am 9. April 1994,
Diktat bei einer kurzen Wanderung
im Vorfr}hling }ber den Iron Mountain Trail.
Unredigiert.
.PP
How we deal with insoluble problems.
An article in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal
by the economist Herbert Stein
reviewed Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
and contrasted Smith's teachings
with the dogmatism of laissez faire
and free enterprise conventionally attributed to him,
which currently dominate economic discussions.
.PP
It is a mistake to presuppose the existence of a solution
to any given problem.
On the face of them,
many, if not most, problems are insoluble,
and the denial of their insolubility
makes the constructive accommodation to reality
more difficult, if not impossible.
More fundamentally, the conceptual formulation of a problem
is only contingently related to its basis
in reality, to its origin in actual or potential experience.
Thus even where a problem appears to have 
an adequate conceptual solution,
for the reason noted,
that solution may not stand (bestehen)
the test of experience.
.PP
That reasoning should supply solutions or "answers"
is a naive presupposition.
Implicit in Aristotle's aporetic method is 
his despair of finding answers.
He approximates questions.
For where there is no solution,
one may make progress by triangulating the point
where the solution would be expected to be found.
Thus it is worthwhile to formulate questions
even though these cannot be answered.
.PP
Plato's dialectic may be interpreted similarly,
provided one accepts Socrates and his proponents
as nothing more than equals in a dialogue,
rather than the know-it-alls whose function
is to demonstrate the stupidity of the opponents.
One must recognize and accept the contradiction
implicit in the claim that Socrates himself knew nothing
and Plato's subsequent effort
to display that purportedly non-existent knowledge
in the eristic exhibitions of the dialogue.
.PP
Without doubt the insight that a certain issue is insoluble
entails the risks of complacency and self-satisfaction,
and invites also the acceptance,
if not indeed the glorification,
of the status quo.
.PP
The mind seems incapable of accepting imperfection.
For imperfection in the present which we cannot deny
we compensate by imagining perfection in a future utopia,
Sooner or later we realize that utopia is nowhere
and that the future brings no solutions
but merely transformations of problems.
The we accept the present 
we glorify it as good,
although in fact we began with the
consideration of its imperfection.
.PP
A different perspective is is given
by the Christian prohibition against judgment;
The judgment is the assignment of objective value
to the objective world is forbidden.
But in the realm of the personal, the inward, the subjective
valuation is not only permitted but is indeed required.
This distinction between permissible and impermissible
valuation is yet another corollary
of the distinction between body and soul,
between object and subject,
which is a kernel of Christian theology.
.PP
Returning now to the actual issues
in the controversy between capitalism and socialism,
between selfishness and altruism,
note that these too have their bases
in the psychosocial structure of human beings
and the societies they form.
Consider as fundamental, on the one hand,
the individual's experience of his personal integrity,
of his need to feed, clothe, shelter himself,
and the satisfaction of his compelling sexual desires,
and on the other hand,
the actual or potential givenness of scarcity,
the undeniable circumstance
that the needs of the individual compete
with the needs of his fellows.
Even where there is no material basis for scarcity,
scarcity is created by greed and anxiety.
Competition within society is unavoidable;
and one of the most important functions
of organized society is to place restraints
on the rapacious demands of the individual.
These restraints create the preconditions of society.
Society is indispensable 
to the existence of even the most self-reliant individual.
.PP
Many issues then evolve from this need to reconcile
the interests of individuals.
Should the control be biological,
exercised by fathers of mother of the family;
should it be familial, patriarchal or matriarchal,
local by village or country,
regional by state opr nation,
or worldwide,
where all of mankind would live under the hegemony
of a single government.
One need only pose the question in order to see
first of all that there can be no conlusively answer,
secondly that such practices as exist rely on
custom and tradition, and depend also on the
specific circumstances,
for example, on the size of any given family
on the proximity in which individuals and groups reside,
in the availability of means of communication and transportation,
in the effect which the behavior of one group
has on others.
Thus one can postulate as was the case in previous millenia
when tribes were isolated from one another,
and debveloped their own languages, religions, 
social and economic systems,
and could not have been effectuvely subject
to the governance of a single authority.
