|
Introduction
A man is the most perfect creature. Since the first abstract thought, human being has been driving force before the changes. A progress of psyche, social life, culture and language as well as human body itself can be owed to his mind. It has always been the strongest arm that man has ever had.
The most important factor of human existence is man's freedom. It is a fuel, able to evoke every idea, invention and man's thoughts. It is impossible to speak about mankind without it.
A person that lives solitarily and is materially self-sufficiant is probably able to take his own, not limited by anyone decisions. However, this man would feel himself as completely free while all his actions depend on uncaptured nature. When adjusting to a life in community, he would become more independent on nature forces. Neverthless he would have to submit to the communiy as well as to the rights ruling there. The community mentioned above is organized to some extent and this way is limited by some prohibitions. However it gives to members of that group of people more possibilities of action than life in seclusion. Such a community that allows people to express their ideas, for progress is an ideal community.
Until now we have only met that kind of social relations where a certain group dominates over the rest. That group uses fear and violence, restricting the right of choose of people, who have to submit to it.This character have all state's systems. A government and supporting organizations use violence to
enforce attributed privilages.
Everyone has the right to freedom. Therefore is it possible to create such a society where individual people could be allowed to do everything what they want provided that it isn't standing on the others right to free choice? Is the democracy the system like that? Or is it rather a communism? Is it possible to form a perfect political system on the Earth?
What is a freedom?
The man, who doesn't have the right to act according to his conscience, is not a free man. Freedom is a right to decide according to moral values. Nobody has unlimited freedom, since nobody is responsible only by himself. However the man who has no problems to be solved according to his conscience is completely deprived of freedom. Hence the freedom means the possibility to take decisions and act in accordance with choice. Our choice is limited by some norms, they are as follows: a law, conscience, custom, regulations. We do not do something against ourselves and the way we were brought up. Each of us is different, but we couldn't be passive when ours as well as others' freedom is restricted.
Why? One of the totalitarian state's characteristics is a tendency to push aside the human thought and scientific truth to imposed dictate. The content of the thought becomes unimportant since it is essential that everybody thinks the same. "Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles" (being alone you are nothing, your nation is everything). An individual man should always have a right to question the system. The most famous of the thought suit was brought by Socrates against the man's right to think. It was the state's self-defense against a thinker who doubt in a hierarchy of worth that was imposed to him.
One could say: "Whether everyone might decide about his life, no one would like to be in army so that the state would become defenseless". Many people have a deeply rooted need to be ruled. Hence they are not able to imagine a world without the states and enemies of that surround this state. Actually, the idea of country without borders is not something strange for the man. The ruling elite aims to divide people. They create the atmosphere of threat which is waiting for them behind every border ( Divide and rule! ). The wars are a crime against the societies; evoked by "a great politics". They cause death and sufferings of millions innocent people. Only the politicians win the war, while "anonymous millions" die for them. The truth is that if there were no borders, there wouldn`t also be governments, and wars (obviously some conflicts among the societies might happen, but they would be concerned on local problem with slighter range than currently). Globalization is a slow process of changing all the states on the Earth and replacing the country's governments by one super government such as ONZ per example. However, it would still be the government which would be not liberal and even further from individual needs.
"What is the freedom for?" When asking Nietsche, he would answer : for creation. Mankind created many political states. The first tribes made up the system, in which an authority was in the elders or leaders. Therefore when the tribes were replaced by some states, despotic monarchies were established. They were exploiting society and slaves by making them work. Monarchy in its various forms had been obligatory for over 5 thousand years. Since 200 years it has been replaced by a democracy.
"The government of people by through people and for people". This is a poetic for "people" having various meanings: people as undefined majority of them as well as individual human beings. It refers to their power over the mass ( also the individualists) which is imposed by the ones who have the right to rule given by the majority. This is an ideal democracy. The right of a voter in a democratic country refers to "these" who are to rule with allowance of the majority. A vote which is given on a particular person or party presents their outlook. When a person or party we were against, becomes an authority we feel it is a "violation of our freedom". It is called like that because we will have to submit to the authority chosen by the others. Is it correct when we give our freedom to the others? It is essential question since the lost minority has no alternative apart from passive submitting to new authority.
Is democracy the best solution? Having understood Churchill's words we shouldn't fall into stagnation. We shouldn't be afraid of new challenges especially since the fall of communism. Communism is a fictional state. The best proof can be Marxism which claimed that state institution will disappear when people will be independent enough to govern themselves. The first step in this direction was occupying of the posts in government with the people who will understand Marxism and have a good will to develop its theories. Even though the Marxists reached the authority they began to behave exactly like other people being in authority. Their followers started to accuse them of betray of a revolution. It was the beginning of dictatorship.
Micha Bakunin claimed in 1867 that power and money incline people to act against the society. Everyone, who tries the sweetness of the "big politics" will be aiming to keep this politics, no matter how much it costs. Corruption, disregarding of individuals, accomplishing no matter the costs, and inequality are only a small amount of the features that appear in a man when he reaches the power over people. The exploit exists only when is allowed to be.
However, is not it way to better state to eliminate state itself as a factor which limits the society? This mechanism corrupts and constraints the ones who rule and the ones who are being ruled. Nevertheless, it is not possible to do it during one day. It is essential that people understood the idea of freedom and fight against the government violence. Political reformers estimate their progress by being close to reaching the authority. Nonetheless, we ought to take into account the fact how much bans are reduced and what are the possibilities of individual's choice.
