What is the Relationship between the

Individual and the Government in your

Dream Country?
Discuss rights, responsibilities, and boundaries

Tamta Gelashvili
tng091@aubg.bg

3/15/2013
American University in Bulgaria

Statement of permission: I grant the American University in Bulgaria the right to publish the essay.
 1

The relationship between the government and the individual has long been a controversial

topic of debate. The recent decades saw the rise and fall in the popularity of different

perspectives, ranging from the totally communitarian views to the wholeheartedly liberal ones.

Drawing conclusions from three examples of unsuccessful government-to-individual

relationships, the essay will try to balance the diverging arguments and characterize an ideal

relationship between a dream government and its citizens, outlining the relevant rights, duties,

and boundaries. The essay will argue that an ideal government would provide safety, order,

justice, and particular social services, and would ensure the rule of law without interfering with

the citizens’ individual freedom or their opportunity of self-realization.

To begin with, imagine a middle-class man, living alone in a tiny one-room flat. His daily

diet includes black bread, synthetic meals, and gin. His everyday routine consists of a dull job of

blindly following orders, and his every step is closely monitored. He is powerless, unable to

pursue any of his interests. He has to accept his life and his job as given, and he has to serve the

government unconditionally, without asking any questions. The only thing he can do on his own

is to keep a diary with which he can share his thoughts and opinions; however, he has to hide his

diary very carefully to avoid imprisonment and severe punishment.

Now imagine another middle-class man, living in a society that formally rejects

discrimination, but regularly exercises discriminatory practices in an informal manner. He is a

policeman, and works with people who reveal homophobic and racist tendencies. He is forced to

abandon the murder case that interests him the most; other policemen consider the case unworthy

of investigation since the victims are homosexuals. He knows that if his fellow policemen notice

his interest, they will disparage him, and so he investigates the case secretly. He is homosexual

himself, but tries to reject his inner urges; he tries to conceal his true self and to overcome his
 2

emotions by suppressing them. He is seemingly free - the law does not forbid him from being

homosexual - yet, he knows that the laws are not properly enforced and that the society is not

ready to accept him as he is.

Finally, imagine a middle-class man, rejecting all conventional notions of life,

abandoning his home, friends, and career aspirations, and pursuing an isolated life in the

wilderness. He destroys all of his identification documents and credit cards, ceases contact with

the people he has known and lived with before, and strives to achieve self-realization alone. He

travels away from familiar places, far into the wild, and spends several months in isolation.

At a glance, the former, Winston Smith from George Orwell’s novel 1984, 1and the latter

ones, Danny Upshaw from James Ellroy’s novel The Big Nowhere2 and Christopher McCandless

from Sean Penn’s movie Into the Wild,3 find themselves in entirely divergent situations. Smith is

constrained by the government and has to deny all aspirations of self-realization; instead, he has

to sacrifice his interests to those of the regime. Upshaw, in turn, is formally free from such

pressure, but is still unable to achieve self-realization because of the informal attitudes and

practices. McCandless, on the other hand, is free from any interference. He detaches himself

from the community and seeks self-fulfillment in isolation. However, the three have one thing in

common – they all are unhappy. If Smith and Upshaw are unhappy because they are

involuntarily subjected to the community and need individual freedom from the (formal and

informal) constraints of others, McCandless is unhappy because he is isolated and needs support

from others.

Furthermore, both novels, as well as the film, end tragically. Smith is forced to accept the

will of the Party in power, Danny commits suicide, unable to face and reveal his true identity,
1
Orwell, George. 1984. N.p.: Penguin Classics, 2004. Print.
2
Ellroy, James. The Big Nowhere. N.p.: Warner Books, 1998. Print.
3
Into the Wild. Dir. Sean Penn. Perf. Emile Hirsch, Vince Vaughn, Catherine Keener, and Kristen Stewart.
Paramount Vantage, 2007. Film.
 3

and McCandless dies of sickness as he runs out of supplies, unable to escape from the wildlife.

The tragic ending of all the three works seems to indicate that neither of the two extremes is

desirable; a life lived for others and directed by the community is as disastrous as a life lived in

complete isolation and directed only by the self. Why is the government’s total intervention in

the life of an individual as undesirable as its absolute absence and where can the balance between

the two extremes be found?

As mentioned above, Winston Smith and Danny Upshaw are unhappy because they are

unable to satisfy their individual need for liberty and autonomy. As John Stuart Mill explains in

his essay On Liberty,4 there are three fundamental types of freedom – freedom of conscience,

freedom of tastes and pursuits, and freedom of association. The freedom of conscience includes

the absolute liberty of opinions, feelings, and emotions regarding any issue, as well as the liberty

to express these thoughts and attitudes. The freedom of tastes and pursuits includes the liberty of

directing one’s life as one sees fit and of choosing one’s profession or activities according to

one’s preferences. The freedom of association follows from this principle and includes the right

to join other individuals in associations and groups according to one’s wish. The opportunity to

exercise these three types of freedom is necessary for individual self-realization; therefore, in an

ideal state, the government would give the citizens the opportunity to exercise the three kinds of

liberty.

