Corporate Liberty versus Individual Liberty

“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” is a quote that many of us might be familiar with.  It is usually attributed to Aristotle in his work Metaphysics, although a careful investigation indicates that this is, perhaps, a very loose paraphrase at best.  Nevertheless, it is an important idea that has intersected with politics on many occasions in world history and the understanding of this idea, in my opinion, is critical to the long term success of the conservative movement.

In mathematics, of course, we’re taught that the whole cannot be greater than the sum of its parts.  Let’s say I have a square and its length is 8 inches and its width is 8 inches.  The area of that square is 64 inches.  If I draw two lines within the square with the intent of creating four smaller equally sized squares, I will find that though I have broken the large square in smaller parts, the total area is still the same.

The same is true in logic.  A valid conclusion is one that is necessarily drawn from given premises.  It could be said that the conclusion of an argument is the whole based off of the sum of its premises.

• All men are mortal. (Premise)
• Socrates is a man. (Premise)
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.  (Conclusion)

In human experience, however, the whole can often be or seem to be greater or lesser than its parts.  Marriage provides a great illustration for this point.  Let’s say you have two married couples: Jack and Jill and Bob and Sue.  Jack and Jill are both trying to give 100% towards each other, actively trying to meet each other’s needs, and working on cultivating a deep friendship with each other.  Bob and Sue, on the other hand, are struggling to communicate, place their own needs and wants first, and make their marriage dependent on the other person giving their 50% before they give theirs.  The law recognizes a marriage when two individuals (parts) make a legal agreement to become one family unit (the whole).  Therefore, the law recognizes both Jack and Jill and Bob and Sue as two wholes.  Yet, Jack and Jill’s marriage, in many ways, seems greater than its legal recognition, while Bob and Sue’s seem equal to or lesser than its legal recognition.

This idea of the whole being greater than its parts is also present in politics, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.  Statist political ideology says that the state is greater than the sum of individuals.  Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan argues that only a powerful centralized government can protect the interests of all.  The whole state is not just a sum of individuals, but becomes a creature itself which creates an endless cycle of dependency.  In modern times, we’ve seen this clearly in Communist nations and we have certainly seen the United States drift towards this thinking over the past 100 years.  We’ve also seen this philosophy in the global warming movement where, time and again, the supposed health of the planet (the whole) is more important than the health and livelihood of its inhabitants (the parts).

There is, however, a conservative interpretation to the idea.  It is my argument that, in terms of liberty, the whole is greater than its parts.  Understanding and acting on this idea, in my opinion, is crucial to the longevity of the conservative movement.  Conservatives speak a lot about the concept of individual liberty.  The phrase in the Constitution, “we the people,” has been largely interpreted as individual voices who came together to provide consent to participate in the new political system.  Certainly this statement is not inaccurate as the makeup of the government under the Articles of Confederation was mostly about “we the states.”

What is often lost, however, in the statement “we the people” is the we.  For lack of a better word, there is a collective or a corporate idea embodied within that statement.  It is not “I, Douglas Price” nor “we the peoples,” but “we the people.”  The individual and individual liberty is certainly the parts of the fabric that make up our nation, but the whole is the people, it is we.  Anyone who has read some my previous posts know that I have a keen interest in philanthropy and corporate civic responsibility.

I have said it before, the moment the conservative movement becomes about my interests and my wants and needs is the moment it fails.  The American revolutionaries did not fight primarily because of a tax on tea.  They were not primarily interested in how much money would be left over in their pockets.  The fight was about whether the American colonies had the right to decide for themselves their political and economic destinies based upon the consent of the governed.  If the only reason we are fighting today is to avoid higher utility bills because of cap-and-trade legislation or because we fear that universal healthcare will deprive us of quality doctors, then we have missed the boat.

Individual liberty cannot exist outside of corporate liberty.  The increase of individual liberty is the consequence of the increase of corporate liberty.  A free society is greater than a free individual.  Just because my son is not old enough to attend school, does not mean that I should not be involved in the issues facing my school district.  Just because I am not a property owner, does not mean that I should not think very carefully about voting for a bond issue that does affect property owners.

For the conservative movement to be sustained, we must develop a culture that is not about me, but about us.  We must work tirelessly on behalf of our neighbors, so that when we have given our all and can no longer give, someone else will be there for us.  Individual liberty is important, but the whole, the corporate liberty of all citizens, is greater.