Some believe that good government protects the individual by not allowing him or her to be swallowed up or bullied by a majority. Some believe that good government shapes the individual by encouraging and/or dictating behavior consistent with majority thought. Those who believe that good government should protect, believe the individual free to pursue (and to change direction and to ultimately determine) their own path and outcomes. Those who believe that good government should shape, believe all individuals to be raw materials necessary for efficient administration in the service of social harmony. Major arguments for the first scenario include individual autonomy, potential for greater satisfaction, and a sense of free will. Major arguments for the second scenario include a focus on equity and education, greater equality of outcomes and less individual hardship. We believe these two schools-of-thought to be mutually exclusive and in practice we have made them so.

I grew up as a fervent believer in individual autonomy. In hindsight, based on the white, male, middle-class opportunity I was afforded, my passion for pursuing my own path (some would say) was misguided. Some would say that my skeptical, angry nature led me astray. Some would say that I have made mistakes. And I acknowledge that I have created some hardship that could have been avoided by playing it safer. Regardless, my white, middle-class, male upbringing has been and remains a mitigating factor which from a distance makes me appear not-so-different from other white, middle-class, males of my era. Yet I believe that many (and perhaps most) of those who may judge my path to here as (even minimally) erratic, would claim to prefer individual autonomy; but it appears (to me) that our current day-to-day reality is effort toward social harmony and less individual hardship. Most anyone though, that would claim to prefer individual autonomy, would likely not argue that social harmony and less individual hardship is a bad thing; but they might argue it is not possible. And on the flip side, those who claim to prefer social harmony could not argue against individual autonomy because they do argue (as seen in their behavior and actions) for a selective individual autonomy granted only to those in power. So who do we choose to lead us? Those who empower their constituents but lack confidence in them? Or those who make rules for their constituents then exceptions for themselves? Or, in a less cynical light… Those who are realistic? Or those who are idealistic? Today, those in power, (both the realistic and the idealistic), are not those best suited for power. Today, our argument should not be about the ideology behind good government, but should instead be about the distinction between good government and our current state of affairs. Today (and until we figure out what good government truly is) perhaps we should focus more on specific definitions (such as defining hardship) and less on big picture ideology. Today there is a huge gap between the well-being of those few in power and the well-being of the (individual or collective) majority. I believe collective well-being does not necessarily have to preclude individual well-being. I believe truly good government could find a way to merge individual autonomy with social harmony and less personal hardship. The status quo would have to change. Current power structures would have to be toppled. “Radical” is not a word the old guard wants to hear. “Radical” is a word that the majority of us should embrace.

I have previously suggested a radical change, arguing for a universal basic income and the elimination of real property ownership. I believe this change could narrow today's ridiculous gaps in wealth and power, thereby creating a foundation from which individual autonomy AND social harmony is possible.

Many believe power corrupts. Many with wealth and/or power disagree, pointing to (anecdotal) examples of good that have come about as a result of their personal wealth and/or power. I believe that the blinding light (or eclipsing shadow) of wealth and/or power will always distort or skew reality and will always confuse or tarnish the ideal.

Freedom. The realistic want the individual to choose. The idealistic want to choose for the individual. Those leaders who lack confidence in their constituents don't work very hard to right wrongs, believing today and tomorrow should take care of themselves, thus maintaining selective equality of opportunity. Those leaders who make rules for their constituents work very hard to right wrongs, seemingly haphazardly, leaving little time for effective or efficient administration of today and tomorrow. Without today and tomorrow, right and wrong loses its meaning. Without today and tomorrow, there is no freedom to strive for.

…to strive for. This is important. I had a dream earlier this week that reminded me, nothingness is filled with freedom. Existence is filled with restrictive obligation and responsibility. Existence creates a longing for freedom but will never allow it in any sort of pure or perfect form. The realistic desire an individual freedom. The idealistic desire a collective freedom. Both are laudable. Both are worth striving for. Both are ultimately, (in this existence), unattainable. (And perhaps) both are getting in the way of good government.

Many (especially those with wealth and power) believe wealth and power enhances freedom. In our current state, across all strata, material well-being is often seen as freedom or at least a path to freedom. If we could reduce our longing for inordinate material well-being, perhaps we could reframe freedom into a context of interdependent individual and collective well-being. So perhaps the focus of good government should be on radical change that would reduce our collective desire for material well-being by drastically decreasing the ever-widening gap between the privileged-and-inordinately-well-off upper class and the former middle class. Perhaps the focus of good government today could begin this radical change, (as I said approximately 500 words ago), by defining hardship and (now) by defining inordinate so we may begin the process of shortening this spectrum.

I am committed to the idea that radical change is necessary for progress toward freedom and (perhaps, ultimately) radical change is necessary for survival. Tomorrow depends on us moving away from the daily divisive minutiae of today.