Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Saphyre, thanks for the question. You know, as I said before, I believe your own personal freedoms are contingent on that which you are prepared to grant towards others. So in a way I am suggesting that your own self is never an individual reality but rather a collective reality. Your own self it tied to the collective. Social responsibility doesn’t just mean an attitude towards good or integrated citizenship, but it is something which makes your citizenship contingent on the circumstances that impact on your fellow citizens’ lives. So, we don’t really have freedoms if our freedom and the choice of our freedom impacts on the quality of life of other people. So, there is a very intimate relationship between your freedom, your personal freedom, and your social responsibility. Social responsibility to act in such a manner which sees yourself intrinsically, socially, politically, legislatively, and humanely, tied to your fellow human beings. Not only your next door neighbor, not only people in your own country, but to the rest of the world. If one part of it falls, you will eventually fall. So, who gets to decide? You get to decide. You must decide. No-one else can decide. No government can tell you that you should do this. No parent can tell you. You have to decide for yourself. That’s the way I see it.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Saphyre, that was so interesting. When I looked at it first the other day that you had posed a question, wow. Who would ever have thought that someone would ask such a question. Personal freedom and social responsibility toward the common good. You know, that common good, that line, that invisible line lies within you, not as a line in governance or the government or the governors within your community. That freedom is within you. No government of your land has the right to decide what that line should be. Everyone’s needs is different, remember? The need of you, Saphyre, is different from the needs of your brother and sister, of your cousins and aunties and uncles, as it is different from your neighbors and the city next to you and the state next to you, all are different. So the freedom that you have, that personal freedom and social responsibility, all depends on who you are and where you come from. When you define that within yourself that’s when you can make a decision what to do with it. Yes, we do have laws of the land where governments have attempted to make that division. Honor it but also decide within you what it is best for you and the world in which you live. Me, I have attempted to define my own personal freedom all my life and my responsibility for my community in which I live and the world I live in. So I make up my mind for that line. Often I got into silence and prayer that I have done the right thing. Often do I realize how short I fall in my effort. I pray to the Great One you will be able to do that.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: Well, that question is a difficult one. But, I think I would put the emphasis on saying that in our society, the ideology of personal freedom is one that is meant to deny deliberately the idea of a common good, so that the idea of solidarity, the idea of working for the common good is systematically denigrated or we have an ideology that in pursuing your individual interest, your individual benefit, you benefit the collective that there is an indirect benefit to greed under capitalism. I think that idea is one that we should completely reject, but the important thing I think to get at is that the idea of the common good, the idea of collective good is anathema to the interests of the powerful, is anathema to capitalism and to understand freedom is counterposed to the common good is at the heart of that ideology. We need to come to understand that we suffer from the oppression and the dispossession of others in that our freedom is bound up with the freedom of others. Eugene Debs put it very well when he said, “While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” And at the end of communist manifesto, Marx and Engels talked about the free development of each being the condition for the free development of all. I think that understanding of freedom is reciprocal and is collective and is linked up with the common good that the advance of the common good is an advance of individual and personal freedom is an important idea to reclaim.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal:

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I like the focus on the first part of this question. Before we look at who gets to decide, there is usually seen to be split or a tension between my personal freedom and concern for the shelf social common good of all as if there is a tension between them. And that’s usually the case in our ordinary ways of being in culture. It's me, my personal sense of myself individually versus the common good and the community. So there is a tension and duality and polarity often between me and myself versus the community. But in a high awakened culture, that is not dualistic and based upon dualising consciousness, an integral culture where we become a whole being by finding a connection with the other, there isn’t that same tension between my being and the being of the community. There is a direct connection and link because my good and your good are profoundly connected. Myself and thou, the I, thou in a dialogue community, in a dialogue world view in which in a real dialogue the "I" and the "other" are intimately bound always. "I" and the ecology and nature are intimately bound. My freedom is not in contrast to the common good but in concert with the common good. In that integral holistic non-dualistic way of personal freedom, of true freedom I would argue. And that’s really what our great real wisdom traditions have taught us. That true freedom is that freedom of connectivity and compassion, in which my self care is the care of the other. There isn’t the same divide and tension. And who decides is another matter. I think that second question is predicated on the question of the old culture of division and separation and dualism, the ego-mental culture that has a split between the ego-self and the non-self. That self and the détente and the line and tension between my personal freedom versus the common good, has to be overcome with this other more integral and holistic way of being a human being in which that tension is removed. And I find my freedom in the common good.