The other extreme is the modern world
as it seems to be dawning, linked together by satellite communications
and by jet propelled airplanes and rockets,
with communication between any two points on earth virtually instantaneous
and travel from one spot to the other,
once impossible, now requires at most a matter of hours,
It seems to me that these considerations
dictate the formation of evermore inclusive governments
and that the ethnic separatism of the recent past
is a retrograde move 
that will inevitably be reversed before long.
sooner rather than later,
and that commerce and go vernance of the world
will be dominated by at most three or four languages
which will be common to those who govern.
.PP
Notwithstanding this obviously unavoidable centralization of government,
the oscillations between centralization and localization
which have been so prominent in the recent past,
will surely continue, if only because they
reflect the inadequucyu or the absence of any
solution to the integration of the individual into society.
THis inadequacy will reflect itself
in the oscillation of centers and spheres of power,
because individuals will support firth this and then that
as each seems to him to protect that same individual autonomy
which it unavoidably impairs.
this oscillation therefore is the effect illusion
or perhaps of temporary circumstance
which mzake one governmental authority indeed more bening
than another.
The oscillation between local and central authority
is made the more significant by the insufficiencies of association.
One may trace them in virtually all facets of experience
which entail coopertaion among individuals,
in the adjudication of dispuites,
in the formulation of laws,
conscious and deliberate efforts are made to
balance individual interests against those of society,
and depemding on the nature and degree of
threat on the one hand and impairment of freedom on the other,
such uncertainties are always only temporaril;y settled.
The control upon enterprise, rulkes of employment,
standards of protection, minimum wages,
employment discrimination for example,
are other instances where the freedom mof action of the entrprenoeur
is weighed against the interest of the collective empoyees,
representing in this case sosiety,
clients patients, customers, consumers.
There are unavoidable costs to such controls.
The lack of controls leads to injury and exploitation,
economic or physical,
the imposition of controls imposes retsraints on activities,
whcih though in itself quite possibly desirable
becomes impossible because of the imposed impairments.
Medical research is a telling example.
.PP
One attempts to minimize the costs of control my
making rules and regulations more specific,
the unavoibly greater detail
makes equitable interpretation and application more difficult
and expensive,
forcing governmental agencies either to act arbitraily
or to refrain from enforcement;
creating a conceptual complexity
requiring unending exegesis by innumerable lawyers.
One of the important limitation of governmental regulation
is the difficulty, if not indeed the impossibility,
of making sufficiently detailed and precise regulations
applicable to a wide range of situations,
and enforceable without undue administrative costs.
These are problems which are obscure where the solution
of them is beyond the horizon,
they have in most instances not even been recognized.
But the recognition is in any even the first necessary stage
to dealing with them constructively.
.PP
I have considered the georgraphic dimensions of government,
the nature and quality of the conbtrols
with which government tries to protect its needy citizens,
the conseqyuences and costs of such controls., 
It is important to understand that  theoretical considertaions
such as I have formulated,
enter into the actual formulation of laws
only marginally if at all;
for better or for worse
regulations are usually made in response to a perceived danger,
and are relaxed rescinded or modified similarly
when their undesired side effects become apparent.
Political factors at least on the American scene
play important roles in determining the nature and the extent
of the controls imposed by government,
and these reflect the always naive and often ignorant
desires of the voting public.
.PP
Turning now to the individual who is affected by these regulation,
the analysis is much easier,
whereas one could consider the making of the laws
only in a hypothetical context,
only in a model situation such as ones imaginagtion might invent,
the effect which regulations have on the individual
are far easier to study, more accessible to description.
This is the case because each rfeader and the author himself
is continuingly confronted with convernmental restraints,
and is aware of such constraints on others,
that protect him, his livelihood,
his possessions and his freedom.
In other words, regulations that create freedom for him
while at the same time he is aware of the curtailment
of that freedom by regulation which he is required to obey.
.PP
Practical political theory would have it
that one has three options when confronted with laws.
He can obey them; he can disobeyy them at his peril;
he can engage himself politically in trying to change them
by amending, altering or rescinding them,
by electing representatives or by voting
to change the constitution of the government itself.
and he may do so by legal means, by soliciting votes,
by propaganzdizing,
or by illegal means by forceful attempts
to overthrow the government.