Indeed, Smith and Upshaw live in states that are far from this ideal model; they both are

deprived of all three types of freedom. Smith cannot think independently without being accused

of “thoughtcrime,” he cannot pursue his interest in history, and he cannot join likeminded

people, since he does not even have the right to ask others about their political views. Likewise,

4
Mill, John S. "On Liberty." Vol. SV. Collected Works of J.S. Mill . Ed. J M. Robinson. Standard ed. London:
Rouletge, 1977. Print.
 4

Upshaw refuses to accept his true identity in the fear of either losing his job or being derided. He

cannot freely express his deep interest in the homosexual murder case, even though the laws are

supposed to treat each individual equally, regardless of sexual orientation.

Hence, in an ideal state, an individual would possess all the three kinds of liberty, de-jure

and de-facto, provided that none of his or her opinions, statements, actions, or associations

involves harm to other individuals. However, the right to exercise the three kinds of freedom

might still be insufficient. In fact, if Smith and Upshaw feel constrained, Christopher

McCandless faces no limitations of this kind. Nevertheless, even with the opportunity to satisfy

his individual need for autonomy and freedom, he is unhappy, because he is unable to fulfill his

social and political need, or the need for belonging. As Aristotle explains, humans are inherently

social and political beings, and they naturally need and want to live together. 5 McCandless
6
himself concludes that “happiness is only real when shared.” Isolated in the wild, he feels

unhappy, since he cannot share his thoughts or feelings with others. Furthermore, he knows that

there is nothing and no one to guarantee order and security or to provide the supplies needed to

survive. Likewise, even in a seemingly free society, Upshaw also feels insecure; the laws

supposed to guarantee equal treatment of all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation or race

are not enforced by the state and the liberal values are not shared by all community members.

Therefore, the complete absence of the government and its improper functioning are equally

disastrous for individuals.

As the examples illustrate, the individual needs for liberty and autonomy may not

coincide with the community needs for safety and order. On the one hand, individuals need to

have a right to organize their lives according to their taste, but on the other hand, they also need

5
Miller, Fred, "Aristotle's Political Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/aristotle-politics/
6
Into the Wild
 5

social attachments and safety. In an ideal case, then, the state (the government) would not only

be able to grant the citizens the right to exercise the three kinds of freedom, but would also

guarantee social order. Such a relationship is described in Amitai Etzioni‘s work The Responsive

Community: A Communitarian Perspective; he presents an ideal, authentic community as

supported by, not imposed on, its members. 7 In such communities, he argues, centripetal forces

(pushing people together and reinforcing communal bonds) and centrifugal forces (pulling

people apart and reinforcing individual freedom and autonomy) would exist in an inverting

symbiosis; in other words, these two would enhance each other up to a certain point, beyond

which they would turn antagonistic. If, for instance, centripetal forces turned excessive at any

time, centrifugal measures would be used to reestablish balance, and vice versa. Ideally, then, a

state would also represent a large responsive community. In such a dream country, social order

would be provided without over-interference with the lives of the individual community

members.

How would an ideal government provide security, the rule of law, and social services,

and guarantee equal treatment and justice to its citizens? Firstly, an ideal government would

provide safety and would ensure that all citizens abide by the law. Citizens would be protected

from crime and violence. Their physical and mental health, as well as their property, would be

protected from harm. Secondly, an ideal government would provide certain social services to its

citizens. To illustrate, each citizen would have an opportunity to get at least primary and

secondary education, as well as basic healthcare and social security. The ideal government

would also provide special services for the underprivileged groups, such as the elderly and the

physically disabled individuals. Furthermore, the dream state would give such opportunities to its

7
Etzioni, Amitai. "The Responsive Community: A Communitarian Perspective." American Sociological
Review 61.1 (1996). Web. 1 Mar. 2013.
 6

citizens regardless of their race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Finally, the ideal

government would also guarantee the rule of law, so that the citizens’ individual rights would be

truly respected.

A dream state, therefore, would treat each citizen justly and equally. However, since the

ideal country would give each citizen and group an opportunity of self-realization, the society

would not represent a homogeneous community; in other words, not all members would share

similar culture, including language, religion, traditions, etc. In such a diverse society, though, it

would be difficult to ensure justice and equality to all citizens and groups. Still, an ideal

government would be able to guarantee peaceful coexistence of different cultural values and

would preserve pluralism and diversity. To achieve peaceful coexistence, the state would avoid

promising “difference-blind” access to education, healthcare, etc., without any exception

stemming from ethnic, religious, or cultural identity. 8 Instead of adopting such “procedural

liberalism” that emphasizes only negative liberty, defined by Isaiah Berlin as freedom from

interference,9 an ideal state would recognize that guaranteed protection of human rights is

insufficient to ensure equal treatment of every social and cultural group. To compensate the

minorities and to eliminate both political and economic inequalities, an ideal state would adopt

multiculturalist policies. The state would implement special group-differentiated rights for

minority groups, such as religious exemptions from commonly applicable laws, language schools

for minority groups, multilingual ballots, etc. Such recognition would grant the group liberty not

only in its negative sense, but also in its positive sense, since the minorities would have an

opportunity to achieve self-realization. In such a multicultural state, Danny Upshaw would not

8
Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, New Jersey,
USA: Princeton University Press, 1994.
9
Carter, Ian, "Positive and Negative Liberty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
 7

be ashamed of his sexual orientation and would be able to freely express himself. Hence,

multicultural policies would lead to the integration of minorities into the society, and not to the

elimination of their differences or assimilation.

Furthermore, an ideal state would also promote cultural dialogue and exchange, enabling

different groups to highlight shared values in their identities in order to reinforce the sense of

community among the citizens.10 As Mill mentions, one should be able to pursue one’s own good

as one sees fit, as long as one does not impede others from doing the same: “in things which do

not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself.” 11 Similarly, each minority group

should be able to maintain its distinctiveness as long as its practices do not interfere with the

freedom of other individuals or groups. The so-called “harm principle” would be emphasized in

this case as well. In a dream state, different cultural groups would highlight shared values.

Instead of blindly following cultural relativism and asserting that all cultural differences ought to

be preserved, an ideal community would openly discuss traditional moral values and principles,

as well as practices and rituals, and would maintain only the ones that do not harm particular

individuals or groups.12 Consequently, in a dream country, fundamental liberal values and rights

would not be sacrificed; rather, such a state would “liberalize” the non-liberal groups. An ideal

state would reinforce both liberty and equality by implementing multicultural policies and by

integrating the minorities without assimilating them into the dominant culture or undermining the

sense of community.

To sum up, an ideal government would provide security, order, and social services, and

would guarantee equal treatment, justice, and the rule of law. In fulfilling these roles, the

10
Taylor, 7.
11
Mill, 521.
12
Rachels, James. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.” The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 2nd
ed. McGraw-Hill, 1993. 34-36.
 8

government would avoid interfering with the individual freedom or autonomy of its citizens and

would grant each person and group an opportunity to achieve self-realization without constraints.

Again, the only purpose of interfering with individual freedom would be the prevention of harm

to others. This relationship between the government and the individual would certainly be

reciprocal. The citizens of an ideal state would take advantage of the rights and freedoms

guaranteed to them by the government, but would also be willing to accept their share of

responsibility.

As mentioned above, the citizens of the dream country would have the freedom to pursue

their tastes and interests. Hence, in an ideal state, the citizens would be able and willing to work

according to their preferences and capabilities. Furthermore, these working citizens would also

be willing to give up a certain part of their income in order to provide the state with the

necessary resources to perform its duties. The state would tax the citizens with a rate allowing

the governmental institutions to function properly, .i.e. to provide safety, order, and certain social

services.

In exchange for the government’s services, the citizens would also have to respect the

laws honestly. They would treat other individuals or groups fairly and respectfully, regardless of

age, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc. As mentioned earlier, in a dream country, dialogue

would be emphasized and citizens would be free of bias and prejudice towards others. Since the

laws of the ideal state would be based on cultural exchange and dialogue, the citizens would be

able to understand the rationale behind these laws and would thus be willing to put the

constitutional principles into practice. Nonetheless, the government would ensure the rule of law;

any violation or an attempt to infringe the laws would be punished by the state according to the

constitutionally prearranged rules and procedures.

 9

Moreover, since the government would be chosen by the people to perform the duties

described above, the citizens would be responsible to oversee the government’s actions and to

take part in elections once in every few years. The citizens would thus enjoy liberty in both

negative and positive sense – these two conceptions would go hand in hand.

In such an ideal state, therefore, Winston Smith, Danny Upshaw, and Christopher

McCandless would be able to find happiness in their own ways. To begin with, Smith would not

be forced to work against his will. He would be able to pursue his interests, express his opinions,

and discuss his ideas with likeminded people, without fearing punishment from the government.

Upshaw, in turn, would be able to accept and embrace his identity, express it freely, and

investigate the cases according to his interest, without risking his job or reputation. Finally,

McCandless would also be able to express himself within the community and would not see

complete isolation as his only escape.