It seems that new solution should be found then. Unfortunatley Earth is not the place. Why? Because a new society would meet the old systems, and new conflicts would beggin based on that systems, ideas. No one wants it. Therefore the only chance is ( as in USA case and democracy) a distant journey from old authority. That place could be Mars.
Martian freedom
When the colonization of the "Red Planet" beggins, there will also rise a new society. State, army, slavery, prisonery, monopol, capitalizm, biurocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, patriarcat and any other institusion using violence and unequal measures will be obsolete.
Every man from the begginig is raised in specific circumstances and according to them makes his reality. For example, born and raised in bondage slaves do not know what is freedom. Generations of workers were oblide to labour for the rich, and they got used to it so much that they couldn`t imagine life without "Lords and Masters".
Mars however , is going to be a place where freedom will prevail. Right now people realize the need for change. There is a tendency on Earth to decentralize the authority and give the power to local governments. Once a human is born and raised in a martian society, will not degrade to captivity.
What is this new system? Let`s imagine Mars in the beginning of the colonization proces. Living there would be a hard work.. Difficult weather conditions like; no atmosphere, lack of air, and small gravity would make the first inhabitants to live in domes protecting them from the sun and carbon dioxide.
The first colonies would be a group of domes. Each dome would be self-sufficient. In a single dome there would be about 200 families. Every man would have a defined job in order to make the colony grow. Archeologists, engineers, researchers or terraforming scientists: they would all come from Earth. All of them would have a university education or such inteligence to learn much more than a normal person. (The rules of spaceship where everyone must know each member task. ) They would be exceptional, they would sacrifice Earth`s conveniences for a long voyage to a desolate planet.
Why always fall into the same rutine, and create institucions like "leader" and leaving "the rest"? People on Mars would not only be smart. They would have to survive in that enviroment. The last thing on their mind would be the "Will to rule". The rule of simplicity is said to be a true one. No governments , no bounderies, no envy, no wars, no suffering etc. Everyone knows their jobs, everyone is necessary and yet can be replaced if something bad happens. One can say it would be a chaotic group of people trying to stay alive in a strange place that Mars is.
There would be only one "institucion" inside this smal society, called "The Wiseman". A person who has the most virtues ("Te" in Taoism), who can solve problems, who is elected unanimously, who is a true brother to all (like a priest in Christianity). This man or woman would be an equal member of community, he or she would be a real wiseman, striving to peace and harmony. That wouldn`t be any sort of power, this position would be as simple as a construction worker, only mental. "The Wiseman" would represent the dome, protect it and be able to za egna any conflicts. Plato in his work "The State" described a society ruled by the philosophers. There is a differance beetwen his and this system. Here we have elections and they have to be unanimous, besides, there is no special need for a "wiseman" if the community is not convinced. And finally the Plato philosophers are an oligarchy and that could lead to violance.
Erazmus from Rotterdam once said that by education, human is getting better. When the first children are born on Mars they would learn not only biology or maths but also ethics and morality. And so if we follow what Erasmus said , this means that well educated child can`t be cruel or bad. There won`t be any universities on Mars (at the begining) so the youth could learn straight from the colonists.
What about law and order in the colony? If freedom is a choice concorded with conscience, than the common state law is simply a secondary factor. Even the ten commandments are just written down moral values. An ethical society doesn`t need courthauses. Every nation on earth has some customs , different to the others. It is the community that makes them. If it is in a community custom to learn and abide by the moral rules, it means that thay would become regulations. Such a soft law could change, connected with the religious or scientific principles but nevertheless it would still be the most important value.
The money, most important thing for many people here on Earth, would there be any on Mars? Money deprives, makes people greedy, jealouse, vain. If we are going so far and so brave in this new system than why won`t we make the money obsolete. First colonies would be supplied from Earth`s resources. That is inevitable. Yet there would be no money inside the domes. For example, if enyone would want a new computer, he would have to know how much of a problem that is. One ought to buy such an equipment on Earth, transport it to martian orbital station, and send it on the ground. I belive that colonists would be very thrifty. Public provisions would be financed by martian friends on Earth. The only trade using currency would be with Earth society. The colonists would get what they want, in a very modest form. Take no resemblance to the communism. It is possible when the members of the colonies feel like a one nation on a sertain mission. A mission to make a new society.
The ancient Greece had a name for this kind of society. It was called "utopia". A land where truth, godness and beauty rule. But is it really so difficult to create? This is just an extreme democracy, a democracy without any ruling parties, taxes, president or any governmental institucions. One can say its an anarchy or nihilism, but if this could work out everyone would want to live in this kind of society.
There will come a time when domes won`t be necessary and Mars will become green. Than and only than Mars could become one planet and the system will evolve as the children of mars, brought up in a society without politics, make their new fight for freedom, a fight for space in the universe.
Voltaire once said that freedom depends on a possibility to be active, not wanting to want.
* If enyone disagrees with this new system one can write a similar esey to make a discussion or a forum on this website.
* I specificly use the word "dome" so many times because I come from Poland and foneticly this word means in polish "home".
Harkonnen (Piotr Jagodzinski)
|
|
|
|
|
