After my post on Pragmatic Socialism the second in my series on homebrew ideology deals with a clash of philosophy and political in a hopefully none too contradictory cocktail.

Deterministic liberalism is my effort to reconcile the only rational way of understanding human behaviour and the political philosophy which states that they should be protected from oppression. Determinism is little more than a rejection of sapient exceptionalism, which states that as we are aware of ourselves we are in control of the mechanism which makes our decisions. This is a void viewpoint as simply getting a glimpse of the inner workings of our minds does not allow us to influence the eventual outcome or render us their masters. A slave who appreciates the mechanism of a lock remains in chains. Like all other events a thought is a consequence and all choices made are entirely based on thoughts, meaning that the extent to which anyone can truly possess autonomy is nil. When approaching a set of options that which you opt for is decided upon both by the values and views placed into your mind by culture or by the inherent nature of your mind. The dispute over which of these holds primacy is vicious but irrelevant: irrespective of which dominates neither can be chosen by us. As such the conclusions we reach are not within our control but instead simply more consequences of factors beyond our control.

For an extreme example, consider the 7/7 bombers. There are three schools of thought concerning them, all of which support determinism. There are those than consider it to be a consequence of them being Muslims, those that consider it to be a consequence of the Iraq War and those that consider it to be a consequence of them being “Evil” people. If it was Islam then had they been born into families other than Islamic ones the event would not have occurred, this was not decided by them and thus they are not in charge of the order of events. If the Iraq War was to blame then they were, again, beyond controlling the situation as they were not members of parliament. If they were inherently misanthropes and would simply have found another cause to support their loathing for those around them, which was inherent within them, then again they did not select their disdainful state for all humanity, or at least western society. They are not to blame for their views as they were a consequence of upbringing, their surroundings and what form of personality they were born with.

Opponents of this basic fact cite “Free Will”, some mystical force of unknown origin that somehow exists despite a lack of any and all evidence, which we must trust in and base our worldview around irrespective of the tautology that holds our acceptance of it in place. We are to presume that somehow the fact that who were are is not decided by us, and neither is who we want to be, can be disregarded in favour of some fantastical energy that provides an input beyond conventional factors.

This is a nonsense, yet many philosophies depend upon it.

My wariness of the dependence upon this philosophy is the cause for my rejection of libertarianism, a philosophy with which I enjoyed an extended flirtation. Libertarians would argue despite the evidence that the actual brain structure of children who received stable love and attention differs from those that did not we should treat the two as precisely the same, assume that somehow the magic of “Free Will” renders both exactly identical, despite the physically observable disparities within their very cranial contents. Effectively this consists of a rejection of rationality, an ascendency of ideology over empiricism. Unsurprisingly the modern right suffers from much the same error, for in order to protect their longing for punishment they must shroud themselves in ignorance and evade true understanding of those they wish flogged and hanged. Or of any humans at all.

So let us settle upon liberalism, which suffers as well but to a lesser extent. This is due to its opposition to tyranny. The determinist argument against tyranny is obvious: the infamous Milgram electrocution experiment displays the tendency for humans given unrestrained power and mild encouragement from an authority figure to inflict all harm that is requested of them, indeed to the extent of inflicting fatal injury to another via excruciating pain. A similar finding was made in the Stanford Prison Experiment, where a group of young men given control over another quickly morphed from standard students to scheming totalitarian sociopath sadists. Indeed, even the experimental social psychologist in control of the experiment lost himself in total immersion to his role as guard. It is obvious from such studies that as a factor the influence of power upon humans is a malign one which leads to abuses and suffering. Thus it is a matter of ease to reconcile the wariness of liberals of the unrestrained state with the solely deterministic understanding of the corrosive influence of might on ethics.

It must be stressed at this stage that determinism and fatalism are far from the same view: a determinist accepts that those decisions he perceives himself making are beyond his control and need not be influenced by this understanding while a fatalist deems the inevitability as a mandate for apathy. The latter is not valid: humans are still perfectly capable of making actions that act as factors for the decisions of others, for better or worse. Although you are incapable of how you behave you may exert a positive influence on others. More importantly determinism does not lead inevitably to nihilism, nor are the two even mutually supportive: if we are trapped within a chain of cause and effect this means that the sense of agape that leads a person to work in a soup kitchen is much the same as the gravity which leads a rock rolling down a hill. If something internal to the mind is at times as powerful, if not more so, as the very force which holds the Universe together then what can this do save empower the sense of human importance?

So what values should the state support? Freedom, comes the traditional response, but to that I would add pleasure. This is what all humans seek in their own ways, be it through attempting to reach one paradise or another or endeavouring to earn enough to become secure and devoid of worry, to differing levels of success but invariably utterly intractably. However the best way in which the state can assist people in producing pleasure is to allow them support for their basic rights and requirements, reduce levels of inequality and then leave them to their own devices. To state that the purpose of the state is to protect and promote pleasure is not to say that it should have a more active role in people’s lives, indeed it seems that many find such intrusion immensely unpleasurable. Therefore a utilitarian approach to government and a restrained one fit hand-in-glove instead of contradicting each other. Although worth raising as an academic point the actual influence that this will have upon the role of liberal government in application is limited.

