Ethics Challenges and Responses

The Paradox of Individualism

Dr. Stephen Satris

Mark S. Weiner has written a fascinating article in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled “The Paradox of Individualism” (Chronicle, April 1, 2013).  He begins with a quote from Ronald Reagan:  “As government expands, liberty contracts”; Reagan called this “as neat and predictable as a law of physics.”  Weiner points out the “the belief that the scope of individual freedom in any society stands in inverse relation to the power of its government is a central creed of modern conservative thought” – but Weiner goes on to include modern liberal thought, and then proceeds to show that this common assumption is incorrect.

He points out that a weak government is easily overrun by what he calls clans.  The paradigm clan is a blood-related group, like a family group, a racial group, or a social caste.  A strong modern government must defend the individual and individual rights against attack by clans.  Weiner sees clans as ever-present in human society, and ever-ready to seize any power they can from a weak government.

But his usage of the term “clan” is wider than a simple family group:  clans can be corporations, gangs, international coalitions and other social groups.  These social groups tend to fight for their own agenda, and not necessarily for the public good.  They can be threats to individual freedom.  The paradox of individualism is that we need a strong government to guard against clans, and the threat they present to individuals.

Moreover, we have now progressed to modern forms of government.  The threat to us now is not so much from particular elite families (although they still exist and exert their power even today)  but from the possible demise of our modern government in a postmodern world in which the clans assuming power are international militant groups, criminal syndicates, and transnational corporations.  Again, these groups have their own agendas, and they may not be in line with the public interest or the observance of individual rights.

One particular dynamic – which Weiner doesn’t mention but which I think is important – is the following.  Whereas some groups, such as the international terrorists or international criminal organizations, are known enemies to which the state is actively opposed, transnational corporations, on the other hand, are armed with a phalanx of lawyers, and influence the law itself, as well as government regulations, by means of lobbyists.  So they have a special hold on the law that governs us, whereas the terrorists and criminals are outside the law.  We know that we have to stand strong against clans like al-Qaeda and the Mafia.  But the clan of Wall Street seems to be able to escape scrutiny; our government does not seem able to keep this clan in check; this clan seems to have compromised the government.

Other actions stemming from related clans are not as well-known or as widely recognized as the real estate and financial collapse.  Corporations have quietly taken over much of higher education, for example, which sometimes seems to be little more than a giant placement center from which the workforce of corporations can be drawn.

The government has to be at least as strong as the clans from which it safeguards individuals.  As

Weiner says:

The most probable outcome of a radically diminished state is … neither a collection of empowered individuals liberated from the constraints of government nor a grand community of equality and solidarity.  Rather, it is a riven, fractured, unequal world in which both individuals and the larger public are sacrificed to the needs of clans of all sorts.

[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]

************************************************************************************************************

New at the top: He lost the job but kept his integrity

By Vanessa Small,  May 19, 2013 - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-at-the-top-he-lost-the-job-but-kept-his-integrity/2013/05/19/cf284124-be5f-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend

************************************************************************************************************
Redefining companies as real estate investment trusts can nearly — even completely — eliminate federal taxes

By NATHANIEL POPPER, April 21, 2013 - The Washington Post

http://nyti.ms/17GoGyx

“Though lucrative, changing from an ordinary corporation to an REIT to avoid taxes is ethically indefensible.” Dr. Daniel Wueste