In my post "The Single Greatest Weakness", I wrote about asymmetrical rights and argued that a system based upon symmetry was the only stable, durable system. However, as that was a rather short post,t here were a number of issues I glossed over, so I figure it may be beneficial to re-examine some topics relating to symmetry of rights.

First, let us be clear about what I am describing. Under a symmetrical system, every citizen, whatever their position, has identical rights. The only exceptions are those with an imposed legal disability, those in jail, for example¹. No one has any rights not held by all others, nor does anyone have obligations not shard by all others. Under an asymmetrical system, rights exist which re held by one individual but not another. For example, the government may have the right to take a good from one citizen to give to another². Or some citizens may have legal protections denied to another.

Before someone brings up police or military as an argument that true symmetry does not exist, let me direct their attention to "A Simple Proposal", as well as "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II"12. Under a truly free government the police and military would have no rights denied to citizens. Gun rights would be the same for soldiers and non-soldiers, police and non-police. And while the police and military are organized groups deputized to enforce individual rights to self-defense, they do not deprive those same individuals of the right to defend themselves (see "Revisiting an Old Post"). As a result, an individual could, if they wished, arm themselves  to the degree allowed for police or soldiers, and enforce their own right to self-defense should they wish. So under a free government, there truly would be no asymmetry, even between police and military on one hand, and citizens on the other.

The only remaining objection is that law makers have the ability to enact laws, and courts to adjudicate, which citizens do not. But in truth, both powers are also simply delegated. Should citizens wish, they could stop sending representatives to the capital, and instead vote individually on laws. They have very right to do so. But as they have delegated those rights to legislators, to simplify and streamline the process, and so individual legislators do have the powers granted to them as deputies, but no additional rights. Likewise, courts are just the outgrowth of the individual right to resolve disputes. In contracts, individuals can write in arbitration clauses, if they wish, removing this ability from courts.  Similarly, individuals who have a dispute have the option of eschewing courts and asking for a non-governmental third party to resolve their dispute. The courts exist solely to provide an arbitrator in those cases where strangers, with no prior contract, have a dispute and cannot agree to an arbitrator. As such disputes must be settled to maintain the peace, the people as a body have delegated the role of arbitrator of last resort to the courts. Again, they have the legal right to change this structure whenever they wish, but until they do, the courts do not have additional rights, they are simply fulfilling a role they have been assigned.

This is not the same as rights under asymmetrical systems. For example, under a true communist system one's right to property is conditional, and variable. One individual can only hold property so long as his need is greater than another's (at least in theory). This makes the right to property variable from individual to individual, with some individuals entitled to rights others are not. Of course, in practice this is not really the case, as objective need cannot be instantly reevaluated at all times, so instead individuals are endowed with the right to deprive some of property and grant that property to others. Those endowed with these special privileges have absolute control over all property.

Now some will ask how this differs from my theory of courts or legislators. Individuals can delegate their rights to legislators and police, so why not delegate their property rights to these individuals? Why can't we just view these commissars as our delegates too?

The difference is twofold.

First, because delegating a right does not deny the individual the right to exercise it. As I said with police, we can both rely on police and defend ourselves. Similarly, with the legislature, we can allow them to legislate, but we also have the right to vote directly, through referenda and other steps, to create law directly. If nothing else, unhappy citizens can call a constitutional convention to reform the state to give them a more direct voice. Deputizing individuals to carry out ourr rights does not deprive us of them.

But that cannot be the case with the communist reassignment of property. A little thought should show why. If we have delegated our ability to assign property rights to these commissars, while also retaining them, the system would break down immediately. The first time any individual disagreed with a commissar's decision, he could simply reclaim his own property, arguing that he was reassigning it to himself once more. No, for the commissar system to work, they must not only have delegated rights, they must also strip individuals of their rights to assign their own property. And that is very different.

Second, the powers granted tot he commissars are inherently asymmetrical. Look at the other examples. Police can defend me, or I can defend myself. A legislator can create law, or I can vote in a referendum. The commissar has a very different ability. The commissar can decide who gets property, I cannot. This disjunction creates two tiers of individuals. While the other system creates people, legislators and police, deputized to act on behalf of many, they do not have any additional rights, just work on behalf of several people. The commissar, on the other hand, has rights no one else has. His powers are unique to his position.

So, it is nonsensical to view an asymmetrical system as an outgrowth of a symmetrical system. The individuals with special privileges under an asymmetrical system are nothing like the police or soldiers or legislators of a symmetrical system. They may have been granted their powers democratically, individuals may have voluntarily granted them those powers, but that does not make their special rights anything like the delegated authority of the police in a free society.

