Justified Domination

Individual liberty is valuable. Self-determination enables co-equal partnerships, nurtures cooperation, and helps build strong communities, which benefit individuals in a virtuous circle. Limits to individual freedom are essential, however. The classic example is a child running into traffic. How to define and enforce justified domination is not easy. Doing so can provide massive loopholes that undermine efforts to dissolve exploitative domination.

One example is “vulnerable adults” legislation that highlights the tension between elderly individuals who want the freedom to make their own decisions and others who consider them no longer competent to do so. There are known cases where children of the elderly get the government to make this designation to seize the assets of their parents. Striking a fair balance is a challenge.

Another example is the legal requirement for drivers to have car insurance, which protects the public from having to pay medical bills for injuries due to accidents. One impact of this policy is that some poor people who can’t afford insurance can’t legally drive though they may need to drive to hold down a job. Is this fair?

Who has the right and the wisdom to exercise justified domination? Who is competent to intervene interpersonally, write legislation, or administer well-intentioned legislation when public servants are at least once removed from the wisdom that created the legislation and can have negative intentions? What counterbalances can be put into place to prevent abuse when domination is put into place?

There are no easy answers to these and related questions. Within the context of multiple concrete situations, the Systemopedia aims to offer answers — sometimes conflicting answers. However, the following general principles guide the way forward.

One key question concerns intent. Are you motivated by anger to hurt the other, or do you intend to be of service with a commitment to maximizing self-determination? Even the use of force can be nonviolent, rooted in compassion. If I see you physically brutalizing someone who’s weaker than you, it can be justified for me to restrain you.

The government can legitimately limit individual rights when necessary to protect the rights of the majority, as with car insurance and mandatory motorcycle helmets. Once a “limit” has been put into place, however, it can become problematic. For example house insurance. This insurance was working well until the Courts ruled that roofs had to be replaced if damaged – even if the damage was slight. House insurance is now becoming too expensive for many homeowners as every hailstorm produces a “run” on roof replacements. How to counterbalance this?

Calm deliberation based on a review of relevant facts and alternative viewpoints is generally the best way to make decisions about public policy. Snap judgments and intuition are often valuable, but their insights need to be carefully considered.

Random selection, as with jury selection, is often useful and should be used whenever feasible. Deliberative democracy methods, as with citizen assemblies, hold great promise. When given time to review relevant information thoughtfully, randomly selected individuals are usually able to form a reliable consensus about what facts are correct and what policies make the most sense. The “wisdom of crowds” often holds true. Legislation today seems dominated by lobbying groups who insist on winning for only their clients. Establishing mechanisms to empower voices dedicated to the general welfare is important.  

Empowered citizen review boards of police officers and other public servants can help prevent arbitrary abuse.

The top-level executives of corporations, as well as the corporations themselves, should be held accountable for criminal violations.

It’s also very useful for companies to have union members on their Boards. This positions them to protect the interests of the workers.

Whenever feasible, with regard to the criminal justice, mental health, and social welfare systems, a jury of peers should make decisions about the denial of liberty.

Many steps should be taken to make the federal government a more legitimate decision-making body, including public financing of campaigns, much stricter limits on the revolving door between legislators and lobbyists, impartial commissions drawing district boundaries, and requiring elected officials to regularly engage in dialog with randomly selected constituents.

Impatient activists who push to impose changes not yet endorsed by the majority play a valuable role. At the same time, massive grassroots forces that push for changes endorsed by the majority are also important. “Outsiders” and “insiders” can respect each other’s value.

Whenever bullies or bigots inflict verbal abuse, intervening in a compassionate manner to stop or discourage the abuse is justified. 

Workplace managers are learning that collaborative teams are productive.

Teachers are learning that collaborate peer learning works.

Families are learning ways to incorporate democracy into their decision-making.

These are some general principles that can guide decisions about whether domination — the exercise of power to control behavior — is justified in particular situations. Any such domination, however, needs to be imposed with humility, compassion, and an open mind, remembering that mistakes can be easily made and conditions may change, calling for a new approach.