The transition from a 'dependent' society to a free society requires individual consideration of a whole set of values, a whole way of looking at people – at human relationships, at the relationship of the individual to the state – and only then may we find a decent level of consensus required to govern pro-actively.
Certainly an economic education is required to provide an appreciation of free markets. But equally important is a basic understanding of philosophy, morality and psychology, in order that a society of individuals can support it's culture and guide policy reform from the consensus of an informed electorate of active participating individuals.
What is feared to be a major undertaking for many - perhaps even a radical act of dissent in our environment where we are accustomed to and reliant upon our daily dose of 'spoon-fed' rhetoric and spin from the media, the government, the opposition and discouraged - sometimes violently - for even challenging the status quo, is in fact a simple shift from a traditional outlook and political perspective. It is neither 'dangerous' nor 'extreme' however it is 'required' and 'expected' in a society comprised of and defined by able-minded wealth creators.
Ordinary citizens must be free and able to understand and more importantly participate in the governance of their society, encouraged to inform themselves, challenge the rhetoric with facts, hold every collective accountable and do so independently and without the fear of reprisal.
In order for that to happen and for any government or collective to maintain any credibility individuals must be provided the 'facts' and the right to participate in the debate before decisions are rendered unilaterally on 'our behalf'. We must be encouraged to think 'for ourselves' and then to speak and to be heard and considered.
For instance, it is rare to hear the term "compassionate" applied to business executives or entrepreneurs, certainly not when they are engaged in their normal work (as opposed to their philanthropic activities). Yet with a simple shift in perspective we can readily see that in terms of 'measurable' results - jobs created, lives enriched, communities built, living standards raised, and poverty levels reduced, a handful of capitalists have done infinitely more for mankind than all the self-serving politicians, academics, social workers, and religions who march under the banner of "compassion".
I can present one small example from among many for your consideration: The special computer that gives the blind access to the written word, books, by first scanning the pages then translating the signals into spoken words.
Think of the scientists who identified the laws of nature that underlie that achievement, the inventors who converted those laws into usable technology, the businesspersons who organized the factors of production to manufacture that machine and make it available in the marketplace. None of those people are what the conventional wisdom calls "humanitarians." And yet, if lessening the burden of human existence and ameliorating suffering are considered desirable, then what act of "compassion" for the blind could rival what was provided to them, not out of someone's pity or kindness, but out of someone's passion to achieve and to make money in the process?
A relatively small number of inventors and capitalists have made incalculable contributions to human welfare and human well-being and yet are not what most people think of when they think of leading a moral life.
They are not factored into the moral equation.
We live in a culture in which there is a disconnect between the values that actually support and nurture human life and well-being and the things that people are taught to think of as noble or moral or admirable. Our culture continues to assert that morality is self-sacrifice and that compassion and service to others are the ultimate good.
We are not encouraged to associate morality with ambition, achievement, innovation; and we certainly don't associate it with profit making. But if the standard by which we are judging - the measurable impact - is human well-being, then whatever the enormous merits of compassion, they do not compare with the contributions to well-being that are made by the motivation of achievement.
The transition from a 'dependent' society to a free society requires individual consideration of a whole set of values, a whole way of looking at people – at human relationships, at the relationship of the individual to the state – and only then may we find a decent level of consensus required to govern pro-actively.
Source : Nathaniel Branden - The Art of Living Consciously
