FREE-RIDING IN THE SUBJECTIVE AGE
Sivakumar E.
"Such a society
evolves from earlier stages
to a point when
humankind finally begins
to seek a deeper
subjective knowledge,
an entire knowledge
of oneself by becoming
actively self-conscious."
In communities, societies or nations that are characteristically non-spiritual, we observe that while many of its members contribute to its efforts to provide benefits to the whole group, some other members enjoy these benefits without contributing in any way. For example, modern societies that strive to provide the benefit of a law and order apparatus often make this effort through the labor of some of its members for the benefit of all. We find, however, that several members who benefit from this effort do not contribute. What we have in mind is not a lack of contribution to one particular scheme from which one benefits, but a total abstention, out of choice, from contributing in any way to any of the benefits that a society provides. Also, the benefits which we have in mind are enjoyed by all because they are in a sense open to all, freely available.
The enjoyment of such benefits without contributing in any way deliberately is what we would like to characterize as free-riding, something that we would find clearly objectionable. How would free-riding be viewed in the Subjective Age as described by Sri Aurobindo if it can exist in such an age? The conclusion that we would like to work towards is that no act by anyone should be objectionable in the Subjective Age because the spiritual turn of such a society will leave all its members in a kind of harmony that would leave none doing objectionable actions, all things considered.
First, will this kind of free-riding be possible in the Subjective Age that Sri Aurobindo says will eventually obtain? If not, why? And if yes, in what sense of ‘free-riding’ can it occur and how? What can be done to prevent free-riding in such societies? In the first place, what would be the chief characteristics of such a spiritualized society according to Sri Aurobindo? These and similar questions we attempt to motivate here.
Let us first say what we mean by ‘free-riding’ and ‘fairness’. It is clear that in all societies, particular groups of individuals engage in providing benefits to all the members of the society as a whole. For example, the armed forces of a nation provide security to all its citizens irrespective of whether a particular citizen asks for this benefit. Now it seems plausible to say that every citizen should be required to contribute something to the community, in some appropriate way, in return for enjoying such a benefit. It seems inadmissible, e.g., for a pacifist to say that she will not contribute since she does not believe in violence, and therefore did not ask for the benefit. This inadmissibility arises from the fact of her actually enjoying the benefit of the security from foreign invaders. In a case like this, the individual who refuses to contribute on grounds such as these is called a free-rider. The principle of fairness is simply that if one exhibits free-rider conduct in social schemes of co-operation, which in their extended forms include nations, then that individual is being unfair. As mentioned above, we exclude from the ambit of ‘free-rider’ all those who are somehow unable to contribute in any way, due to incapacity.
It is clear that instances of free-riding abound in every modern society in one form or another, in one field of human enterprise or other. Given that many modern societies are democracies that allow individuals at least some leeway to decide on the benefit-generating enterprises they will participate in and those in which they will not, there is ample room for them to choose to be free-riders if they so wish.