Having made that point, we come to the first question I feel I must answer. Why do I argue that an asymmetrical system is inherently unstable?

The answer is simple, one needs only look at human nature to understand it. (I made a similar point in "A Rational Approach to Punishment" and "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"" already.) Let us assume you can create any system of government you wish. Your thoughts are basically focused in two directions. You want to secure for yourself the greatest amount of freedom you can, while, at the same time, restricting everyone else in order to ensure your own total security. You may also have some secondary goals, such as rewriting property laws to provide yourself with an opulent lifestyle, limiting speech to prohibit anything you dislike, and so on. But those considerations don't really change anything. Basically, your goal is to create a situation which favors you as much as possible, while limiting the opportunities others have to do harm. Which means, if we each had total freedom to craft our own state³, we would create a despotism resembling those ancient near eastern monarchies, wherein each citizen was viewed as the personal property of the sovereign.

However, in reality such a state would be short lived. Unless individuals had a reason, for example, religious belief, which inspired them to respect your person, odds are very good that they throw off your yoke as soon as possible. Why? Because while the system would provide you everything you want, it has nothing to offer them.

So, to ensure stability, a system must offer enough to each citizen to ensure they have a stake in maintaining the system. A good example would be the manorial system of the middle ages. With the world about them so chaotic, citizens of the middle ages, and even of the late Roman period, were happy to trade individual freedoms for the security of a protector. Because of the outside threat, the asymmetrical system, providing security in exchange for obedience, managed to persist for some time.

However, the manorial system also shows the inherent instability of an asymmetric establishment. Even as the Roman empire collapsed, some came to question the value of the trade off of freedom for security. Seeing various free cities, peasant villages and other free subjects who provided for their own defense, they began to seek escape from serfdom⁴. The very fact that the lords of the manor needed legal restrictions upon the movement of serfs shows just how unstable this system was. Had the serfs been content with their trade, there would have been no need for such laws.

We need only think in terms of the individual to see the inherent stability in any asymmetric system. When an individual receives less than he gives, he is likely to be unhappy. He may not actively rebel, but he will also not be inclined to support either. If you have a sufficient number of such individuals, then it is likely at least a few will revolt, and, with the rest unwilling to defend the system, i is not likely to last long.

And so we can see the only truly stable system⁵ is the one which provides each individual with equal benefits and burdens. Wherein each individual is granted the same freedoms as his fellows, and each is restricted to the same degree to protect others from his actions. That is, a symmetrical system, under which rights and responsibilities are identical for each individual.

To the degree that the system deviates from strict symmetry, that is the degree to which instabilities arise⁶. A small number of imbalances, or even a few large imbalances, can usually exist without endangering a state. But once those imbalances become too large, then we see problems arise. The specific form is hard to predict. Whether it will take the form of the Russian Revolution, with angry mobs overthrowing one imbalanced system to impose another, the form of the Roman empire, with periods of stability followed by series of civil wars, in which one tyrant is replaced with another, or of the American Revolution, where a tyranny is overthrown and replaced with a symmetrical system, it is impossible to say. As symmetry is the only stable position, we can say that eventually the system will move toward symmetry. Or it would, but for two factors.

First,  politics tends to take a long time. Even the most unstable state tends to have no more than two governments in a given year. The famous "Year of the Four Emperors" was unique in Roman history, and even the remarkably unstable Bolivian government rarely had more than one government change per year.  That being the case, individual exposure to governmental forms, outside of specialists who study the subject, tends to be small, and so the number of failed experiments they personally recall is also small. The result of this is that, in government, more than any other area of human endeavor, the lack of first hand experience makes it easier to propose repeating a past mistake, with the result that learning from errors seems to take longer for governmental systems than for other areas of human society.

But that fact alone would only make the move to symmetry slower, not stop it. If symmetry were the only stable state, then every government would go through change after change, through the various asymmetrical systems, until it reached symmetry, and then stop changing. And so, eventually, every state would reach symmetry.

The problem is that symmetry is not entirely stable.