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: First and foremost, your conscience should decide because you will always know whether how you're behaving is appropriate under the circumstances or not. And one's own sense of "freedom" to be able to do as you see fit does not mean that you have the right to infringe on someone else's responsibility or take away some else's freedoms, the freedom to life itself. So to the extent that your behavior may harm another, hurt another, infringe upon the right of the other, you have to not allow your own personal freedom to cause harm to someone else or to cause harm to society in general. A mature, a spiritually mature person is able to look beyond their own self-interest towards the interest of the society as a whole, towards the empowerment, the benefit of someone else. So you develop in ways that help you to grow in the growth of your compassionate heart, your loving heart, your understanding heart. So you understand that your role in life is not only, is not to live it as a self-centered, self-interested human being, but to live life as a fully developed spiritual being that is loving, is kind, is interested in the welfare and the benefit of others. So it is ultimately a life lived selflessly rather than selfishly, a life that is interested in the enhancement of the lives of others and not just the enhancement at your own life at the expense of others.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: The question is of course, what does society mean? What is society for? Why we don’t live alone like in the jungle? Why we need the other ones? We need the other ones to give ourselves a hand. We need the other ones to improve our own living conditions. We depend on each other. Well, the human being is an individual, that’s right. The human being goes for his own interest. This we cannot change. This will go on. But, to support our own interest, he needs the other. For this purpose he has to do something for the other one. Yes, common welfare, social responsibility, this has to be connected with the interest of the individual. Both have come together. It is like a good business. A good business means that when I want to run a good business, then I don’t have to betray the other. It doesn’t has to come to this that the other one is suffering, that he is loosing something, by the aim, that I am winning. This could be a success, but a short success. The right success is, when both are winning in this business and when we both get something out. It is like that in every part of life. When we work together and therefore earn both, when the community is earning something, the tribe, the family, the Nation, whatever you want. Then we all get something out, then me as an individual get a lot out of it. And that’s right. There has to be no contradiction, quite the contrary.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: What is our social responsibility towards the common good? What is that social responsibility? Our only ethical decision, choice that we have to make and we need to make is to take responsibility for that of our actions and our children, make it now. This is the prime directive of permaculture page one, chapter one, designer’s manual. If you go that route is that we need to take responsibility for our actions. We have that responsibility that is a social responsibility. It is an economic responsibility and ecological responsibility, towards the common good. And need to make them now and our personal freedom, we have the right to choose but we have, we should live by ethics that can help govern the way in which we live. And we shouldn’t be specific, but then limit ones’ freedom they should be open enough and flexible enough and varied, to be inclusive of all of people’s freedoms. Care of the earth, care of the people, setting limits to consumption. Earth, care, people care, fair share. The three main ethics of permaculture. Found in every indigenous tribe within the world.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: It's fall in the set of values and principles that every person has. So, it becomes to be more powerful when these decision has been made in a collective group, then whatsoever personal decision you made as a reflection of a collective decision, it has a greater possibility to be more sustainable, and to have more engagement, and a stronger commitment to really put it to practice, and to really go forward with what you consider may be losing a little bit of freedom for the community well-being, or the community common good.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: We live in societies in a time in history when the common good, the societies aren’t making very many if any demands on us. In the United States we don’t have a draft, we’re not required to do compulsory national service or do compulsory military service. In fact, roughly the only social responsibilities we have are to obey the law which doesn’t obligate us to do anything other than to not do some things, and if called to serve on a jury which many people find a way to get out of anyways. So people don’t have many requirements put on them for social responsibility. It’s a bit sad when George Bush was asked what people should do to deal with some of the situation around after September 11th and getting the economy going again after people were in a little bit of a panic and air travel had stopped, he said well people should go shopping as though that was enough social responsibility, a way of dealing with a new situation in the world. So it’s a bit sad that we don’t provide more opportunities for people, more requirements for people to participate and contribute towards social responsibility. But in the line between personal freedom and social responsibility, at least in the United States, is way over pegged on the personal freedom side. I think we would benefit from providing people more opportunities to do service and do things like the Peace Corps and volunteering in America and around the world to develop a better understanding.