Rights in the Post-Governance Society

Dialect of Rights: Positive Rights =  Slavery, Negative Rights = Apathy

What rights do we have? Libertarian theorists argue that the only rights we have are the negative sort — the right to freedom from interference, essentially. Socialist theorists, on the other hand, argue for positive rights — right to the necessities of life, etc. Libertarian theorists see these two kinds of rights as being in conflict, while socialist theorists believe them to be interdependent. I tend towards the libertarian view of these two theories as necessarily conflicting, which I will explore below, though I do agree that, for example, being enabled to speak and being unrestrained in what you speak are both necessary for the freedom of speech.

The dialectical view of these rights as inherent conflicting stems from the manner in which either system is realized. Positive rights theorists, such as the various schools of Marxist thought, argue that all people are entitled to food, clothing, and shelter, and other basic needs, and that society must provide these necessities. But if we were to assume the realization of a Marxist state, the resulting abandonment of capitalism and the idea of wage labor, instead turning to an apportionment of goods based on need, we have a situation without motivation to work. Why would anyone work, if their needs are satisfied regardless of their output? Further, who then will farm the land, or make the clothes, or build the homes? Compulsory labor, first in the industries required to provide necessities of life, and second in the industries required to maintain this system, are required. No one can decide to not work. All people become slaves to the state, and to one another.

On the other hand, in a society with negative rights held as most important, the idea of taxation to fund public works, or compulsory labor, or any other sort of coercive action is removed entirely. No one is morally obligated to assist those in need, and so many needy remain needy. The prevention of homelessness has no guarantee, despite the hopes that private charity can provide more than government. The maintenance of vital infrastructure (e.g. roads, power, water, telecommunications) is not guaranteed. The existence of a police force to prevent crime and to respond to crimes, an education system to prevent crime through removing the need to commit it, or diplomatic and military organizations to engage in peace- and war-time activities are all uncertain. Upholding negative rights as paramount destroys positive rights and makes possible the destruction of the system as a whole.

Most modern societies opt for a middle-of-the-road strategy. No modern society is fully socialist or fully libertarian, and in the past all societies that were (Soviet Russia, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Communist China; early United States, many african states) have all felt social pressure pushing them towards equilibrium. Some have collapsed from inherent instability or from ideological rivalry, while others have reformed, but none have maintained the polarities of these distinct kinds of rights. The history of the last two or so centuries might in fact be the history of the dialectic of rights on the one hand, and the resulting synthesis of rights on other hand.

History of the Future

What shape then will rights take in the future? The left anarchists propose a voluntary system, believing that people will engage in socially beneficial work of their own accord, while right anarchists propose that free market forces and charity can handle all of the requirements of civilization. Were this possible, wouldn't it already happen? Surely the existence of the State isn't so detrimental that it completely prevents all of humanity from engaging in one or another form of mutually beneficial self organization. Rather, it's human nature, and indeed "life nature", to be lazy, greedy, selfish, and apathetic, just as much as it is to be hard-working, cooperative, caring, and equitable. Both kinds of attributes exist in all people to varying degrees, and no society can rely on only one kind of attribute as the foundation of it's ideology. 

The only solution to this problem that I can see is one of radical autonomy. The only way to have the full range of both positive and negative rights is to make the individual capable of sustaining his or her own existence without dependence on others. This was somewhat feasible in tribal and early agricultural societies, in which it was reasonable for a person to hunt or grow food, make clothing, and construct shelter independent of others. Social groups — tribes and villages — formed to make the process more efficient, but in the face of isolation, the individual could still do what was necessary, albeit more difficultly. Is this the future of society? Primitivist and neo-Luddite ideologies calling for a return to pre-industrial ways of life? I don't think so. The benefits of modern technology, from medical to agricultural and beyond, are too great to give it. Nor is it feasible that an individual in modern urban society could successfully farm crops, raise animals, manufacture clothing, and build skyscrapers, nor is it feasible to sustain over 6 billion people with such a system. Modern life is too complicated to allow for a return to pre-industrial social systems.

Realizing Radical Autonomy

Biotechnology, robotics, and fabricators. These three technologies are the foundation of the future society of radical autonomy. They are essential to the liberation of humanity from the tyranny of the dialect of rights and the tyranny of the state.

Biotechnology

With a complete understanding of genomics and cell signalling, we'll be able to manipulate the function of organisms to suit our needs. We'll be able to design crops capable of producing extremely large quantities of highly nutritious food, capable of growing indoors in low light conditions or outdoors in a vast array of environments, all with extremely efficient use of natural resources. We'll be able to grow animal tissue — meat — independent of the animal it comes from, so that we don't have to raise cows or pigs, nor feed them for years before the slaughter. Biotechnology will enable the production of food from raw materials in controlled localized conditions.

Robotics

The field of robotics and automation has already altered the shape of the industrial society. Where previously factories had thousands of manual laborers working in often dangerous conditions, now large factories produce industrial-scale goods through the use of computer-controlled robots. The realization of general robotics will push this even further, enabling the individual to own the means to produce his or her own industrial-scale goods without depending on industry itself or on government to provide them. Modern modes of transportation, housing, etc. will no longer need factories and large teams of workers to produce, instead requiring only ones own robots to perform the required work.

Fabricators

Perhaps most fundamental for the previous two technologies, and thus for radical autonomy, is the fabricator. Neither biotechnology nor robotics alone, nor the combination of both, can fully free people from dependence on other people — we still need to buy our biotechnology and robotics from someone, or be given access to them by government, which means we remain in our current situation. The idea of a general purpose fabricator, or collection of special purpose fabricators working together to be general purpose, changes that. Fabricators will provide the ability to construct any machine, device, robot, computer, or other personal artifacts of daily life simply by "printing" them. More importantly, fabricators could print more fabricators. Once you have one fabricator, everyone can have a fabricator at zero cost.

The development of fabricator technology in the near future, and the further developments in biotechnology and robotics, will usher n a new era of radical autonomy, in which all positive and negative rights are not merely possible, but inherent. The synthesis of socialist ideals with libertarian ideals will arise out of the very nature what these technologies can do.