second postulate: The principal objective, the motive force of all actions in life, is the attempt to cover the area “I want” with some part of the area “I can”. In other words all humans simply attempt to satisfy their desires (they try to “be happy”). If the area “I want” is not covered, the individual “suffers”: he/she feels “unfortunate”. And thus in some moments when the area “I want” is almost completely covered, a person feels total happiness. I want to underline that the principal motivation of the individual is to cover his/her “I want” area, i.e. to satisfy his/her desires or, if that is impossible, to attempt to suppress them (that is, at bottom, to cover them with a part of their own “I can” area).

Self-sufficient strategy.

In order to fulfill this objective human beings use several strategies. One is to attempt to satisfy their desires by themselves (displace or deform their own areas so that the area “I can” covers their area “I want”). Of course there are some desires that human can satisfy themselves more or less successfully, but in the majority of cases the desires of individuals do not coincide totally with their abilities.

· The case of a hermit illustrates a situation in which a person deforms his/her area “I want” and displaces his/her area “I can” to a point of almost total self-satisfaction.

· Another case is the case of a drug addict who under the influence of some chemical substances can reduce his/her area “I want” to one particular desire. It is interesting that both these situations cause complete disconnection from the external world.

· The case of two lovers can show that the mutual areas of two people can overlap almost totally (at least for a certain time), causing both the mutual satisfaction (“happiness”) and also almost total disconnection from the world.

Mutual sufficient strategy.

Another path is for the person not to modify his/her “I want” area and search for another person’s help. But it is not very probable (in a normal situation) that he/she will meet a person who has the area “I can” exactly of the same appearance and form as his/her own “I want” (and that the other person reciprocates his/her desires). This pushes individuals to begin to search for the solution by being in touch with other humans. Curiously, at this moment appears the market, where individuals compete for attention of another, in order to “exchange” their zones of the area “I can” for the favors which could cover their necessity that are within the areas “I can” of others.

I am speaking of the exchange of favors beginning from a simple communication between two people (the ability to listen to a friend in a bar over a beer) to the situation where he/she lands money to a relative for the purchase of a house. This exchange of favors is very similar to a real well-known market-place. Observing human relationships from this point of view can help understand purely human concepts like “good” and “bad” people. The “good” person simply “concedes credit” longer, that is does a favor covering a part of the area “I want” without waiting for immediate reward (the person who “concedes credit” longer will be the more “good” in human terms). Similarly, it is a “bad” person who attempts to use another’s “I can” without the least intention of paying for what he/she has consumed or even paying a minimal amount.

· An example of a “good” person is a parent of children (usually). Parents have “an open credit” to their children all their life without knowing a priori if their “investment” will be “profitable” (and sometimes it is not). Of course, sometimes patience (valuation of the risk) runs out: there are when the parents eject the son from the house (cancellation of the “credit”).

· A selfish and egocentric person is usually referred to as a “bad” person. For example, a selfish friend uses you in order to unload their problems onto you (your capacity to listen is part of your area “I can”) or takes advantage of your personal qualities or relationships with other people (he/she is spending a credit granted to you by another) in order to resolve his/her problems; but he/she doesn’t spend a second listening to you, nor is disposed to be used as a middleman in your affairs. Really what is happening here is that he/she doesn’t return a “favor”.

· Another example of a “bad” person is the case of a rapist. What happens is that a person obliges you, by using violence, to pay something very valuable (for both). It is equivalent to a holdup with violence.

Ancient recipes.

The intensity of suffering caused by the “nakedness” of some zones of the area “I want” is remarkable. This topic worried a lot the old philosophers of India (philosophy and the practice of yoga) and China (Lao Tse, Confucius, etc.) and was one of their main concerns. The basic idea of these philosophers for resolving the problem of suffering consisted in self-control of the area “I want”, in its reduction or deformation so that it corresponded as much as possible to the area “I can” ( “He who is satisfied with what he has, is rich.”). This is perhaps the basic solution offered by Hindu philosophy. Another variation is to opt for a market of rigid and regulated relationships ( “complete the ritual”), which is a solution defended by the Confucius and other Chinese philosophers.

Friendship = mutual credit.

The attempt at free exchange of areas automatically provokes dynamic valuation and competition between the people. As in any “material” market, the buyers attempt to lower the price of the competitor’s “I can” in order to value to the maximum their own “I can”. So the pressure of the group over an individual operates until a dynamic equilibrium is reached.