As I wrote in "The Single Greatest Weakness", a symmetrical set of rights and responsibilities may be the only stable system, it may be the only form of government which prevents the cycle of revolts and overthrows, but it is not self-evident that this is so. Thanks to the variety of human fortunes, and the envy which lives in man's heart, it is often possible for those who desire a different system to persuade others that the symmetrical system is responsible for others having more than they do, and thus to sour them against the system.  Or, even if no one is trying to turn men against a symmetrical system, if the citizens have not been openly told of its benefits, and lack the perspective to see it themselves, they may eventually be tempted by the imperfect condition of mankind to try other forms of government, vainly seeking a form of governance which will eliminate the inequalities inherent in nature ("Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse",  "Private Charity", "Private Charity Take Two", "Clarification of My Argument for a Free Market in Medicine","Liberalism's False Dichotomy ", "Greed Versus Evil", "Fairness and the Free Market" and "Planning For Imperfection"), and thus destroy the symmetrical system themselves.

Perhaps that is the lesson I would hope readers to take away. Not so much that a symmetrical system is ideal, many already believe that, though using different terminology. What I would hope they learn is  that they need to teach others of that fact, because unless our fellow citizens understand the benefits of equality, and are eager to preserve that system, then it will continue to vanish, as it already has to some degree, and we will find ourselves living under some form of asymmetry. At that point we may finally come to see the benefit of symmetrical rights, but, of course, it will then be far too late.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. Theoretically, I tend to view those in jail as temporarily excluded form communion with society, as they have shown their unwillingness to abide by the social compact. Thus I do not see their legal disabilities as an asymmetrical set of rights. However, as this view may not appeal to everyone, I will include them as the single exception to symmetry.

2. Strictly speaking, eminent domain is an asymmetrical right. Then again, I have always thought that eminent domain was a hold over form royal government and inconsistent with a free state. I know many make arguments for it, arguing that a government "needs" it, and without eminent domain certain projects would be impossible. But such arguments are advanced for many statist steps, so they do not prove much to me. And Kelo makes it obvious that eminent domain logically leads to quite dangerous results. Thus I am convinced, now more than ever, that eminent domain should not be a component of a free government, regardless of the arguments in its favor.

3. As your luxury would depend on the wealth of your nation, and your security on a well trained and motivated army, there is an argument to be made for providing some rights to individuals and limiting yourself somewhat in the name of consistency ("Predictability", "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again",  "Empathy" Threatens not "Justice" but Predictability" and "Sotomayor and Empathy") at least to promote economic growth. But if you could ignore those considerations, then the rest of this statement is valid.

4. Though I use the term serf, this applies to all stages of the manorial system, from the Romans who sold themselves into slavery in the late empire to escape the burdens of impoverished citizenship, or the threats of barbarian invaders, to the subjects of local petty lords, both free and servile, to the proto-serfs that grew out of slavery under the states which succeeded Rome, all the way to the formally designated serfs, tied tot he soil by law. The differences in terminology and law mask a system which changed very little from the slaves serving on provincial latifundiae all the way through the eventual nineteenth century liberation of the last serfs in eastern Europe.

5. One can conceive, theoretically, of an asymmetrical but stable system. In some ways it would resemble the "big tent" political parties of the US. In these parties, many disparate factions coexist because each has a specific interest and doesn't care about other issues. So unions ask for import restrictions, social reformers ask for income redistribution, education unions ask for education reform, and so on. Each can get what he wants, and what he loses is of no value. And theoretically a state could exist wherein each group would receive something of exceptional benefit to them, in exchange for giving up something they see as insignificant, though another group sees it as priceless. However, in reality, human life is not so easily compartmentalized. It is impossible to find issues where there is absolutely no overlap. And again, the "big tent" parties show how easily this breaks down. Just look at the fight between the more left leaning Democrats and the blue dogs.  Or the fight between the DLC types and the unions over NAFTA back under Clinton. It may be a theoretical possibility, but in practice, asymmetrical stability is a pipe dream.

6. As we are dealing with humans, with varying valuations, the degree to which they react is quite unpredictable, and so what some may see as small deviations from symmetry can be met with what outsiders think are disproportionate reactions. Of course, it is not "disproportionate", the truth is those responding just valued the costs and benefits differently than observers had assumed. My point being, there is no easy way to predict to what degree any specific special rights will imbalance the resulting system. So this statement, that more deviation results in more instability, should be taken as a very general rule, and one very hard to measure in practice. Still, assuming by "more" we mean "in terms of those subject tot he system in question and their valuations of the same", then it is an accurate statement.

-------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Normally I avoid coining jargon, as I think all too often scholars create their idiosyncratic jargon so they will be remembered and thus make a name for themselves. After all, coining new terms which become popular is the easiest way to make one's name instantly known. On the other hand, in this case I think describing rights in terms of  symmetrical and asymmetrical is actually a useful designation, as it avoids questions of specifics and rests instead of a more general, overall picture of how rights are understood in that society. So I have broken my own rule and created two terms.