It was Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, who wrote that, "the care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government," and yet the nation fails to live up to it, feeding itself and those who serve it instead of its children, the general public living under it (Martela et al. 3). Above all else, the one responsibility of the state should be to enrich the health of its citizens, and nothing else. One may argue either that the state knows best, or that it is not responsible for the general populace, that people are supposed to look for themselves, but if a state does not concern itself with the health of its citizens, what grounds does it have for existing? Is it the state's responsibility to monitor and regulate each individual, or to make sure everyone and everything is in its place according to a set way of being? Unfortunately, too often, a state founded on the premise of regulation and protecting the people "from themselves" merely diminishes the health of the society and contributes to distrust and corruption due to the Darwinian culture fostered by the state, creating self-justifying reasons to disadvantage individuals (Besley et al. 1). However, if a state is incapable of tending to the needs of a civilian, it has failed its nation and deserves to be replaced. Instead what is needed in place of policing, regulating and diminishing human health, is a state that actively and systemically nurtures and protects human life. In order to cultivate this sort of healthy society, a political-economic system must be focused on improving the well being of the general public over the expansion and enrichment of private entities, which the American model fails to accomplish. This paper's primary focus is on the following topics: the shortcomings of the American model to ensure the health of its citizens, as well as the promotion of two models proposed which aim for the betterment of human life, with the goal to cultivate a healthier society, namely social democracy and libertarian socialism.
It is important in a democracy for the state to represent the needs of the people. The public should hold power over how the nation is managed, but the needs of the public are often undermined by wealthy leaders and large enterprises who abuse loopholes for the sake of attaining and maintaining wealth. This is not exclusive to political leaders, but anyone who leads ahead in wealth far enough to gain any sort of advantage over the common man (Lindsey 9). Some argue that this gap in power is no side effect, but an inherent, or even intended outcome of the American model, with systems such as the electoral college which gives voting power to electors rather than the people, the nation's history of voter disqualification, and even the economic system in place which rewards more power for the accumulation of capital, contributing to the inequality present in the nation and lack of power held by the people (Cooke 2). To alleviate these issues it is important that the individual is ensured not only the freedom from intervention by coercive structures, but guaranteed the resources and ability to act freely, as well as the freedom for one to govern themselves without any involuntary pressure from external forces, regardless of wealth. Moreover, two political-economic models that can best provide this power to the common man are social democracy and libertarian socialism, which will be highlighted here.
Firstly, it is important to establish in concrete, observable examples, how the American model fails at providing the public what it needs, prioritizing material accumulation over the well being of the people. In "America’s shortsighted, lopsided capitalism was never built to last," Joseph E. Stiglitz states,
"Homelessness is a sign, in part, that our housing system is broken. A rich country should manage to do better. Our health care system is broken, and we need to fix it. We spend far more per capita than any other country with poorer results than other advanced countries, including a lower life expectancy and greater health divides" (Stiglitz 7-8).
Within a system built to reward the accumulation of wealth, it is to be expected that one may be safeguarded from essentials necessary for a comfortable life simply on the premise of not having hoarded enough. This is very common in American society, and it becomes increasingly worrying when the nation's history of projects meant specifically to bar entire groups from getting ahead in life (e.g. redlining, segregation, and reservations) are brought into question, along with the possibility that anyone can be born at the top and hold vast amounts of power through no effort of their own, despite the system in place seemingly being designed to supposedly reward "hard workers." It seems as though the opposite is mostly true today. The way capital affects health is not just limited to healthcare and housing, but education, among others, mainly affecting the quality of life. To put it more concretely, a child born to less wealthy parents will, predictably, grow up in a town or region without many resources, likely because that was the one safe option for the parents, which, in turn, may have grown up in similar circumstances. Eventually, the child may be enrolled in a somewhat neglected American public school, as that is the best available nearby option, receiving a possibly inadequate or even narrow minded education through no fault of their own, and regardless of the quality of their education, the child will have significantly less safe access to higher education, as their entire family lacks access (Socol 2-3). Simply put, attempting to systemically restrict and rank people based on a numeric value of "worthiness" is prone to causing harm, especially if those numeric values can intentionally be manipulated indirectly by the same system ranking. These issues are not exclusive to quality of life, but even mortality. Mortality lines are affected by class. In the article "American Capitalism Isn’t Working for Everyone," author Brink Lindsey states,
"The polarization of American society along class lines now even extends to health and mortality. Differences in life expectancy between rich and poor dropped during much of the 20th century but are now on the rise. And as documented by economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, all-cause mortality rates for non-college grads started moving upward in the 21st century even as they continued to decline for college graduates" (Lindsey 12).
Mortality in relation to systemic placement is harder to pinpoint than the standard ideal of a hyper-oppressive, dystopian authority, but that in of itself adds to its danger. The ranking of lives based on material worth can lead to subtler forms of oppression that often go ignored since they are harder to detect. When economic gaps become so large to the point it reflects within the mortality and health of the people, would it not be fair to say that it is time to look into how American structures are built? In all, these are some concrete, real world examples to the systemic real world harm that the American model is prone to, or, debatably, deliberately causing those who live under this system to be exploited.
Now that it has been established how the American model can be unhelpful to promoting social and economic progress, new options must be studied and adopted. A more practical solution is social democracy, often associated with the Nordic model. The Broadbent Institute article "What is Social Democracy" explains,
"Social democracy puts the public good over the private enrichment of individuals or corporations… When there are conflicts between the human rights of people and the property rights of corporations, those of citizens must prevail. To do this, we must “decommodify” essentials for everyday life" (Broadbent 5-6).
The commodification of essentials for daily living is a major problem within the American model, as stated before. With social democracy's ethos surrounding public health over profit, services like housing, education and healthcare become more easily available to the public without being turned into a product to buy and sell. By decommodifying life essentials, they are taken away from the hands of private owners into the hands of the public, who can tend to their needs democratically rather than be neglected by executives for the sake of making a profit and economic expansion (Buchheit 4-6). It is important to clarify that social democracy, despite the name, it not a socialist model, but rather regulated capitalism, as privatization is not abolished; social democracy is not incompatible with private enterprise, which, in turn means that consumers have the option to choose private services over public services if they wish to do so for any reason (Buchheit 17). Social democracy is already an existing system in place within certain parts of the world, most notably the Nordic countries, which reportedly rank high in terms of public health and happiness, and civil liberties. Johannes Tiemer of Intereconomics, in the article "The Success of the Nordic Countries as a Blueprint for Small Open Economies," states, "The Nordic model is not the only blueprint to follow for economic prosperity... It is, however, the one blueprint associated with the highest degrees of civil liberties and welfare, which is the core of its uniqueness and appeal" (Tiemer 24). With the prosperity the Nordic countries see, social democracy, with its extensive social programs and wage equality among other features, is often lauded as an effective model not just for economic prosperity, but for the quality of life and health of the public. It is clear that the Nordic countries are doing something right by instituting more opportunities for economic and social prosperity for the common man. On the other hand, the USA often prioritizes the accumulation of wealth over social wellbeing. The point is to collectively decide and come to a shared agreement, and such is impossible without conflict. Disagreement and ideological conflict are features of a good democracy, not failures to be avoided (Skinnell 9). Sometimes, agreeing to disagree is needed, and a foundation that cannot handle that is not a strong foundation. Simply put, the United States can learn from the Nordic model's social democracy, especially its focus on human welfare and social progress, which has been shown to be a solid model for the health and prosperity of the general public.
Finally, the second and last approach to be mentioned, libertarian socialism focusing more on theory than practicality, seeks to expand the scope of democracy past communal governance, emphasizing self-ownership and voluntary association. To clarify, the usage of the term "socialism" refers not specifically to government-owned command economics, but rather collectively managed economies with decentralized, participatory means of governance or decision-making in the context of this paper. Nicholas Vrousalis, in his essay titled "Libertarian Socialism," wrote, "...only under the socialist constitution can people democratically choose what they produce and how they produce it: under the socialist constitution the means of production remain under collective democratic control" (Vrousalis 11). Theoretically, this is a maximization of democracy, and a complete erasure of social hierarchy. With the abolition of private enterprise, the public is free to make economic decisions without intervention from coercive structures and class divides. The "ranking" system from earlier is completely done with, and what is left is voluntary co-operation where each and every single individual life is worth as much as the other, operating under the belief that the public knows its needs best and that all voices need to be heard, as well as caution against moments where business interest and prioritization of profit accumulation conflicts with the interests of the common man, and public health. Now, it may seem as though individualism is fundamentally conflicting with collective effort, but they can actually be mutually fulfilling instead of contradictory. Oscar Wilde's writing "The Soul of Man under Socialism" states,
"Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism… Private property has crushed true Individualism, and set up an Individualism that is false. It has debarred one part of the community from being individual by starving them" (Wilde 8, 15).
The case can be made that there is an inherent threat to personal autonomy caused by the inequality that is brought by the existence of private enterprise. If the notion exists that some lives are just more monetarily valuable than others, then society faces an imbalance in what personal freedoms the general public holds. This is not to say that markets conflict with the libertarian socialist model, but they are also not an inherent factor of the model either. Related models, such as mutualism, do not seek to abolish markets, but focus on worker self-management and cooperatives without interference from private actors. Regardless, the model prioritizes individual mobility over the whims of market processes, as the scaling of a life's value is ultimately more harmful to individual freedoms for all. All individuals cannot be free if even one faces an advantage in social power. One man ahead is a disadvantage to the personal freedoms of all, which is seen with minority classes in the U.S. and other capitalist models. Still, Wilde himself said the model was not practical at all, but said it was "worth carrying out" for that very reason (Wilde 46). To sum up this paragraph, libertarian socialism exists as a theoretical solution to the problem in which social inequality translates to a lack of personal freedoms, but, in all honesty, would be insanely difficult to implement in a large scale realistically without practical issues potentially arising, as theory does not always translate faithfully into reality.
Once again, it is necessary for a healthy society to prioritize the needs of the common man rather than economic expansion that often favors economic elites over the many. The American capitalist model, as has already been stated, is not the best at handling the health of its citizens, being prone to the fostering of inequality, sometimes to the extent of mortality due to the prioritization of wealth accumulation over human wellbeing. Some alternative models, those which have been covered in this paper, specifically social democracy and libertarian socialism, remedy the American model's flaws by expanding labor rights and personal emancipation.
Frequently, people are often led to believe systemic injustices are their own personal faults, feeling like disposable cogs or pawns in a system or institution that is out of their own hands. Legitimate grievances are often dismissed as overreactions or futile responses to a natural, permanent reality lacking any real alternatives. This feeling of powerlessness and incapability can be seen as outcomes of the aristocratic model in place (McManus 4). If the state is incapable of tending to the needs of mankind, or even ignores and disregards the public's needs in favor of its own, belittling mankind's needs in the process, then mankind needs to take its responsibilities and liberties back from the state, and to do so, it is imperative that one looks past such the powerlessness trap, as it is one that fulfills itself. Even more important is the ability to reconsider any and all external messaging, including even this paper, and to remain critical of any hierarchical norms, holding the possible intentions behind them in mind, and to hold the option to critique or even reject oppressive capitalist models that don't work for much of humanity. Again, the ability to reclaim one's autonomy in any class-based system is the key to freedom from external coercion, and should be demanded of everyone living in the 21st century. Naming the trap is the first step.
Back