It is however not necessary to give m,uch thought to the latter two, 
of these possibilities,
for given the size of the body politic
this is an important function of the centralization or
localization og of governement,
there is ever less that any one person can accomplish
by attempting to change or influence
the laws to which he is subject.
For practical purposes he can decide only
whether he will obey or disobey a law,
and in those instances in which it is not clear
what is required and what is prohibited,
he has the option opportunity,
aindeed is required to intrepret the laws to
ascertain what is required of him,
and with what punishment he must reckon, if he fails.
.PP
To me this last analysis has always seemed
the most interesting and the most fruitful,
because it is here that
I could engage my own intellect most effectively
and here also my conclusions had the most
obvious effect on my well being.
In the circumstances that both the 
prohibition and the penbalties,
if they are specific unavoidably complex
and require specialized lawyers
for interpretatoion.
This ciurcumstance is one
of the limits of ppolitical control.
The uncertainty arises from the large number
of regulations which remain uneforced,
though unambiguous,
for exmaple the speed limit.
One may well, argue whteher a government
which makes a law which it then fails to enforce
has not in erfccet rescinded it,
and whether a law that has been universally
disregarded is in fact no law;
and sporadic efforts to enforce it
are arbitrary acts of tyranny,
designed to intimidate individual.
The tax laws, uncontrollable
and uncontrolled as they are,
must be considered another prime example.
.PP
At this point I must digress to consider another
important matter which is indanger of being overlook
in the analysis of legislation
as a conceptual device to protect individuals against
exploitation by their fellows.
The point which I wish to make is that quite
apart from government, there is a natural interest
that the individual has in maintaining the integrity
of his fellow human being and of the world in general.
There is thus aparat from all legislative efforts
an instinct of identification,
of one creature with another,
of one human being with another,
in that we see in him our own subjectivity objectified.
That is why we are frightened by the deathj or injury
oif another person,
why we are threatened by his injury or illness,
why we desire to help and heal him,
and why we wnat him to exist,
why we want him to be...
THis affection is most perful toward perons best know to us
with whom we have spent our lives,
it fades in situations ,
with other families, other nations, other races,
other skin colors.
It fades even more where the creature is not human,
the more remote from our own the less urgent oiur desire to protect it,
if that desire exists at all.
It is a rare human being
who has compunctions about killing rats
or exterminating cockroaches.
If the vegetable kingdom is included,
we know that human and animal life
depends upon the destruction of other organic beings.
I mention this only to give perspective to the imperative
of protecting ourselves and others like us,
in that  our demand for such protection,
and our readiness to incur diseconomies,
- I dislike the term sacrifice - is a matter of degree.
It depends on the degree of familiarity
and on the particular circumstances of the situation.
.PP
This is a corollary that we will insist upon laws to protect
others, animal and humans,
to protect the environemnt,
in varying degrees as we are in need
or consider ourselves wealthy,
or as such protection appears to affect us directly or indirectly,
practically or emotionally.
.PP
It has been argued that such love for our fellow men,
for the world, that this desire
to prpotect and secure their existence
is all that is required
and makes governmental control superfluous.
One may entertain this argument in theory:
in practice the caritas motive appears to be insufficient
and the conflict between
the competition between individuals for limited resources
seems to require the kind of social control that is the
topic of this essay.
.PP
So far then as the individuals compliance with laws is considered
it is unrealistic and anive naive to assume 
that this can be a matter of deliberate choice.
Many laws and regulations represent mere approximations to reality,
not susceptable to unequivocal interpretation
and the student of the (crinminal) law will know that
there is a measure of uncertainty in the application
of all laws; uncertainty which keeps the lawyers occupied,
makes it impossible for the individual to know with certainty
what he is allowed and prohibited to do.
.PP
The question whether it is desirable or possible
to construct a concetuial scheme by which one decides what
is allowed and prohibited.
Arguably such a scheme is not feasible
not only because the legislation remains a compromise of words,
deliberately obscure,
but also because the unavoidable generalization
with respect to the interpretaion and apploication of the law.
This uncertainty is not resolved until a prosecution is instituted,
the jury'sa verdict, the judges sentence, or the appellate courts decision
has been promulgated.
.PP
Thus there is opened a new realm of freedom
where the uncertainties of the law
replace the unpredictability of nature
in which the individual relies on instinct and courage
much like the settle on the frontier
and accepts the fact that he must live by his wits,
and that uncertainty is the price
of the cherished freedom of action.
He may avoid this responsibility
by joining the army or some other authoritarian organization;
otherwise the ambiguities and inconsistencies of the law
and the uncertainties of its application
provide him with a new freedom in which
he may express his determination to survive.
XXXXXXXXXXX
.PP
The economic, political and social issues which agitate
contemporary society are simplified and oversimplified
as the conflict between socialism and individualism,
between regimentation and control by the state
and the free exercise of initiative and choice
on the part of the individual.
Socialism having been discredited
by the economic failure of communism,
and by its reliance on totalitarian methods.
And just as not long ago it was believed by many
that the social and economic problems involving mankind
might be reolved by a perfected socialism,
so it is fashionable nowadays to claim
that these problems will be solved by the implementation
of unfettered capitalism. Politicians have a short memory;
they have forgotten that it was the consequences
of capitalism in the first place which engendered
socialist ideas and goals,
and they ignore the fact
that if capitalism seems to fill its social function 
more or less satisfactorily
this is the case because 
it has incorporated many of the imperatives of socialism.
.PP
It is clearly possible to approach (anschneiden)
the controversies of social and economic policy 
on numerous levels and from many perspectives.
Inasmuch, however, as these controversies occur
in the realm of abstrction and concept,
they may be considered most profitably and effectively
in accord with the undefined but nonetheless unavoidable
(unausweichlichen) characteristics (?laws) of thought,
we do best to try to reduce our ideas to first principles,
to try to state the propositions
which are most effective in explaining our experiences.
All this as preface and apology to the assertion
that social and economic problems 
are best interpreted as consequences of
what I shall refer to as the social ambiguity of human existence:
namely that we are made individuals
who can deevelop and flourish only in a society;
that we are society which exists and survives
and which indeed consists
only in the actions of individuals.
This ambiguity, this fundamental contradiction,
this logical inconsistency expresses itself
in diverse incongruities which characterize
our private-pubic existences.
.PP
It is elementary that if he is to have meaning at all
the individual must survive, at least for a limited time;
and given his vulnerability,
the individual must act to defend and protect himself,
against the workings of nature which would destroy him.
He must kill plants and animals to feed himself;
ravage his environment for shelter,
and most importabtly, compete with his fellow men 
for scarce (limited) resources.
In this respect the explanation of Cain's murder is misleading.
It was surely not the favor of the Almighty
that was in short supply,
but a shortage of land or goods or wives
that provoked the killing.
It would be reassuring if we could convince ourselves
that there were always a sufficiency
of the necessities of life to go around.
But this is not the case; and even if it were,
compettition would still be unavoidable,
because the necessities of life
are most highly prized only where they are in short supply.
It is is probably human nature for a man to covet
whatever his brother has.
Competition for power and property may well have had its origin
in the struggle for survival,
but it appears now,
primarily or secondarily,
as a fundamental characteristic of human nature.
.PP
An integral facet of man's instinct for survival
is his identification with others.
is the manner in which he identifies with others,
in which he atrributes to tohers feelings and thoughts
similar to his own,
and thereupon acts so as to protect them.
Such altruism is most obvious in the protection
which parents extend to their offspring,
and which in general,
members of a family extent to one another.
.PP
Once this altruism is identified,
it may be seen to diminish with the expansion of
the societal circle,
so that to distant relatives
one feels proportionetely less obligation.
Members of ones tribe, village, city, nation,
appear to merit proportionately less involvement.
It is important to note the effect of differences
in religion, race and skin color.
.PP
One of the important function of the modern state is the
institutionalization of altruism.
Thus in the contemporary constitutional democracy
equality is secured for all inhabitants,
by a formal prohibition against discrimination,
while members of foreign societies 
with which the nation is at war
are designated as enemies,
aid to whom is severely punishable as treason.
Nonetheless, the degree of identification and protection
afforded aliens is variable, as is indeed the definition
of who is an alien and who is a member of the protected group.
.PP
It is important, moreover, to understand,
that social identification and exclusion,
acceptance and rejection,
are psychological functions 
whose quality and intensity vary as a function
of the individual,
but whose existence provides the explanation,
if it does not indeed constitute the basis
of the political issues presented by the alternatives
of capitalism and socialism.