Sustainability and the System Problem
by Gar Alperovitz
Based on an address to the Executive Staff of the
President's Council on Sustainable Development
The Good Society, Vol. 5, No.3, Fall 1995

Page 7 of 8
Liberty

A third illustrative requirement of any serious design is obviously liberty for the individual citizen. As Robert Heilbroner has warned, even the most worthy ecological goals all too easily lead in the direction of authoritarianism. The danger lies in imposing a moral vision of the ecologically sound society without paying attention to the need for an underlying institutional structure which sustains liberty.

The classic conservative position--as expressed for example by Milton Friedman--is that it is the small independent property owning capitalist who provides the structural basis of a free person and a free culture. The entrepreneur stands on his own feet! The idea of liberty in this system reinforces the structural underpinnings; and the underpinnings in turn reinforce the idea system.

At one time the conservative theory, in fact, worked to a certain degree as one foundation for liberty. The United States was largely a system-culture based on individual property-owning, independent small businessmen and businessmen-farmers for much of its first two centuries.

Leaving aside the fact that all capitalist firms tend to externalize costs and thereby threaten the environment, the problem today is that the basis of this system theory of liberty simply no longer exists. Only fifteen percent of American society by any stretch of the imagination can legitimately be called entrepreneurs and small farmers.

In a new system design what institutional structures might conceivably guarantee liberty? Apart from suasion, ethical vision, reform measures, and legislation, the task is to determine a structural basis which might allow citizens an independent place to stand so they can resist authoritarian tendencies in the polity and surrounding culture.

Some possible directions suggest themselves: Peter Drucker has proposed treating jobs as a form of "property right" which, like small landholdings in an earlier era, might now provide a more stable basis for preserving and extending individual liberty. The academic community is certainly familiar with this concept: Everyone at a university knows that if you want to be independent, you better have tenure! (Otherwise you don't have the "liberty" to say what you want to say.)

Another method which appeals to many Democratic and Republican politicians involves earned income credits--actually, "something for nothing" for those who work, in the form of money added to wages as a means of strengthening a worker's capacity to support a family and remain independent. (Although under attack in the recent Congress, scaled-down credits have maintained a substantial base of political support even under the Gingrich-led Republicans.)

Yet another intriguing approach is found in the state of Alaska. The principle that the community as a whole should share in the benefits of natural resource development is made operational in the public Alaska Corporation--but it is done in a way which also gives support to the individual. Royalties are divided annually--with each individual citizen receiving a fixed amount as a matter of right (over $900 in recent years)--and the rest going to the state's general fund. The Alaskan case is deeply flawed because it depends so heavily on the exploitation of oil--and often involves many forms of environmental degradation. However, the institutional mechanism for providing at least some additional support to individuals is suggestive of practical possibilities which might one day be developed in other areas.

What is essential is that a sound basis and structural underpinning for liberty must be central to the design and institutional architecture of any system which has long-term sustainability as its goal. Not only is liberty desirable in itself, but, quite simply, without liberty, genuine accountability becomes impossible. In a system without true liberty, the state dominates society; the resulting culture promotes passivity rather than the aggressive watchfulness that sustainability--and democracy--require.

1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8