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: This is a classical dilemma since ancient times. Off course we should feel responsibility towards society but not in the way of tyrants of Stalinism or of some religious groups of narrow minds. There oppressing of own character and of own rights and the subjective acting leads to slavery, no matter how effective they are in building of pyramids. Every human being builds an Eiffel tower with his/her own skills. There is no absolute authority no matter of which kind that could define the borders of human freedom and his/her responsibilities, also his/her responsibilities towards others. Each person should be such an authority for him/her self, as Kant taught us by categorical imperative.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: Well, let’s see. I think the line falls differently depending on where you live and what system of governance you live under. The common good, I mean what’s the basis of the common good? I would suggest the principle of Ahinsa, which basically means "do no harm." I think that’s fundamental. So, how much freedom do we give up for the common good? I guess one test question here is what happens again if one’s country is either at war or being threatened with war. I guess then one would give up a fair degree of personal freedom if one perceived that as the common good to protect one’s nation or one’s community. Yet again, within that there’s a moving line here, a moving point along the line. Conscientious objection, I think this should be a human right everywhere. It’s very, very important. In other words, I will stand and this is my personal stand in terms of personal freedom. I guess, who decides? It should be “we the people,” but I think that’s only possible if we act together. It’s a tough question this one. Who gets to decide, really? I’m looking forward to listening to everybody else’s answer on this one. This is a tough question and those of you that are listening into this live program right now, send in an answer on this. Really, we need many, many answers.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Catherine David: That is a extremely difficult question in the sens as everybody has another idea of the red line between individual freedom and the common good. And I think even if it is not the best way, it is a good way to manage these conflicts by appyling the law. As the law does not appear from nowhere, it is written and decided via the dissent, via the debate and its until today not the worst way to orchestrate the possible frictions between the invidual freedom and the common good.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi:

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: It depends in which society, in which culture you are living. If you live in a culture concentrating on capital with Calvinistic work ethics which regards achievements as blessings, in the sense of Max Weber the North American culture. In social Darwinism in the sense of George Herman Miza, 19th century, a pragmatism over the whole philosophical tradition from Joule over James, who ever. If you live in such a society, I'd like to say, one aiming at personal profit, in the sense of a 'process of individualism' according to John Locke and personal profit and self interest are laid down in the constitution, than you have a different form of freedom and social responsibility compared to living in an archaic culture with family traditions. In such a culture your family integrates its members, instead of the state, instead of society. On the other hand people in North America are very philanthropic. They are willing to assist universities and the arts financially with billions of dollars each year. You don't have the same amount of philanthropy in Europe where more is organized by the state. In Europe you find cultural departments, for example in France, which exert influence on theatres, financially but also on the contents. This is solved differently in America, in a philanthropic way, privately. This shows that you have two sides of one coin. Personal freedom should lead to social responsibility or to put it the other way round, social responsibility shouldn't restrict personal freedom but it should integrate personal freedom. An interaction should develop but other cultural traditions have other preconditions. In states like Bolivia you cannot reach personal freedom because the indigenous population hasn't participated in the process for democracy. They have never been in government. No one of them was ever elected president. How can you expect social responsibility then. The interaction has to be secured.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Cornel West: It’s a difficult question. I don’t believe there’s one line; there’s a number of lines and that line is dynamically changing all the time. Personal freedom is very precious. There’s always a libertarian dimension in any deep democratic project, protection of rights and liberties. People having the right to their own nonsense as long as they don’t engage in injurious harm to others, to believe what they want, to live a life even if it appears nonsensical and ridiculous to others, and have a right to their life as long as they are not harming others. They have a right to be atheistic, a right to be agnostic, a right to be Jewish, a right to be Buddhist, a right to be Christian. These personal freedoms are very important: the right to play hockey, basketball, golf, bridge, a right to read Schiller and Goethe, Tony Morris, Garcia Marques. Personal freedom is very precious. At the same time, there is a social responsibility to ensure: one that these rights and liberties are protected, the right conditions for the possibility democracy-dependent part on the exercise of rights and liberties freely. But, there is a common good in the public interests that almost partake in the form of taxes, in the form of some civic recognition of our dependence on one another, very very important. And who gets to decide? It’s changing all the time, but it has something to do with the traditions of rights and liberties that are meeting new kinds of challenges, be it technological in the form of stem cell research, be it political in terms of social movements like women’s movements and anti-racist movements. And the crucial role of courts? Well, I think we ought to be honest about the centrality of the kind of [inaudible] institutions such as courts whose aim is to preserve rights and liberties, rights and liberties which are the condition for the possibility of democracy.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 1:20:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron