Let’s create the conversation about sociocracy!
I am starting my first blog!
What I would like to do here is have the “conversation” on this website pertaining to the issues that sociocracy brings up. I would really like anyone and everyone with an opinion to add to this – that means you!
As I’ve gotten more and more into sociocracy I find that it has brought up many, many important issues – many of which seem to go to the core of what it means to be human. Some of these include a number of issues brought up by the difference between linear and circular systems. These are issues such as domination vs. self-determination, why people in organizations spend time trying to maintain and amass power instead of working towards the organization’s goals, safety coming from obedience to the boss vs. coming from working in a team towards a common aim, the bottom line or lines, who owns and what is ownership, even whether there is a god or not (well, I think systems theory brings that issue up). There are many more important and interesting issues as well.
It may not be clear here just what import each of those things I listed has, but let’s take for instance the bottom line or lines. This, I think, is a major advantage of sociocracy. Most businesses are working towards profit maximization. This is partly due to ownership being the basis of decision-making and the disconnect of shareholders to the daily workings of the business itself. It is also partly due to the culture of capitalism we’re brought up in and the current ideas about what is necessary or proper. If a business has a second or third bottom line, it is usually, what, to care about people, or to care about the environment?
The method of sociocracy makes it so that the vision of an organization is not profit maximization, but to actually do something, and that being fiscally viable is part of the strategy to accomplish the vision and to measure its success for future decisions. This different focus would bring about major changes in the way humans operate were it to start being adopted. It is one of the strongest arguments for using sociocracy.
I’m sure many of you have more knowledge about different parts of this issue and can add to it in ways that I just can’t on my own. I don’t want to be like a boss, saying This is how it is. I want to be part of a team, saying Let’s look at all sides of this issue and see what it’s all about and if it is pertinent to the movie.
The goal is to get such deep and meaningful discussions that we attract to this site other people interested in these ideas.
Please never hesitate to add your voice: feedback, encouragement, and ideas.
Thank you,
Tedo
September 1st, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I am grateful for your efforts to spread the word about Sociocracy. I have seen it provide focus and vitality to two organizations; and advance their mission powerfully. They are http://www.nwcompass.org and http://www.cnvc.org.
September 1st, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I do not give my consent for any group of individuals practicing
Sociocracy to make decisions for me about energy, climate, water,
disease, the environment, or wealth redistribution. I do not have to
give a reason for my objection. My objection does not have to be
reasoned and paramount. Will Sociocracy leave me alone? Or it is
just majority-rule authoritarianism with a different coat of paint?
September 1st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Abolitionist, what I’m trying to say is that if we can change the system, we can change the result. That the reason we have so many crises today is because a small number of people can get away with doing things that are detrimental to people and the planet and that if more people were involved in the decisions, better decisions would be made.
If you think that sociocracy is some people making decisions for other people then you obviously don’t understand sociocracy. It can be hard to fathom if you have never practiced it to see how it pans out.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
If your entire vision of changing the system came to fruition, would
Sociocracy’s decisions be binding on people who rejected your system?
At what step in your vision of reform will every adult human be given
the choice to accept or reject your new system without duress*?
* Here is one legal definition of duress:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d082.htm
DURESS - Restraint or danger, actually inflicted or impending,
which is sufficient in severity or apprehension to deprive a
person of free choice, destroy his volition, or obtain consent
only in form.
[...]
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 am
Abolitionist,
Mostly when I think about sociocracy spreading, I think of businesses, schools, etc., but it seems that you are mostly thinking in terms of government. It’s a good question - how to deal with people who reject the system. I’ve been reading a critique of democracy (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html) and one critique is that secession is not allowed. Perhaps with sociocracy it would be that one doesn’t have to participate, but then the government wouldn’t provide that person any services: one couldn’t get a driver’s license, or fire protection, etc. I was thinking that maybe with sociocracy we wouldn’t need government any more. All services could be privatized. For instance, a private company is the fire insurance and also the fire fighters. I think that a lot of what we’re afraid of in privatization is capitalists extracting wealth without any return for it. I would hope that a sociocratic private company would not be out for profit maximization, but would be focussed on mission fulfillment. In this kind of a system we would have the choice to participate or not in whichever companies we would want to.
I think we are so conditioned to think in terms of authoritarian models that we can’t see the potential of sociocracy because we imagine all the corruption we are used to with our current dominance-based models. I think sociocracy gives us a tool to create our systems however we want to. It is really only limited by our own lack of creativity.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html
I’m really, really glad you’re looking that far outside the box,
but…that paper has so many built-in contradictions and straw man
arguments that I would urge you to look elsewhere. For instance,
consider: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm
My highest political value is “liberty”. I say “my” instead of “the”
because I do not have permission to speak for other people. Liberty
is best implemented by a system of property rights. These property
rights get complicated in practice, but it’s in the spirit of the
thing to say your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.
In a state of liberty, any consensual and voluntary exchange between
adults is legally allowed, no matter whether I would consider it
noble, tacky, or self-destructive. I can write blogs stating my
opinions of these practices, and the participants can ignore my blogs
without consequence. At no time do I or my hired help (courts,
legislatures, police) get to meddle in their voluntary behavior.
Given a situation of perfect liberty, if there are humans starving,
any human who feels sympathy is free to help the hurting people in
whatever manner they will accept, as long as they do not forcibly take
(tax) resources from people who feel otherwise.
It sounds like you’re starting out on the right track. Sociocracy
could be a very fine way to for a voluntary association of individuals
to organize themselves to achieve their aims; but once the association
starts imposing their values on individuals outside their group (”give
food to the other island or we’ll take it from you and then lock you
in a cage”), it has become an organized crime syndicate.
A “driver’s license” isn’t a service, it is a forcibly imposed hassle
I would prefer to do without. Firefighting is a service, and for the
first half of American history it was provided privately by both
volunteers and insurance companies. Similarly for roads, fresh water,
sewers, etc. If you think you know of an exception, consider this:
“If we free all the slaves, how can we possibly grow cotton?”
> I think that a lot of what we’re afraid of in privatization is
> capitalists extracting wealth without any return for it.
In an entirely privatized society consisting of only voluntary
exchanges, how could that happen?
Street beggar: “Hi! I’m a capitalist, and I’d like to extract
some wealth from you without giving you any return for it!
$20 would be about right.”
Passer by: “No.”
For additional examples, I invite you to explore _The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Capitalism_ by Robert P. Murphy.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Abolitionist, I think sociocracy would be perfect for voluntaryists.
Your comment, “but once the association starts imposing their values on individuals outside their group” shows clearly that you don’t understand sociocracy, which is totally understandable since you’ve probably only read about it and for not very long at that. In sociocracy everyone who has a stake in a policy decision has a voice in the decision. You’ve mentioned this before, but you’re thinking inside the box of our currenty methods.
My objection (to use sociocratic terms) to what you’re saying is, how can I minimize risk living with other people? If people are going to drive, having no legal structure for guaranteeing skill in driving (drivers licenses we wrote about earlier), or other similar legal agreements like following traffic lights and signs is not minimizing risk. No one will voluntarily take part in a system like that except maybe you and others like you. Life is full of paradoxes and this seems to be one: if everything is voluntary, no one will want to voluntarily be a part of it. This is where you seem to be ignoring our interconnection and looking at only the isolated part as if we are part of a mechanical system instead of an organic system. We have to live together and we have to have agreements. I thoroughly believe that we can make agreements that we actually agree with (very outside the box today) – voluntarily.
The question we ask ourselves in sociocracy is, can I live with this? Personally, I can live with a driver’s license, but I can’t live with twelve-year-olds driving because they think its okay.
Perhaps I am understanding you incorrectly. I certainly like having this dialogue with you and don’t mean to just criticize. I am trying to understand you so I can end up having a greater positive influence in my community.
When you speak of property rights (I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, but) it sounds like another form of coercion. If you make some structure about property rights, but I don’t, how can you enforce that? Land is a resource like water that, I believe, shouldn’t be divvied up by individuals. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that we are all separate. It recognizes our independence, but ignores our interdependence.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
By accepting the validity of the strongest military to impose
Sociocracy upon everyone else, you’re back at authoritarianism.
Here’s a way out of that trap: Libertarians speak of “negative rights”
and “positive rights”.
Negative rights are ways of saying everybody else must leave you
alone: it is not valid for another driver, of any age, to crash into
you. Negative rights produce the maximum freedom for everyone.
Positive rights are obligations that A says B owes them, and if B
doesn’t pay up A will hire police to put B in jail: universal
healthcare. Positive rights indicate authoritarianism.
> When you speak of property rights (I’m not quite sure what you mean
> by that, but) it sounds like another form of coercion. If you make
> some structure about property rights, but I don’t, how can you
> enforce that?
I have a property right in my body. If you attempt to harvest a
kidney without my permission, I am willing to use lethal force against
you to defend myself. You would be initiating the coercion, and
anyone who initiates coercion is evil and wrong.
The valid way to construct a new property right is to create new
property with your labor, your labor being a direct extension of your
body and another resource you have a property right over. If I create
an artificial island in the middle of the ocean, that real estate is
mine; by creating it I haven’t taken anything away from you.
Humans are all actually physically independent. The human organism
contains an organ, the skin, which serves to separate everything
within that organism from that without. Humans may cooperate, and
through that interdependence create a lifestyle above the stone age,
but this cooperation is either a voluntary choice — or authoritarianism.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
This animation introduces and describes the above ideas far more
eloquently than I can.
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-index.html
September 10th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Abolitionist,
I watched the animation you mention and I like it. I think it is perfectly suited to sociocracy. It starts with self-ownership, which is a concept that sociocracy uses to describe organizations. Gerard Endenburg created a form (a non-profit and a for-profit with the same board) that can be merged, but not bought or sold. It is self-owned. A corporation that can be bought or sold is A SLAVE. Sociocracy guarantees (through it’s structure) autonomy at the organization level and it guarantees it at the individual level.
The liberty talked about in the animation is fine if everyone is well-educated and not economically desperate. Then you have to have guarantees in place in that society which for creating that. This is the interdependence which neither you nor the animation have addressed. Of course we are also interdependent in our food systems, and our traffic systems, our energy systems, etc. Unless you live in the deep woods and never see another person, you are interdependent and your skin being the dividing line between you and everybody else is an illusion. Yes, we are all separate individuals. No, we cannot survive apart from the community. For instance, you don’t want to deal with driver’s licenses, but do you want roads to be maintained? Are you going to maintain every road you drive on? Also, the animation mentions consent, which is how decisions are made in sociocracy. Somewhere near the end it says people need to, “Think, talk, act.” We can’t talk without other people and we wouldn’t need to if we weren’t interdependent.
If you are going to maintain that we are each of us alone and all others are adversaries then we might as well stop dialoguing because you are unrealistic and ignoring a blatant truth of what it is to be part of the human race. I like exchanging ideas with you, so I hope that isn’t the case.
You keep mentioning in your posts that sociocracy has to be imposed by authority, but you have absolutely no evidence to back this claim up. For instance, when a sociocracy consultant gives a company or a team within a company an introduction, they will ask if the group would like to try an experiment in it, to be decided sociocratically, that is, by consent decision-making. If someone has an objection that is reasoned and paramount like, “I am too busy (that’s paramount) so unless we hire someone else full-time to help me (that’s a reasoned argument not to consent) I object.” If the proposal can’t be amended to hire someone, then the objection is sustained and an experiment won’t be started. My point in this case is that the boss of the team or company cannot say, “We are going to do it because I have decided that we are going to do it.” The power goes from being based on authority to being based on consent of the governed, the self-governed that is. In a school in the Netherlands that I visited the principal says to teachers, “Just try the training.” He doesn’t require it. He knows that he can’t! It wouldn’t be sociocratic. Once they’re trained they can decide whether or not to use it in their work environment. Around 100 teachers in 20 schools have gotten the training.
When you talk about negative rights, what do you do if someone else crashes into you? What is to keep them from driving off if they can? What if they want to make right their mistake, but they just can’t afford to fix your car?
It sounds like when you talk about property rights you aren’t referring to land – only to your own body and what you produce. Is that correct?
September 10th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
> The liberty talked about in the animation is fine if everyone is
> well-educated and not economically desperate. Then you have to have
> guarantees in place in that society which for creating that.
No! While I would wholeheartly prefer that everyone was well-educated
and not economically desperate, I am not willing to ENSLAVE anyone to
‘fund these guarantees, or else’.
> This is the interdependence which neither you nor the animation have
> addressed.
Please keep surfing, it is addressed in other background material on
the animation’s web site. The people who produced the animation
advocate eliminating monopolies, the laws that say only company X may
provide service Y. They want to make it legally possible for humans
to cooperate, no matter what passport they hold, no matter what
geographic region they reside in, no matter what side of some
arbitrary line on a map they live on. It is only through cooperation,
aka exchange for mutual benefit, aka trade and commerce, that humans
can achieve better than a stone age lifestyle. The most
interdependent people, that’s what free trade offers, will have the
best lifestyles of all.
> Are you going to maintain every road you drive on?
Yes, that’s what road toll booths are for. People in the antebellum
South couldn’t visualize growing cotton without slaves to work the
fields; today people won’t look into history to discover that early
American colonists put a large percentage of their total work output
into building toll roads.
> You keep mentioning in your posts that sociocracy has to be imposed
> by authority, but you have absolutely no evidence to back this claim up.
My first forum posting was:
| I do not give my consent for any group of individuals practicing
| Sociocracy to make decisions for me about energy, climate, water,
| disease, the environment, or wealth redistribution. I do not have to
| give a reason for my objection. My objection does not have to be
| reasoned and paramount. Will Sociocracy leave me alone? Or it is
| just majority-rule authoritarianism with a different coat of paint?
So. Do you ultimately anticipate that your brand of Sociocracy will
leave me alone if I choose not to participate?
> When you talk about negative rights, what do you do if someone else
> crashes into you? What is to keep them from driving off if they can?
What if someone breaks into your house and steals something? You
chase them down, try to get your property back, try to get them to fix
what they broke.
> What if they want to make right their mistake, but they just can’t
> afford to fix your car?
Then they’re in debt to you. You may choose to forgive that debt.
> It sounds like when you talk about property rights you aren’t
> referring to land — only to your own body and what you produce. Is
> that correct?
No, property also includes land that you “homestead”. Basically, take
land which was sitting idle, ignored, and unused and make something
more out of it. If Earth ever starts to feel crowded and lacking in
opportunity, then there’s always the entire rest of the Universe.
Space is only 100 miles away — straight up. Who will homestead on Mars?
September 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
There is some appeal to the idea of toll roads. It would decentralize road maintenance. I don’t want to maintain my street though. Who is going to do it? What about all the roads no one wants to maintain? Maintaining roads 200 years ago was a lot easier than it is now. Are these new toll takers going to get together to share equipment and training?
> So. Do you ultimately anticipate that your brand of Sociocracy will
> leave me alone if I choose not to participate?
The question is ‘Will people who want to do something allow you to have influence in decisions that affect you?’ Sociocracy is a way to organize and make decisions that allows for people to not be ignored. Sociocracy doesn’t want to control you are anything else. Other people are going to make decisions that affect you – there is absolutely no way out of this - no matter what kind of organizing or decision-making you have. If you are basing your philosophy on wishing people wouldn’t make any decisions that affect you, you are being completely unrealistic. If that’s what you want, you’d better move to the Yukon. Here if you choose to not participate, that’s your choice, but you can’t force other people not to try to change their situation. Then you become the coercive one. It seems like you’re so adamant about getting away from other people and ignoring your interdependence that you don’t mind the idea of forcing other people to accept your philosophy – which goes against your philosophy!
Maybe you need to be very clear and answer this question: Do you believe that you can live somewhere that’s not extremely rural and not have other people make decisions that affect you?
If you choose to participate in a sociocratic way, nothing will happen that you don’t want to happen. Obviously, today, people make decisions that affect you all the time. Sociocracy would give a different result by giving you influence in those decisions. So the answer to your question above is true. You don’t need to participate.
> What if someone breaks into your house and steals something? You
> chase them down, try to get your property back, try to get them to fix
> what they broke.
What if they are bigger than you are – in a figurative sense? I can’t believe that you would write that and actually believe that it could be an enjoyable and successful way to live. If you don’t want something like public police (which I think could operate vastly differently than they do now), you are asking for warlords to step into the vacuum.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
> I don’t want to maintain my street though. Who is going to do it?
I don’t know. It’s none of my business to insist you keep your street
one way or another. Presumably when you start to be inconvenienced by
its condition, you will open the Yellow Pages to paving companies, get
some quotes, and go ask your neighbors for donations.
—
> What about all the roads no one wants to maintain?
Nature reclaims them, and resources will stop being wasted maintaining
a road no one wants to maintain.
—
> Are these new toll takers going to get together to share equipment
> and training?
If they find it efficient to do so, I expect they will. I expect a
whole human ecosystem will spring up to maintain roads, and you will
be able to hire any little piece of work or the whole thing, just as
the construction industry functions today.
—
> Maybe you need to be very clear and answer this question: Do you
> believe that you can live somewhere that’s not extremely rural and
> not have other people make decisions that affect you?
I expect that the decisions of others will neither ‘break my leg, nor
pick my pocket’. That is the level at which the affect of others’
decisions on me becomes improper. Yes, I expect to live in a city at
today’s density, and as long as I am not mugged I will have no basis
for complaint in a legal system. That doesn’t mean everything I see
or hear will be to my taste, or that it should be.
—
> What if they are bigger than you are — in a figurative sense? I
> can’t believe that you would write that and actually believe that it
> could be an enjoyable and successful way to live. If you don’t want
> something like public police (which I think could operate vastly
> differently than they do now), you are asking for warlords to step
> into the vacuum.
Humankind has been infested with warlords for all of recorded history.
That is the ordinary situation, which I would like to see change. I
am hoping that Sociocracy is a step in the right direction.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Thanks, Abolitionist.
Sorry I haven’t responded yet. I’ll have time Friday.
Cheers.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I see. This gives me a better idea of what you are picturing as a better way to live.
For me, I think about sociocracy, and also about new financial systems and study practical methods for creating a better life. If I thought about a finished vision I could come up with something, but I tend not to do that. What practical methods do you think about people using to arrive at a world that is like your vision? Not that one is better than the other - they’re both necessary.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Abolitionist,
I took your posts away because they have nothing to do with the film or with sociocracy. I thought you had probably mistaken this website for another. Do you have a blog?
September 27th, 2008 at 10:42 am
> I took your posts away because they have nothing to do with the film
> or with sociocracy. I thought you had probably mistaken this website
> for another.
You asked me, “What practical methods do you think about people using
to arrive at a world that is like your vision?” So, I described one.
It is designed to make coercion impractical, so that in the freedom
that remains, people are able to make truly voluntary and cooperative
arrangements, like Sociocracy.
You say: “if we can change the system, we can change the result. That
the reason we have so many crises today is because a small number of
people can get away with doing things that are detrimental to people
and the planet and that if more people were involved in the decisions,
better decisions would be made.” I agree! I think the system is
horrible, and it should be discarded as a diluted form of slavery.
Hence, “Abolitionist”.
> Do you have a blog?
No, but I mostly agree with what is written at http://www.lewrockwell.com.
—————————————-
Here is my suggested practical method to enable worldwide Sociocracy:
I hear Google is releasing a cell phone for sale in October or
November. Large portions of the phone will be run using Linux, and
these portions will be open for the user to modify. In short order, I
expect to see the following modifications appear:
The GPS chipset is disconnected from sending the true location of the
phone to the cell phone tower.
Any secret remote-control, remote listening features that may exist in
the cell phone protocol will be publicized, then ripped out, stomped
on, and printed onto T-shirts in protest. Note that the FBI has
admitted in court that they have downloaded malware to at least one
brand of phone, to secretly tap a suspect who traveled a lot. This
isn’t the same as having a remote listen feature in the cell phone
protocol for “lawful intercept”, but it does show they are willing to
use it if they have it.
The phone will offer to encrypt every voice conversation, in case the
phone on the other end is able to do that. This is done today between
email servers with the STARTTLS feature. It is possible for there to
be spy software able to insert itself into the middle of conversations
made to certain phones of interest, but anything that raises the cost
of tapping improves security.
The phone will offer to encrypt voice conversation using the PGP key
of the intended recipient, when known. This is not subject to a
man-in-the-middle attack.
The phone will be a network-path-scrambling node in TOR, The Onion
Router, or something similar. This makes it hard to track who you are
calling, if you make it a VOIP data call over TOR.
On top of TOR will be instant messaging.
On top of TOR will be something resembling a music sharing network.
On top of the music sharing network will be something resembling web pages.
On top of the web-like thing will be forums and email.
On top of forums and email will be electronic banking.
On top of electronic banking will be political and economic liberty.
Today in Africa, people are exchanging cell phone minutes as money,
using the phone as a “wallet” and some feature for transfer. I don’t
know if the exchange goes through a cell phone company server where it
could be tracked, but all the math research has been done to create
online exchanges that cannot be tracked, counterfeited, etc. These
exchanged units could represent and be redeemable somewhere for
barrels of oil, gold coins, breakfast cereal, or what have you.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I see. I’m sorry I didn’t recognize it for what it was. It seems as though this is about encryption and secrecy. My philosophy has moved more towards openness and transparency so I didn’t see this as a method to bring me forward to where I want to go. My ideal is a society where we aren’t afraid of what other people will do with our information. I don’t equate secrecy with liberty.
I checked out the website you mentioned. I must say that I don’t get behind the idea of ‘pro-market.’ The financial system is skewed from before Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are issued. I cannot get behind this system in any way, shape, or form. You mention other possible means of exchange in your last post and I’m all for that, but the only “market” that it seems like anybody is referring to is based in FRNs.
What if exchanges were untrackable? There would be no market, would there?
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
> My ideal is a society where we aren’t afraid of what other people
> will do with our information.
That ideal requires that first, all social problems be resolved and
all insanity and sociopathy be cured. This isn’t ever going to
happen. There exist people who, if you give them enough information
to control you, will sew yellow stars and pink triangles on your
clothing and then kill you. For me to take it seriously, any reform
you propose has to tolerate the same percentage of evil psychopathic
nutcases as we have today, yet produce less genocide.
—–
> I don’t equate secrecy with liberty.
Then apparently you aren’t a member of any group which has been the
target of prejudice based on race, color, creed, sexual orientation,
wealth, national origin, etc. etc. etc. For safety, the rest of us
think there are areas of our lives which are best kept secret.
—–
> You mention other possible means of exchange in your last post and
> I’m all for that, but the only “market” that it seems like anybody
> is referring to is based in FRNs.
The market tends to converge on a small number of things to use as
“money”, as a matter of efficiency. Broadly over history, the most
popular choice for money has been gold, although salt, kegs of nails,
cattle, seashells, and beads have all been used. This month in
America, the money I can spend at the corner store is dollars. If
somebody is able to convince enough market participants to use
collectable lunchboxes for money, then they can do that.
—–
> What if exchanges were untrackable? There would be no market, would there?
“Market” is when two or more people, each of which has something the
other wants (money, lunch), find each other and make a win-win
exchange, thereby cooperating. There is no requirement that third
parties be able to snoop on exchanges.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
There are a lot of people who have ideas and do things that are harmful to other, but I believe that much of that is caused by the systems we’ve been living in for generations. These ideologies won’t go away all at once, but I believe in a few centuries they can be reduced if we aren’t separated and and ignorant. I am going to work towards my ideal because the means can heal people on the way to the goal.
Actually I know what it’s like to feel like part of a tiny minority that’s threatened. I still don’t equate secrecy with liberty. In fact, secrecy is a large part of the problem. We are kept ignorant of what really goes on in the world, and we’re even ignorant of our neighbors, which makes us easier to divide and conquer. Trust is a good thing. Of course that trust must be earned, but I don’t want to be creating daily a system based on suspicion and competition.
Liberty is only possibly if there is freedom to be who you are. Some sort of secrecy might be necessary on the way towards the ideal, but it is not a part of the ideal in any way.