November 30, 2025
By Stephen Stofka
Seated around the table this Thanksgiving week were several generations, Boomers, GenX, Millennials and Zoomers. Here is a list of generational cohorts and the span of their birth years (Source). Some Boomers reminisced about rock groups and concerts they had been to in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The names might have been vaguely familiar to the late Millennials and Zoomers. The younger folks talked about video games and music groups that were barely familiar to the old timers there. One younger person had repetitive motion syndrome, like an arthritis in their thumb from overuse of a game controller. The Boomers at the table had the arthritis of old age, unable to bend a thumb into a 90 degree angle.
The multi-generational gathering prompted me to look at the world through the lens of age, from the young to the old. As we grow up, we borrow money for a car, a vacation, higher education or a house. The source of those funds is the savings of older workers and retired people. As we reach middle age, we become keenly aware of our future financial security. Our social contract is an intergenerational compact, a churning of money between the generations. Money helps support our sense of security and I thought security would be a good second avenue of exploration.
We don’t get to choose our birth parents, our country or time of birth. All of us are fragile at birth, but some of us are born into fragile circumstances. Our country may be at war or suffering political instability. Our community or home may be violent. Perhaps our parents are poor or homeless. One or both parents may have a mental illness or a drug addiction. We grow up in an environment of fear and anger, then absorb that into our personality, our soul. Or we may be born into a stable home and community where fear and anxiety is not the background music to our daily lives.
Professional athletes test the boundaries of their sense of security. They develop strength, stamina and skills by extending their comfort zone. By repeatedly taking chances, they learn to use their fear as a preparation for competition. When a top athlete starts fighting the fear instead of using it, they can’t compete at the highest levels. They are competing with their own fear instead of another athlete.
In his book Leviathan, the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) wrote that the instinct for survival was an essential characteristic of human temperament. Government was an artificial creature created by society as a means of security in an “every man for himself” world. For that security, we traded away some of our individual freedom, reaching a delicate compromise between security and freedom. In ancient Mesopotamian lore, the Leviathan was a sea serpent that attacked sailing ships (Source). I like to think that Hobbes chose that mythical creature to symbolize the danger inherent in a sovereign government. It is not a benign force in our lives, but the lesser evil.
This is in stark contrast to another 17th century philosopher John Locke (1632 – 1704), who saw government as the instantiation of a social contract. Government was a protector, a guarantor of natural rights. These two different perspectives of government shape the policy choices we favor. Libertarians think government should be a peacekeeper, a security broker between all the elements in society. It should be a keeper of the commons, the public institutions that connect us and guard both our internal and external security. It should facilitate the economic exchange between local regions, between people and companies as we provide for our daily needs. It should protect and enforce the sanctity of contract that supports that economic exchange.
Liberals favor a far more expansive role for government as the embodiment of the social contract. Even the word security has a broad meaning that encompasses far more than physical protection from harm. On his annual State of the Union speech on January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt articulated four freedoms, one of which was a freedom from want. As Roosevelt saw it, government had a responsibility to provide some economic and health security to its citizens. These two visions of the boundaries of a government’s responsibility underlie much of the Congressional combat we read about each day.
Hobbes was alive in 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and established state sovereignty within the Holy Roman Empire. To maintain its sovereignty, or self-governance within its territory, a state must manage the flow of people and goods across the borders of it territory. We do not choose our country of birth but we can choose to flee that country if political and economic circumstances threaten the security of ourselves or our family. Do immigrants have a natural right to live in a safe and flourishing environment wherever they choose? Immigrants can challenge a country’s management of its borders and in doing so, challenge its sovereignty and security.
A state cannot live by the same principles as people. In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1785) wrote that people were autonomous individuals with an intrinsic worth and in pursuit of their own purposes. Even though we interact with people in limited roles during the course of our daily exchange, we should respect their autonomy and dignity and not regard people merely as tools. In international relations, a liberal perspective wants states to abide by that Kantian principle.
States are not people, living in a society where a government provides some security. States live in the dog eat dog world that Hobbes imagined, a state of anarchy where each state must be on guard against threats from other states. That is the realist perspective in international relations. To protect their autonomy, sovereignty and capacity, they must occasionally act in a ruthless manner. During war, states draft men in their late teens and twenties, taking disproportionately from some families and not others. Is that fair? The key to survival is surviving, not fairness.
If their parents cannot bring them enough food, then eagle chicks will kill their siblings to increase their share of food. Is that fair? No. Is it moral? No. Without morality, there can be no dignity. Kant simply posited an inherent dignity to each individual, a fait accompli. Even though they lived at different times, I imagine that Hobbes would have been dubious of such a claim. Dignity is not inherent but ensured by a government that makes and enforces rules. I imagine that Locke would have countered Hobbes by arguing that governing by cooperation works better than intimidation. That requires a consensus among the individuals of society who recognize the benefits of the tradeoff between security and freedom. The debate is a constant tug of war between different visions and principles.
Young states are vulnerable to threats from more established states. Their political, military and bureaucratic systems are not fully developed and tested. The newborn United States was mindful of the threats posed by older European powers like England, France and Spain as well as the native Indians. In a major revision to the 1776 Articles of Confederation that bound the 13 colonies into a United States, the Constitution, drafted in 1787, gave the office of the President a lot of power to counter those threats. Many Presidents, including President Trump, have tested the boundaries of that power. Rarely have the other two branches of government offered so little resistance. All of the generations sitting at the Thanksgiving dinner table were worried about that.
Compromise is at the heart of the Chinese notion of the interaction between yin and yang. Freedom and security are like that, ever searching for a balance. Too much of one results in too little of the other. Each lifetime contains about four generations with different priorities. They must reach a political compromise but can never reach a satisfactory compromise that satisfies those different priorities. I hope everyone had a good holiday and I will see you next week.
/////////////////////
Innocent Investor 