So what is its role? As I have already shown the influence of raw power upon humanity is invariably deleterious. The benign is diminished and all flaws amplified, damage invariably done and suffering caused to those beneath the wielder, often to those that wield as well. Humans are controlled by factors as much as any other physical being and the factor of power is a firmly negative one. The role of the state is to ensure that all such forms of oppression are smashed. This is a broader role than it might seem: a vastly wealthy plutocrat hoarding billions is denying the starving food, a mugger in a grimy alley is exerting unearned authority with the edge of his flip-knife, a social worker pulling apart families for superfluous reasons is using the secrecy intended to protect families and authority empowered to protect to harm them, a company suing the families of teens into financial oblivion for downloading nursery rhymes is blighting lives in defence of outdated understandings of property and causing vast suffering to emerge from a crime that has caused next to none. All of these are targets for the liberal state, all of them must be stripped of their ill-gotten might and all of them are, in their own way, tyrants.

To destroy tyranny is the only reason that liberals have accepted the validity of the state as an edifice. The engines of the state are present purely to crush injustice. Without a government there would doubtless be warlords and local dictators to take its place, thus the institution is required. This seems valid but more must be added: whereas classical liberals deem it not the duty of the government to assist citizens from natural woe, an ethos which seems to have initially dominated in response to Hurricane Katrina, but to my view this is an overly narrow understanding of the remit of protecting freedom. If humans are vulnerable to their surroundings and constantly at risk of destruction by forces other than human then they are not truly free. Simply because they are enslaved by cosmological forces rather than capitalist ones does not render them any closer to liberation. Humans are physical beings and work through methods far more complex but not dissimilar to the tides, winds and heat waves. Without the state all the basic infrastructure required to live modern existence would collapse and disintegrate and in much the same way that it is expected to maintain railways and roads it should be expected to protect them from plague and starvation. Ideologues argue that this is beyond its role but the consequence of it leaving this to private institutions is vast amounts of suffering.

Worse still it effectively constitutes submission to tyranny: to allow insurance companies to control healthcare is to allowed profiteers form the sole supplier of medication required for a contended life is to ensure access is controlled in a fashion that only those that expand the wealth of those holding shares are to be covered, those being the ones least likely to be treated. This madness is clearly submission to tyranny but no better is allowing the immensely wealthy to wallow in their abundance while humans elsewhere starve and rot. This is to emphasise the importance of the minor freedoms of one group as of far greater importance than the basic needs of another, clearly in violation of liberalism’s grip on equality. Even if we accept the premise that this is indicative only and solely of their “Success” {rather than wealth given by their parents or the fruits of an expensive and exclusive education} determinism shows that their merit is inherent. That they were born able financially does not make them of more worth than those who were not.

The most radical shift in government policy is with regards to justice. Whereas at present the vestiges of the Victorian perspective of “Punishment” remain prominent within our judicial processes determinism rejects entirely the notion of true responsibility, as all actions are inevitable. Instead the reason for the existence of the justice system for a determinist liberal is that the state serve as a factor in promotion of untyrannical conduct. The meaning of this pretentious piece of nonsense is that a mugger belongs in jail not because his misbehaviour must cause him to endure pain but because his behaviour shown a disregard for the sovereignty of others. He has displayed an urge to dominate those around him despite their lack of consent. This can be altered in many cases and all measures should be taken to determine whether this is the case. In most instances criminals are uneducated and disadvantaged and thus manifestations of the state’s previous failures more than inherently malign forces. In many cases poor parenting is a cause of criminality but here, again, it is hardly the fault of the child that it received poor treatment. Although liberalism is inherently wary of the state until a feasible alternative presents itself here it is required.

It is not, however, to be entrusted with the role of institutional cane with which the ill mannered are to be beaten.

Let this not be understood as a “soft” method of dealing with criminals, though. In cases where it seems impossible to redeem behaviour and the tyrannical tendency is either inherent or indelible then it is irresponsible for them to be permitted back into the circulation of society. Perpetual confinement is unpleasant for the individual but in many cases causes a lesser amount of suffering than them being allowed to roam free and force themselves upon those around them would be. If we are to assert rights and liberties as of significance then they must be protected as firmly by the state as from it, especially since that is indeed the only thing that justifies its existence. With murderers the potential for re-offence and the harm caused is so immense that I can not imagine freedom of motion ever being appropriate. They should remain incarcerated purely because the chance of re-offence, no matter how small, outweighs all good done by their release.

A subjective assessment, perhaps. But as they have performed the objective destruction of a subject they can not be trusted amongst others.

As with all that is rational this must be based upon the empirical: only through past form can we establish precedent and thus determine what may occur in the future. People can truly have moments of redemption but we must ensure that the determinist enjoyment of factors does not result in speculative profiles and pre-emptive condemnation. To assume that we can predict a process as intricate as human internal workings simply because we are certain they are standard physical continuations is the height of presumptuousness.

Deterministic Liberalism then is in many ways strikingly radical but the result of this is less invasion of daily existence. The state can act as a factor in the destruction of tyranny, vital for happiness, but must stick to this, where it belongs. The purpose of it is not to create legislation that “Sends out a message”, or to attempt to alter society into a more aesthetically pleasing shape {an admirable aim but one far too vague to cater policy for and far beyond the powers of the most skilled legislator}. It is quite simply there to defend the people from tyranny, in all its guises. The state is required in order to ensure protection of rights and once understood as a grand factor it can be aimed in directions highly beneficial to general happiness while also safeguarding liberty. Indeed the former follows the latter neatly and near inevitably.