It is interesting that in the world of human relationships, the majority of us live in a “world of credit.” In their daily environment people don’t usually exchange one favor for another, but rather “open mutual credit”. In other words they try to establish a certain friendship. And the “sum of the credit” depends on the level of friendship that they have; their behavior depends on the progress of mutual “payments.” And this is so important in life that the most unpleasant moments are when somebody begins to diffuse rumors in order to disparage you or sows doubt as to whether you are a “good” person (i.e., casts doubt on your “credibility”).

· Everybody knows that it is comfortable to be among the old friends. The mutual prices are known and stable, and the level of trust for “giving credit” is high, since this has been checked over the years. But it is very uncomfortable to be in a group of unknown people because the prices are not known (one must “haggle” ferociously) and the level of trust for “giving credit” approaches zero ( “there is no trust”).

· In schools or among the army recruits, the concept of a beginner and veteran has always existed. This is simply a way to force the price of the area “I can” of the new person down, so that he/she has to operate in a reduced, rigid and allotted market.

Consequences of the pressure.

Now then, over the years the biology of the body changes, people learn, their pleasures change, their training changes: i.e. the areas “I want” and “I can” constantly vary in location and size. In the modern world, and especially in the big cities, a person is obliged to be in permanent contact with different groups of people, in the office, in the subway, in the gym of the district, at home, etc. Any type of communication between people involves an exchange of the want-can areas. In the same way there is constant pressure on a person, which also stimulates and modifies the areas “I want” and “I can”. At work (office, factory etc.) a person is among colleagues in a market of more or less established relationships where the “mutual prices” are set for this local group. Returning home, however, the person could meet with a different system of values.

· The wide market of possibilities spreads out to influence a lot in the “I want” area of one or both spouses and can cause the mutual overlap of the areas “I want” and “I can” to decrease considerably (the banal expression “we no longer have anything in common” really hits the nail on the head). The obvious solution is not to lower your guard and mutually seek to cherish constantly the overlap areas (the best option is to keep love alive (mutual addiction)).

· An executive who is very efficient in the office and highly valued by his/her colleagues (negotiating ability, persistence, professionalism) could find that for his/her children and husband/wife these qualities have little value because the domestic market values highly human contact, compassion, participation, in other words, constant signs of trust (hope and security of having “credit” with members of the family). If a person is not capable of passing quickly from one system of values to another, this could lead to a break-down in the relationship.

· It is different case when at work a person is constantly under the pressures of different “markets” of values and on returning home can “verify” in a firm domestic market his/her system of values and self-price. This probably plays a very important role in human habits and will be one of the reasons why marriage won’t disappear for a long time yet.

Price of desire.

We have seen how the prices of several zones of the area “I can” usually settle down according to the laws of the market. This is not so for the zones of the area “I want” that are subjective. The mere need of “paying” with any part of the area “I can” for a certain desire could show us the price of the desire.

· For example, if we wanted an ice cream and we found this in the freezer of the house it means a certain effort, a certain cost. But if we didn’t find it and it had to go down to the car-park, take the car and search for it in the supermarket on a very hot day, this means another “cost” to pay for the desire, which could lead us to suppress the desire as being the more “profitable” way to behave.

There are some desires whose “cost” is not at all clear (maybe because the merchandise is extremely rare). In this case the person could suffer the failure to cover their desire without having slightest understanding of the price to be paid. This is an important factor in the decision whether to continue with the search for the reward or to attempt to suppress the desire (this is the same as using a part of their own area “I can” in the effort to suppress the desire). The problem of the correct valuation is very important in our life.

· A typical example is the yearning for a “Mr. Right”, which is the dream of almost all women. In the end, however, the majority accept that the “price” of this desire is overwhelming (or the “merchandise” simply doesn’t exist), especially, when they consider the value of their area “I can”. Not all single people fail to get married because they lack a “Mr. Right”, but probably because most of them fail to value themselves properly in the market of human relationships (they overvalue themselves).

From this point of view now it is possible to understand the common human tendency to gossip. This is a way to discuss and preinstall the price, the value, to some human behave that in other way (alone decision) is simple impossible or very subjective. In our common life frequently we also want to know the price of thing that we don't think to buy apriori.

All this leads us to the curious conclusion that the “market” is something more profound, something pre-programmed by nature, maybe a logical and natural consequence of any organism.

In this paper I have referred to human behavior, but maybe the same could be applied to the animal and even the vegetable world. I suspect also that the principal problem of the Artificial Intelligence is lack of understanding of this fundamental principle.

Barcelona, January 1996.