Advantages of Entrenched Interests, Surveillance Society, and Public Authority
Entrenched Interests, Surveillance Society, and Public Authority — these terms often evoke negative images for many people. However, if we set aside our preconceived impressions and consider their meanings purely, we can see that these concepts are not inherently good or evil. The issue arises when they are misused. Moreover, when not misused, they can have beneficial aspects.
In this article, we aim to explore the concepts of entrenched interests, surveillance society, and public authority, shedding their negative connotations and understanding their societal meanings. We will argue that, given the right conditions, strengthening entrenched interests, surveillance society, and public authority can be desirable for society. This perspective challenges the conventional negative view and encourages a nuanced understanding of these concepts and their roles in modern society.
The Impression of the Term “Entrenched Interests”
The term “entrenched interests” is often used with a negative connotation.
It presupposes a situation of social inequality, envisioning a state where some individuals have more power or benefits than others. When these individuals maintain their power or benefits, or obstruct others from gaining similar advantages, they are often condemned as acting immorally.
On the other hand, those who possess lesser power or benefits compared to others also fall under the definition of “entrenched interests.” In this case, should they be criticized for maintaining or defending their lesser rights and benefits?
There is also an issue with using the term “entrenched interests” pejoratively for power and benefits gained through socially just means.
Elected politicians, for instance, hold more power than the average person during their term. The same goes for corporate executives. Similarly, in business, sports, or the arts, some individuals earn more based on their achievements. Criticizing these forms of power and benefits as inequalities could challenge the very foundations of our society.
This highlights the danger of the term “entrenched interests.” Protecting one’s existing rights and benefits is not inherently immoral. Yet, the term “entrenched interests” can unfairly target legitimate efforts to acquire or maintain rights, leading to unjust criticism.
Benefits Worthy of Criticism
We need to reconsider “entrenched interests” as a neutral term. Everyone has some form of entrenched interest, which can be more or less substantial or justifiable than others.
The focus of criticism should be on unfair advantages or those that, even if obtained legitimately, lead to significant social inequality and harm. It’s more accurate to criticize these as unjustly obtained benefits or those whose magnitude and permanence are detrimental to society.
By doing so, we can more effectively address issues of injustice, disparity, and lack of mobility in these benefits.
Universal Entrenched Interests
Understanding that many entrenched interests are legitimate and not socially problematic opens up a new perspective: the concept of universal entrenched interests.
These are the benefits that all of humanity universally possesses, regardless of individual, location, or culture. A prime example is basic human rights.
Before the establishment of basic human rights, these rights were often neglected. Therefore, the rights we have acquired at a certain point in history and continue to hold today are essentially entrenched interests.
Basic human rights, as universal entrenched interests, are highly legitimate, extremely equitable, and should be permanently upheld. No one would criticize the effort to maintain human rights or obstruct their degradation as an example of entrenched interests.
As nations become wealthier over time, the minimum standard of living tends to rise. This suggests that the benefits enjoyed by many will increase over time. The minimum standard of living is a benefit for those living at or above this threshold, but it should not be criticized as an entrenched interest.
Human rights and the minimum standard of living are universal entrenched interests that humanity has collectively acquired. These rights and benefits will likely continue to expand over time. This suggests that maintaining and enhancing these universal entrenched interests is an ideal goal for society.
Skepticism Towards the Legitimacy of Change
If we consider increasing universal entrenched interests as a societal good, it raises questions about the validity of the argument that society constantly needs change.
If all entrenched interests were deemed societal evils, then it would be necessary for society to allow for comprehensive changes. This is to prevent the solidification of these interests, which could hinder the improvement of societal evils.
However, if the stance is to maintain and strengthen universal entrenched interests, then it becomes crucial for society to have aspects that do not change. A desirable form of society would have a core that remains unchanged, while also having flexible parts that can adapt.
From this perspective, society needs the ability to solidify aspects actively involved in maintaining and protecting universal entrenched interests. As these interests increase over time, the parts of society that should remain fluid and adaptable will likely narrow in scope.
