The Third Estate


So Facebook has recently changed their "political views" tag. It used to be that you had a choice of "Conservative", "Moderate" and "Liberal", whereas now, it's an empty slot to fill-in whatever. I like this because rarely do some other group's political/economic ideals adequately reflect what I believe. So I put in "libertarian progressive"

Progressive is a term that I doubt would surprise anyone, and I use the qualifier libertarian for the government-should-stay-out-of-my-business ethos which is planted deep in my upstate New York roots. This idea of Left-Right orientation on the political spectrum works well for most purposes, but one should remember that to properly describe one's views in relation to another's this is best done on a two-dimensional axis of social views vs. economic views. A pure libertarian, for instance, would hold for the social freedoms of a "progressive" and the economic freedoms of a "conservative", whereas a pure republican would have high scores in the conservative direction on both axes. So this presents our problems with a one-dimensional left-right relationship.

Friends and I once mathematically described this geometry of politics, which would serve as excellent fodder for a future post, and if I remember, you will see that someday.

Yet the idea of the classical definition of a "libertarian" annoys me. I do, in fact, consider myself one, but on the aforementioned chart, I rank strongly for social freedoms, yet economic restrictiveness. It's my belief that the current definition allows for the freedom of people and their enterprise (business), yet in a world where business has free reign, can a population be free as well?

This is an unfortunate issue which I do not believe I have heard/read anyone speak about-- what is the proper place of business in society? Only an anarchist/communist/fool would say that it is entirely unnecessary, but none of us are blind to the gross abuse of power when too much is alloted to businesses. The view from my perspective is that the major groupings in a modern society break down as: The People, The Government, and The Business. You cannot mix these. Much in the way medieval Europe had the organization of "Estates of the Realm" (Nobility, Church, People), in the proper functionality of the 21st century, there must be a balance struck between each branch.

Until I do further study into the topic area, I'm uncertain as to how much I can say about the topic, however, in the current view of "freedom," each of the three estates must have enough to counter an overabundance of power in any one.

Throughout history, there has always been the ruling elite-- behind or in front of the scences. In antiquity through the middle ages, this was seen in the clergy, as the church/gods/priests had ultimate power, knowledge and wisdom. Through the Renaissance to the 20th century, power rested nicely (and unnicely) in the hands of monarchs, empires and a scattering fo republics. This power structure still exists in many parts of the world. Today it is the moneymakers, entrepreneurs, and capitalists who effectively move ideas and people and power in much of our world.

Business exists for the service of people and the people's collective (government), and must seek to remain an intricate, efficient, noble part of day-to-day life, but too many tend to think of it as the system rather than a part of it.

Must be tired. I notice that complete thoughts aren't happening as clearly as they should be. Perhaps I'll continue this rant later.

Thoughts?