Recognizing that there are aspects of society that should be fixed and protected implies that society needs to be cautious about changes that could fundamentally alter its foundation. Examples include significant global systemic shifts, the rise of international antisocial organizations, overly influential technological applications, and irreversible and rapid environmental changes.
Surveillance Society and Public Authority
The term “surveillance society,” like “entrenched interests,” often carries a negative image, but its essence is neutral.
Considering a society without surveillance elucidates this. In the absence of social monitoring, maintaining public order would solely depend on individual morality. While protecting individual privacy is important, maintaining a high level of public safety is also crucial.
In a non-surveillance society, the absence of privacy infringement by public authority might lead to an increased likelihood of rights violations, including privacy breaches by criminals. For law-abiding individuals, it is preferable to have crime restrained under a certain level of surveillance than to allow crime to go unchecked.
Public authority is sometimes viewed with skepticism, but like the discussion on surveillance society, it’s necessary to be aware of the trade-off between public power and the freedom of criminals to exert influence.
Surveillance and public authority, in themselves, are not subjects of criticism. The problem lies in the misuse of surveillance or public authority, or when their application is so strong that it creates societal issues. The real concern should be situations where weak surveillance or public authority allows malicious individuals or organizations to gain power.
Technological Advancement
Technological advancement can empower malicious individuals and organizations. Devices for eavesdropping and secret photography, firearms, and bombs — advancements in technology make it easier and cheaper to acquire or create tools that can be used for criminal activities.
Of course, technology also advances in ways that prevent misuse or minimize damage when misused. However, the advantage often lies overwhelmingly with those intending to commit crimes. This is evident when you consider technology designed to prevent damage from something as destructive as a bomb.
This implies that with technological advancement, we must strengthen surveillance and public authority, or else the universal entrenched interests of good citizens might not be adequately protected.
In other words, technological advancement, the movement towards a surveillance society or the weakening of public authority, and the increase in universal entrenched interests are in a conflicting relationship.
Advancing technology, as explained, necessitates strengthening surveillance and public authority or compromises universal entrenched interests.
Promoting a surveillance society or weakening public authority either slows technological progress or leads to the loss of universal entrenched interests.
To increase universal entrenched interests, it may be necessary to impose strong regulations on technological advancements. Additionally, it’s crucial to prevent or mitigate the harm from crimes through surveillance systems and the exercise of public authority.
Conclusion
As discussed in this article, I hold a positive view on increasing universal entrenched interests, strengthening societal surveillance, and augmenting public authority. While this might sound dystopian at first glance, these concepts are essentially neutral. The issue arises when they are implemented in ways that create unfair power disparities, societal harms, or significant inequalities.
If realized fairly, with minimal disparities and reduced societal issues, we could live in a better society.
Conversely, a society with relentless technological advancement, constant opportunities for change, no surveillance, and weak public authority, while seemingly positive, exposes universal entrenched interests to significant risks. Such a society might struggle to maintain the basic human rights and minimum living standards that we have achieved.
Of course, we might gain new and significant universal entrenched interests through progress and change. However, is this constant upheaval something we all desire?
Often, we discuss these topics on outdated premises, ignoring the universal entrenched interests we have secured.
There was a time when “entrenched interests” was used unconditionally as a negative term, during periods without basic human rights, fair electoral systems, or minimum social security. In such times, those with entrenched interests were in an advantageous position under inequality.
However, in today’s society, where we have human rights, voting rights, social security systems, and the freedom to acquire rights and benefits through economic activities, everyone has various entrenched interests. It’s crucial to acknowledge this shift in context.
The same applies to surveillance societies and public authority. In times when power and citizens were antagonistic, it was vital to view surveillance and public authority with suspicion and restraint.
However, as governments become more reflective of the people’s will through fair democratic elections and increased transparency in government and bureaucracy, power and citizens should evolve into a cooperative relationship. While far from perfect, there’s no doubt it has improved over time.
With such transparency and public opinion reflected in government, strengthening surveillance and public authority in a fair and transparent manner becomes an effective measure against increasing crime and various societal risks. Therefore, I believe that a society that enhances trust in the government while strengthening surveillance and public authority is healthy and desirable.
